Pradeep Tilak - Ordination Q&A

Then comes the awareness that the word of God is rich and deep and you need to be taught.

I think Pastor Mike, I was in a discipleship class with him where I recognized that there is an urgency to what needs to be done as men here in this world that is dark.

And then Pastor Mike was encouraging me to go to a shepherd's conference and I avoided it as much as I could because I knew sometimes when you put your foot out that door you can't pull it back in.

But between my wife and Pastor Mike they prevailed. I went there. I didn't even go expecting much. I know me and Brother Kent shared a room and we met some men there who spoke about how the

Lord was using them in ministry. I think that was the time when

I realized here I am blessed by the Lord in so many ways and here

I am wasting my life. I had all these excuses for why I was tired,

I need to watch TV and come home. Then when

I came back I knew that the Lord had a purpose and then we discovered the

Southern Seminary and I started going there. Then that was when I realized that the

Lord had called me, he had gifted me and I needed to be serving. So I got to serve in pulpit supply.

Pastor Mike sent me to some of the churches here and then I got to love the ministry in serving the

Lord and serving the saints and I tend to ramble. Thank you,

Doctor. We are going to have Pastor Harry ask questions on bibliology now.

At the end of his 15 -minute segment, the other men may ask clarification questions about some of the things that Pastor Harry has asked.

And so now, please, bibliology, theology proper, and Christology. Brother, if you would give us two seminal passages, this is on bibliology, the doctrine of the

Bible, of Scripture. Give us, if you would, two seminal passages on the inspiration of Scripture.

The first one that comes to my mind is 2 Timothy 3 .16. And can

I open and read it because I don't have it memorized? So 2 Timothy 3 .16 talks about, the other passage

I'm thinking of is in Peter, but let me first go through the first one here. So here,

Paul admonishing or counseling and giving God's word to Timothy, he says, all

Scripture is breathed out by God, and it's profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good word.

And when I think of the importance of the word of God, this is one of the passages that I constantly remind myself on.

This is a reminder that this is not just a book written by people thinking it was good, but rather every word, it is verbal and plenary.

It is from God, and every single word here is exactly what God meant it to be.

So it is the Spirit of God who breathes out or who moves these authors, whether the prophets or the apostles, in order to write down what we need to hear.

Without this word, we cannot know God. We cannot know how to be right with God, and this is how we minister

God's gospel and His grace to the people of God. So, and it goes on to talk about how it is sufficient and it is vital in the life of the church.

The other passage is in 1 Peter, and unfortunately

I don't know the reference. I know I'll find it if I may take a quick look at it. What I'm thinking of is when

Peter talks about the word, he compares it with experience.

He talks about how he has been in the mountain with Jesus in the transfiguration, and when he sees, and then he says we have the more sure word that is given to us.

And if you can think of anyone who has had the greatest experience in seeing Jesus Christ transfigured and brighter than any light and seeing

His glory come through His human body, and yet, when he says what is more certain than this experience that I have had, it is the word of God that has been given to me.

So, I, very first question, I don't know the reference, and that's. I think it was the second epistle of Peter, not the first.

Thank you. Yes. Just a follow -up, brother, on the 2

Timothy passage. Yes. Since you mentioned it very well, what is meant when we talk about the verbal plenary inspiration of the scriptures?

What do we mean by verbal plenary inspiration? We use that term mainly because our understanding of the scriptures has come under attack.

People find it difficult to submit to every word and every command in the

Bible. So, they come up with this idea that it's inspired in the broader sense, you know, in its overall thrust and its message, it may be inspired.

But if you look at issues like the role of women or if you look at other miracles or things that they have trouble with, we could probably try to work around it by saying that maybe some of these specific words that don't conform to our thinking and our culture and our way of life, we could work around it by just saying, you know, there's a broad message from God we can get and we can customize it the way we want to ourselves.

So, when we say verbal plenary, essentially what we are saying is God didn't just, yes,

God didn't do a mechanical dictation to these authors to say, you know, write these words, but he inspired the inspiration that we see in 2

Timothy 3 .16 is how the Spirit of God moves these people that through their faculties that he would actually write the exact words that he wants.

So, the Spirit of God as the author has the very words that we need. So, when we talk about verbal plenary, what we are actually saying is in the autographs, the original manuscripts that were written in the

Greek and the Hebrew and Aramaic, they actually word for word contain what

God wants us to have. And today in the English Bible, we have the lower criticism, which actually looks at all these manuscripts and we don't have the autographs with us, but we have the manuscripts that are copied and from these huge wealth of manuscripts, we are very easily able to go back to find what those words are.

So, we have a very high degree of confidence that the English Bible we have in our hands is accurate and we can trust in what

God has given us today. Thank you. And from inspiration,

I wanted to ask about illumination. What is illumination?

So, we have the Word of God written to us as the Spirit of God inspired the original authors to write.

Now, when we read the scriptures, the

Bible is clear. It's perspicuous. It is not written in some magic code so everyone can read it.

But it is conveying God's spiritual truth that the carnal man cannot understand.

And each of us here as believers, when I was talking about my conversion, I was reading the Bible before I knew the content of what the

Bible was speaking of. But when it came to knowing God, to understanding the depths of what the

Bible says, we need a helper and that helper is the Holy Spirit who illumines our hearts and minds that we can understand what we read, that we can hear

God's Word as we read. And it is the Spirit of God that illumines the scriptures to us.

Excellent. As a follow -up to what many people will say, well, since the Holy Spirit whom we have as believers illumines the

Word of God, and many people might refer to the epistle of 1 John saying it is the Spirit of God who teaches us, why even take an

IBS class on hermeneutics or why even become part of Pastor Mike's preaching discipleship class where he teaches us exegesis and hermeneutics if we just have the

Holy Spirit that's enough? How would you answer that question? That was exactly my view when

I first got saved. I didn't have good teaching. And when my eyes opened to the pages of scriptures and I realized

God is communicating to me, I said, you know, this is enough. I can be a lone

Christian. I actually remember staying in the top of my roof and just spending hours there saying, oh, this is great, just me and God, we are great.

And, you know, there's an element of pride that comes in when you say, you know, I can do this on my own.

And then you look at the rest of the scriptures that talk about the need for teaching.

Timothy, the passage that we looked at, talks about teaching and reproof. Why do you need teaching and reproof if everybody is capable of knowing and living out the truths of the scriptures?

In Ephesians 4, we see how the Lord calls pastors and teachers to equip the body.

So the Lord gives different gifts to different people. And one of the gifts is the gift of teaching.

And so it is a huge blessing that as a corporate body in the church, we have men who are equipped to teach.

And I can testify to how I have grown in the knowledge of the word because of men like Pastor Mike and the elders here and other men who have written through the ages what they have learned and studied from the word.

I use commentaries that there is a collective understanding of how the scriptures speak to the truth of God.

Excellent. Let's move on to theology proper, which is the doctrine of God. If you could first explain to us the difference, brother, between the communicable and the incommunicable attributes of God.

And then briefly just name some of each of them without expanding on them, but explain the difference between communicable and incommunicable and then name some of each of those attributes.

So those two terms, the communicable and incommunicable attributes, they talk about attributes that God possesses that are revealed to us in the scriptures and whether or not we as individuals share or can reflect in God's image some of these attributes and grow in them in a limited fashion.

So, for example, when we think of incommunicable attributes, we think of eternity. We think of independence.

We think of unchangeableness. We can think of, I think, simplicity or unity.

There is a way in which God doesn't process things in a progressive fashion like we do. He knows all things at once.

He is eternal from eternity past. We all have a beginning from existence and we all began at a point in time while God never began to exist.

He always existed. So these are certain attributes that are just unique to God. And we just look at that and we say, wow,

God, you're great. When we think of the communicable attributes, God in his grace has made us in his image.

And there are certain things that we reflect or image him with. So when we think of things like, oh, actually,

I thought of one more attribute, omnipresence. That's something that we can't have. We are always limited to one space where God is not.

But when we think of omniscience, for example, we cannot be omniscient because God alone knows all things that can be known and all possible things and knows them all at the same time.

And we will because we are not God, because we are finite creatures, we are limited, but we can know.

So there is a rational ability that God has placed in us that reflects

God's own reasons. And this is one of the great tools in apologetics as well. Why do we know the things that we do?

How do we understand things? This is because we are made in God's image. God is a rational being who has made things to be reasonable as well.

So we can think of there's many communicable attributes. We can think of the moral attributes like goodness, patience.

But God exemplifies them in his perfection. He is all good.

Whereas we reflect them and we grow in these attributes as we are sanctified by the spirit of God.

For this next question, one sentence answer for each of the three.

What is the role of each member of the Trinity in salvation? The father elects predestined.

He is a one sentence. The son accomplishes, does the atonement and accomplishes redemption.

And the spirit makes it effective and he seals us in salvation.

Excellent. How is modalism an attack on the

Trinity? Modalism claimed that instead of the father, son and the spirit being three distinct persons, that God, their desire was that they preserve that there is one

God. And they were afraid that when Christology was being developed in the early church, when

Christ was recognized as God, that they could see the text that speak to Jesus being

God and they were afraid that this was going into two gods or tritheism with the spirit of God.

So they wanted to somehow preserve the one God, which is just throughout the scriptures.

And so what they tried to do was to think that you cannot avoid the passages that talk about Jesus being

God. And therefore, they tried to say that there was the one

God appearing as the father and appearing as the son and then appearing as a spirit.

And so their failure is in trying to preserve one truth of the scripture and compromising other scriptures that talk about distinctness in the

Trinity. Excellent. Want to move on to Christology. Now, the doctrine of Christ, brother,

I'll be careful not to go beyond Hebrews chapter one, verse five. No, but in all seriousness, as briefly this is a this could be an expansive answer, but as briefly as you can, brother, if you can explain to us what is the and explain both positions of the impeccability and the peccability of Christ.

In both impeccability, what it says is that Jesus could not have sinned as a human being.

So that's the definition of impeccability. And peccability says that Jesus could have sinned while he was here on Earth.

Now, neither of these positions actually say that Jesus sinned. So they recognize that Jesus lived a perfect life.

But the let me tell you upfront, I hold the impeccable position that Jesus could not have sinned.

And when the people who hold peccability go along these lines and their reasoning, and there are good

Christian men who hold these view through historically and their position has been, well, if Jesus, when he was tempted, could not have sinned as a man, then his temptation could not have been real.

I think that was their challenge that they were struggling with when in the peccable camp. And therefore, they would say that there is a possibility for Jesus as man to be able to sin.

So he could have sinned. And yet he did not because he obeyed the father completely. From the impeccable position, what we would say is that Jesus is both

God and man. And I think that's one of the challenges when we look at Jesus. It's hard because he has two natures united in one person and he never divested himself of his divinity.

And here is Jesus who did not call upon all of his divine attributes in order to accomplish his obedience as a man.

And yet, because of who he is as both fully God and fully man, it is impossible for him to have sinned.

Now, to answer the charge of could the temptation have been real?

I think Pastor Steve did the Sunday School here talking about various analogies that we can use about how you might have all the reserves in your back pocket.

But as long as you have not used them, you have still run the race fully as you were called to.

You did not cheat. But I think one of the examples was there's a boat right behind you.

You're swimming, but you never took advantage of the boat because you stopped swimming. You were Jesus.

Every single temptation that he faced, he relied upon God the father and in the spirit. And he trusted in him and he never, ever once sinned.

And it is not because he just said, OK, I'm going to just reach out and then use my divine strength.

So he, as a man, fulfilled the law perfectly. So I'm sorry. For the sake of time, in 30 seconds or less, my final question, whereas that dealt more with the deity of Christ, obviously he was sinless.

Can you explain to us how the heresy of docetism is an attack on his humanity in 30 seconds?

Yes. In the first John, we talk about this. The first John one just opens with that which we have seen, that which we have heard, that which we have handled.

And the idea there being that Jesus was man fully and completely like us.

Docao is from appear to the Greek person. So. So there were some who said he just appeared like a man.

He was not really a physical human being because he's God and he cannot be man. And does it is an annals the atonement?

Because here was Jesus a fully and completely a human being who lived the perfect life. And then he was our substitute on our behalf.

And he didn't just appear to be a man. Thank you,

Dr. Pradeep. Scott Brown or Steve Cooley, do you have any follow up questions on bibliology, theology, proper or Christology or clarification questions?

I just have a couple, Pradeep. The first gospel was written. What was the first gospel written?

I believe the scholars disputed, but I think it is Matthew, not

Mark. What do you think the last verse of Mark is? It's in Mark eight.

So the ending of Mark, we have. I'll have to open my

Bible to tell you the exact words. I believe it's verse eight or seven. Yeah, you're right. Sixteen, eight. OK. OK, thank you.

And when Jesus said, Father, forgive them, they do not know what they do. Do you think that is a reliable has reliable tech support or unreliable tech support for that verse?

I don't remember a controversy on the verse, so I'm assuming it is reliable. But I based on your question,

I'm assuming there is a controversy there. OK, thank you. Scott Brown is now going to talk about practical theology, anthropology and pneumatology.

Thank you, Scott. Thanks, brother. Quick question for you,

Pradeep, is if God is sovereign, especially in the reformed type of belief or understanding, why evangelize people if that is the case?

We know from passages like Ephesians one and two and elsewhere that God is sovereign in saving.

But we are too evangelized because first and foremost, we are commanded to.

So the Great Commission in Matthew 20, which you taught on. And so when

God calls us to evangelize, we don't question how this fits in with God's grander purpose.

We obey, trusting that God knows best. Now, God doesn't just accomplish the ends, but he also ordains the means.

So he has, and I think this is one of the greatest wonders of God's will in the way he works it out, that Jesus would die and be raised from the dead and then he would ascend into heaven and then he would let his apostles and the disciples communicate the gospel to the people.

I mean, Jesus could do this a whole lot better than each of us could. But in his will, he has ordained it for the believers to be ambassadors and messengers of the gospel, people who are changed by the gospel to be the people who are also spokesmen for the gospel.

So God has ordained both. And I think to say that just because God will save person

A and B and not C, I shouldn't be evangelizing is actually taking the reformed teaching into more hyper -Calvinist positions, which is unbiblical.

So really you're saying it's actually a privilege that God gives to his children to be able to spread the gospel?

Yes, indeed. To be representatives of Christ here on earth is a weighty privilege and an important one and a necessary one.

Excellent. Thank you. Should Christians or the church itself align themselves with non -Christian organizations solely for social needs?

I don't believe so. The reason is this. In the social gospel and in other liberal movements of this quote -unquote

Christian church, people have seen the need of compassionate ministry and then they have seen organizations that are not necessarily

Christian but doing the same efforts and then trying to align the goal of the church with the goals of these non -Christian agencies.

The reason I don't believe it is wise is because there is a primary function of us as a church, and that is to proclaim the supremacy and excellency of Christ here on earth.

And while ministering to the needs, whether within the body or outside, can be done as part of a church ministry, whether local or global, aligning ourselves with organizations that are non -Christian,

I think, jeopardizes the primary function, which is that of the gospel, and we ought not to be yoked with those who are unbelievers.

And the next question, if you could give me also a scripture reference that you would use for this, but what is the

Christian's responsibility towards government? As many of you are going to quickly figure out,

I have to look up many of these references. I wish I was like Pastor Heritage and I can not just quote the reference but also say the verse by heart.

But I believe it's Romans 13 or 14 where Paul instructs our submission to the authorities.

I'll actually turn there. I still haven't answered Pastor Heritage on the first Peter passage.

But in Romans 13, verses 1 to 7, we have the command that we must be subject to the authorities.

God has placed them there, and we see them not just as any authority in any place, but the right authority that God has placed at the right time in this right place.

And when I am under them, I need to submit to them. And I think we need to recognize that whether within the family or within the nation,

God is a God of order, and he has provided the structure within which we are to live. And so we are to live peaceably, we need to submit as long as we are not called to sin.

So I was going to have the follow -up question is, is there any opportunity where we are not to follow the government? And thank you, you did answer that.

Thank you. Excellent. Moving into anthropology at this point, how does the term federal headship, what does it mean, and why is it important to both the

Christian and the non -Christian? So when we think of federal headship, I think the passage,

I don't remember this, is from Romans 5, I think that just exemplifies how

Adam and Jesus represent us in specific ways.

So when we think of a federal head, let me maybe explain the biblical term and then why we use the term federal head.

So when Adam in the garden was given the responsibility to obey

God, to trust him and to enjoy all the blessings that God had given him, he was not just representing himself as an individual, but he was representing all of humanity as the proto -individual, as the first man.

And I think maybe the analogy here would be when we think of a nation and we have a president who represents the country and he takes a nation into war, it's not like the president alone is going to go fight.

It is the entire nation that is behind him that goes with him. Now, God had appointed, maybe

I'll just turn to Romans 5, and we see how

Adam, when he failed to obey

Christ, when he sinned, this sin is something, the guilt of the sin and the corruption of the sin, were not just inherited by him, but also by everyone under him because he is the head.

So the text that I'm thinking of is in verse 12, therefore just as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

We know that the fall in Genesis 3 has impact on every individual, not just Adam, not just Cain, not just Abel, and I think it is in Genesis 5 we see everyone dies.

The consequence, the punishment that God promised Adam didn't happen just to Adam, not just to Abel and Cain, but to every generation after him, and that was because in Adam we all fell, and theologically we call this total depravity or radical corruption.

Our nature is also tainted because of the fall, and we are unable, incapable of pleasing

God as Adam could have before he fell. I'm sorry, did

I answer your question? You did, but now for the Christian side. So we have Adam as a federal head, then how is it important for the

Christian from a federal headship as you somewhat alluded to? Thank you. So we continue to see in Romans 5 how

Jesus now gives us this free gift. In Adam everyone fell, but in Christ we now have salvation, and when we think of this idea of substitution, that Jesus' death, atoning death, the sacrifice was a substitutionary death, what we really understand is when we come under Christ, we have his righteousness transferred to us, and I think maybe we should just step back a little bit here.

When we think of Adam, Adam's sin and guilt was inherited by all of us.

Now in Christ we have our sin transferred to him and his righteousness given to us.

So we are, just as how we inherited death through Adam, we now inherited eternal life through Jesus Christ.

Excellent. Thank you. So with also that, on a similar discussion here still in anthropology, if total depravity then is there, and we have a full belief in that, is man capable of doing anything good?

And I would put good in quotes. When Adam fell,

Adam was made in the image of God. We talked about the communicable attributes earlier, and that is why we are able to reflect and do things that are moral, because we have

God's moral character in us. Through the fall, this image is tainted or marred, but it is not lost.

Now, because of the corruption that we inherit, nothing we do can please

God completely, because all of our actions are tainted by sin. So when we talk about pleasing

God for salvation, it is impossible. No man can please God, and I think

Galatians talks about it. We have the entire New Testament talking about how even if you break one command that God has revealed to his righteousness, it is as if we have broken all of the commands of God.

And no man has ever kept all of the commands of God perfectly, and no man can actually do good to God to be acceptable to him.

And that is why we need Jesus, who is the only man who lived a perfect life and obeyed all of the commandments and provides us that substitute.

When we talk about good, so people might say, here is an unbeliever and here is a believer.

When I compare their lives from a purely human perspective, this Christian seems to be such a lousy guy.

He is just doing a lot of bad things, and this non -Christian seems to be such an exemplary guy.

He just seems to be the kind of model guy that everybody should look like.

So the way we would look at that is this. Maybe I will pick with this guy first.

So this unbeliever, to the common grace of God, still has the image of God in him, though it is marred.

And he is capable of doing things like maybe helping people across the street, being kind and generous and all of those things.

So total depravity doesn't mean that every single action is as horrifically sinful as it can be, but rather that this corruption extends to all of our being, whether our thinking, our actions.

So even the best deed we do will be tainted by it. So I could be helping this person cross the street, but why am

I doing this? Am I doing this to glorify God who gave me the ability to help this person, or am I doing this because I want to feel good about myself?

So you can see how sin can come in in a lot of different ways. And in contrast, when you look at a believer who is probably—I mean a genuine believer.

I'm not saying—you know, there are people who call themselves believers, but they have no fruit to prove it. But you can have someone who is just newly converted, like I was when

I was 15 years old. The Lord just opens my eyes to some areas of sin, and the Spirit of God enables me to grow in those.

But in other areas, I'm still unaware, and I'm still sinning. And my life, or the believer's life, will be one of constant, progressive sanctification.

So you want to look at this person in a couple of years, see what's happening as the Spirit of God is working in their life, in contrast to an unbeliever who might have been in the best homes, with the best etiquettes, and the best teaching.

But here you can take the worst murderer, the criminal, and God is able to transform him into the image of Christ daily.

So moving on to pneumatology, or the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, a couple of questions here. Within the

Reformed circles, why is it that we often don't see the Holy Spirit emphasized in worship?

I'll interpret the question in a certain way, and answer if I'm not going in the right direction, if you can correct me.

I think the question is true in one sense, in that we have

Pentecostals and Charismatics who take the doctrine of the

Holy Spirit and apply it in ways that are not conforming to the text of Scripture.

So I talked earlier about experience and the Word, and so there is, among certain

Christians, there is a push for the role of the Holy Spirit in ways that are not necessarily biblical.

And maybe it's possible that in some Reformed churches that to use the Holy Spirit, to talk about the

Holy Spirit, seems scary, I don't know. Maybe that's a reason why the

Holy Spirit may not be emphasized. But I think in any true church, including the

Reformed church, we are not ashamed of the Spirit of God active in our lives.

In fact, he's the one who we talked about illumining. So we place a great experience on the text of Scripture, and in contrast to experience, we don't elevate experience over Scripture, but it is not just a dry academic study.

We rely upon the Spirit of God as we even read the pages of Scripture. We recognize, we place a strong emphasis on sanctification, and we know that without the power of the

Spirit within us, we cannot be sanctified. We talk about being filled with the Spirit in order to glorify

God with our bodies, and we cannot do that without the aid of the Spirit. Is that fair?

No, that's perfect. Perfect, thank you. One last question I have regarding, again, the Holy Spirit, and define for me, if you can, what it means when the

Holy Spirit has the act of sealing the believer. So in the end of Ephesians, I think

Ephesians 1, 12, and 13, we talk about being sealed with the

Holy Spirit. Now, one of the doctrines in Reformed theology is the perseverance of the saints, and we, well, actually, this is one of those doctrines that each member of the

Trinity is involved in. The father, no one can snatch them out of his hands. The son, whom he has died for, he will keep to the very end.

And we have the Holy Spirit, who actually seals. And the word seal is used as a guarantee, because right now, after we get saved,

I remember when I was first saved, I was super excited, and I could now see who

God is, and I'm enjoying his word. And then, it was about six months later when

I sinned, I was just shattered because I didn't understand the sealing of the Spirit or the perseverance of the saints, and I was thinking, how could

I do this to my Lord? And what happens to me now? Can I actually go into heaven?

Do I deserve to go into heaven because I have sinned? I didn't realize I'd been sinning for six months.

I just was, you know how it is. As I mentioned, as a newly saved believer, there are some areas you're just so happy that God has rescued you out of, and there are other areas the light of God's word hasn't yet illumined.

But thanks be to the Spirit of God that even as I discover, you know, I'm just being transformed daily, progressively, that the end is certain, because I now have the

Holy Spirit as a guarantee, and he who started the good work in me will finish it at the very end.

Thank you. Any follow -up questions from Harry or Steve, please?

I have a couple. You mentioned hyper -Calvinism. Would you define that, please?

I shouldn't have mentioned it. You know,

Calvinism has enough heat as it is, because people cannot comprehend the idea of God sovereignly choosing and saving people.

And I was talking to one of you this morning, and most of the times they struggle with it because they cannot understand responsibility, how sovereignty and responsibility go together.

And as Calvinists, we would say that there are some things that we just don't understand.

You know, God says you must be responsible. We say amen. God says he is sovereign, and we say amen.

And I think hyper -Calvinism stretches, and just like I think modalism, we talked about taking one

God versus three persons, takes the sovereignty of God to a degree that is unbiblical.

It loses the texts of Scripture that talk about responsibility as well.

And so when you say, you know, it's almost like all of God, and I'm no longer responsible for what

I need to do. Good. And the second question, follow -up question I had was, because you were talking about being yoked to unbelievers, et cetera, et cetera, and I wonder what your opinion would be about para -church ministries, specifically is there biblical support for para -church ministries?

That's a great question. I think the best way to answer that question is to see what does the

Bible talk about the organization or the organism?

What does God provide in the church, in the Bible, I'm giving the answer, for ministry?

And you see the church as what Jesus Christ founds and uses and works through.

So when we think of para -church, I think many of them started probably with good intentions, saying, okay, maybe there's a very small church, you're not able to do the type of things, let's try to do something outside the church or alongside the church.

And I believe that ministry needs to be coming under the headship of Christ through the body of Christ, which is the church and supported by the church.

So when we think of any of the para -church organizations that exist today, I think they need to be under the church rather than alongside or outside the church.

Excellent. Thank you. I have one follow -up question. Elder Scott, it's an excellent question on federal headship where you took us to Romans 5.

How would somebody who supports and believes in seminal headship, how can that lessen the

Pauline expressions of being in Adam and in Christ? I think

Pastor Mike told me to ask you to repeat the question if I don't know the answer. Can you rephrase it for me?

I will. Sure. Thank you. So you mentioned and you took us to the key text in Romans 5 on federal headship and you talked about Adam.

You took us back to Genesis 3 and in Christ. So those are typical Pauline phrases, of course, as you know, mentioned in other of his epistles in Christ and in Adam referring to federal headship.

But if somebody believed in seminal headship, does it lessen the impact of what

Paul means by in Christ and in Adam? And if so, how? Can I confess

I don't remember what seminal headship is. Sorry. Just a couple of follow -ups,

Pradeep. Do hyper -Calvinists believe that God loves the non -elect?

From what I've read, I don't believe so. But I don't remember.

Good. Stop there. Okay. Ministry of the

Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. In a few sentences, how would you describe his ministry?

The Holy Spirit is active. And we have several texts in the

Old Testament talking about the role of the Holy Spirit. The distinction between the old and the new is in the

New Testament, we, after the work of Christ, we have the indwelling of the spirit. So the spirit, we are baptized in the spirit when we are saved.

And he indwells us. And he does not leave us.

Whereas I think if you think of the Old Testament, we can think of passages like Samson, when the spirit of God comes upon him.

Saul, when he is filled with the spirit and starts prophesying. David, when he's anointed, he gets the spirit of God upon him.

And also in more general terms, we have the spirit of God in Genesis 1, 2, with creation and elsewhere.

I think today we saw Nehemiah 9. I don't remember the reference because it was today that we have the good spirit that God sent to his people to sustain them.

Okay. Thank you. How about Abraham? Saved by the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the

Old Testament. Could he lose that indwelling? I won't use indwelling.

Could he lose the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit in the

Old Testament? Could he lose his salvation?

No. Because when we think of salvation, I don't believe that there is a difference in the way in which salvation operated in the

Old and the New Testament. It is always by faith. God elects and chooses whom he would save, both in the

Old and the New Testaments. The Old Testament saints were looking forward to the work of Christ, whereas we can look back at what

Christ has accomplished. So everything that is true of us as believers is also true of the Old Testament saints in terms of God having chosen them in eternity past and what he has started that he would accomplish.

In terms of the spirit abiding, certainly because I think the passage that I can think of is mainly when

Saul and David are contrasted in terms of how God works in them. This is why

I'm not so sure how to say how the spirit of God operated in Abraham's life, because in Saul's case, we have him as the first king chosen in spite of God telling them not to choose a king, but God was with Saul and helped him.

And Saul then chooses to be disobedient, and then God takes away his spirit and gives the spirit to David.

And you can see how David, through his ups and downs and his following after God, abides.

And when I think of Abraham and David, they seem similar in terms of people who trusted the Lord fully. And so I would say that the spirit of God was with Abraham, but I can't remember a text that would support that for me.

Would you say that the Holy Spirit's ministry to Old Testament believers like Abraham was a permanent abiding soteriological presence?

The only thing I do know is that there was no indwelling. But when I think of the ministry of the

Holy Spirit in soteriology, I cannot see how that is not.

I believe that that must be true. I just don't remember the text to support what

I'm saying. Excellent. Because if, since we do believe in whole depravity or utter depravity, we would need the

Holy Spirit to not only save, but to sanctify seal and keep. Correct? Yes, that is correct.

Okay, good. All right, we move to Pastor Steve now when it comes to his categories of soteriology, which we touched on a little bit, and eschatology, please.

Yeah, now that the easy questions are out of the way. Dr. Tilak, how would you define free will?

When people normally use the term free will, they are thinking in terms of libertarian free will, which is you could just do whatever you wanted if you just choose to do it.

So I like to do X, and I am able to do X. And so this whole controversy between sovereignty of God and free will

I think lies on a false premise because free will or the will of man is actually bound by his nature.

And I think in simple terms, as an individual, I can only will what

I have a desire for. If I am incapable of willing because my heart is so bent toward evil that I cannot will for the good, then although I am free to choose, my choices are within the sphere of who

I am and my nature in and of itself. So the only person who had free will would have been

Adam before the fall because at that point his nature was... I think the only person who would have had free will...

Oh, sorry. Thank you. Jesus Christ was not...

Okay, I am going to say that there is one more. Okay. Adam, Jesus, and...

She was kind of hanging around with... Oh, Eve. Thank you. Thank you.

She was in the garden. Yes, yes, before the fall. Okay. Would you explain justification?

So in Romans 5, when we look at justification, the term has broad meanings, but the primary meaning in which we look at, especially in Romans 5, when we talk about being right with God, is a declaration that God declares us to be not guilty.

It's a legal term that Paul uses where because of the substitutionary atonement that has happened,

God no longer sees our sin and calls us guilty. He has placed the sin upon Christ.

He has given Christ's righteousness to us, and therefore it's a declaration, a legal standing that we have when we are justified to say that we are not guilty.

Okay, good. For whom did Christ die, and will they all be saved?

And could you be specific biblically? Christ died for the elect, and this has to do with limited atonement or unlimited atonement.

When Christ died on the cross, did Christ die for everyone and make possible for those who would believe to be saved, or did

Christ die explicitly for those who were chosen, called, and saved?

And I believe while there are texts that look at both sides of the issue, when we look at the overarching theme of the

Scriptures, looking at the sovereignty of God in election, when we look at even

Jesus' declaration on the cross saying it is finished, I believe that the

Scripture is overwhelming that the death of Christ was for those whom he came to save and those who were called.

And in terms... I'm sorry, what was the second part of your question?

Well, I want to ask a clarifying question first. Is there a Scripture that teaches unlimited atonement?

I used to know a lot of verses as an Arminian, but I can't remember one right now.

It's all being drummed out of my head. I'll tell you... But I need to be clear.

Is there a verse taught rightly and understood rightly that teaches that Christ died for every single person?

No, I don't believe so. All right. And now would you...

Can you think of a couple of examples of Jesus in Scripture dying only for the elect, as you said?

Okay. Can I take a look? Absolutely. I'd like to think this is open

Bible. Okay. I can think of a couple of passages, but I'm not sure if it specifically talks about...

The passage I was thinking of was actually Ephesians 1, but I'm trying to see...

Because there it begins with those who are chosen and then walks down what God has done for them.

But I don't think it talks about the... I could probably draw an inference from there. Okay, can you think of a place where maybe

Jesus says that he died for the sheep? You're thinking of John 10.

Yes. Yeah. That's right. He lays down his life for the sheep.

Thank you. I love pastor Steve. I'm happy to be right. It's exciting.

Along those same lines, since you were kind of going there anyway and maybe we've sort of circled around this, would you define...

Well, first of all, do you believe in the covenant of redemption? Maybe. Can I explain what it is?

Well, that would be my next one. I was just asking yes or no, if you believe in it. Yes. And now would you explain what the covenant of redemption is?

Okay. Can I maybe take a little bit longer to explain this? Okay, sure.

Just a couple of more seconds. Because normally... This is very confusing for me, and I'm sure it may be confusing for others here too.

So when we think of covenant, covenant is like a contract that God makes with his people. And when we think of covenants, in my mind at least,

I have three things, three categories in mind. One of them is when the Bible actually says covenant, God made a covenant with Abraham.

And so you have those covenants which are explicitly drawn on. Like in Genesis 12, you see the ritual of the covenant.

15, I think, 12, 15, and 17. And then you have the covenantal themes.

And I think Pastor Mike talked about 2 Samuel 7, where the word covenant is not used, but that is a covenant happening where God is having a pact, an unconditional one, with David in the

Davidic covenant. So those are the two that we are normally used to in the biblical sense. But then the covenant of redemption, covenant of works, and the covenant of grace are the theological covenants that we can look at the scriptures and say, here are some broader ways in which

God has covenanted, either with himself or with his people, in terms of what he is going to accomplish.

So while these are not necessarily... Well, you can infer them from certain texts. The first two, you can actually go to the text and then identify them.

But the covenant of redemption is one of those... is the covenant that God makes with himself, that he would redeem his people from their sin.

So this is in eternity past, between the father, son, and the spirit, that he would call a people for himself.

Okay, now can you think of any biblical references that would teach the covenant, or would infer, imply, from which we could infer the covenant of redemption?

You know, I just keep going back to Ephesians 1. That's a good place to go to.

Thank you. And, you know, and I think even just think of the nature of God.

God is not someone who is reacting to events in time and space.

God knows in eternity past what must be done. He decrees in eternity past what must be done.

And I think inferentially it is impossible to work past the covenant of redemption because this is something that God the

Father ordains, God the Son is willingly accomplishing, and the Spirit of God is involved in making it actually happen.

Excellent. Excellent. Thank you. I want to ask you this because it's right up your alley here.

How does one's understanding of the sinfulness of man inform his evangelism, your gospel presentation?

So there are, when we look at evangelism, in the church there are people who have a love for the lost and want to give them the good news, the message that they can be right with God.

And if you have a wrong view of anthropology,

I can end up trying to somehow convince this person through my skill, my friendship, my tactics, into coming into the kingdom.

But on the other hand, when we recognize the depravity of man, that it is really

God who does the saving, then my focus in evangelism is really not so much about tactics, but rather about faithfulness.

Because when we trust in the gospel as the power of God unto salvation, I am trying to be as faithful to the message about who

God is, who Jesus Christ is, and what their desperate need to repent and believe, rather than maybe, you know, if I want to be nice,

I kind of tone down their sinfulness, or make this gospel a little more attractive, or do some other thing to, you know, create an environment for this person to believe.

My focus should always be, I am evangelizing, yes, with a love for the lost, but primarily as one who is faithful to Christ and rely primarily and purely on the gospel in evangelism.

So would this be a fair characterization, then it takes away the almost compulsion, or the sense in which you are selling, you know, or making a sales presentation, trying to convince or compel somebody to believe.

That's right. Okay. Because we trust, knowing that God is the one who is sovereign, and he will save, he will save those who are his,

I think it takes away the pressure of being a salesman, and saying, Lord, I have been faithful to you, and it is your pleasure to save those who are yours.

So there is no longer a salesman mentality. And I'm not trying to trick anyone into the gospel, into the kingdom, but I'm just giving them what they need, and let the word of God do its work.

Good. Now let's go to some more simple stuff. Eschatology. What is meant now, some of these things we may not agree on,

I don't know. What is meant by the thousand years in Revelation 20? I think we do agree on that.

Revelation 20, I believe it's literal. It's talking about the millennium that Christ will come and rule.

Okay. So you don't take it in any kind of picture way? Okay, fine, good.

Would you define for us briefly all three millennial sets, meaning amillennialism, premillennialism, and postmillennialism?

Okay. I honestly didn't know about ah and post until I started going to seminary.

Amillennialism holds the position that, you know, there is no literal millennial, there is no millennial kingdom.

When anyone dies, they go up to be with God, and, you know, God comes back and he judges.

That's pretty much a simple rendering of amillennialism. Postmillennialism has a slightly more optimistic view that because of the church age, that as the gospel is proclaimed, that things will get better and that it ushers in this, not thousand, but an extended period of time when things are going well before Christ comes back.

Whereas a premillennial rule, we,

I think many of us here hold to it and that's the position that I've studied well, talks about how things actually get worse as time moves on.

And then we have, well actually, premillennialism has a couple of flavors.

So if you have a pre -trib, premillennialism, you have the seven -year, and that's what

I hold to where you have the seven -year period. We have the rapture either during that time before or middle, and that's when

Christ calls the believers up, and then during the seven years you have people who are saved, and then the thousand -year rule when

Jesus rules here on earth. Okay. And would you say, you said you're premillennial.

Okay, well, let's just move on to this. What is, another eschatological system here, what is preterism?

I know the answer, but I can't remember it right now.

I can give you a hint. Okay. It has to do with fulfilled prophecy. That's okay, it's not that hard.

How about theonomy? Theonomy, yes.

Okay. So theonomy is the rule of God, and so in Old Testament Israel, we had

God ruling over his people, and up on, well, and theonomy today, is that where you're?

So today people want to have

God's rule here on earth brought through an application of biblical rules in society, and I don't believe theonomy is the mandate of the church today.

Christ will come back and rule, but we are not here as his agents to enforce it like it was in Israel.

Okay. So you would, to summarize what you're saying, then you would say that theonomy is

Christians trying to establish, say, the Ten Commandments as the law of the land. That's right.

So it's not just, if you think of Ten Commandments as the church here, we would say these are the principles that reflect the character of God that was given specifically to the people of Israel when

God ruled over them, and nine out of those ten are actually commands for us as believers in the

New Testament, so we are under God's law as believers, but we don't believe that these are commands that are to be enforced in society, like let's say

I get elected a president. I was not born here. But, you know, so it's not my duty under Christ to somehow enforce theonomy and then usher in God's kingdom.

My responsibility is to make sure that the word of God is applied to the church, and we are evangelizing to the world.

Okay. Why should we study eschatology? What's the significance of it for the believer? I think it is twofold.

One is it gives us great encouragement. I think when we look at the world and all that happens, and in our limited time frame we can get very discouraged at the loss of morality or the chaos that ensues in various places, and we need to always remember that Christ is coming back.

He will rule with equity, with justice, with authority. No man can thwart his will when he comes back.

On the flip side, I think as believers in our sanctification, we need to remember that the

Lord could come back at this very moment, and we want to live every moment for him because the next moment may be our last before we meet

Christ up in the air. One last question on this. What would you, or what is meant, how would you define ethical eschatology?

The second answer that I gave is probably what I would use to a,

I'm sorry. So in other words, well, I don't want to answer, but living in the here and now, is that what you're saying?

Living in light of eternity because Christ is coming back soon, and I need to live a holy life.

I think Peter talks about that when, you know, what kind of people ought we to be that Christ is coming back soon.

So our life ought to be characterized by holiness and sanctification and living for the

Lord rather than saying, oh, the Lord is tarrying. Let me just lay back and do what

I want, live for the world. Okay, thank you. Follow -up questions from Harry or Scott regarding these soteriological and eschatological categories?

So I just have three quick questions, very brief responses. I don't need a lot of detail on them. But when does, you spoke about the declaration of justification for the believer.

When does that occur? Is it upon salvation, somewhere in between that, or when we face

God upon death? So, okay,

I'll give you the short answer. I know there's a little bit more complexity to this. But the short answer is this.

So when in the order of salvation, God is the one who elects. He's the one who regenerates, so he gives us a new heart.

And then after that, we have repentance and belief, the conversion. Because God gives me a new heart, I repent of my sin and I believe in him.

And justification follows right after that because we are declared as not guilty.

I know there is a text that also talks, well, just for the sake of completeness.

So you have justification, and then we are being sanctified, and one day we will be glorified. And so the short answer is yes.

And maybe I'll just stop there. That's fine. So it's upon salvation rather than justified upon glorification in essence.

Yes, yes. And then another quick one is, you talked a little bit about the will of God or the decrees of God.

Can you talk a little bit about the wills of God or if there are different wills of God as we see in Scripture? Are you referring to the revealed will and the secret will?

Yes. So what we know of in the Scripture is

God's revealed will, what God has done. And now there are some things in life that we will actually figure out post -fact because God is sovereign.

When we walk through life, we can look back and say that was God's will, whether good or bad from a human perspective.

This is what was God's will that is accomplished, and therefore I know this is what God's decree was all along.

And then the secret will of God is His. That is not known to us, and we operate on the basis of God's revealed will.

And lastly, real brief, we know that there are different views, as you had already talked about, from the millennial kingdom, eschatology in that way.

How can we still be in union with brothers and sisters who maybe hold a different view? That's, I think, very important because unity in the body is vital, but it is unity on the essentials.

So when we talk about things like the gospel, any church that claims to be a church but doesn't hold on to the pure gospel about who

God is, who Jesus is, how man must be saved, we would not have unity with them.

When it comes to eschatology, there are difficulties in understanding some of the texts from Revelation or Daniel that we look at.

And so these are brothers in Christ who have differing views in terms of how the end time will play out.

As long as those who are differing can acknowledge that Christ is coming, he's coming soon, and we ought to be eagerly anticipating him,

I think we can certainly have fellowship with them. Excellent. Great. Thank you. I have one follow -up question.

I'll try to make this quick. It's on the question Pastor Steve asked on limited versus unlimited atonement.

For whom did Christ die? I'm going to take you to a specific passage. You don't have to turn there until you're familiar with it.

Not John 3 .16, but the very next verse, John 3 .17. Christ says, For God, the

Father, did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Now, if we took the case of unlimited atonement, that in that verse the term world means everybody who has ever lived since the beginning of time, if we said that's what it means, then what possible heresies can result if we said that that term world meant that God sent the

Son into the world to not condemn everybody who has ever lived, but to save everybody who has ever lived? What possible heresies can result from that?

That would be universalism. And I think both there and 1 John 2 too, people can misunderstand what the all or the world means instead of every category of people, or to just say if it is everyone, then that would be counter to a whole bunch of scriptures that talk about hell and the damnation of the lost.

All right, Pradeep, thank you. We are wrapping things up, so this is going to be more of a lightning round.

So I'd like you to answer these questions as succinctly as possible.

All right, a sentence or two. Is Roman Catholicism a cult? Yes. That was a good short answer.

Okay. Fifteen seconds or less, what is the gospel?

God is our creator. He is holy. Man was created in God's image, but due to the fall is corrupted, sinful, and worthy of God's wrath.

A man is incapable of pleasing God, and therefore we needed someone to rescue us, and that was

Jesus Christ, the perfect God, perfect man who lived the perfect life on our behalf and gave it freely to us, and we need to repent of our sin and believe in the finished work of Jesus Christ in order to be saved.

Did you miss anything in that presentation? Oh, the resurrection of Jesus. If there is no resurrection, then is it a gospel?

No, because the atonement of Christ was vindicated by the resurrection.

God was pleased with the sacrifice of Jesus. Regeneration or faith, which one's first? Regeneration. Can you think of a verse that would help you prove that?

If he was Armenian, maybe he'd remember. No. That's okay. 1 John 5 is where I would go.

Okay. Can you think of anyone who is in what we would call hell today?

Any particular people by name that you know for sure are in hell? No. Oh, Judas.

Okay. Yes, sorry. Goliath? Yes, probably.

Okay. Yeah. You need to trust in God to be saved, and there are many people who have given evidence of not trusting him when they died.

Literal fire in hell, yes or no? Yes. Theme of the book of Numbers.

The recounting of, it has a counting of the people of God in the beginning, and then the second generation, and then this is the people who came out, and now the next generation who are going to be going into the promised land.

Theme of the book of Job. God's sovereignty in suffering and God's greatness.

Theme of the book of 1 Corinthians. God's counsel to a church in sin.

Theme of the book of James. Work out your salvation. You need to live the faith that you believe.

What is the difference between faith and faithfulness? Faith is trusting in the work of another, in the work of Jesus Christ.

Faithfulness is being obedient to the gospel. What is the difference between Judas and Peter after they sinned?

Judas had remorse. Peter repented of his sin. He looked to God for forgiveness.

What is the danger of looking up only English definitions for words like foreknowledge?

We tend to use the common use. So for foreknowledge we would think that I know facts in advance, whereas when we think of the biblical term, the way it is used, it is knowing persons or choosing persons rather than facts about that person or what they have done.

Different degrees of punishment in hell? Yes. Different degrees of rewards in heaven?

Yes. I am going to list a variety of covenants. You tell me if they are taught in the

Bible either explicitly or implicitly. Edenic? I would say yes.

Noahic? Yes. Abrahamic? Yes. Davidic? Yes. What chapter would the Davidic covenant be in?

2 Samuel 7. You have talked about the covenant of redemption.

Is there a verse that talks about the covenant of works? The covenant of works is the works with Adam.

So we could look at the command in Genesis 2 where God prohibits the eating of the fruit.

How about Hosea 6 -7? Oh, yes. That is right. That uses the covenant language there.

Imputed righteousness or infused? Imputed. Active and passive obedience, what is the difference?

This is of Christ. Correct. Yes. So Christ fulfilled the law and did all things well.

And I am not able to remember the passive.

So that would be his active obedience. And then what was done to him at the cross we would consider his passive obedience.

Thank you. Will you ever perform a homosexual marriage? No. What is a tetragrammaton?

Four. Oh. Yahweh. So the four letters without vowels.

Is it sinful to drink alcohol? No. Was Satan real?

Yes. Is submission a sign of inferiority?

No. How would you defend your position? I think primarily from the submission of Christ to God the

Father. And they are equal. And it is a position, a function.

And the Son gladly and willingly submits to the Father. And there is no inferiority there. Okay. Great.

Let's see. We are almost done. Do you believe in body, soul, and spirit? Or body, soul, flesh, spirit? Body, dichotomy.

Soul and spirit are interchangeable in the Bible. Can psychological counseling contribute anything to the

Christian sanctification? No. Are you sure? Yes. Do you want me to expand on it?

No, that's okay. I kind of like lightning rounds, so we are just going to keep going. Are there any human works that contribute to justification?

No. I can expand. Sure. Okay. So on our part, because we are tainted, no works that we can do can contribute to it.

Jesus Christ is the only one who did all the works necessary. And it is what is counted toward us as righteousness.

So the work is not our work, but it's the work of Jesus Christ. Excellent. Purgatory, biblical, unbiblical, why?

Unbiblical, there is no evidence in the Bible for it. When we die, we are to face God for our judgment.

We don't have a place to pay off our sin. Has the father ever been angry with the son?

When he poured out his wrath on the cross. Was he treating him as if he was angry, or was he angry at him?

He was angry at him. Are you sure? Because Jesus was counted as sin on our behalf,

I believe that is true. Was the son being obedient to the father at that time?

Yes, he was. Was the father angry at the son's disobedience? He counted him as sin, but I do not know...

Would it be fair to say that he treated him as if he was angry, yet he wasn't angry because he was doing exactly what the father wanted him to do?

It makes sense. After this whole time, we were going to pass him and he was going to fail the last question.

We would teach that he became obedient to the point of death, even death on the cross. And so, from the human eye, we would look at Christ and think with the darkness and the earthquake and everything that the father was treating him like he was angry, yet he wasn't.

He was just judging the sin as Jesus was the sin bearer. Would that be all right? That would certainly be all right.

Is it biblical to name names of false teachers from the pulpit or any kind of teaching scenario?

Yes, the Bible names names of false teachers. And the purpose of leadership in the body is to not just instruct on sound doctrine, but also to expose false doctrine and guard the sheep against falsehood.

If the heathen have not or anyone else has not heard the gospel and they die, are they lost?

Yes. What is the most biblical form of church government?

Plurality of elders. Is there any voting in the New Testament? No. I know that people use

Acts 15 normally as a proof text for it. How would you counsel someone to make decisions, a biblical paradigm for making decisions?

So, if there is an explicit command of Scripture, obey it. If there is principles that apply to the specific decision, look at the

Scripture to get those principles and apply it. Get counsel from godly believers and then submit your way before the

Lord and do what pleases you. And finally, my last question.

What is your favorite flavor of ice cream at Rodas? I don't know.

Well, Pradeep, it has been a real joy.

I would say on behalf of the elder board as well. As we see men like yourself come to the church and learn and grow and we recognize what the

Lord is doing in you and your wife and family, we are very happy and very pleased and very joyful that God uses people like you for his kingdom work and to work alongside of you.

And I know you've been a blessing to the congregation at Bethlehem Bible Church and frankly many other congregations in the

New England area and across the world. And we want to express our love to you and for you and we hope you stay for a very long time.

We will go have some ice cream afterwards. You and your family, of course, are invited for that.

And then next Sunday, please be here for your installation sermon because it's for you.

So I expect you here. And after that, we'll have a luncheon celebration for what the

Lord has done. All right. Pastor Steve, why don't you close us in prayer? Pradeep, I know you're probably tired, but why don't, as Pastor Steve is praying, if you'd come down to the door over here and as people leave, they can greet you.

And one last time, aren't you glad for what the Lord has done in Pradeep and Sunita's life? God is good.

God is good. I'm overwhelmed by the love of the saints. Thank you. All right.

Let's pray. Our Father in heaven, we just thank you so much for your servant

Pradeep Tilak, how you have shaped him and taught him by your spirit, by godly men over the years.

Lord, we would pray that you would continue to sanctify him, continue to use him here to sanctify the saints here, to equip us for the works of ministry.

Father, we just would pray that you would continue to raise up godly men and women to serve you from our numbers.

Lord, that you would provide us more elders, more pastors, missionaries, just the gifts that you give the church.

We pray that you would just give us more here. Father, we just rejoice that you would take such a man and just give him such knowledge of your word and a love for you and for your people.