THE FORGING TABLE | Romans 11:5-10 (Ep. 989)

Hey guys, real quick. So, I've talked to men literally all across the globe about where they're missing the mark and how they want to improve. They normally talk about how they wish they were in better shape. They wish they had a better relationship with their loved ones. They wish they had more success and influence at work and some other stuff like that. But here are some of the most common and biggest things that I hear. I wish I knew more about the Bible. I wish I could lead my family spiritually. I wish I could recall more scripture. I wish Bible study wasn't such a struggle. Well, guys, I've got news for you. You don't have to keep wishing. It's time for you to start doing. It's time for you to stop wasting your time and money on stuff that has no eternal value whatsoever. I keep hearing you talk about how you want to be more biblically literate and spiritually resilient. And now is your chance to prove that you mean it. That's why I want you to take advantage of our partnership with the most powerful Bible software on planet Earth, Logos. So, Logos approached me about putting something together for the Undaunted Lifers out there, and we collaborated to create something I'm super pumped about, the Undaunted Life Study Bundle. So, here's the skinny on the bundle. There are over 200 individual resources and they include titles from authors like Vodie Bacham, Charles Spurgeon, RC Sproul, John MacArthur, Matt Chandler, Dietrich Bonhaofer, William Lane, Craig, Paul Washer, John Sto, Doug Wilson, Paul David Trip, Jipacker, and a whole bunch more. And there are so many helpful resources in there. There's Bibles, commentaries, Old and New Testament study guides, devotionals, systematic theologies courses dictionaries histories encyclopedias non-fiction books, and more and more and more. And here's the most insane part about this deal. If you were to buy each individual resource by yourself inside of Logos, it would cost you over $3,000. $3,000. But if you get the Undaunted Life Study bundle, you'll get all 200 plus resources for just $349.99, guys. That's $3,000 worth of stuff for 350 bucks, guys. That's almost 90% off. And you know that you waste more than that on the hobbies that you have right now all the time. And these won't help you with your disciplehip and sanctification journeys, right? It's time to get real and take control of your Bible study and spiritual development. Click the link in the show notes for this episode. If you want the link, it's logos.com/undauntedlife. That's www.llog.com/undauntedlife or the link in the show notes. It's super easy to sign up. Again, go to the show notes and click the link or go to logos.comlife. Sign up for Logos and get the Undaunted Life study bundle right now. Hey guys, real quick. I just wanted to remind you that we have an official Undaunted Life store. You can go to shop.undaunted.life or check it out in the show notes. Guys, we're always going to have hats and shirts and a bunch of other awesome stuff. Go there, support us, wear the mission. Again, it's shop.undaunted.life. Check out the link in the show notes. Shop.undaunted.life. This is Undaunted Life, a man's podcast. I'm your host, Kyle Thompson. Let's get into it. Welcome back to the forging table. The mission of Undaunted Life is equipping men to push back darkness with content that forges spiritual, mental, and physical resilience. At the forging table, you'll see a group of regular guys forging spiritual resilience by digging into God's word. We're welcoming all of you to come along on that journey with us. That's Ryan. That's Matt. That's Russell. Russell, I cannot believe the apostasy that I not Don't interrupt me. I just started. You know where this is going. Matt, I need you to hold up the cockroach. >> I was going to ask you the same thing. Hold up the shirt. >> I don't know what >> when we when we go to the shirt here, if we can go to Matt's camera, if uh the guy can see it. So, right there on the right arm of the there, there is a uh there's a Christmas tree cake, right? Uh so, shout out to the best dessert cake of all time. >> And it's pretty stellar. >> Doesn't last too long. >> And Russell uses. Yeah. Don't save a box and open it the next year. It's not a pleasant experience. >> You had the temerity to call it a cupcake >> a cupcake. >> Yeah. >> Why in the world would you refer to one of the greatest? >> It's more You called it a cake. It's more of the size of a cupcake than it is an actual cake. >> Let's see what the box says. If I had a box with me, [sighs] >> a cupcake. >> They're coming soon. >> That's so That's so offensive cuz I'm I bet you it's going to say I'm laughing. You know what? It was It was actually made in a tin cup. Just like >> Here we go. Uh, five individually wrapped snack cakes. Snackakes. Kind of cupcakes. >> Snack cakes. >> It's a cake. It's like a little cake. B. >> All right. Look up the uh Look up the description of a cupcake. Look up the description. >> I'm doing it right now. >> The description of a cupcake. >> A cupcake. >> Where are you searching? >> Uh oh. >> A lot. a former former Thunder player who left to make more money and oh wait I was talking about Kevin Durant. I'm sorry that's not what it was. >> Oh different cupcake. All right [laughter] something for the news. This is not going to make sense in like a month. >> Uh everybody knows about when he left OKC Thunder the >> Okay. Wow. This is this is >> All right. small individual cake baked in a cupshaped mold or paper liner, often topped with icing or frosting. I've got that baked in a small >> That was baked in a small tin. >> But is this a But is it a cup? >> Read the whole thing. >> It doesn't say a cup. It says baked in. >> That wasn't They didn't do that in a tin. >> A cup in a cupshaped mold or paper liner. >> There's no way they did that. What they did is they created a big old thing of >> cup. >> Well, a circle is a cup. I mean, like that's a cup. You have a little cup. >> I feel like I feel like you got I feel like you just got Islam dilemma right there where where they're like where they're like, "Can God li God can't lie?" >> Did Jesus lie? No, Jesus didn't lie. They're like, "So Jesus is whenever we were talking about Kyle's tattoo and he was showing us what was going to go next." I said the doorway should be in the shape of the cupcake. >> And three of us understood what I was talking about. And Kyle acted like because I used the word cupcake. He had no idea. >> Words are important. I know words are hard for some people, some more than others. >> What What did it call it? A small What should I have called it? Aake. A small snack. So, is that how you've been telling people like look at this? This picture of a small snack cake. >> No, I'm like, here's a slice of heaven. Would you like some? That's how I describe it to people. >> Okay. Well, that's more air. >> Let's go and talk about since we're down this road, let's go and talk about the production of this because what the Christmas tree cake is is it's two layers of golden cake, cream feeling, >> creaming feeling cream feeling. [laughter] >> Sorry. Uh, white coating, uh, red icing and green sugar. All right, that's what we got. So, basically, this is how they do it. They bake a large continuous sheet of yellow cake. Then, they add the cream. Then, they cut and stamp the trees. They coat the entire cake with the with the the icing. Okay. >> Then then they decorate it on the conveyor belt and they cool it and they wrap it and they put it up in a box. At no point do we see that? >> I stand corrected. I stand corrected. So, did you did you know before reading that that they were all baked in one sheet and then cut out? >> No, but I'm glad it is now cuz it solidified. >> It makes more sense if you're going to have to create multiple cakes. >> Now, now it makes more sense now that we know it. But I wasn't sitting here thinking [laughter] more sense. just what would be ridiculous is just putting in a mold and sending a mold through. Like it just >> over here like I had a dream and in the dream I was right and you were wrong. Total Candace Owens move, bro. >> I totally I totally disagree with you right now. >> I'm getting bered. I've already said you're right. It was I didn't know that it was baked as one sheet of cake. I'll beat you when you're down kind of right. >> This is the This is where I have been shown the error of my way. >> Yeah. The fight's not over until the other person's dead. Not when they're down till they're dead. Right. Is the dead horse dead? Even dead? >> Stop. Stop. [laughter] He's already dead. >> Hey, I didn't have the [clears throat] right words. It's just like how it just happened. >> I still think we all understood what I was talking about when I said the cupcake on the tattoo of the shirt. >> He's trying to buy it back. So you But you you you sprinkled that. That's what happened. That's the only But you're saying it makes sense now that it's been explained to you. Not unlike the Jews who came to Christ after it had been explained to them. You show me that >> I had something I wanted to say and he has to go right into it. >> My bad. >> I'm just saying Russ made me think because like he's not using the right words and like when he was reading the last passage last time he said the tribe of Benjamin. >> Well, you said remnant as if there's another [laughter] syllable. >> Hold on. Are you coming after me for something that happened an hour ago? YOU'VE BEEN SAVING THAT FOR THAT LONG. >> NO, JUST WAIT. JUST WAIT. I literally went back and looked. I was like, have I been pronouncing it wrong? Is there an R in there? [laughter] Dude, I say everything wrong. Why do you think I always look over there before Benjamin? I was like I was like, "Oh man, >> it was it was my what do you want to call it?" Like Baronstein Bears Butterfly. >> So I say I also So what drives Tiffany crazy? I say Sprite. >> I was like, "Give me a Sprite." Sprite. >> Sprite. >> And I guess it's Sprite. >> I don't know. She says that I throw an extra syllable in there all the time. But that's why I always ask y'all will say something like the same word. >> That's what I say [laughter] >> all the time. Give me a Wait, wait, sorry. Sorry. Say it again. >> Sprite. >> Yeah. >> All right. That one's a Sprite. It's just Sprite. >> Sprite. I guess I I put it. >> Yeah. >> I heard the on that syllab. Yeah. >> Sprite. Just Sprite. >> Sprite. But she she would say that I haven't always done it, that I started doing it. I would say I've always called it that. And she was like, "No, you I would have noticed." >> Well, a couple weeks ago, I think I can't remember what you were saying, but you struggle with expository. I think you said >> I say stupid words. >> Yeah. >> Toward the end cuz you didn't know. [laughter] >> Exactly. >> What's the word that Joby got on me about? Uh, >> sensationist. Sensationalist. >> Y'all say expository a lot more than I do. You know, like >> you Calvinists just use these words all the time. You Calvinist. >> You Calvinist. What do you mean you Calvinist? >> Would Would y'all consider me a Calvinist? >> You're pretty I'm going to say you're about three and a half four. I'd say you're pretty close. >> Three and half. What? >> Three and a half or four. >> I heard a completely different word and I'm going to leave that. Well, that's going to go back to my bad [laughter] and four. Oh my. I'm like, what did I do catching strays over here? But okay. But yeah. So, I guess I'm a Calvinist now. Did you just declare it? >> No, I'm I'm just saying >> he decreed it. >> I'm saying I'm not good with these these words. I don't know what to do with my hands. This >> No, you do a good job. The thing is just say it with confidence and then people won't question it. >> Well, I I thought I thought I did with Benjamin. >> Oh, there it was again. There >> is not. Dude, I literally had to go look it up. I'm like, have I been saying it wrong? >> Benjamin. Benjamin. >> There we go. >> But we've helped, Ryan. We've helped you over the years with some words that you've kind of struggled with. Like the new We just gave you a new one. It's just remnant. Not remnant or remnant. >> Remnant. >> Just remnant. Just remnant. No, just remnant. Remnant. >> It's just remnant. >> He's doing the He's doing the syllable thing. >> Sprite. No, no, that's not [laughter] >> Sprite. >> Benjamin, give me a Sprite. >> There was actually something you said like about eight weeks ago. That was a word that I'm just kidding cuz I would not have remembered that. >> Say like you should have. [laughter] That would have been awesome. I was like, "Please tell me." There probably was. >> There definitely was. >> Yeah. Matt, a year ago, the last time you were on, I swear you said, "Yeah, that." Okay. [laughter] >> Well, the last episode he said Benjamin. I was like, is it I had to look it up. >> Is this cuz we have the Don't Tell Terry. We have the the Joby, sorry, Joby jar. Like, what do we say for when we say last week? How many words in Spanish did I get for sure? >> My Spanish is so good that I didn't see you get anything or hear you get anything wrong. So, >> thank you. I thought it was really well. I was like, made me want a taco, not going [clears throat] to lie. I [laughter] was like, I want to go. >> That's racist. >> To Soloa. No, I really did. I wanted to go. I was hungry. I'm still hungry. >> Should we just cut? [laughter] >> Why? Like you could We could have just went right into the rest. >> I just wanted to mess with you so bad. >> Why? >> Oh man. >> I really do want some El Pastor tacos right now. I'm hungry. >> Yeah. Let's get even more specific. That could possibly make it worse. I'll read the outro. >> Are those the ones with the pork like >> the pineapple and everything? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And they're like, "It's red." >> Put a little lime on there. >> I mean, I'm hungry, too, but I would comment. Would have left the comment. >> I know. I'm sorry. I said stupid comment. I'm just going to need a big transition here. They called me. >> So, the the Spanish was good. It was It was very um a good attempt. And I think going to Spain to learn the language would be a better way to do it, to actually go there, to immerse yourself in the culture, to learn Spanish. kind of like what Paul wanted to do as he was writing the letter to the Romans. He wanted to go evangelize to Spain. >> So we should So we No, I don't think he did. >> So we should get into that. It's not my best work. >> I already did one. I already did. >> You should have just given him time and he would have gotten there. >> He just You had too much dust on the saddle. You know, we're just getting back in the groove and then you're about to not come back on for a few months. That's just kind of the way that it goes. Goodness. But we do need to get into Romans 11. Uh we're going to start our discussion with verses five and six. Uh >> can I read it to redeem myself? >> Uh do you want to take that risk? There are big words in here with multiple syllables. So okay. Uh but uh you didn't tell I didn't get to say what I was going to say, but uh let's go ahead and read one through six. >> Go ahead and finish what you were say through six. >> Oh, I have to read one through six. >> Okay. See, so a little bit of a surprise because if it's just five and six, we might lose the thread just a little bit. But if we go back to one, uh it go. So you're going to Brian Mcnite this thing. Start back at one through six [laughter] >> again. You're like a dream come true. [gasps] Two. >> Y'all remember that time that we played the game where you had to sing the songs and none of us could do it. And then you had like No, the one that had the word >> the word and you had to sing like a Christian song. >> And then we found out that he just made up half of them. He was like if you just say the word >> he freestyled this thing. But here we go. Did you turn my mic off? >> Uh, no I did not. If you kept singing your way through the chorus of that song, I would have, but you know, you cut it off. 1 through six, please. >> All right. All right. I asked then, has God rejected his people? By no means, for I myself, an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he forneew. Do you know what the scripture says of Elijah? How he appeals to God against Israel? Lord, they have killed your prophets. They have demolished your altars. And I alone am left, and they seek my life. But what is God's reply to him? I have kept for myself 7,000 men who have not bowed the knee to Bal to two. So too, at the present time, there is a remnant remnant chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace. >> Fantastic. Well, one thing about this section of scripture, and this is one of the concerns that I have that looking back, I'm like, crap. Like, my my understanding of certain subjects was bad because I would either proof text something myself or I would be experiencing a presentation or a sermon from somebody that was proof texting. They decided what they wanted their four to six week series to be. Then they found scripture to kind of back into, you know, here's how to be a better person sermons. When I read verse two, God has not rejected his people whom he forneew. I literally wrote in my notes forneew equals causation. Because a lot of people will make that argument when you're in these, you know, reformed arguments or, you know, Calvinist theology, whatever. It's like, wait, wait. Is like, did God [clears throat] know what was going to happen or did he force it to happen? Like irresistible grace. Okay, so you had no other choice. Like you were wired like a robot would be programmed in order to do this particular thing. But then when you look at the the breadth of the letter and you go back to Romans 8, right? So Romans 8 28 through39. Uh like that's that kind of [clears throat] gives you the whole section. Do you have 29 in front of you? Romans 8:29. Whoever gets there first wins. Uh read Romans 8:29. >> For those whom he forneew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. So that's Romans 8:29. You read Romans 11:2 and you're like, "Wait a minute." But don't stop. Keep reading. Now we get into verse 5. Chosen by grace. Chosen by grace. Uh I heard John MacArthur make this point. Okay. In terms of this verse, chosen by grace. That's not God's fornowledge of what was was going to happen. Uh he didn't pick them because of their good good works. He didn't pick them because of their race. He didn't pick them because of their, you know, spiritual worthiness or whatever. They were chosen by grace. that that was the reason. And so it's not that he forneew what would happen here, what would happen there. Again, I don't think that solves the debate or the mystery behind sovereignty of God and the free will of man and how all that interplay works and if the answer is one or the other or just yes or just no. It probably is not that last one, but that's the thing that was helpful for me whenever I was reading it one verse at a time. I kept getting stuck in these things because I was taking myself out of the narrative that that Paul was making here. But that that was helpful for me seeing verse two in light of verse 5 here in Romans 11. >> Yeah. I wrote I wrote down whenever it got to the 7,000 I said, "So did God keep 7,000 men who qualified themselves by not bowing to himself? Or did God cause 7,000 men to not bow and therefore predestined them to be kept?" >> Can you say that again? Did God keep 7,000 men who qualified themselves by not bowing? Or did God cause 7,000 men to not bow and therefore predestined them to be kept? >> Well, to the resident Calvinists at the table, not the newly dubbed Calvinists, how would y'all answer Mr. Eustus's question? >> I would I would answer it that God is incapable of rejecting or casting out a people. he knew before the foundation of the earth. And so if I had to if I had to put my answer into one of those categories, I would say he chose 7,000 people to not bow to Baal. I would agree with that. Like he already put it in their hearts that they were not going to bow. >> Like they didn't do it out of their own free will. God opened their eyes to what the beauty is of his lordship. >> Yeah. So, like you you pointed out a a verse in Romans and just to show the complexity of like what we're talking about here is like if you just go back to Romans 10:13 uh 10:12 and 13 um says uh Lord is Lord of all bestowing the riches on all who call on him for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. like there [clears throat] there is uh there's a guy Austin Brown. I think he's a I don't know where he would fit. I' I'd seen one thing from him, so I'm not putting him out there like I'm I don't know all of his work, so don't don't follow him, but he seemed like very intelligent guy. He also seemed like he was probably one of the best people that I saw that he is a Calvinist. Even though I think he he describes the same thing that y'all describe is sometimes that label almost like he kind of rejects that label at times, not not the theological references, but just feels like that it's more complex than that. But he had this he had this deal where he was describing it as um that like with your kids whenever they're young, you know, you have a let's say a 5-year-old, you teach them their ABCs, right? They know their ABCs all the way through Z and they know that. They know what that is. And then if you take to them and you say, "Okay, um, 4 + x= 7 and you show them that equation and and they know their ABCs and you say x= 3, they'd be like, no, x is x. What are you talking about?" and and he was just talking about the idea that like the complication between free will and the predestination of the Lord is is probably one of those things that it's such a realm of lack of understanding from us to understand how we can merge those things together that it's really hard for us to figure out how what where we're missing it in the line that I believe the scripture talks about the responsibility of a of a um a acceptance or an action towards God when when his grace is presented. That would be prevenient grace is is that and then in this I also see where where it's also showing that like man I could definitely see that that's like the first or the second thing that I there kind of how you took it and said I believe that that God had that had that 7,000 not bow their knees so that he could hold on to them. >> What was that word you used? Provenient grace. >> Man, that's messed up. Pervenient grace. I think that's right. That's a that's a Wesleyan >> idea. Yeah. >> So I think understanding like limited atonement and election like it all comes back to depravity and God's sovereignty over like the mechanism that that saves us. And I think [snorts] a lot of times God doesn't owe us grace. And so you know obvious objection to why did he only save 7,000? Like doesn't seem fair. >> [clears throat] >> Like I think a lot of times we look at it as we're in a burning building and God is only saving a few people like he owes us saving out of this burning building. The way the Bible describes our situation is yeah we're in the burning building but God gave us the building and we started the fire. And it is God's mercy that pulls us out. And it is it is his will >> and it is he delights in saving us, but we're the ones that that started the fire and messed it all up. It's not the other way around. Like he doesn't owe us anything. >> And like dead men can't respond to anything. And if you're dead in sin, you can't respond to the call to be saved. We're not uh we're not drowning and somebody throws us a life raft and God's not counting on us to say, "Okay, I just have to grab the life raft." We're at the bottom of the of the lake and God has to jump in to save us to pull us out of the water. >> Is how that like the Calvinistic view, it looks at it that way. It all starts with like we are dead in our sins. So is there a rejune uh or like a I don't know I just strugg I struggle that's where that's where that's where the prevenient grace would would agree with like most all of that. It would also it would also just beg the question towards some of the some of the stuff in the Bible that seems to indicate our responsibility um to have a reaction towards that presentation. >> I've looked up prevenient grace and I hope I pronounced that correctly. Um >> you probably didn't. >> Okay, I know I didn't. [laughter] Pre-iv pre it looks like pre-event basically. But u um I feel like it goes more towards uh irresistible grace. Um it's a it's a counter to that and election. >> But here's the thing that we have to look at. It says humanity has fallen and unable to come to God on its own. >> So the Armenian argument this is rough is believes that. But God therefore gives pre I'm not even prevenient grace that comes before to humanity. The grace restores enough ability to respond to God's offer of salvation. So the ability relies on you again and not on God. And that's where it's like we have to go and look at it this way. It's like I always like to talk about Jesus walking to Jarius's daughter. He's going to someone. He's jumping into the water like you just talked about, you know, but then you also have the woman who's bleeding. She goes to Christ and touches his robe. But who put it in her mind that Christ could save her? >> That's where it comes down to God is sovereign over that. God is sovereign over that free will. He's the one that puts it in your mind that there is a saving grace, not you don't figure it out on your own with your own human ability. That's how I look at it. >> Let me put that situation back to what Matt just said. Okay, >> so you have Gyrus's daughter, 12 years old. You have this woman who had the problem of blood for 12 years. Can't prove this, but I'm just going to go out on a limb if I had to pick. >> The problem of blood started with that woman the day that little girl was born. Okay. >> And so Gyrus's daughter dies. like they were desperately trying to get Jesus there to to do something. He's on his way there. The chosen did a great job of depicting this. Jesus wasn't just walking down the street. There was a mob surrounding him because you could see after the woman touches the hymn of his garment, they're like, "What are you talking about, Jesus? Of course people touch you. You're we can't even make it through the streets here." But are you saying are y'all would y'all say something along the lines of, "Okay, Gyrus's daughter is the most representative of how God saved someone because she was dead as a doornail. She couldn't reach out her hand. She couldn't open her mouth to take any medicine. She couldn't do anything in that moment, right? She couldn't sign a consent form. Nothing." The other side would be like, "Or is it the woman with the problem of blood that is more so like it to where there's Jesus walking along? she had to fight her way through the crowd to even get to the edge of the garment. Or is it just kind of like a no, it's a both and. It's also the argument the woman with the problem of blood touching the hymn of Jesus's garment was not the task she needed to check off the box in order to be saved. He turned around, he looked her in the eye, he called her daughter >> and saw her faith or imputed his faith to her, however you want to couch it. And in that moment, she was saved. I kind of feel like the dichotomy of those two women that have or you know the young girl and then the older woman >> kind of plays into what what you're saying. Like I'm trying to just understand how a strict Calvinist would would I guess talk about how someone comes to salvation. >> I I would reject the idea of strict Calvinist. >> Yeah. Me too. >> Like [clears throat] I think there are people who strictly adhere to that and I think that is an that's an egotistical thing to do. I think without stepping back and just saying mystery because I don't I I I think I owe you more of an explanation than that like that is a really hard thing to grasp and there are people who have studied that their entire lives. Um I think I wouldn't go as far as to say both things can be true at the same time. Like we like she she God had nothing to do with her touching the hymn of his gar his garment. like that. That seems like it's got some similarities to Genesis, the garden scene after the fall of man. When God comes and says, "Adam, where are you?" >> He doesn't not know >> right >> where Adam is. He's used to communing with him. That is a that is a routine that they are in. They are communing together. They are walking in the cool of the day in the garden. So, he is like any father would say like, "Why aren't you here?" Like, he's not but it's not a it's not a like mystery to him. He's not just finding out, oh my gosh, where like where is Adam at? And so like Christ is not saying what what the heck, somebody touched me. Like it's more of a proclamation of something that he already knew. Like this wasn't a surprise to him. Um and I would say God is sovereign over both of those situations that that Christ is going to Gyrus's daughter, but also that he is putting that woman in a place to come to him. He's sovereign over both of those things because again we are we are dead. We are we're not we're not hanging on by a thread. We're not like inching towards death like we are dead. >> So go ahead. >> Oh no no no. Go ahead. Yeah ask. I think that's what I was going to say. >> Just the so where I where I struggle with that or like where I would where I wrestle with that idea because I agree with all that. I come to some of the places where I wonder, so if I was in if I was in that position, would I would I hold to the fact that the Lord subjected his want for all to his plan for the remnant? Like I I even struggle with that with my own sovereignty theology be being that I believe God is sovereign over all. My my theology on sovereignty is more in in connection with the fornowledge and therefore the inability to not know and not to like know that by throwing one pebble into the the pond he knows every ripple that is created. So, but I I sometimes like struggle with that idea of so we see in the scripture where there is like even in this Paul references that all of mankind has been called to by creation for God and then Jesus makes references uh and then there's there's other references to this all foundation of like that all would come to me >> all those things. So, do we think do we believe that there was a subjection of his will for all to come to a that he subjected that because I guess on one side you could say that he subjected it to the free will or the the s the tiny mystery piece between free will and pervenient grace and there's something that happens in between that extension and that acceptance or would you say that he subjected it to the idea that that He did not. He wanted all but he subjected it to some type of bigger plan to not receive all. >> Does that am I just butchering that? Does that make any sense? >> I don't I understand the question. Like like what is the def the definition of all would be important? >> That's what that's my question. Like what's your definition of all? >> So So yeah. So like >> all people, all people, all the world. >> I think that there's some descriptions of the Bible that like that would suggest that the Lord um has a desire that all men would come to him. Okay? Meaning all like that like in in my theology that would be the idea of pervenient grace that like all that his his death and resurrection on the cross was sufficient like paid the price that anyone could accept that. So, so when you when you use the term all and we're looking at if we go if we look at the Old Testament and we look at the New Testament, when we're talking about the Messiah, who was the Messiah >> created for like who was the Messiah supposed to save, >> the whole world who his people >> his people, the Jews, >> the Jews. And so everybody squeeze every >> What's that? >> Sorry. So, hold on. >> But just let me just let me finish. Just let me finish real quick. But the Jews, everybody outside of being a Jew was called a gentile. So the rest of the world was gentile and there was the Jews. And so when they use the term all, it's saying that I'm going for all. Not all as in who I've who I've chosen and the people I've chosen and all is not just the Jews. It's the Gentiles as well. I would suggest if if you have the stomach for it, go read the death of death in the death of Christ by John Owen. There's some modern there's some modern versions that really help unpack this. He floats this idea that if if our salvation is on the shoulders of men, it makes it makes the salvation potential but not definitive. So if Christ's death on the cross pays pays the sin debt, but then he says to Russell, "Your sin debt has been paid, but you have to come you have to come back and accept that." He describes what would be called like a double jeopardy. You can't be you can't be accused of the same crime twice. If your sin debt was paid at the cross, he can't he can't expect you to come back and then accept that payment again because the payment's already been made. And when you get to Revelation, it talks about your name being written in the lamb's book of life before the foundation of the earth. Like the plan was already in place. So salvation and the sin debt was paid on the cross. Double jeopardy would say now you have to come accept that payment. And I'm not explaining it as good as Jonno. It's been a while since I've read that, but he he really un unpacks this idea of if it if it's on us, then that that kind of takes away from the sovereignty and the power of Christ's salvation and paying our debt on the cross in the first place. >> Yeah. I don't I don't think that so my view wouldn't be that the salvation is on us. I kind of hearken back a lot of Jesus' interaction with people to where like whenever he encountered them, he made this declaration of because your faith, you have been made healed or you have been made whole. you've been healed. And there seems to be an interaction that he usually has with people like I believe at different times he he kind of rebuked people for their little faith and said that if you had the faith of a mustard se seed and so like that's where that that idea of the faith of a mustard seed that I that I would almost say that like obviously in the fornowledge sovereignty picture of God that yes God is outside of time. So if in this time sequence I am a Christian, then yes, in that book that's outside of time, I've always had my name written on it. However, my brain can't really conceive how that works. And I read in the scripture where there seems to be a um well I think it's it's pretty clear that there's there's talk like this about that that it is you know God says this that's going to happen very sovereign language. There's also talks you know Hebrews is full of talks of the idea of our responsibility to step towards grace and to to receive that grace. Even in this, you know, the anybody that calls on my name suggests that like it's open for all. Like Paul here, I don't think he is most time asking people to figure out whether or not they are chosen. He's trying to convince them that if you call on the name of the Lord, then you are the chosen. Then you are >> the ones who hear it and that God has chosen will hear it and call upon the name of the Lord. >> I'm going to read something that I think will help. Okay. Right here. So, I actually plugged this in as y'all were talking because I thought this was interesting and I was trying to really tax the study assistant inside of Logos to try to explain the the double jeopardy kind of the the tension there. So, I think that this is helpful. Owen argued that if Christ died as a substitute bearing the punishment for all humanity's sins, then all people should be freed from God's wrath. Yet, since scripture clearly indicates that many will face eternal punishment, either Christ's satisfaction was inadequate or he didn't die for everyone. Owen also raised concerns about Christ dying for those already condemned and the problem of sins being punished twice. The logical tension Owen identified is this. Accepting both a universal atonement and a penal substitution, the view that Christ bore the penalty sinners deserved, logically commits uh one to universalism, the belief that everyone will ultimately be saved. This creates the double jeopardy problem. If Christ already paid the penalty for someone's sins through his death, that person cannot justly be punished again for those same sins. Therefore, if Christ died for all people, all must be saved. Since Owen believed scripture teaches that not all are saved, he concluded Christ could not have died for all without exception. Owen argued that for Christ to die for all men was to prove that he died quote for no man in the sense Christians have hitherto understood unquote meaning the substitutionary nature of his death would be fundamentally altered if applied universally while some still face judgment. See that's the thing that I I kind of think about when we look at a remnant and we think of a remnant. We are a remnant. So when when I see all, I don't see all as in all men. I see all as in Jew and Gentile. >> I'd be interested to know how many times the Bible uses the word all and it means all like every single person. I don't think that that's the case. >> We see that even in these sections of Romans where it seems like he's talking about everyone when contextually speaking and scripturally like the word the syntax being used is talking about a large number of or all the ones that were supposed to be. as we get farther into 11 >> or or like it it's making it's it's removing a distinction like all is not just Jews, it's all people regardless of race, creed, like whatever. It's it's all people groups. It's all people types. >> Yeah. >> Um but like a question I would ask is what is salvation for? And >> the how I would answer that is the the primary purpose of salvation is to achieve God's glory. Y >> is to glorify God. The secondary purpose of salvation is so that he would save his people. But he saves his people according to his good pleasure. And again, back to the burning building. I think this is a really good illustration of it. A lot of times, and I'm not saying that's where you are, but a lot of times people will look at it and they'll they'll think, well, God's not fair because he only saved 7,000 or whatever the number is, and if I'm in a burning building, God should save me. And we look at it like we're owed grace. >> But back to the the burning building. We started the fire and God didn't. [laughter] But he's still according to his good pleasure deciding to save people from the burning building. >> So to that analogy, I think we'd all we'd all agree that when we started the fire, it was started in the garden, right? I mean, like the fire started in in the garden. and the fact that um Eve grabbed the apple, gave it to Adam, it was a decision there. My I guess I guess part of my thought on this whenever I read the scripture I see this trend in it is that God is sovereign over all yet he place the tree of good and evil like very specifically placed the tree of good and evil to allow it seems to me maybe there's different theology here to allow mankind to have a choice voice in the matter even though he's sovereign over all. So like why why was the tree of good and evil placed in the e in the garden if God did not take what we experience as life and assign to us a free will. >> So you call it the tree of good and evil. Some people call it the tree of knowledge. >> All right. >> A knowledge of good and evil is correct. We can we can call it that way too because once they once they have the knowledge of God because if we have a binary if there's good there's what? >> There's evil there's bad. And so they lived in the garden where everything was good. They didn't know what bad was. That's like us living like with our heads in the sand. They didn't know what evil was. And so God even says to them, he says, "I've created this garden. Eat from any tree. Any tree. Any tree you can eat from just just don't touch that one." He wasn't like, "I'm going to put this in there and I know they're going to eat it." He's just like, "Eat from any tree. Just don't eat from that one for you'll surely die." You know, and so they're open. They they when when you look at what the serpent did to Eve, what did Eve crave? She craved the taste of the fruit. >> No, she craved to have >> She crave the knowledge of God. >> God. Yeah. >> And that a knowledge that God was trying to keep away from them, >> you know. But when you create something, there has to be an an opposite. And so that's how I look at it. So when we look at the garden, God could have just taken them out right there, >> right? >> God could have been like we're like this is like the thing that I was thinking about and we come back to this. It's like the we are the clay talking back to >> this is what this is what caused the the RC Sproul. >> This is Yeah. >> What's wrong with you people? >> What's wrong with you people? That was the question. >> It's the clay talking to the potter. And if God is going to send his son to die, to die an excruciating death to atone for the sins of Adam and Eve, do you think he's going to leave it on chance to whether your free will is going to make that knowledge known or not? You know, if I'm an all powerful God, that's how that's the terms that I had to come with. >> Well, Sproul Sproul's issue there was where people were saying that they are they were owed something. I'm not saying that. I'm I'm asking the question. It seems as if God gave a preference to that he he wants he wants mankind to love him and to glorify him, but that he seems he seemed to have subject that subjected that want to some form of allowance to have us participate in that. And I'm just saying that I I think the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a very at the very beginning things are as simple as they get. So like simple as everything has ever been was right then and yet he wanted man in my view he wanted there to be an some type of an optionality there that he obviously forneew predestined like I don't know about that that's that stuff gets out of my realm of being able to conceptualize but he did place it there knowing that something was going to happen >> so I believe the free will that we have is the free will as a believer right Now, I have the free will to either listen to the Holy Spirit or I have the free will to listen to my flesh. And so, Adam and Eve walked with God. They had the option to listen to God or to listen to their flesh. They chose to listen to their flesh, which is why we're we're here. That's our free will. My free will is to either listen to God. So, when it comes to salvation, I don't believe we have a >> Would that free will listening still? Would that apply? So like here just a little bit back we we read where it says that all of the earth is basically crying out to man to all the earth that like God is there. So like would you I think that people that believe in prevenient grace would almost say that like that is the fractional difference that that we believe that there is before before the grace is bestowed on us that there is a moment there that our ears are attuned to hear the Holy Spirit calling us. >> I think I mean I prevenient grace seems like you're trying to put the power back on the man rather on the father. And so what I how I look at it is that God opens our eyes like once we hear the gospel when he talks about it being preached, [gasps] God opens, Holy Spirit opens our eyes to the beauty of the gospel. There's nothing in us. There's nothing in me that's going to outsmart God into seeing the beauty. He has to open my eyes to the beauty. Right? >> And so that's that's what I see. But I feel like prevenient grace is more like, hey, there's a little good inside of me. that matches up with provenient grace because they they don't believe that there's something good inside them. They believe that that's been open. Their their difference on that would be that at the point of the recognition of that that that is actually given to us right before that we have the option there to listen and to recognize that and accept Christ or to reject. >> So that would be irresistible grace. Am I wrong on that? That they would disagree with that >> that Yeah. Yeah. Well, so I think one thing that we're >> the free will that that is the free will that goes back to the idea of like why did the 7,000 bow or not bow? Was it was it in that story? Did God cause them not to bow or did they did they not bow? >> So that's the question. Who is the causal agent? Who is the causal agent agent is God? And so so just to kind of we we need to do because we kind of picked around the definition. We need to kind of do some definition work. Verminian grace refers to God's grace that precedes a sinner's act of faith in Jesus Christ. The term derives from Latin to mean to come before. Right? So that's what prevenient grace is the grace is there before u the act of saving faith occurs. And in and the reason why so like prevenient that little piece right there that description is in contrast to irresistible grace because the irresistible grace would say that at the moment of the revelation the person has already been like that it's set for them. >> I feel like that's the doctrine of election. That's not the doctrine of irresistible grace. >> Yeah. The doctrine is it not? >> So so most people disagree with election because they don't like the fact that God chose certain people and people don't have the free will to choose God. >> Okay. So would you believe that someone can get that clarity of who go of of that calling and not accept it? >> That's irresistible grace. >> That's what I was saying. >> That would be something against irresistible grace. >> That's what I was saying. >> That is something I'm still trying to work out on my own. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So that that's part of the tension that you're describing. >> That's the thin line between >> because sin to me. >> Well, the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit is essentially it's not an action as much as it is a posture of your heart, right? is that you are going to reject the free gift of grace of the gospel that >> if even if you hear it that you will reject it that your heart will be hardened. We'll get there here in just a second with verse seven. >> But I think the one thing that's important as we're talking about in this discussion you used a word that I would quibble with uh Russell where you kept talking about God placed the tree in the garden. God placed it. He placed it there. No, God created an all good garden. >> Yeah. >> And he selected a single tree to provide a test to Adam and Eve. And this language makes people uncomfortable. But there was nothing different about about the tree than any other tree. Aside from the fact that God pointed to the tree and made a statement about the tree when we go back to Genesis, >> didn't it say it was the most beautiful tree and all the I mean, wasn't there? Yeah, you're about to read it. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm in Genesis 2. If I back up to uh verse 15, the Lord took the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and to keep it. That's dominion mandate. The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Fro from any tree of the garden, you may eat freely, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat. For in the day that you eat from it, you will die." Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make him suitable. Then we work our way, oh, you know, um, a helper suitable for him, then we make our way to Genesis 3 in the fall." And so, the only thing different about the tree is how God has described the tree. The tree is not bad. The tree is not sin. God gave them a command. God gave Adam the command before Eve was even established. That's why when God came looking for him, he wasn't looking for Eve first. He was looking for Adam. There's a reason for that because Adam was sitting there while his wife was talking to a >> dragon. And so in that exact moment, uh so it's saying, "Hey, if you eat of this tree, you're going to die. I gave you a perfect garden. You're perfect. Like all these things are great. You just can't eat from this tree." And so it's not that he placed that tree there. is that the garden was created and he pointed to a tree and said, "Hey, you can't you just can't have this tree." In that moment, providing a test to Adam and then subsequently to Eve. Fair. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I really don't know. I really don't I mean, I'm just I really don't know if I see much difference between the placing or the pointing out of a test. The the idea is that it seems to me the idea is that it seems to God seems to me that God has like a some type of um that he is subjecting his his will towards mankind to this interaction to where we get to have some some thin line piece to accept his will for our life even though he's sovereign over all and his fornowledge gives him knowledge overall. But it seems to me like I don't know that that flows with that same idea. >> So we Adam and Eve are walking in God's will. They're walking in the will of God. As soon as the fall happens in Genesis 3 as a species, our will is bent towards sin. We are wholly inadequate to save ourselves. So the free will, I think that's a it's a funny funny word because like what does that even mean? Mhm. >> And I think this is why a lot of Puritan theologians really like agonized over the verbiage of this and they came to the word agency instead of free because free will I don't know that just doesn't that seems that's like a >> too cavalier about like it seems like a more like a like a new verbiage that came out of like the enlightenment. >> Like that's kind of a a word that came out of that. >> Yeah, I like that. We're all bl We're all blank slates. >> We, you know, we're none of us are inherently bad and we can choose one way or the other. And I know that's not where like where you're landing, >> but that that word free will just doesn't really match up with anything in the B. There's not free will in the Bible. >> Like like that's not a thing. I don't think I know that the word's not in there, but like I don't think that's a theme that's in the Bible either. Agency is. And there are plenty of like atheists who with their agency can do good things, but our will is outside of God's will. >> And so because of the fall, we again are just wholly inadequate to do any saving. >> And Matt, to this to this point, if you'll go ahead and uh start in verse 7 and read through verse 10 because then it talks about like, okay, the agency and how it pertains to the elect. and then we can keep the discussion going. But just read uh 7-10. >> What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened. As it is written, God gave them a spirit of stuper, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear down to this very day. And David says, "Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. Let their eyes be darkened so they cannot see and bend their backs forever." So verse 8, that's a combo of Isaiah 29:10, Deuteronomy 29:4. Then when it gets into the Psalm of David, it's uh basically looking at Psalm 69:es 22 and 23. But if we go back to verse 7 and we look at the word hardened, but the rest were hardened. The another word, another translation could say blinded. The rest were blinded. So it's saying, okay, what is what is the subject here? Uh they failed to obtain what it was seeking. Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. What was it seeking? eternal salvation. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened. Okay, so how do we deal with the rest? How do we deal with they were hardened? This goes back to what we see with Pharaoh. >> How many times do we see it listed that uh Pharaoh hardened his own heart? How many times do we see it listed that God hardened Pharaoh's heart? And how many times do we see it listed where there's no causal agent of the hardening? But the generalized consensus is that Pharaoh's heart was hard. He kept choosing the opposite thing other than God. And God finally said, "Sure, fine. By all means, your will be done and solidified the hardening of his heart." It seems like we have a call back to that. >> I would agree with that. Like God, when it says God is hardening Pharaoh's heart, he's not placing a new idea in there. He's not introducing some new concept. Pharaoh who is part of the fallen creatures who are created in the image of God already has that bent will towards sin and destruction. So without the saving grace of Christ Pharaoh Pharaoh cannot cannot save himself. So he is he is already bent towards sin. So he is hardening his own heart as all of us are outside of Christ. God eventually says like like it does in in at the beginning of this letter like God gave the God gave him up to his own sinful desires and and pleasures like he he let him have what he wanted as you said like let your will be done. >> I think we're missing a very interesting part as well is what then Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. Israel failed to obtain the saving grace of the Messiah because they don't believe but then he says the elect obtained it. So what he means by that I feel like he means by that and I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong is that God still elected Jewish people >> to understand the gospel to understand what Christ did on the cross. So there's a remnant of the Jews that were elected in that even though all of Jew all the Jews are not obtaining it there's an select elect few that God has elected that will obtain it. But what what did they fail to obtain? Like it says it failed to obtain what it was seeking. Was it seeking God's grace? Was Israel seeking God's grace? >> It thought it I mean I think that's what Jesus's conflict was in with them was the idea that they thought they were but were doing it so wrong that they were missing. >> Yeah. I think Paul is arguing in this letter that they were not seeking God's grace. They were they were >> they were trying to climb up the ladder of trying to earn it. I I tie this much of my my spices cl like I can go up a ladder. I do I do this like I'm up another rung of the ladder. >> But the other thing we have to look at is like if we look at Jesus's sermon on the mount like he talks about a brother who's who hates their brother is no different than a brother who's killed their brother. And so if we look at it this way, they're looking at trying to obtain these works and Christ is trying to tell them you're depraved in your heart. It doesn't matter what your actions are on the outside. It's what your heart is on the inside. So, your actions aren't going to get you what you need. You need the grace of God to get where you're at because your heart is dirty. >> Yeah. >> Your heart is bent towards sin. [snorts] >> And this is this is part of the thing that I struggle with. uh Russell and then in both of y'all's post cage stage status you've struggled with as well because the the thing about uh the five points of Calvinism the thing about tulip is it's almost like you feel like you get to a point where you've made a decision you've you planted your flag on a particular one of those but then if you continue to intellectually engage with that particular subject matter the ground underneath you uh you vacasillate a little bit the ground underneath you becomes a little bit uncertain God doesn't become uncertain. The reality of the truth of the word doesn't become uncertain. But I've talked to people that were like staunch five points. Hey, you know what? I added three or four more points, right? That's how Calvinist I am. And then they start looking at it a little bit differently. It's not that their faith is waning. It's not that they're having their ears tickled by people that are leading them astray. It's not that they're following a wolf in sheep's clothing, but specifically with uh substitutionary atonement. Sorry, not substitutionary atonement, limited atonement. I think everyone's on board with the substitutionary atonement, but the limited atonement piece, that's what even Mark Hitchcock, you know, went to DTS, would consider himself very reformed and all that. He says, "I'm tip, not tulip." Because he doesn't see uh the biblical case for the limiting of the atonement. And then you have people that find themselves, as I've said, on two sides of the exact same argument, using just different words to describe the same thing, and it all coaleses on top of limited atonement. And then it's like, okay, what what ended up happening here? But I think the the real lesson here is as we just even talked about Ryan you said earlier the irresistible grace piece. It's like you can define it but what exactly how does that extrapolate out into everyday life into what actually happened to people in the Bible and what's happening in real life now. >> So irresistible grace a doctrine operates on a crucial distinction. Calvinist theologians differentiate between God's general grace given to all humans through creation testimony and saving grace applied directly to the elect's hearts producing faith and thereby becoming irresistible. The means of grace regenerate justification, adoption and sanctification are distributed indiscriminately rather than being exclusively to the elect. However, saving grace is a regenerative salvific sense is not a generally given to the non-elect. And so like irresistible grace is kind of hard for me. But here's here's where I come to it because it's like you do have that thing. What if somebody what if somebody can hear the beauty of the gospel and totally reject it? Like that's my thought. >> I think that's a I think that's a a contradiction that doesn't exist. If somebody hears, if somebody hears the No, but but if somebody hears the beauty, if they hear for themselves the beauty, >> God opens their eyes to it. >> But if you but if they if they don't accept the gospel, they didn't hear the beauty of the gospel. >> And I and I and and that's where they understand the beauty or didn't believe in the beauty because they heard it, but they didn't believe in the beauty. They didn't believe in the they didn't push duo. That kind of contradicts what what he says back in 10 >> whenever he says >> but they have he says uh how beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news but they have not all obeyed the gospel. He doesn't say like he's making it very clear that there were >> it they heard it >> but they didn't >> but they didn't but you can you can hear the gospel and not think that it's beautiful. Like I can hear a symphony and I can hear that and I can think man this is garbage. This is garbage music. Uh but that doesn't mean other people don't hear the beauty in that song. I I just didn't hear it. >> They're hearing the gospel that is beautiful, but they don't believe that they don't believe applicable to them. >> Is that what you're asking me? >> My brother, I have a family member. >> Yeah. >> A brother and he's come to our church a couple of times. And he said to me, and this kind of breaks my heart, but um he goes, "Man," he goes, "I look around that church and I hear the gospel and I'm like, "All these people believe it. Why don't I?" You know, like why don't I why don't I believe it? And that's the thing. It's like we can hear it, but it doesn't mean we believe it. And that's where it comes with irresistible grace is like I get it. Like once you hear it, like God's all powerful. No one's going to outsmart God. You know, if God has elected and made it sovereign that that person's going to hear the gospel and they are going to they're going to believe they're going to have that irresistible grace. I have to go along with that because I believe in God's sovereignty. I believe in his in in election and I believe in total depravity and I somewhat limited atonement. We can differentiate on the wording with that. But in the end, I I I just can't make a case of how people can outsmart God. Well, that's that's my problem. And that's why I have to say I'm bent more this way than I am the other way because in the end I can't make a case of why you you and you and me are smarter than God. >> I don't So I think that that's contextually like the the thing is what I I believe in it is that God actually placed that allowance not to be smarter than him but the allowance that he he wants it to be for us to have agency in it in making that decision. And so like I even go like the irresistible part really conflicts with to me around a couple of things. But like I think back to the parable of the seeds and the sewer and those that started growing with shallow roots. Like we we see this stuff and then we have other scripture that talks about people that were filled with the Holy Spirit but then are falling away. And so like I don't know how to contextualize those things against the idea that it's irresistible other than the idea that there is some agency that we play in acceptance of that. >> With you saying that this is what I say back I say I say why would God send his son to die on a cross and go through the excruciating pain that he went through >> to leave it up to chance whether you want to believe it or not. Well, I let me let me let me say this. I mean, that that to me is the e easiest contradiction of this all is you could apply that same philosophy to why would God go through everything you just said, send his son to die on the cross, not to just save the whole world >> because he said from the beginning, this is who I've chosen. >> Okay. So, like I'm just I'm saying that it's because it's God and he's sovereign over that choice. Why I'm saying >> when you say that, but God wouldn't be just. >> Yeah. He wouldn't he wouldn't be just. you take away. Well, there would be no point in Christ >> dying on the cross if he was going to save everybody. That would that would >> but that logic doesn't make sense that if he could just snap his his fingers, then there would have been no point in all of creation. Like he can just snap his fingers. He doesn't I'm saying that he is subjecting it to the idea he doesn't want it to be a finger snap, you know, Thanos deal. He wants us to have agency in it. I mean, I just can't get over the the idea where where Jesus has a desire for for mankind, for for more people that other people would come to him, but he is subject subjecting that desire for everyone to allow the agency of acceptance. I just don't I just don't see the way of agency. I just don't see I don't I I I don't know the definition behind it actually, like why why God would do that. It's like God's God is sovereign. God said from the beginning this is >> for God so loved the whole world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever shall believe in him everlasting life. So Jesus said that correct? >> Yes. >> Yes. So for God so loved the world. Who was Jesus talking to most of the time? >> I I I don't know. >> Jews. >> Jews. Okay. >> He's they're preaching throughout Jewish the Jewish area. Okay. >> For God to love the world. Jesus is saying right there that God is not choosing just the Jews. He's choosing the Gentiles as well. He's not it's not it's not this universalistic thing. It's more of I'm not here just for the Jews. I'm here for the Gentiles as well, >> right? I'm I'm not saying that >> that's what people bring that verse back to try to say, well, that means everyone. I mean, a universalist would bring that verse back. >> A universalist would. My point in that verse is the part that says, "Whosoever shall believe in me that it seems like it's an open offer. It is an openation like we are all >> called to obedience to to God. >> Let me ask you a question. Do you think that when we get to the end of the world, the end of time and and like everything is over. We're going to spend eternity in heaven. Do you think God knew, let's just say 100,000 just for easy math. Do you think God knew all 100,000 souls? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. So if that's the case and he leaves it up to chance, there's a chance that only 9999,99 >> I didn't say he left it up. I'm not saying >> that's what agency is. You're leaving it up to chance. >> That That's where I'm That's where I'm saying it's not up to chance because of his fornowledge. He already knew. >> So how So how so how did he know that? Like are how do you I guess view his fornowledge in that? I don't even see the fornowledge as like a knowing of the future, but an experiential like outside of this realm. God is at all of those places at the same time. So, it's it's not that he knew. He actually is an experience of that moment of our resurrection into Christ. Like he's he's already at that moment at that moment. So like that's where the conceptual idea of like I'm just trying to say how it plays out here is he seems to have set us in a bubble >> that for our experience of it that we have an agency in the idea that when >> he's leaving it to chance. >> Well, hang on. I wouldn't count it as a chance. We got to wrap this up. Um, so would would it be fair to say that you two fundamentally reject what CS Lewis said in Mere Christianity that a world full of automatons would be a world not worth creating? Is that fair? >> No, I I I wouldn't I wouldn't reject that because I don't I don't think there's anything about Tulip that makes any of us robots. >> Yeah. I think >> but you do understand the argument by someone that doesn't subscribe to to Calvinism that like well if if you could not resist it if you wanted to then you were basically dancing to your DNA as it were you were pre-programmed to do this thing and thus you did the thing Allah being a robot or an automaton. >> I can see the argument. >> I could see I could see that but like I I see agency in what we do and I see agency differently in when we become a Christian. I think that God has the power over our salvation. He's the Bible already says it. He's already chosen from the beginning. So the only thing you don't see agency in is the the act of >> salvation. Sal dead men can't save themselves. >> Dead men can't save themselves. >> But other than that, you see that human agency is at play. And >> I can make right wrong decisions because God's moral law is built on our hearts no matter whether we believe or not. >> Agency exists. >> I feel like that's a little that that to me is hard to contradict. So you would say there's agency in the person who denies Christ and goes to hell, but there's not agency in the person who accepts Christ and goes to heaven. >> No, no, no, no. There's agency in every everybody has agency. Like I said before, like even atheists can can with their agency is actually saying so agency got got both of y'all off of the main subject that he's saying. So if someone goes to hell, it's their fault. If someone goes to heaven, God ordained it and forced it upon them. our default destination everybody is hell. >> Like there there's not a there's not a oh that was your fault. >> Like we're all going to hell. We're all in the burning building. >> Whose fault is that? >> We It's our fault. We set we set the fire. >> We already said it when with Adam and Eve. >> We set the fire. >> We agree there. >> So this is not this is not God saying, "Okay, I've got a thousand people. I'm going to save 700. I'm going to let I'm and I'm going to send the rest to hell." Like we're all going to hell. God has God has just said, "I have chosen you from the foundation of the earth, and you will be saved. You will be my people for my glory." >> We're a remnant of his grace. Let me let me just put my my side of it to to bed is that I 100% like I >> I understand every piece of where y'all gather that and like I I I definitely see I know that maybe it's harder for y'all to see my perspective on it. I see where you gather that in the scriptures. And so like I I have no problem with that. I I whenever I'm gathering my you know thoughts on the scripture I cannot help like I won't lie about the idea that I am more uh lean towards picking up this this thread of some type of reaction on our part and so the but I also read some of these things and I'm like well yeah >> I I could definitely fall that way too I'm just not falling that way you know. Yeah. Okay. >> So, I think I think it's a it's a good framework to understand how God works and what he is sovereign over. >> In practice, as a preacher, you don't know who the elect are. >> Yeah. >> So, your your job is to preach the word and God does the saving. In in that sense, I am preaching to you as a congregation the word of God. you have a moral responsibility or you're accountable to either respond to that call or not. So in that sense, yes, like you are you are accountable and you have to respond to that that call to grace. But what the Calvinist view would say is e even that grace as Paul says is a gift so that no man may boast. He is sovereign over that as well. >> Got to cut it off there guys. Uh great great batch. appreciate all the work and all the time spent at the table. Guys, come back next week where we're going to get into Romans 11:11. So, make sure you're ready to go because we're going to talk about the Gentiles being grafted in. Great section of Paul's letter here. But before I let you go, we are going to do a quick resilience boost at Undaunted Life. Our mission is equipping men to push back darkness with content that forges spiritual, mental, and physical resilience. Logos Undaunted Life study bundle. Go to logos.com/undaunted life forging table starter set crossway. It's a great uh five amazing books, great resources. Guys, if you want to start a Bible study like this, you want to get your own forging table going, make sure you get those resources. And also, we're a donationbased ministry. If you want to see this ministry continue to reach men and equip them to push back darkness all over the globe, undon.life/donate undon.life/donate. Thank you everyone for listening to this episode. Wherever you're listening to this, please subscribe, rate, and leave us a positive fivestar review. If you want me to come speak live at your event or on your podcast, just shoot me an email to info@undded.life. Follow us on Instagram and like us on Facebook. And check out our website for everything else, including how to donate to keep more content like this coming. www.undaunted.life. The music on this podcast is the song Conqueror by the Christian metal band Void Awaken. Be sure to stream their music on Spotify, Apple Music, and wherever else you get your music. I'm your host, Kyle Thompson. Remember, keep pushing back darkness. Keep forging spiritual, mental, and physical resilience. Keep seeking the Lion of Judah. [music] Heat. Heat.