THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE: (12 of 12) Q&A

Q&A on the Doctrines of Grace

I want to remind you that tonight, we don't have all the answers, right? We don't have all the answers. We're working through a lot of things just like y 'all are. We're still trying to figure out and learn.

There's going to be certain texts. I guarantee you at some point tonight, someone's going to come up with a text and we're like, I'll get back to you on that one. That's a great question. And that's okay, right?

That's what I wanted tonight to be. As far as a Q &A, it's just a time for us to all talk. The curriculum up to this point has not lended itself to a lot of dialogue like we're used to on Wednesday nights, usually.

Wednesday nights are usually all dialogue. But this one is just a lot of information. So tonight, I hope you've come with your questions. Any of the softballs, just aim my way. Any of the hard ones, we'll just give to Pastor Jeremiah.

Or we'll ask Pastor Keith over there. You got a mic over there, Pastor Keith? All right. Well, guys, I'm looking forward to tonight. You can see we've got microphones set up here. And I know that intimidates some, but we are videoing this.

As a matter of fact, this whole playlist of the doctrines of grace has been very beneficial for a number of people that I've talked to, being able to just send that playlist and people to be able to watch through it.

And they even can download the curriculum and the homework there in the description below the videos. And so tonight, we're going to be videoing. So you'll be famous, right? All 27 people that watch our videos will have seen your face if you ask a question, right?

They're all here. That's true. They're all here tonight. We'll just all go home and watch the video and, oh, there's me. And so let's keep it polite. Here's one of the things I want to say is try and limit your question to one when you come up.

So if you have another question, get back in line. And if there's nobody in line, then I guess we'll just call on you again. But try and keep it short and condensed as you can. But again, this is dialogue.

Everybody on the same page? If you're on this side of the room, you can go to this mic. If you're on that side of the room, you can go to that mic. But let's keep it cordial. Let's try not to stump the chump.

Okay. That's right. That's right. All right. Oh, we've already got a question here. Yes, Christy. I'm going to go ahead and just turn my mic off. This is Christy.

Unconditional Election and Human Responsibility

Okay. So this is, I mentioned in my testimony that I have a nagging question, and this is my nagging question. Can y 'all hear me? Because I'm short. Okay. How about now? So I realized that I struggle.

I don't struggle with the L or the I. I struggle with the U. And I realized that in Romans 9, or at least it's been pointed out that, sorry, God's election, God's choosing, man's responsibility, it's both and, not either or, right?

So I'm trying to wrap my mind around how that works. Okay. Man's responsible for choosing Christ, but he's not able to without God awakening him. So I'm seeing a big circle in my mind. Okay. God's choosing this person and drawing this person, but yet man has to choose.

So it's almost like herding cats in my mind. That's what it seems like to me is like God's choosing him, but is there a chance that man's not going to respond? I don't see that as being possible, but I also don't understand how someone can choose Christ, be responsible for that, but yet God has not awakened him.

So I don't know. I can't make it fit in my mind. Does that make any.

Sense at all? Okay. Testing. Oh, there we go. All right. Great question. I've always said the U in the doctrines of grace for unconditional election, that's the hard one. But I mean, so I'm right there with you, and I believe we talked last Wednesday a lot about this too.

This is where I start. Isaiah 55 says God's ways and thoughts are higher than our ways and thoughts, namely that God is transcendent and eternal. Therefore, the choices that he makes are on a different category than us.

How God chooses is not how I'm going to make a choice when I counsel with Nathan. So that's just number one. And I think when we allow God to be creator in this transcendent category, and we allow the creation to, you know, we think in these categories of how we relate to one another, when we finally say, okay, however we relate to one another, that is not how God chooses.

We're in a really good place. Because his choices are eternal and are the ground of all being. Hebrews 11 says he sustains the universe by the word of his power. Hebrews 11, I think it's verse 3, and then also Hebrews 11, or chapter 1, verse 3.

My point is, God is in a category altogether different to himself than man. Now, he chose a world which everything is going to go one particular way. So what we can't do is saying God is not free to create a world to give himself glory.

You know what I mean? And if we bite the bullet and say God can do that, and he is not morally wrong for doing so, this will help you in every doctrine in Scripture. Okay? You have to wrestle with the fact that God created this world on purpose.

Ephesians 1 says, to the praise of his glorious grace. Romans 11, 36 says, for of him and to him and through him are all things to whom be the glory forever. Amen. So we start there with God's transcendence, his omnipotence, and omniscience.

You're in a really good place. And then we say, okay, how I choose and how I interact with my son, that's not one to one the same how God interacts with his creation. It's just altogether different. So that's number one.

God makes eternal choices. We make temporal choices. They're just not the same. The way we make choices and are responsible, they're meaningful because God has made an eternal choice that grounds everything.

Like, it's all working a particular way to give him the most glory. Now, Romans 9, in light of the fall of man, right? There's a lump of clay which represents fallen man. Every choice that we make, we're responsible for, but it's always in opposition to God.

Therefore, when God gives us what we want, Romans 1, he's just giving us over to what we already want, which is corrupt, which is sin, suppression of the truth, in unrighteousness, right? He can do that.

In real time, he can leave us in that corrupt state. But we are making a choice. It's just always in opposition to God. Therefore, when he extends mercy, then it re-orients our will. He can transform our will by regeneration, and that's mercy.

And so when we get into unconditional election, I look at it as this. Why did he choose me? Because I know I didn't deserve it. It's because, Romans 9, he is fashioning a vessel, not because he foresaw something about me and learned and reacted, but God wanted to demonstrate mercy, grace, love, and kindness out of a fallen lump of clay that didn't deserve it.

And God is free to orchestrate all of creation that he can work out, sanctification in the elect. So my point is, unconditional election, why me? Because God wanted to display mercy, and he didn't have to.

Does that help a little bit? I really want to press into the principle, God is in a category that is just altogether different than the human-to-human relationship. What do you think? Yes. Does that answer your question?

No. So the reason why, in my mind, it answers the question is, we are responsible for the choices that we desire to make and do. That is not on the same plane as how God makes choices. And if we say those are different kinds of choices, there's no contradiction.

Because when I make a choice and I want Jamie to do something, and I have to convince her to do it or literally add force to push her to do it, well, that might be against her will. But if God makes an unconditional choice, he can work through my will in a category different than mine.

So it's a both and in this sense. We are held accountable not for God's eternal decisions. He's not holding us accountable for that standard that he alone has. He holds us accountable for the choices that we make in real time.

And I'm saying, if we have the creator-creation distinction, no contradiction. The contradiction comes in if we say, well, how can God make a choice the same way that I would make a choice with how I interact with someone else?

I'm saying that kind of free will thinking actually does erode God's eternal choice. And so it's a deep question. That's why the answer is kind of deep too. But that's why Isaiah 55 says, his ways and thoughts, the ways that he does things are transcendent.

And so the sovereignty of God, category all of its own, our responsibility is in actual time according to our heart's desire. And that's what we will be held accountable to. So it hurts to say, but God's already chosen that this is going to happen.

And we'd say, yes, God as eternal creator can do that, right? But we're held to the standard that we'll be judged according to what we actually choose to do. Is that a little bit closer? Yes. Good question.

The Languages of Genesis, Babel, and Pentecost

Are we changing up the game plan?

Yeah. So I just grabbed the other microphone because we can't get that one working. So if you have a question, you can come over here to where the corded mic is. We shouldn't have a problem there. No, no.

That one is Justin's mic. Hello. Hello. Is that one not working either? Oh, oh, oh, there we are. Is this good? Hey Keith, is Justin's mic turned up? Okay,.

There we go. Okay. Mine is not nearly as deep as hers. Minor third grade questions, which you will just love because they won't. Those are my kind of questions. Yeah. We may have talked about this, but I don't remember.

It's been a while. So I want to ask again. So God created all things beginning of time. He created time. He says, let there be light. What language was he speaking? There was no Hebrew. There was no nation.

What was he speaking? You said third grade question. That is third. No one thinks about that,.

But I was just like, what is, what in the, what? God language. I don't, I, I, I really, I, I maybe Latin. I don't know. I don't know. So, so language came from somewhere, right? Adam spoke, Eve spoke, like God created language at some level or all levels.

God created the language, but specifically he, he must've designed a language that has probably been dumbed down to this point. I'm sure it's lost at this point for that matter, but it was obviously probably more, far more complex than any language that we have.

And so whatever that is that, that originated from him, but also the, the language of him speaking into it. God, God is spirit. So what does that even mean? Is that, is that audible language or is it anthropomorphic language?

So you want to speak to that? King James English. That was it.

I was going to say, obviously I don't know what language it is, but it seems like there was a universal language in the early part of Genesis and then Babel happened, right? The, the tower of Babel. And so there, that's when you have the diversity of languages.

So I just, I have a theory of all the diversity of languages. They all have their root back to that original language, but it was diversified. And then in Pentecost, we'd kind of see that coming back together a.

Little bit, but I don't know. Okay. Fair enough. Good question. It's the tongues of angels.

False Teachers, Limited Atonement, and 2 Peter 2:1

I just wanted to ask about 2 Peter 2 .1. I don't know if we want to read it, but 2 Peter 2 .1 is referencing Jude 4 or vice versa. And I was wondering if Jude 4 is speaking of the Master as Christ and purchasing, to me, the Greek would be agorazo.

That's probably not how you say that. But I was just wondering how that kind of reconciles with the false teacher denying the Master that bought him and just, you know, that sort of thing. I think that's a great point.

There's, there's so many good commentaries that try to make heads or tails of this passage. And so, once again, he's saying, false teachers that are among you will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them.

And the question is, well, if they're bought by the blood of Christ, what does that do to the doctrine of limited atonement, right? Because didn't Jesus just purchase and buy the elect? So, Peter, I believe he's borrowing Exodus language, meaning like when you go back to the time of the Exodus, for someone to be a slave, they are the Master, right?

And it's unthinkable to go against the Master that purchased you and is Lord over you. And that is the very thing that I think he's trying to convey, that false teachers, they are shaking their fist at the Lord over all.

I don't think this is as doctrinally precise, meaning that his blood atonement was on their behalf, but he is the sovereign Lord over all, similar using, you know, like I said, less theologically precise language, but figurative language saying similar to a Lord over a house or a Master over a slave.

And it's unthinkable for them to recognize who the Lord is and actually go against the very things that they are prescribing. So, I think this is more figurative language rather than the doctrinal precision language that we read, like in Gospel of John or Romans chapter 8, where we see that no one can bring a charge against God's elect.

For God's elect, Christ not only died for them, but even more than that, he was raised to life and he continues to intercede on their behalf. So, I think this is more figurative language borrowing from Exodus language about a sovereign Lord over a bond slave.

What about 1 Peter 18, when he's kind of calling back saying, but with the precious blood as of a lamb unblemished spotless. 1 Peter 18? Sorry, 1 Peter 1 .18, sorry. And so, he's making that comparison in being purchased not by corruptible things like silver or gold, but with the precious blood of the lamb unblemished and spotless.

That's kind of like where, you know, I get confused with that because I feel like it's referencing that specifically, like, you know, 2 Peter would be calling back to 1 Peter and that sort of thing. Does that make sense at all?

I don't know if I'm making any sense.

Yeah, to me this goes back to there's only one Lord who ransoms his people. So, Paul speaks a lot of this in 1 Timothy chapter 2, and he ransoms all people, but in what context is always the question.

Titus chapter 2 talks about he is the only savior of the world. And so, when we get into theological precise language, there is a particularity no matter which side of the aisle people fall under. And I'll just say when we press the ransom language, it is, it has to be for a particular group of people, especially when you start harmonizing this with the totality of Scripture.

Going back to 2 Peter chapter 2, it's tethered to false teachers. And I would just say, you know, I think this is maybe a different context because the very next verse talks about how Jesus is the lamb slain essentially before the foundation of the world.

So, that very next verse, he was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you. So, this is kind of in that church context. And so, he's proclaiming the blood of Christ, the ransom for you, but there are going to be people that fundamentally deny him.

And so, I think this is almost very pastoral because as we get into 1 Peter chapter 5, he is one of the under shepherds. So, he is speaking to a church context, and Peter doesn't know the heart of man.

And so, I think it's like here, if I'm saying, Jesus died for you. Well, on one hand, I'm talking to the church of 12 five, but I'm also speaking more fundamentally to those that will repent and put their faith to Jesus Christ.

Does that help a little bit? Yeah, yeah, that makes sense for sure.

Thank you. Anybody else? The Bible talks a lot about prophetic abilities and miracles and all that. Do you think that those are still like present today? Like people still have like those.

Abilities today? Well, I know this doesn't align with the doctrines of grace particularly, but us that hold the doctrines of grace, typically reformed, would consider ourselves what's known as cessationist.

And so, here's what we think. We believe that those signs, wonders, amazing things God still can do, and quite possibly, I think He does. So, for example, healing. I've experienced from those close to me miraculous healing that doctors couldn't explain.

That is a miracle. Here's the difference. We believe that during the apostolic age, when the apostles were alive, the New Testament did not exist yet. What we call the canon wasn't closed. Like we have everything we need for life and godliness right now because we have the scriptures in totality.

They did not. And so, there was a confirmation needed just like Jesus. Jesus comes to earth and He does miracles confirming He is God and He is the Messiah. Well, now His apostles, who are the foundation of the church, they now at the beginning stages, they have these supernatural abilities of healing.

They have these special, there's prophets during that time. They're bringing a word from God to the church who doesn't yet have the totality of scripture. And so, what you notice though is near the end, like the last few number of books in the New Testament, you don't see any record of any of those miracles or any of those things going on.

Even near the end of Paul's life, it seems like Paul didn't have the gift of healing anymore. Otherwise, he would have healed Timothy, right, from his stomach ailment. He just tells him, hey, drink some wine for your stomach, by the way.

My point is, what we would say as cessationists is God still does miraculous things. He doesn't do it through the same means and for the same purpose that He did during the apostolic time. Does that make sense?

And so, that would tie into what we're talking about, the doctrines of grace, God's sovereign hand. He has purpose in it, right? And then for us, typically, who hold the reformed theology, which the doctrines of grace are simply a threshold into the reformed theology, is typically we would be in that position, cessationist versus continuationist, that the signed gifts continued.

Okay. So, these questions are coming from the homework. So, it wasn't in the binder, but it was a part of the homework. So, it would be like daughters will prophesy and all that. So, I was just wondering, like, does that mean us in the future as well, or did that just mean the.

Daughters then? Yeah, I think that's the quotation from Acts chapter 2, that's the fulfillment of Joel, and kind of gets into the whole ongoing debate between cessationist and continuationist. And I don't think this is one of those things to be dogmatic.

Now, I see kind of the fulfillment of the early church in Acts, and God's judgment against the nation of Israel was actually prophesied back in Isaiah chapter 28. First Corinthians chapter 14 says, this is going to be a sign to the unbelieving Jews when an unknown people speak a foreign tongue.

So, it's a sign of judgment that culminates with the destruction of the temple. And so, that prophecy are these prophetic signed gifts throughout the early church. This is the safe place to be. We have all we need in godliness revealed in God's Word.

And so, when someone comes along that I look up to as a brother or sister in the faith, and they are wanting to give me a prophetic word, show me right here, right? And what I learn is, we find the principle, oh yeah, that lines up.

Well, it turns out I didn't need an extra prophetic word if we can find it in Scripture. To me, that's the safest place to be, and we can continue to be charitable towards one another. I don't like that being the benchmark of us being able to be in fellowship.

It's like, hey, let's continue to sharpen one another in these types of things. Okay.

Some of it's just language too. Some people would say, well, I have a prophecy for you. I have a word for you. And in reality, it's like, well, it sounds to me like the Holy Spirit within you prompted you to tell me a truth from His Word.

Praise God for that. I'm glad He did. Okay. That makes sense. Thank you. Thank you. Before we take another question, I wanted to address a question that was actually sent in pre-tonight by our very own Wesley.

All right. We get to Hebrew 6, 4 through 8. Let me read it. Four, it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the Word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm, and holding Him up to contempt.

For land that has drunk the rain, that often falls on it, and produces a crop itself useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.

Pastor Jeremiah, you want to walk us through that? Sure. So, a lot of the dispute is.

In verses 4 through 6. And the question is, is this a passage that means a person can lose their salvation? It's kind of how it's framed. And a lot of times I want to take one step back and say, okay, what is the significant context overall in the book of Hebrews?

Well, the writer of Hebrews is addressing Hebrews that have been under the old covenant and have now heard the gospel of Jesus Christ that's in the new covenant. And so now they're in an interesting spot because the writer of Hebrews, this is a very much apologetic book saying, don't neglect the new covenant.

Everything in the old covenant could never save you is always pointing you to this. And so even back in verse 1, the old covenant had the elemental doctrines of Christ, types, shadows, and promise of the new covenant to come by a perfect mediator.

So that's just number one, is you have a Jewish audience that's being tempted after hearing the gospel to revert back to the type and shadows. And here's the key, that never saved. Okay? So verse 4, for it is impossible.

I just want to pause. I had this underlined in my Bible. Whatever is about to say next, this is important. It's impossible. In the case of those who have been enlightened, that's a keyword, enlightened, who have tasted, tasted is another keyword of the heavenly gift, and have shared another keyword in the Holy Spirit.

I would argue these words are not conveying justification, adoption, or someone who is born again. But it are those Hebrews that have partook in some way of the new covenant. What would that be like? Well, to be in an early church context, to hear the truths of the gospel, and they're partaking in a sense, right?

But like I said, I don't think this entails regeneration. Here's why I think about it contextually. What does it mean to taste of the heavenly gift? Well, in the book of Hebrews, I think it's Hebrews chapter 5, Jesus tasted death for all men.

He actually died, but he didn't stay dead, right? And so this seems to be saying someone that's tasted, that they've heard the gospel, and it doesn't mean that they fully committed in their heart to these truths.

They're actually being tempted to be led astray back to the old covenant. So I don't think this is talking about a legitimate child of God who has been justified. Okay? So with that understanding, we go on.

For someone that has tasted of the powers of the age to come, they've tasted, they've heard of the gospel, they understand it to the brim, right? The Jew that understands that Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant, and let's say they reject it.

Let's say they understand the argument that the writer of Hebrews is saying, and then they conclude, nope, he should have died on the cross, and he needed to stay dead. For that person, verse 6, they have fallen away from the only gospel of grace, I'm interpreting.

And remember, it's impossible. If they have fallen away, if they have tasted, they have such a knowledge of the gospel only to reject it, it would be impossible, because they have fallen away, to restore them again to a kind of repentant sense.

They are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding Him to contempt. I would argue, number one, if this is talking about a person can lose their salvation, well, it's impossible for them to gain it back.

That's why I'd like to remind them, and no advocate of someone losing their salvation wants to go that route. Rather, this is talking about the apostate, someone that claimed to be a child of God under the old covenant.

They're met with the knowledge of the true gospel only to reject it. And so, I think there's a modern-day parallel that, you know, he read verses 7 and 8, which are almost like the parable of the sower, the four soils.

There are people that believe for a time. They have a knowledge only to reject it. And so, there is a hotter hell, if you will, for those that have a great knowledge of the gospel and the things of God and His Word and have congregated with the people of God only to walk away from the faith.

Does that kind of make sense? So, that was a lot, maybe. Just trying to give it my best stem. That was good. Yeah. That is another argument. So, there's another argument that says that this is an impossible hypothetical and a reductio ad absurdum saying, if these are regenerate people, they would actually never walk away from the faith.

That's a legitimate view. I'm unconvinced because of how the word tasted is used. Because I've actually heard people say, well, since Jesus actually died, tasted death, this means that someone was actually saved and fell away.

And I'm like, well, you missed the point that He tasted death because He didn't stay dead. He actually resurrected. So, for them to taste of the powers of the age to come, taste of the gospel, doesn't mean that their heart was actually regenerated.

But there are other views to this passage that seek to harmonize it with the rest of Scripture.

Why Some Books Are Preached Through and Why Revelation Is Often Avoided

That's good. Got any more questions? Marcus?

Well, since my boy, he's over there doing the cameras for us, he wanted me to ask the question, why do most pastors and churches only do expository preaching through certain books of the Bible rather than all the books?

And why is Revelation the one most avoided? And why is Revelation the most confusing? And why did God make Revelation more complicated.

Than other books? There you go. Okay. Caleb, thank you. All right. So, I think there was a couple of questions there, see if I can keep it right. Why do some pastors preach exegetically, like through a book of the Bible, but skip some?

In particular, you were asking skip Revelation. So, I would say, yes, it is a very difficult book, but I do think that it comes with a blessing. One day we will preach through it. It greatly depends on your eschatology as to where you land in this room.

There are probably, there's definitely three eschatological views represented, and then variation within all of them. And that's okay, but you have to preach according to what the leadership of the church believes accordingly.

But there is blessing. I mean, even the book of Revelation tells that those that, hey, read this book, that study this book, they'll be blessed. But to answer the question of why do pastors avoid some books, just sometimes it's self preservation.

I see some pastors, they'll, like we just went through Ephesians recently. Ephesians, the first three chapters are all doctrine, and the last three chapters are all application. And I think I shared, I saw a church not too far from here that was like, hey, we're going to preach through Ephesians.

And they started in chapter four because they didn't want to have to go through all of the doctrine part. They just wanted all the application that kind of comes with it. So yeah, pastors for different reasons, they'll skip different books.

We do not plan on skipping Revelation. We're just waiting for a good time for that. It is a very difficult book to understand, and it's complex, and it's tied to a lot of Old Testament passages. There's a lot of back and forth.

There's a lot of prophecy going on, when is this prophecy? Is this in the past? Is this already fulfilled? Is this in the future? What does this look like? It can get difficult, and churches will split over that very thing.

And so that's another reason pastors sometimes have to use wisdom as to when they'll teach a particular thing to a particular people based on where that people are. Does that answer your question? Good question.

You want to speak to that?

Judicial Hardening and Total Depravity

Hello. So we've talked about this before, and it's judicial hardening. So I know the Bible talks about God hardening the heart of Pharaoh and different ones in Scripture. But the question is, if we're already totally depraved or totally incapable of coming to God, why would judicial hardening need to happen?

Why would it need to take place? And I think, well, from what I've looked at just over the past year, year and a half, there really isn't any good material online about answering that question, and that's unfortunate.

And so maybe you should…. You want me to make a video? I do. I want you to make a video and, you know, resource that out. But that's my question. Why would judicial hardening be a thing if total inability is also a thing?

Great question. The way I approach this is total depravity also encompasses utter depravity. And making the distinction between just because someone is not able to come to Christ, they are not as sinful as they could be.

And so I think judicial hardening falls within a further removing the people of Israel from God in their depravity, and that's a judicial hardening on a group of people that were so close to in the covenants of God, they had the oracles of God, and yet they twisted the words of God, and they missed Christ altogether.

And so on one hand, that is a part of God's ordination is to show us tangible examples of the people of Israel, 1 Corinthians chapter 10, it would say, examples to not behave like them. And so they are being judicially judged.

That's a separate issue than being born depraved in our sin. And so we're just talking about two different things. I would argue too, because another way this gets brought out is, so God is making a blind people further blind, and I would say absolutely because there's depth to depravity.

When you start looking at Israel, they killed the Son of Glory. That is about the worst thing that we could ever conceive of, the worst sin. They killed the Son of Glory. That wouldn't have happened if they weren't being judicially hardened.

Pharaoh, in a way, was using him providentially, right? But he was also, in real time, restraining Pharaoh from making decisions to save his own hide, you know what I mean? And so God intervened, and there are depths to depravity.

So that's where judicial hardening comes in, and I'll make a video one of these days on it.

So for me, I struggle with that very question, because obviously God does not lead anyone to sin, right? God's not the author of sin. So what does that look like? Is that language leading us to an understanding of God's hand of restraint allowing further hardening?