Apologetics Session 15 - Soteriology - Part 3

Father, we thank you so much for being here today to study your word, to look at what your truth is.

Lord, we thank you Lord for our brothers here in Christ, we thank you Lord for Matt who took time away from his family to come and teach us,

Lord, put your hand on him and I pray you open up our hearts and our minds to the things that we are going to discuss today.

Amen. Alright, so we had a little break last week from the congregational meeting, but if anyone has forgotten we are in the

Doctrine of Salvation, Soteriology. We have gone through just by way of review, we've gone through the definitions, we've gone through the tenses, justification, sanctification, glorification, we've gone through a bit of Greek study of the words, the different root words for Soteriology, we've talked a bit about atonement, its definitions, some false views of atonement, we've gone through the correct view of atonement, or the historically

Christian view of atonement, and we've gone through God's one condition of salvation, which is, anyone?

Anyone? What was the question? God's one condition for salvation, sola fide, thank you, faith.

We talked about why God has conditioned salvation on faith alone, we talked about what saving faith looks like, we asked the question about the role of repentance and the role of the blood in the atonement, and whether or not there is such a thing as carnal

Christianity, we talked a bit about Lordship Salvation, and some of the views of Dr.

Eddie Woods, who was sort of the core, the bulk of the material that I was presenting here came from a seminary style class that he was doing, and we talked about some of the differences between him and say, you know,

Dr. John MacArthur, and some of the views around carnal

Christianity, which for any of you who might be new or don't know, it's can you be truly and genuinely saved and still live a life of sin willfully and sort of with intent living a sinful lifestyle but still be actually justified?

And so, you know, we sort of ended with, I think the general consensus in here, certainly my view is that a carnal

Christian, I don't see that as a legitimate category.

There's obviously the unsaved, there's the young, the ones who are newly saved, who are a bit immature in their faith, and then there are those who are more mature and are being sanctified, but sanctification is not optional, it's something that naturally happens as, you know, if you've got a true conversion.

So that's kind of where we left it off, and that kind of covers the basis of soteriology.

The one thing that we purposefully left to the end, because it's probably the most hotly debated part of soteriology is essentially the doctrines of election versus free will.

And Pastor preached on this, how many, was it three Sundays ago?

And it's funny because I did a bunch of studying on this to prepare for this session, and my hope is that I will talk for roughly half the class, and then the latter half of the class we can just talk amongst ourselves about this topic.

But before I get started, one of the things I hadn't done as of two

Sundays ago is read Pastor's book called Boxing with Calvin. I actually sat on the beach yesterday and read the whole thing.

So actually Pastor writes in a pretty easy way, it's pretty easy to follow his stuff, but he sort of formed it all, the reason it's called

Boxing with Calvin, he formed it as a boxing match between election and free will, and the first six chapters are essentially looking at the different sort of tenets of election, specifically the

TULIP, what's it called, acronym, thank you, thank you, for some reason that slipped my mind.

Yeah, the acronym, and going through pros and cons for both, and sort of scoring it like a round.

And then the latter half of the book is looking at debates between theologians at different points in history.

It's a really good read, I highly recommend after this, if you have not read that, that you go and read it,

I think Pastor Jeff does a really good job of kind of laying it out. He doesn't hide his lean on where he sits on it, but I think he gives a pretty objective case for both sides, and go for that.

One of the things, the reason I bring this up, one of the things that he lays out in the introduction of his book, and that I also lay out in the beginning of this discussion, is that this is an in -house debate.

So the doctrine of election, or the doctrine of, I forget what you call it, doctrine of free will, but the idea of free will and the idea of election is an in -house debate.

Regardless of where you fall on this side, or that side of the argument, it doesn't call into question necessarily your salvation, depending on who's making the arguments.

But this isn't a core thing where if you don't believe in election, then you're not truly saved, or something like that.

It is an in -house debate, it has been an in -house debate for centuries. That doesn't demean its importance, it doesn't mean we shouldn't debate it, it doesn't mean we shouldn't analyze scripture, and that we shouldn't actually try and derive meaning from the words of scripture and actually study it.

So it's an important debate, but it is an in -house debate. So we should certainly be respectful, obviously, and we should not impugn people's actual salvation just because of different verses that you may interpret differently.

That said, we should actually take a look at it. So in this debate also, since it has been debated for centuries by theologians that are far more learned and far more intelligent,

I don't think that I certainly will be able to solve it for everyone here, and I don't know that we're all going to walk out of here agreeing, and that's totally okay.

So it's been raging for centuries, and your eternal destiny won't be determined, even though Jack may think it is, based on how you walk out of here.

So let's go through, I'm going to go through election, the point of the talking part of this is that I'm going to go through the basis for each of these views, some proof texts for each of them, and then we can start the discussion, and I'll let you know how

I see things, and I have a number of metaphors that I use in these discussions that I'm sure I'll share with all of you as part of this.

So election. Sometimes you hear this called Calvinism, that's really because of John Calvin, and the alternate view of Will you'll sometimes hear being called

Arminianism, which is after Jacobus Arminius, we'll talk about that, but so Calvinism and election you can kind of interchange, and Arminianism and free will you can kind of interchange.

So Calvinism is named after John Calvin, and it's a theological stance that emphasizes the sovereignty of God and the authority of the

Bible. It's a major part of the Reformed tradition, or Reformed Protestantism.

So sometimes the word Reformed confuses people. It doesn't mean they were

Reformed from it. The word Reformed comes out of the Reformation, right, when you talk about Luther and the

Protestant Reformation. That's where Reformed tradition and Reformed Protestantism comes from, so sometimes people hear

Reformed and they think like it was corrected or fixed, which it kind of is if you think about the

Reformation, but it can trip people up. The major point of controversy with Calvinism is the doctrine of election or predestination.

Sometimes people refer to it as predestination, and the doctrine holds that God is sovereign over all and predestined the elect for salvation.

It holds that man's total depravity prevents him or her from choosing

God, and without the working of the Holy Spirit, we would continue to choose sin over God and suffer.

So again, absent the working of the Holy Spirit, our nature is oriented away from God, and therefore our free choices are always in that direction, and that only through the working of the

Holy Spirit can our position shift to being oriented towards God.

You'll sometimes hear the term five -point Calvinism or four -point Calvinism or three -and -a -half -point

Calvinism, and what the points are referring to is the acronym

TULIP. So TULIP stands for the T is total depravity, the

U is unconditional election, the L is limited atonement, which is usually the most problematic one for people, the

I is irresistible grace, and the P is perseverance of the saints.

So total depravity holds that people are not by nature inclined to love

God, but rather to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God. So through this, all people by their own faculties, by their own mind, are unable to choose to trust

God for their salvation and be saved. So the term total in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person.

Not that every person is as evil as they potentially could be, but that they're essentially in bondage to sin, they are a slave to sin, they are controlled by their sin nature.

So total depravity is a pretty important part of election because what it's positing is that you're in bondage to sin and therefore cannot orient yourself towards God.

So unconditional election, second part of TULIP, and we're going to go in a little bit more detail here later on, but I just want to kind of get the meaning, the definitions of these out there so people can understand it, it'll inform the discussion.

So unconditional election asserts that God has chosen from eternity past those whom he will bring to himself, not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people, but rather it's his choice, unconditionally grounded in his mercy alone,

God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those he has chosen and to withhold mercy from those he has not chosen.

The chosen receive salvation through Christ alone, those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God.

That's an important part. It's not that, and we're going to talk about some of the objections to things like this, but it's not that God is punishing people that don't deserve it.

Everyone is deserving of punishment. And so if God chose to send the entire world to hell, that would be just because we've all sinned against him.

So it's wrath that is warranted for our sins against God. And then the mercy that he's extending to those that he has chosen, the elect, is just that, it's his mercy, it's his choice.

So limited atonement, limited atonement asserts that Jesus' substitutionary atonement, we talked about substitutionary atonement, propitiation,

God standing in between, or Jesus standing in between God's wrath and us, right, basically absorbing that in our stead.

Jesus' substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its purpose and what it accomplished.

This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus' death.

This is what people trip up on atonement, right, it says, did Jesus die for the world or did he die for the elect, right?

Calvinists do not believe, however, that the atonement is limited in value or power, but rather that the atonement is limited in the sense that it is intended for some and not all.

So that's not to say that Jesus' blood isn't powerful enough to cover the sins of the world, but only that it was effective.

So this, sometimes you hear the term sufficiency versus efficiency. So sufficiency says that his blood was sufficient for all the sins of the entire world.

It had the power to pay for all of those sins. But efficiency, was it effective for all of the sins of the entire world?

Or was it effective only for the elect? And so limited atonement posits that it's only effective for the elect.

It's sufficient for all, but effective for some. And the way Pastor Jeff puts it in his book is, if there were a dozen worlds of humans, his death and blood would be powerful enough to pay for all the sins of all those worlds.

Not just our world, but all those worlds if there were humans on other worlds. A little bit of a sci -fi thing, but I thought it was cool.

So it's that powerful. It's immeasurably powerful. But it was only effective for those that God had chosen.

So that's limited atonement, and that's usually the one people trip up on the most, and we'll get into some of the objections in a bit.

So the I is irresistible grace. This is probably the second one people have trouble with. Irresistible grace asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save, right, that is the elect, and overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to saving faith.

This means that when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved.

And we'll talk about some of the objections to this later on, but effectively this is saying that once the

Holy Spirit has worked in your life, once God has worked in someone's life and from eternity past has elected that person to be saved, they will be saved.

He, the all -powerful God of the universe, will not fail to save that person. And that's one of the counter -arguments to it, which is

God's intent and whether or not he can fail if he wants to save someone.

And then the last one that rarely anyone has any problem with is perseverance of the saints. And what this asserts is that God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else.

Those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. So this is the, it's not security, right, this is the once saved, always saved, so you're not going to lose your salvation.

And we'll talk a bit about some of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism and whether or not some of these things make sense given the context.

We're actually going to spend a bunch of time looking at some verses as well because all of this is, all of this is read out of the

Bible, right, and there are proof texts on both sides. I'll give you my own perspective of it later on as well.

So that's Calvinism in a nutshell, right. There's a lot of people that study this for a long time.

That's essentially Calvinism in a nutshell. So just to go through, everyone's totally depraved, can't choose

God, right, they are blinded, they are in bondage, they are oriented, they are in open rebellion against God, willful open rebellion against God.

And that God unconditionally elected some to salvation, worked in their life to orient them towards himself, that Jesus' atoning sacrifice covered the sins of that group of elect, that once the

Holy Spirit has worked in your life, you are elected for salvation and God's sovereignty will ensure that you are in fact saved and that you will never lose your salvation.

So that's the, that's Tulip. All right. So the counter to Calvinism is

Arminianism. This is also the free will argument. These are the most famous,

I guess, folks that have, that have argued these points. But Arminianism was named after the

Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius. So it's Jacob, U .S. is the first name,

Jacobus Arminius. Arminianism holds that sinners who hear the gospel have the free will to accept or reject

God's offer of saving grace and that no one is excluded from God, from the possibility of salvation, except those who freely exclude themselves.

But true historical classic Arminianism includes the belief that this free will to repent and believe unto salvation is itself a gift of God through prevenient,

I can't pronounce this word, prevenient grace. Thank you. Thank you,

Jack. Stumbling with my tongue here. This view allows for a

Christian to subsequently reject God's gift of salvation and thus lose their salvation. So I can choose of my own free will.

I hear this, this gospel and God working through others, you know, to share this, this gospel with me.

You know, there, there is a working of the Holy Spirit to put people in my life and for me to hear the gospel and then of my own free will,

I choose to believe that Jesus died for my sins and I accept that free gift.

But because I have the free will, I'm, I'm, you know, a free will creature, right?

I can then choose at a later time to reject this. We've seen some of this, you know, are examples that you could, you know, if you, if you take the free will approach, then you could see things like there were recent, like Christian music artists who say, you know, they no longer believe, they believed for decades and now they no longer believe.

And there's, I'm sure people in, in our lives that have walked away and the, the question, you know, is were they ever really saved or is this just a case of they accepted it and they rejected it later on?

So this brings us to kind of the great debate, which is what I named this section, which has been, you know, going on for centuries and there are just lines of the faith, right, that, that, you know, have gone back and forth on this stuff.

And Jeff actually, in his book, Boxing with Calvin, actually goes through six of them, six sort of great debates.

So again, I'm not going to recap his book. I just recommend you go read it. But it, you know, it goes through some of that stuff.

So hardcore reformers, so this is just the term we use for people who hold to reformed belief, hold to five -point

Calvinism. So this is the full tulip. But some others that are less hardcore but still lean towards the

Calvinistic side may land somewhere in between, so they may accept four points instead of five points or, or something like that.

Those who espouse free will generally stop short of the possibility of losing one's salvation. So a lot of, especially current day people who, who believe the free will side of things will say, but you can't lose your salvation.

So I believe in free will, I believe right up, I believe once saved, always saved, but I believe it's your free will, I believe it's man choosing

God, I believe that, you know, God's free gift is for all the whole world and, but you can't lose your salvation once saved, always saved.

So you'll see kind of, I hate to use this term, but a spectrum, right, of, of belief, you know, all the way from five -point

Calvinism to full Arminianism where you can lose your salvation, you'll find people kind of all over that spectrum.

You'll see people that are like five -pointers, three -point, four -pointers, three -pointers, all the way to, you know, free willers that, that, you know, kind of believe in, in predestination but they take like a quarter of history view or, and then you'll get, yeah, the people that are full on free will, you can lose your salvation at any time.

So some of the common arguments or questions against each view are, I've listed just a few here which we can talk about in our discussion session.

So people who object to Calvinism, a lot of times they'll say things like, well doesn't this make

God unfair by picking winners and losers, right? It's out of my hand.

How's that fair? I, you know, what if I'm not one of the elect? How could, I can't choose it, it's not my fault, like, it's unfair.

That's, I'm not going to answer these questions, I'm just going to posit them for now and we'll talk about them. So one of the questions is, doesn't this make

God unfair? Another one says, doesn't this make the Christian an automaton who's forced into choosing salvation?

So this gets into the irresistible grace one. So limited atonement, right? The unconditional election is really kind of the first one and then you get into irresistible grace on this one.

They say, well, then Christians are just automatons, they didn't have a choice. God chose them, therefore they had to choose him.

It wasn't their choice, they're just robots. Another one that is kind of almost, you know, born out of fear is, well, what if one of my family members isn't one of the elect?

Like, I don't want any of my family members to go to hell, of course I don't, but what if my son, my daughter, my sister, my brother is not one of the elect, what if one of my parents isn't one of the elect, right?

Another one is, these are all against Calvinism, we'll get to the free will ones, what's the point of evangelism?

If it's all predestined, why witness? I'm saved, God's going to take care of it, why should

I witness to people? And then lastly, the last kind of argument that I just documented, there's lots, trust me there's lots, but how can

God punish someone who didn't elect? How is that fair? He didn't elect them, they had no opportunity to choose him.

How is that fair? He was going to send them to hell, he didn't pick them. Some of the arguments against Arminianism or free will is, doesn't the act of choosing

Christ, so this is the free will where I choose God and I hear the gospel, I choose God, doesn't the act of choosing

God or choosing Christ warrant merit and thus become a good work?

It's my free will, I, of my own free will, rolled my sleeves up and chose

Christ. Is that not a work? Is that not an act deserving of grace and mercy, deserving of reward?

One of the other arguments against free will is, how can God fail to woo someone to salvation? If God is all powerful and desires to bring someone to himself, and legitimately, he wants to bring someone to himself, how can he fail to do that?

He's all powerful, he's the God of the universe. If he wants to bring you to himself, why can't he do that? So another one, does this mean

God's power is limited to man's will? Is man's will elevated above God's will?

Is man's will supreme? If God's will is to bring the world to himself, which, we're going to talk about John 3, 16,

God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, right, that whosoever should not perish but have everlasting life, right?

Is man's will superseding God's will in that free will argument?

Because man has to choose God? And then lastly, how can

God lose someone he previously saved? If God has, working through the

Holy Spirit, brought salvation to your hearing, you've chosen him, how can God then lose you?

Right? Again, elevating man's will above - Even the sealing of the spirit of a person.

Does that mean the person is sealed one day, and then all of a sudden unsealed the next day? Right. Like, how does that work in the free will?

Because, you know, a strict reading of free will, right, is that you can lose - strict

Arminianism or free will is, your salvation is not secure.

Now, most free willers don't believe that. Just, you know, most free willers don't buy into that, but I'm trying to present both extremes as well as all the spectrum in the middle.

Okay. So with that sort of groundwork, let's look at some scripture. Given the amount of time,

I'm going to just read these scriptures, but you're welcome to turn to them if you'd like.

So, the first one's going to be Matthew 20, 28, and then John 10, 15 is going to be the second. So, the heart of the debate is the extent of Christ's atoning work on the cross.

Both Calvinists and Arminians would attest to the sufficiency of the atonement to cover the sins of the world. So again,

I said, you know, God's - neither side believes that God's or Christ's blood was insufficiently powerful enough to save everyone.

So again, this is an in -house debate. We all believe that Christ was divine, we believe that, you know, his atoning sacrifice is the mechanism through which we are saved, we are justified, right?

So we're all good, we're all in the same camp here, we're just arguing kind of mechanics here, right?

So, you know, since they both would attest that it covers the world, the question really becomes the effectiveness, right?

Is it effective only for some or is it effective for all if we would just choose it? So, some of the proof texts for Calvinism, we'll start with Matthew 20, 28.

This is Jesus speaking and he says, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many.

Jesus is God, he could use any word he wanted here, right? He didn't say for all, he said for many.

So that in itself is a limiting word. It does not denote that, or connote that it's everyone that he gave his life for.

But again, we need to look at the context of scripture as a whole. I think that's going to be kind of a theme for my thinking.

My thinking is, you know, again, I'll repeat it again, I can do all things through a verse taken out of context, right?

So if I take any one verse, I can try and twist it to mean what I want it to mean, but we have to kind of look at the totality of scripture and kind of put all of this in context.

So John 10, 15 is next, and this is also Jesus, it says, just as the Father knows me and I know the

Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. So if you think about in times, which we'll get to in probably four weeks or something, you think about the sheep and the goats, right?

Those who are saved and those who are unsaved, right? So here he's talking about he's laying down his life for the sheep, right?

So it's a group of people, it's not everyone. Acts 20, 28 says, pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock in which the

Holy Spirit has made you overseers to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

So again, the flock, right? Ephesians 5, 25, husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

So again, reference to the church, to the saints, to the saved. This is a big one in Pastor Jeff's, this next one,

John 6, 44 is a big one. He has a chapter, it was really cool the way he laid it out, he basically took like a verse that was election and a verse that was free will and was like saying, these two verses are in the ring, battling it out.

So again, really good read. John 6, 44, no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day.

I'm going to read that again, no one, no one can come to me unless the

Father who sent me draws him, right? I mean, this is

Jesus speaking, those are strong, strong words, right? Unless the

Father draws, now you can, how does that drawing work, you can kind of think about that, but like this is a strong statement.

And the last one, and I will raise him up on the last day. John 6, 65, and this is also

Jesus, and he said, this is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the

Father. Again, no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the

Father. This is pretty clear election talk. What verse was that again? That's John 6, 65.

65, thank you. And I'll, this whole document's going to you guys, so, after tonight's session, so you'll,

I actually put the verses in, you know, red letter and everything right in the document, so.

John 15, 16, also Jesus speaking, you did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide and that whatever you ask my

Father in my name, he may give it to you. You did not choose me.

If there ever was an argument against free will, there it is. You did not choose me. Now some people want to say, well, he's talking to the disciples who he chose as his disciples, so of course that's what he's talking about, but, you know,

I, you know, there, you have to, you have to think that, you know,

God did inspire this, this word and that, you know, especially when you're talking about words that Jesus spoke.

He could, he could have phrased anything how he wanted to phrase it. He obviously knows the beginning from the end and could have foreseen, you know, arguments and avoided them.

Matthew 6, I'm sorry, Matthew 16, 16 through 17, Simon Peter replied, you are the

Christ, the Son of the living God. This is the who, who you say that I am. And Jesus answered him, blessed are you,

Simon Bargerna, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Right?

It is a, it is, it is God's working in us, not our own will that is recognizing these things.

It's, it's, it's God. Acts 13, 48, and when the

Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord. And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed, not as many that has heard, not as many that were jumping up and down rejoicing, as many as were appointed to eternal life.

Right? Again, really strong election vibes going on here. Right?

Romans 8, 28 and through 30. And we know that for those who love

God, all things work together for good. For those who are called according to his purpose, very famous, for those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

And those whom he predestined, he called and those whom he called, he justified and those whom he justified, he also glorified.

So again, we use this in, in kind of the, the soteriology talking about, you know, justification and sanctification, and glorification rather.

But again, this is a very, you know, he foreknew, he knew you before you were born.

He knew you before anyone was born. He predestined you before you were born, before anyone was born.

He called you, he justified you, and he will glorify you.

Right? So again, this is, again, very strong election vibes going on.

This is a bit of a long one, but I feel like it's important to read it. It's Romans 9, 6 through 24. I didn't feel like cutting any of it out, but I'm a decently fast reader.

But it is not as though the word of God has failed, for not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham, because they are his offspring.

But through Isaac shall your offspring be named. This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise.

I'm sorry. Children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said, about this time next year

I will return and say I shall have a son. And not only so, but also when

Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born, and had done nothing either good or bad in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works, but because of him who calls.

I'm only up to verse 11 there, but again, had done nothing either good or bad, right?

In order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works, but because of him who calls, she was told the older will serve the younger.

As it is written, Jacob I love, but Esau I hated. This is talking about Jacob and Esau before they were born, before they had done anything.

The Jewish tradition at the time was that the older received the blessing, the younger served the older, right?

It was sort of a strict firstborn kind of thing. This was obviously flipping it on its head, and it was talking about, but the important context for this is that this was before they were born.

This is before they had done anything, committed any sin, right? Done any good work, and God had already decided, he had already predestined that Esau would serve

Jacob. And then it says, what shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part, right?

They've done neither good or evil, God has already decided that one he loves and one he hates, is there injustice on God's part?

By no means, for he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom

I have compassion. That's another famous verse, but the meaning back here is, he's

God. He created the universe, he is perfectly holy, perfectly just, perfectly righteous.

He gets to choose who to have compassion on, and whom to have mercy on.

Verse 16, so then, it depends not on human will or exertion, again, really strong lecture vibes here, it depends not on human will or exertion, so not works and not human will, but on God who has mercy.

The scripture says to Pharaoh, for this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

What did he do to Pharaoh? What did he do to Pharaoh's army, right? And he says the reason here is to show his power, it's for his glory, it's for his renown.

I lost where I was, 18, thank you. So then, he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whoever he wills.

It says that he hardened Pharaoh's heart, right? Remember that when you were talking about the

Jewish exodus? Said he hardened Pharaoh's heart. So he has mercy on whom he wills, he hardens whom he wills.

You will say to me then, why does he still find fault, right? If he hardened someone, why does he find fault?

For who can resist his will? But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?

So again, I'm going to finish reading this, but election has a very high view of God and God's sovereignty.

Like, it is a very, and it's not to say that people who believe in free will don't think highly of God.

I'm just saying that, you know, if you're talking about levels here, right, it is, we are the creature, he is the creator, he is the all -powerful

God of the universe, he is the holy, righteous, right, judge. He gets to choose who he wants, and we have nothing to say back.

We have nothing to say back, because we're all sinners, we're all in open rebellion, and we all deserve nothing but death and hell.

And so for God to show mercy to any of us is an unfathomable act of mercy.

Even if he chooses one out of the history of the world, it's an unfathomable act of mercy because all of us deserve nothing but death and hell, right?

So it says, yeah, so who can resist as well? And who are you, oh man, to answer back to God?

What will, what will, will what is molded say to its molder, why have you made me like this?

Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

So again, getting back to God's sovereignty, he can choose how to use his creation, because he created it, and he has authority over it.

What if God, desiring to show his wrath to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, right?

So predestined to be destroyed to demonstrate his power for his purpose.

In order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, right?

You're getting a compare and contrast here, right? He prepares vessels for destruction to show his power and also to demonstrate how merciful he's being to those he has mercy on, right?

Because we deserve the same destruction, and in demonstrating that destruction, we can see how, how merciful he's been to us, right?

I always get lost here. In order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory, again, strong predestination vibes here, right?

He's prepared some for destruction ahead of time. He's prepared some for mercy and glory ahead of time, right?

Even us whom he called, not from the Jews only, but from the

Gentiles, right? So it's expanding out beyond just the chosen people, the chosen nation of Israel.

So that was a long one, but there's so much in that, I couldn't, I couldn't like cut that into snippets.

I had to go through the whole thing because, I mean, this gets to not just kind of the words that were chosen here, giving you kind of an election vibe, but talking about the reasoning behind election, right?

Why is it, you know, this answers some of those questions before about doesn't this make God unfair for picking winners and losers?

How can God judge someone if he didn't, you know, elect them? This gets, like this passage here gets, gets to it.

And then there's Galatians 1, 15 and 16, but when he who set me apart before I was born and who called me by his grace was pleased to reveal his son to me in order that I might preach among the

Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone. So again, this one again is just before I was born, he set me apart.

He chose me before I was born. There's one of your arguments, by the way. What's that? You said if people believe in predestination, they wouldn't evangelize.

Right. But Paul saying he was called before. Exactly. And I think Pastor Jeff, the way he put it is

God ordained the means as well. And he uses us through evangelism as the means to bring the gospel to those that he is working on and reconciling to himself.

This is the last one for Calvinism. There's way more. Just so you know, this is just a, this is just a, you know, some snippets.

But you know, you can get into a whole bunch of stuff. And then I'm going to go through some proof texts for Arminianism.

So 1 Peter 1, 1 and 2, Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ to those who are, who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.

According to the foreknowledge of God the Father in the sanctification of the spirit for the obedience to Jesus Christ and for the sprinkling with his blood, may grace and peace be multiplied to you.

So this is just a greeting. But in there, there's doctrine. In Peter's greeting, there's doctrine, right?

So just, it's just cool. Amen. Yeah. I know there's tons more we could read.

Yes. There's tons more on the other side we can read. But I want to read one thing, but it kind of speaks to what you're doing right now, which we very much appreciate.

This is in 2 Timothy chapter 2, verses 24 and 25. It says, and the

Lord's bondservant, that's you, must not be quarrelsome, but must be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wrong, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps may grant repentance, leading to the knowledge of the truth.

Because some people think repentance is a work I can do. And even in that verse, it says, now if God perhaps grants repentance to those.

But you're the one who is teaching with kindness, gentleness, and wisdom.

We thank you for that. I appreciate it. So, just to be fair, I feel like I have to read some verses.

If you haven't guessed by the sort of vigor that I taught the first part with,

I tend to lean more on the Calvinist election side. But to be fair, one of the most famous verses for free will is

John 3 .16. For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

So whoever believes in him. Now, this doesn't get to how they come to believe in him, but what people hang on is the words, for God so loved the world.

Now, the word world is used in a lot of contexts elsewhere in the

Bible where it doesn't actually refer to every human being in the world. So, that's generally the counter -argument to that, but that's one that people hang on.

One of the ones in Jeff's book that he pits against John 6 .44 is 2

Peter 3 .9. This is one, this is like a really big one, and it says, 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 reach repentance.

Acts 16 .30 and 31, then he brought them out and said, sirs, what must

I do to be saved? And they said, believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household. Acts 17 .30,

the times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

And then Revelation 22 .17, the spirit and the bride say, come, and let the one who hears say come, and let the one who is thirsty come, let the one who desires to take the water of life without price.

So I end the writing part of this in this document there, but I have a lot more to say.

And I just kind of end it with, we can fall on either side of this argument, but this decision in -house debate, again, we should do that, we should debate it amongst ourselves with respect and love for one another.

But interested to hear thoughts about all the stuff that we just went through, and it's totally fine to disagree with me and think

I'm like off my rocker here, but would love to hear some countervailing views, or just thoughts that people may have about it.

I think that there's a difference between God, he's omniscient, he knows what we would choose in any case.

I think the question comes, does he cause us to make a choice?

Right, so one of the sort of hybrid, if you want to call it that, views is that,

I call it the corridor of time view, that God looked down the corridor of time, knew who would choose him, and then elected those people.

So that's sort of a hybrid view that I've heard, which is a free will combined with election kind of view, where people just say, well,

God being omniscient and being outside of time, which he certainly is both of those things, right, and is able to see the end and the beginning, right, and is able to see, the way

I, my primitive mind think of it is it's like a flip board, he's got this carousel, and he can rewind time and fast forward time, and he can look at it like it's a movie that he can rewind and fast forward.

And that, and so the view is that he looked down the corridor of time and he said,

Phil's going to choose me, so I elect Phil, Jack's going to choose me, I elect Jack, and that's how that worked.

I don't hold to that view, but that is one that people, and I don't want to monopolize the conversation,

I want to let other people talk too, but that is one of the views as well. He's got his fancy metaphors up there, he's going to lay them on us sooner or later,

I know. I do. Do you want to hear that? No, no. Not yet.

Okay. Let's think of it like this maybe, there's quite a few verses in the scriptures that say that we're dead.

Yes. This is one of them in Colossians, it says, and when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, so that's the state you said before, we couldn't make a choice for God because we couldn't see, we couldn't choose anything but the things that our sinful desires were warned.

So then he says, but he made you alive together with him. Yes. When he makes us alive together with him, then the choice comes because we want to choose.

We want to choose Jesus. My mother -in -law calls this the walking dead theology. So anybody that watches the walking dead,

I like the walking dead, I like zombie movies. But the zombies are walking around and all they're looking for is flesh to eat, right?

Their brains, that's the only thing that works in their brain is eat flesh, eat flesh, right?

Or in the old zombie movies, eat brains, right? It's just, so they're wandering around and their only thought is flesh, flesh, flesh.

And so this is the walking dead, so this is as if before salvation you are one of those zombies that's wandering around the world, and that God actually makes you alive again.

So that, that working of the Holy Spirit actually brings you to life, and only then do you even have the capacity to choose him.

And so that's kind of the walking dead theology, if we can call it that. I didn't even know we had that one.

Yeah. Well, as I'll be brief, as second zombie, second zombie three now.

No, it's funny because that came from just me debating with my mother -in -law, because I mean, even within my own family, we struggle and wrestle with these doctrines, and I think it's healthy, it's healthy for us to struggle and wrestle with these things.

It's good to have our mind on the things of God. Matt, a good book I would recommend that answers and asks a lot of these same questions is a book by Dave Hunt called

Tulip and the Bible, comparing the works of Calvin with the word of God. Yeah. Excellent little book.

It's real small, but it's really good. There's a lot of good material out there for this. Go ahead. I think another principle that we have to keep in mind throughout the

Bible, he who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

And God honors that. Yes. That's a nice principle. And just so nobody ...

I know that Jeff is pretty hardcore Calvinist.

My son, Jacob, very hardcore Calvinist. Jack over here, I think is as well. My wife, on the other hand, struggles with this quite a bit, and we have debates about it.

And my mother -in -law and I have debates about it. And it's a difficult topic, and it is entirely possible we get to heaven and God goes, none of you got this thing right.

Really? Right? So I just think that it's important to acknowledge that it's totally fine to have a view and to stand on that view and not compromise that view, but we should make sure that we're willing to listen to other views and think on them, contemplate them, pray about them.

Does the Calvinist believe that just in the salvation realm that everything is picked ahead of time by God, or does the

Calvinist believe that everything is predestined, not just salvation?

Yeah. So I think that this is getting a little bit beyond that, but yes, it extends into sort of God's sovereignty, that God is sovereign over everything, everything.

And this is not to say that, again, that we're robots walking around and whether we choose a burrito or a bagel, that God's sovereign over these little decisions, but that God is sovereign, that God does control and use circumstances.

We have limited free will. Correct. But like if, I mean, the hyper -Calvinist could easily theorize that, okay, if everything is all set in place, that God has chosen who he has chosen, then the hyper -Calvinist may think, well, then what is the point of me evangelizing the gospel to someone?

A hundred percent. Because that person has already been picked by God, whether they're God or not.

So there becomes a sort of a juxtaposition there, where you say to yourself, because I really think that God uses all of us and that he wants us to try, whether he's picked people or not, that we should still go out and share the gospel with people because we don't know.

A hundred percent. God may have a label on every person, save, not save, save, not save. We don't know that.

You brought, yeah, that is a great point, right? And as Pastor Jeff said in his sermon, God ordained the means as well as the outcome, right?

So he's elected some to salvation, this is the election view, he's elected some to salvation, he's also ordained the means through which that election manifests, right, that their salvation manifests, and that means could be someone sharing the gospel with them, right?

So it doesn't take away the responsibility, and I would also say that evangelism also, and all of the work that we do to study the scripture and to pray is part of our sanctification process, right?

It is part of us working out our salvation. So it's not that our salvation depends on that, but that we become more

Christ -like through that, and so God is doing two things, right? He's using that to sanctify us and then also justify someone else maybe.

Much like the way we think that God is in control of everything, but yet we still try to stop abortion, we still try to, but you know, we know that God is sovereign, he could stop abortion if he wanted to like that.

But he's using us, and so even though he's in control, that doesn't mean that we throw up our hands and say, well, he's going to fix everything, so we don't need to do anything.

So we have to be a conduit for God, and so I think that that's something that we have to concentrate on.

We should definitely, yeah, and regardless of where you land on this, you know, there's also some, not just soteriological views, but also eschatological views that promote more evangelism than not.

So we'll talk more about this, but some of the post -trib preterist type views really promote evangelism because they believe that Christ will only come back when the world is one for Christ.

And then there's some, you know, sort of pre -trib, like the world's going to devolve into chaos and then God's going to come back, which says, oh, it's getting worse, we should just sit back and wait for the

Lord, right? And so there's, yeah, there's a lot of ways I think that Satan uses some of these doctrinal views to prevent evangelism by sort of giving us a, you know, kind of a hopeless feeling about, you know, about the state of things in the world, and we should be active for the, you know, for the cause of Christ, for sure.

I think the way Dave was talking about it, getting off the salvation track for just a second, but just how

God sovereignly uses people. The 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 section where it's talking about the

Macedonian believers taking an offering for the Jewish people in Jerusalem, and how

Paul praised those people because they were giving far beyond, even beyond their poverty, they were giving, and he was thanking them for it.

But he said the end result of that is going to be glory to God, which is what Rick was talking about.

It's like, yeah, in the end, it's going to be the exaltation of the Lord, but he used all of those people, and Paul certainly gave thanks for all of them along the way.

Yeah, and that long text that we went through, I mean, it talks about, you know, demonstrating his power, demonstrating his glory, demonstrating his mercy.

At the end of it all, it is all for his glory, right? It is, it is all for his glory.

What else? Well, the only thing I want to add to what you were saying, and what

David was saying is, throughout Scripture, there are points of where we are

God's image bearer, and he allows free will to happen, and what ended up happening was, he had to destroy the earth, with Noah being almost like the second

Adam, Sodom and Gomorrah, you know, destroying Ahab. And so there's points of time where, because we're image bearers, and he wants to have a relationship with us, that he allows us to go ahead and make the choices that he makes.

He always gives the warning, you know, that, you know, not through power or strength, but through my spirit, that this is all going to come back to me, to glorify me, at sort of the endgame.

But again, and again, and again, and again, throughout Scripture, man defies

God. And so, for someone to say there's true free will, it's almost, it's a logical premise to have that, because if you leave man to do what they're going to do, and Scripture bears it out throughout it, we will definitely not go to God.

So, here's, I'll throw the metaphor out there, that I've used, because I think that's a good lead -in to the metaphor.

So again, I tend towards Calvinism and the whole

TULIP thing, and some of you have heard this, and some of you have heard this, but, so the way

I kind of view it is, we're all born into sin, right? We're totally depraved. And the way that I kind of envision that is, we're born with these sin goggles on our face, right?

So we've got these sin goggles on, and the sin goggles are yellow, right? And Christ is blue.

And whenever we look, you know, if we hear the Gospel and we look at that, whenever we look at it, we see it as green, right, because yellow and blue makes green, right?

So we've got these sin goggles on, and all we can say is, that's green. It's not real, right?

I don't believe it. It's green. And so we're oriented away from Christ.

We're oriented against believing in Him, right? And that is our totally depraved nature.

But if we're one of the elect, and God has unconditionally elected us, and it's important that it's unconditional.

It's not because of anything that we've done. It is not because of any merit in ourselves, or any merit to any of our acts, or anything.

God has unconditionally elected us. Through the working of the Holy Spirit, He removes those sin goggles, right?

He breaks the chain, He eliminates the bondage. Those things are stuck to our eyes, and we can't do anything but see through them.

And so He, through the working of the Holy Spirit, and His mercy, removes those.

And then when we look at Christ, we see that it's blue. It's no longer green.

Could we force ourselves to say it's green, of our own free will? No. Because it's blue, right?

And so that, so we, prior to that, can do nothing but reject

Him, and after that can do nothing but choose Him. So that's the irresistible grace part of this, right?

So we see it's blue now. So of course we choose it, we see the mercy, we see the forgiveness that we get, right?

We see the gift for what it is, and so we choose it, and in choosing it, are reconciled to Christ, right?

We're justified. And because we continue to see it, we persevere, right?

We don't reject Christ, right? So the atonement was limited to us.

We were unconditionally elected, and through the working of the Holy Spirit, our bondage to sin was broken, and we were able to see

Christ's gift for what it was. And so I see us, we still chose Him, but He chose us first.

So I see kind of a melding of free will into that election conversation, but we only chose

Him because He first chose us. Not in spite of Him, you know, He didn't just say, you know, all takers, right?

He chose us first, and that allowed us, allowed us to choose Him. Otherwise, of our own free will, we would continue to not choose

Him, and still, and it's not that we're not, it's not that because He didn't elect us, we're no longer responsible.

We're still responsible for all of our sin. We're still responsible for our open rebellion. And so we're still going to be judged for that, but once we've chosen

Him through Him first choosing us, we're able to be reconciled and forgiven for those sins. That's kind of how

I, kind of how I see it. And then if we want to talk about limited atonement, which is kind of the most difficult thing that people struggle with, if we say it's unlimited atonement, and I actually found out there's another acronym to TULIP called

WEEDS, this was in Jeff's book, which, yeah,

WEEDS, which, which talks about, which unlimited, unlimited atonement, right?

And so there's, there's a, there's a difficulty I have with that having to do with, you know,

Christ actually paying for all sin, because if, if He did pay for all sin, then there is no judgment, there is no hell, so it doesn't follow, go ahead,

Bob. The only, the only thing wrong with that statement is... Is nothing, no, I'm kidding. No, what

I, what I see is that He died for all sins, but we know that not all are going to come to Him and believe in Him, so it still doesn't negate the fact that He died for all sins, it's just that there's some that will choose not to believe in Him.

So here, here's, here's my, here's my answer to that, here's my next metaphor. It wasn't a question, there's no answer to that.

Here's my, here's my next metaphor. There's a hundred people sitting in a restaurant. The restaurant is

God's wrath. There's a payment that is due at the end of that meal, right? So the restaurant is a stand -in for God's wrath, right?

A payment has come in due. There's a hundred people in that restaurant. Jesus Christ walks in, pays for all their meals, right?

He's paid the penalty, right? If you choose to, if, if, if ninety out of a hundred of those choose to accept that payment and ten don't, is the bill still paid?

The bill's still paid, but the ten that didn't accept that payment are still paying it on their own.

Why? Because they're stupid. The wrath of God, the restaurant, the wrath of God, the restaurant is not coming after them.

If they walked out of that restaurant, whether, even if they reject that, that payment, when they walk out of that restaurant, the restaurant's not coming after them.

I don't think you can apply the wrath of God to that, to that scenario.

It's my metaphor, I can tell you. If I may say something,

I'm going to go back to, this whole thing has been a battle within my own household. Yeah.

And I go back to Genesis 1 -1, In the beginning God created. I can't imagine the

God who created the universe not sitting down beforehand and having everything planned out.

Yeah. So he knows who is, he knows who isn't, he's got the foreknowledge of which ones are not going to accept him but the ones who are going to reject him.

It's not a matter of us choosing God, he's already chosen us, our option is to reject him.

That's the only option we have. But if he's chosen us, how can we reject him? It's the same way with the bill.

It's been paid but, no, I can't accept that. I don't, I'll pay my own bill. You've got to remember this,

Matt's not a five -pointer, he's like a four and a, well, four and a something. He doesn't need your defense.

Some of these things he's going over, he's still a little on the fence with you. Yeah, the classic... I'm pushing buttons,

I'm pushing buttons. One of the classic arguments about all this is when Jesus died on the cross and he had two thieves there, right?

One is taken to paradise, the other one's right there and he hears and he actually says and he acknowledges and he knows that this person is the

Christ and yet he doesn't get, he doesn't choose or he doesn't get chosen.

He doesn't get chosen. And that is, that's a... I mean,

I've seen so many debates about this where that really kind of proves what

Bob is talking about in terms of the foreknowledge of what was going to happen. Particularly when God had to be the propitiation for that at that time.

What greater moment can you have because you know that God in the Holy Spirit was overseeing this as it was happening, like this, that this other sinner there was rejected.

And there's no other explanation than to Bob's point.

It's that God had this planned out. So unless you're a universalist, which nobody in here is, there's no doubt that Christ's blood only paid for the sins of some.

Right? There's no doubt that some are destined for judgment and some are destined for paradise.

And there's no doubt that Christ's blood was powerful enough to pay for all. The real question that we're wrestling with is the mechanism through which we choose him.

Is it because he chose us or is it of our own free will that we chose him? And my

Arminianism says that he chose us but we choose to not be part of that.

Does that make sense? Yes. If you have... So my struggle with the free will argument, and I'll just be honest with you, this bothers me.

If it's me choosing him... Not me choosing him, it's me choosing not him.

Right. But if it's me choosing him, if it's my will that is determining whether I accept or reject the gift, what prevents me from rejecting it after I've accepted it?

That goes into a whole other thing. We talked about the people that are carnal

Christians. Yes. The people that profess to be believers but don't really possess the

Lord as their Savior. So, if you really are... If you really have not rejected him, he's chosen you, he's got a path for you.

And that's why the Bible says, keep your eyes on the goal. So if we keep our eyes on the goal, we're the ones who are going to continue down that path.

Once we take our eyes off the goal, there's danger, potential road wreck.

Okay, but it could be a momentary, an instant one, but you...

Wait, what did I do? I didn't get back on the right path. If you think about Pilgrim's Progress, if you've seen the movie

Pilgrim's Progress or read the book... I read the book when I was in... Many times he got off the path, but he got back on, he realized...

Yes. So, I'm not sure... And true believers do stumble. They will.

And they do fall, and they do sin, and we do have to reorient ourselves.

But what we're talking about is not the failures of true

Christians to live a perfect Christian life. We're talking about how does someone become a Christian in the first place?

How are they justified in the first place? The Holy Spirit calls us. The Holy Spirit points out sin to us.

I believe that's the case. And we can choose to look the other way when we're shown that fact.

And that's where we're turning away. Are you talking about Christians here, or you're talking about prior to faith?

People. People in general. So, I'm not going to go any further.

Okay. I'm not really... I just... If there's anybody here that are swaying, look at Scripture very closely.

Know that God has all this stuff laid out. If He knew us before we were knitted in our mother's wombs,

He knows the path we're going to take. He knows the choice we're going to make. So, I don't...

I just think He gives us the opportunity to say no to Him. And He's going to call us.

And He's calling all of us, but we can say no to Him. So, that... That, I guess, is my way to say there's room for Arminianism.

There's room to believe that we can reject the call of Christ on our life. And that's just to become a believer.

There's a whole other... All other Scriptures that tell us how we should live our lives as a believer. Sure. It goes back to the...

I've spoken about this so many times. The coercion versus the persuasion argument. Yes. Of this.

And what the Holy Spirit does, and it goes back to evangelism. Part of the problem is vernacular that we use and branding that we use to name what

God's sovereignty is all about, which I think is a pitfall.

And we fall into a trap of wordiness versus to what the ultimate truth is for all this.

Is it possible for a person to go ahead and accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior right at the moment that they know it?

In my own experience, it's very rare to have that happen. It's more of a persuasion that happens through evangelism, through...

And all this is marked by the Holy Spirit working in our hearts to go ahead and do that. Our hearts need to be personally ready for that.

And I think that the Holy Spirit readies us to do that and has that happen. It's not a question of rejection or not rejection yet.

It's a question of the indwelling of the voice. But to get back to Bob's book, is he doing that in every human?

He has a couple verses on that. Yeah, go for it. Now, we all know that the

Pharisees were ascribing to Jesus the power of Satan when the

Holy Spirit was doing ministry in the monk. And they had the testimony of the Spirit right before them.

And the Spirit, I believe, was convicting them of not only sin, but also of Christ's righteousness and who

He was. This is what Stephen said when he was being stoned. The council, coming before the council and they wanted to stone him.

It says, You men are stiff -necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears and always resisting the

Holy Spirit. You are doing just as your fathers did. The Spirit was ministering to those men who were wicked and evil and certainly did not choose

God. I don't think this is an Arminius verse, but it does talk about the

Spirit actually providing information, providing the ability to see who

God is. But yet, if you're not made alive, you're not going to choose Him. That's the point.

It's the question of whether God has called you to see or not. Because even though the

Spirit is there testifying of God's greatness, all throughout the works of Israel He's talking about here, they're not going to accept it unless He makes them alive.

Stiff -necked. And consider the nation of Israel and the

Jews throughout the world rejecting their

Messiah. I mean, consider that as part of the big picture why that would be the case.

How odd of God to choose the Jews. How odd of God to choose the Jews. But even though He chose the

Jews, not all the Jews choose Him. Or they rejected

Him. That's why only the young ones came out of it. So what you're saying is

I haven't persuaded all of you. We're still not sure which side you're on.

I don't want to let you down, but I think it's going to take more than you. I've accomplished my goal.

Keep it in your house. Listen, this is... We could probably go on for a whole other session just talking about this.

It's good for us to meditate on it. It's good for us to think through it. And as Bob rightly said, it's good for us to look at Scripture and ask

God to illuminate our hearts, illuminate our minds, so that we can understand it. I didn't expect that we would solve it here at Cornerstone and Mount Laurel given that the lines of the faith hadn't done it up until now.

But as Pastor Jeff rightly said, it's important. Just because we might not all agree, it is an in -house debate, that doesn't demean the importance of the topic and we should continue to ask for guidance from God on it.

I just have one thing to say about Calvin. He wasn't inspired. He didn't write a gospel. He was sinful and fallible like the rest of us.

But some people put him on a pedestal. And that we should not do. Not for anybody. We shouldn't put Jeff on a pedestal.

We shouldn't put anybody on a pedestal. But he who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Calvin was never on a pedestal.

And he was a vicious man. Personally, he was pretty vicious. The Pope of Geneva.

And if you didn't agree with him, he came down hard. Yeah, these are all flawed men.

And if you read Pastor Jeff's book, he talks about a few of them. And he actually brings out some of the stuff about the viciousness.

So yes, you have to take it in that context. But again, I think it's worthwhile.

It's like working out at a gym. It's worthwhile to go through the exercise of working out your faith and reading

God's Word and asking God to illuminate your spirit. So if for nothing else than just working that out, it's good to do.

Did he talk at all about Spurgeon and Moody? Like the differences between Spurgeon and Moody, but yet how powerfully the word used by those men.

I don't know if it was Moody. I think it was, was it Tyndale? I think it was Moody. Was it Moody? I didn't bring his book.

My mother -in -law's reading it now. Very different opinions, but very powerful.

He's got Spurgeon in there. He's got Calvin in there. He's got...

Oh my goodness. I like what Spurgeon said. Augustine, yes. Luther versus Erasmus.

Luther and Erasmus, yes. He's got six chapters on each of these battles between big -name theologians.

And he proceeds that with six chapters, like an introductory chapter, and then a chapter on each of the letters in TULIP and Scripture, and does a lot of Scripture -verse stuff.

But it was a good debate. I had intended to spend less time talking than I did, and then kind of just dropped a grenade in the room and kind of see what happens.

But it was definitely... Was anything solved? You're saved, Richie. You're saved. That's what counts.

That's what counts. Not who Calvin was, or who Jacob Arminius was.

They were just men. Fallible men. That's right. They were. And with that, Drew, would you mind wrapping us up today with prayer?

I'm going to read a verse before we get to that. Go for it. This is Deuteronomy 7, 6, and 7.

For you are a holy people to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

The Lord did not set His love upon you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were fewest of all the peoples.

But because the Lord loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the Lord brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.

Father, thank you, Lord, for your grace and your mercy, Father. That's clear.

Father, none of us deserve salvation in this room. And Father, it's all been given by a gift of your hand.

And Father, we hold on to that. We treasure that. We love you for it. We thank you that you loved us first.

We thank you, Father, for Matt and, Lord, his dedication to studying your word, to preparing his lessons, and, yes, coming up from vacation to be with us tonight,

Father. We thank you so much, Lord, for this evening. We pray that everyone will go in the grace of Jesus tonight.