A Discussion with a Calvinistic Pastor on Total Inability

hello and welcome to sociology 101 Google hangout I have with me on this Google hangout Brian Daniels who is the pastor at Doty Chapel Baptist Church in Shannon Mississippi brian has a master's degree from South Eastern and he is a PhD student with only his dissertation left to go I have been there before and I know you're paying my my fellow brother I know the the joy of having to go through that process and the the pain of it as well and so welcome welcome to the Google hangout well thanks for having me it's a joy well I learned that you were studied under King Keith Lee Nathan Finn other names that people may be familiar with both of which I have a lot of mount a lot of respect for as well and I get some criticism Bryan you may be aware I know you you're on the Facebook page I put out a little notice of wanting to have a discussion about total inability with a good Calvinistic brother and Bryan graciously agreed to jump on with me to have this discussion and I appreciate that when we've been coordinating our schedules since then but sometimes I get some criticism from others that I I focus a lot of my attention on the high Calvinist like what we saw in the debate there in Houston after my discussion with Bryan I can assure you Bryan is not a high Calvinist he would be considered what I have called more of a moderate Calvinist what we see probably most surging most prominent within the Southern Baptist Convention our convention both Bryan and I are part of the Southern Baptist Convention and so we are we are both a Southern Baptists and we probably he's probably the type of Calvinist I'm guessing based upon our discussions the type of Calvinists that I was when when I claimed to be one and therefore he probably fits more in the mainstream with a lot of the Calvinists that tuned into the program who think that I'm misrepresenting Calvinism because I may be answering the higher form of Calvinism in that particular dialogue and to be honest sometimes it's easier to aim towards the high Calvinist because they tend to be a little bit more in my estimation consistent within the system itself and there there seems to be some inconsistencies again that's arguable with with some of the other world views but that that's a that's something that's level that whoever claims to be more moderate or a lower form of anything they claimed you know they're always gonna get the accusation of being inconsistent because they're not full board whatever it is that they're supposed to be so I'm gonna let you know obviously Brian speak for himself as far as what he holds to what he believes but do you think that's a pretty accurate description so far Brian give us some feedback of maybe even your frustrations with regard to what you see among the higher Calvinists and and how you you know personally you know hold to your own perspective give a little history of that yeah well as you said I studied at southeastern Seminary and had a wonderful education there and Ken Keithley has been my my PhD supervisor and I absolutely love dr. Keithley he's a wonderful man has helped me tremendously I consider him to be very intelligent he his stuff on on soteriology I highly recommend that all my Calvinistic friends read it particularly his book on Mullen ISM I'm not convinced by it but I think it's it's helpful as an alternative perspective to engage with dr. Keithley would actually describe himself as more if I've heard him say this if if you have a mole and it's like like Bill Craig William Lane Craig and then a moment it's like Ken Keithley they're going to fall on different points of the spectrum dr. Keithley would say he he tends to lean more on the Calvinistic side if I can put it that way whereas Bill Craig would mean more on the Arminian side and that's a conversation that that they can have I'm I'm not really willing to get it or I don't I don't really need to get into that but but yeah I studied with Calvinist and I studied with non Calvinist and I I think that as long as we confess faith in the biblical Christ were brothers I don't I would I would agree obviously with a lot of what Sonny Hernandez and Theodore Zakaria Diez would have say but I I don't I don't wanna come on here and act like you're not a Christian or something like that and I mean I won't criticize those men any more than that but but yeah as far as where I would fall within Calvinism I would call myself I would call myself reformed now I'm a Baptist I would call myself a Calvinist that much in the 1689 that I agree with I don't that's not my personal confession that I subscribed to I'm not a reformed Baptist in that sense but as far as what we're talking about today and and the doctrines of grace more generally that would be that would be something that I would adhere to you know for the most part so you know if somebody hears you say that I'm a I'm a moderate Calvinist I don't want them thinking that I'm a moderate Calvinist in the sense that Norman Geisler called himself a moderate Calvinist in his book chose him a free I wholeheartedly believe in total depravity and an unconditional election definitely believe in an effectual calling resistible grace and perseverance of the saints i as you said I'm not as in perhaps this will come out I'm not as interested in trotting out all of the say some of the philosophical stuff on how to make some of this preps fit together and whatnot I'm run far more I'm far more willing to well go the direction that J I Packer and others before him I might add including Calvin Abraham Kuyper Burke our in saying that much of this is inscrutable and so at that point I simply have to say I believe that this is what the text of scripture is saying and I'm willing to leave it there run and of course I'm it makes me vulnerable to charges go ahead oh sure what whether it goes to the point you were making with regard to even Keith Lee and Bill Craig that both of them hold to a mullah mystic philosophy but yet side maybe a little differently with regard to their so triology and how they would you know voice those things out and and I and I think that's important because some people ask me hey are you a traditionalist are you a mole honest as if those are mutually and it's important to understand that sometimes the philosophical explanation is how you know how are we how are we explaining the infinite inscrutable attributes of a divine God as he chooses to work within a finite a limited world that that's going to that's going to run into some philosophical quandary zand and issues and there are different philosophical ways in which to deal with those issues and it's one of the reasons I'm just as gracious with my deterministic friends as I am even my open-open theistic friends I believe both of them are making errors and I think that there are mistakes made there but I also believe they're trying to do the same thing they're trying to explain the inexplicable in some way in trying to give some kind of explanation as to how a holy divine all-knowing God works within time and space with real creatures who are making seemingly at least real choices and so how does that all play itself out and so I appreciate people who are working through those issues diligently and with good sincerity and I think most people on both sides who call themselves Christians are indeed sincere and striving to understand each other better sometimes they don't act that way I'm done Internet unfortunately and I'm embarrassed sometimes by those who call themselves traditionalist or even Armenians who act the fool on my Facebook sites and other places and I asked them not to do that and we try to to moderate that kind of thing it's not it's not helping the discussion any by by approaching it from that perspective and so any of those who are still listening now that are engaging on our Facebook pages in other places please don't don't engage in such polemics that you're not able to be heard I truly do believe as we put at the top of our pages that it is it is through the sweetness of speech that we are most persuasive the reason we're able to be known by the outside world as brothers is how we treat each other and so if we can't treat each other who do a firm belief in Jesus Christ is the son of the Living God who do hold in common so many doctrines that that that we can't express that kind of grace when we're talking about the doctrines of grace no less and that's that's that's something we need to work on and so that's why we're going to try to model for you today and it's one of the reasons I chose Brian for this discussion in my conversation with him I I sense this a kindred spirit and heart for a love of theology a little bit of a theology geek he looks like a Calvinist because he's got a beard and everything so you know so you know I got hey this is participer fect gotta have a discussion with so so I I invited him on just to talk through the doctrine of total inability many of you who follow the podcast know this is what I think is really the linchpin issue with regard to Calvinism and in general I think even the dr. Sproul has mentioned that this is cut the linchpin issue that kind of everything rises and falls upon the foundation of the T with regard to the nature of man and that's kind of what I wanted to unpack with Brian here just for your your edification as you listen in and you hear two people from two different perspectives hopefully give a an adequate and biblical defense of what we believe and why we believe it and then use your own freewill to decide which one you think is is more biblical and and decide based upon what you you feel the scripture is obviously teaching about the guidance of the Spirit within your own life and be good Marines and go to the word yourself don't just believe something because your favorite biblical commentator says so but go to the word and and weigh it out for yourself and so hopefully this is just helpful to help unpack that so let's let's just jump in Brian um how would you first of all just if somebody were to walk up on you know at your church and just say pastor I just kind of came across this tulip thing what is this T i've total depravity what what does that mean what does it mean to be totally depraved why do we why do we believe in total depravity and specifically total inability and how would you describe it to them well as a nation I have a say that we be this I'm getting some feedback over here never mind it's better now okay I would say it's this so so total depravity is the doctrine that sin because of the fall sin has touched every human excepting one Jesus Christ of course and it has touched them in the totality of their being Spurgeon said that just as salt touches every part of the water in the Atlantic Ocean so sin has touched and affected every part of the human being and we are not as is often rightly said as bad as we could be as people have often pointed out Hitler even Hitler loved his mother more than like but nonetheless we are affected by this sin which we inherit from from Adam and so that sin because it affects the totality of who we are that would be the total this depravity affects the totality of who we are it also affects our wills specifically our wills as they relate to the things of God and so in to use Paul's expression in 1st Corinthians 2:14 the natural man man as he is in his own in his unregenerate fallen condition in Adam is unable to turn to God in repentance and faith he is unable to exercise faith in Christ and so that is what Luther said when he was discussing this issue with her Asmus in 1525 responding to her Asmus this book on the will he described it as a will that is in bondage and therefore we must be released from that bondage in order to turn to God and I would also be quick to add and I know you know this Leighton because we discussed it a little bit Calvinist you know 5.30 and Calvinists are not the only ones who believe in total inability that sin has so affected us that we are unable to believe the gospel are minions classical are minions James Arminius his followers the remonstrance in the early 17th century the ones that were answered by the Senate of door wesleyan our minions have a category of prevenient grace grace that goes before it is a resistible grace but it restores the the freedom to the will so that when the person hears the gospel he or she can choose to either accept it or reject it Roger Olson who has written quite a bit on this and I would recommend that if people want to go and read more about what our minions have to say about total depravity and what its solution is his book our minion theology chapter 7 is is fantastic in that regard and he would actually say that it's not so much that we have a free will this is Roger Olson and our mini and a Baptist Armenian it's not so much that we have a free will as that we have a free will so I do want to point that out so it's not as though the oxygens are either 5 : Calvinism or something else either total inability or a measure of ability that we retain even despite the effects of the fall because there are people who aren't Calvinists who would accept that it doesn't mean that the doctrine of total inability is true obviously and so that's how I would define it sorry I forgot to pull my microphone down for volume volume second I try almost talking without it that's a great explanation and I I think you you've you've hit the nail on the head as far as being able to explain just from the Calvinistic perspective exactly what total inability is and I would just I would even state even more for more clarity and you tell me if you agree with this that whenever they're saying that you're totally unable they're not trying to say that you can't you don't have the cognitive ability to hear a preacher preach and understand what they're talking about they're talking about the inability of the will to to want to do other than to rebel and to reject that truth and so it's it's not that it's not that the purse is trying to get into heaven they're trying to believe but God's going now you're not elect I just don't want you you can't repent you can't believe because I just don't want you and that's obviously a misnomer as well Calvinism is not saying that people are trying to get into heaven and can't or trying to repent and can't it's saying that they are unwilling to come and they're not able to be willing to come unless God changes their heart their nature in such a way as to make them want to come is that a pretty accurate description there as well absolutely what you said at the beginning was drawing directly from Jonathan Edwards Jonathan Edwards wrote one of the most famous treatises on the will I would say probably the second most famous treatise on the will in cat in reformed history next to Luther and now Luther of course wasn't reformed he was Lutheran but nonetheless it within that stream of thought coming from the Reformation I mean you got the bondage of the will and he got and he got Edwards and his book on freedom of the will and so he distinguishes between two types of ability and two types of inability so you have a moral ability and a moral inability and a natural ability and a natural inability and so when Calvinists say that man is unable we do not mean that he doesn't have the faculties that are necessary to repent and believe it is not as though God is asking us to use an analogy and absurd analogy to fly over a house to flap our wings and fly over a house and then sending us to hell because we can't flap our wings and fly over a house we obviously don't have the natural ability as humans to flap our wings and fly over a house so we have everything that we need in order to hear the gospel to understand it and to accept it we have a will we have a mind and those things are functioning but our our moral inclination has been inhibited and so we do not have the moral ability to believe we do not want the things of of God and so Edwards distinction has proven very influential in the history of reformed thought and so yeah I would say that that is that that is absolutely right what you said okay just a few questions just for clarity for your position first and then I'll kind of explain like how it relates even maybe to a little bit of what you said with regard to arminianism you know like Roger Olsen's there are some similarities and there's some maybe some differences with what I hold to regarding Roger Olson I imagine if ID Roger Olson here he and I would probably end up agreeing a lot more than disagreeing on some of those aspects because it's some new some nuance in the way we would maybe approach it nevertheless just a couple of questions you mentioned the moral ability is being inhibited can you explain why the moral ability is inhibited yes so the the moral ability has been taken away so that we no longer have a moral ability to believe the gospel that that's that's Edwards term we no longer have a love for the things of God to use Ezekiel's language we have a heart of stone instead of a heart of flesh and we're and therefore and we're born with the hardest stone under this system right yes we are born dead in sins we are from our mother's womb have our sinners we are as as agustin you know said we we are we're not we're not sinners you know I'm sorry I'm getting mixed up there but yeah so so we sin because we are we are sinners we're not sinners because we we sin and and so that to use Augustine's distinctions there so yes we we have been born in a dead state and therefore are unable to respond positively to the things of God yes okay but whose decision was it that mankind would be morally inhibited to use your terms in other words what I'm trying to get to is that you do affirm that the reason that we're morally inhibited from birth is by God's decree in other words God decided that because Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit that all people would become royally inhibited to respond even to his own message calling for the reconciliation of that fall yes yes so we have been constituted sinners in Adam and so we have been born in a sinful state in Adam and so our sin is inevitable in Adam and we have been as I you know preached the fall ruined us we have been ruined in Adam and therefore we come into this world not morally neutral certainly not morally good but haters of God and therefore no man to I mean to use Paul's language not only is no man righteous not only is no man good but no man seeks after God and so if you want to get into the idea of decree then then we can but of course God did place Adam in the garden as the first human and did so design things that his decision would leave the rest of us in bondage shift that he should he sinned I think that's what Paul is saying in in Romans chapter 5 right well and I'm just trying to get real clarity on this point because sometimes it can get a little bit confusing because a Calvinists will say well this is the natural condition of man but what they mean by natural condition is what is nature we don't believe in mother nature here we believe in a divine creator and therefore when you say something is natural you're ultimately saying in accordance with God's design decree his decision and so in the same way if if my child let's say my child lies to me then my decision to punish him how I choose to punish him is my responsibility you know it's it's what he chose to do and if I think that the just punishment for what he chose to do is to for instance lock him in his bedroom you know nobody would would maybe think anything of it that's a grounding you know you're locking in this bedroom for a time but what might seem unfair if you will or maybe just a little bit unreasonable is if I were to you know holler out at him and say hey if you come out of the locked bedroom then we can be reconciled but of course he can't come out of the locked bedroom because either the door's locked or he came here me because the doors too thick or for some reason he's incapable of coming out even when I call him and I'm acting as if I want him to come but I am the one who's punished him by putting him in this condition where he can't respond and therefore there's there you can see where I'm getting at I think is that it seems to me that by God's decree mankind is born in this hardened dead stony kind of condition where they can only reject and hate the things of God even his appeal to be reconciled from that fall can only be rejected and all of that is a part of God's decree in other words God has decided for mankind to be in that condition from birth because of the punishment from the fall and yet he still holds them responsible for how they reply to his own revelation and his appeals can you see how that might cause people pause and thinking that does not seem like justice that is not seem like that something that's being reasonable - to ultimately seal everybody over in a state of disbelief and even an incapacity to respond to his own offer of grace and repentance and yet they're being judged and held responsible ultimately according to John 12:48 with the words of Christ the words of Christ or what ultimately holds them accountable that's whether be judged by is what they do with him his revelation and so how do you how do you answer that how do you kind of deal with that oh yeah well let me just in answer to your to your question do I not see how that could cause people some trouble I do i it has caused me trouble I'll just be honest with you it in my past and you know there's a whole history of how I came into reformed theology and so forth and we don't even necessarily go into that but resisting it for example as a college student resisting it in part because of some of these questions so yeah I get it I don't want to be disingenuous and act as though whether there's no issue at all of course it is it is at least for me existentially difficult now if I could just address one thing very quickly about your analogy about putting your son in his room locking the door and then telling them to come out and then holding him responsible for not being able to I would say this and I'm not charging you with I know I know you've had to deal a lot with people charging you with misunderstanding I get that it's an analogy and so therefore it's not gonna match up you know with a strict one-to-one correspondence but the person that's in the room is I would say that the door is is unlocked and all you have to do is come out and be reconciled but the kid that's in there doesn't want to come out he is definitely well he hates you he doesn't love you he doesn't want you and so he's in that room now you may have put him in that now now he may be in that room and and that may be because of a decision on your part as to how the world was as to how your home was going to operate and there may be in there but he doesn't want to come out but door is representing the very thing you're talking about the moral and ability for him to reply that yes no and I just don't want to get the idea go ahead I'm sorry right and that's why that's why I clarified earlier is that we're not trying to say it's a physical inability that he can't understand or he came here that's why and maybe in a better analogy might be okay for his punishment I gave him some kind of you know and again this gets weird when you start doing some positional you know analogies like this but if I were to give him some kind of a drug that makes him hate me as a punishment for his original sin or maybe even because of his big brother sinning I gave all of my children some kind of a drug that makes them all hate me and then only if I give them the antidote will they love me again and and therefore when I call out for reconciliation for all of them none of them reply except for the one I give the antidote to and that one automatically just desires me and wants me to be reconciled with me how do you consider it just that because of the sin of the one all of them had this moral incapacity from birth to to accept or to reply to heed my offers of help and and you know what I'm saying you can you can throw any analogy and make it even just about the course it's another higher of that child they they just hate me because I decided for them to hate me from birth and therefore they can only stop hating me if I decide for them to stop hating me and yet somehow we're still responsible for that yeah so you got a lot of issues kind of there they rolled into one and I and I would just say very quickly that for me my belief in reformed theology on this point it's not because I have found a philosophically robust way to reconcile twin truths of sovereignty and responsibility or God deciding to constitute the human race and Adams such that his fall affected us in this way etc and so forth and how is it that God is holding us personally responsible in the light of original sin and so forth I understand the difficulties of those doctrines and I just have to say very clearly I don't know for me my belief in this is constrained by what it seems to me the Bible is saying and so I have struggled mightily for a long time with questions like this okay God how does this work out and so forth and having read certain Calvinists on this issue I've not yet found a solution that I that I think is helpful but as somebody that believes her passionately in Sola scriptura I just simply want to say if it's in the scripture and if God is who he is as revealed in Scripture whose thoughts are higher than our thoughts and who dwells in an unapproachable light I am comfortable with simply saying lord I do not know how to make sense of these things it seems to me that you are revealing this idea of an inability to believe the gospel and so I'll trust you that throughout it all I do believe that you're just and I may not get an answer I mean I get an answer on this side of glory or on the other side and that's okay I just simply have to say you know not not what is it that for that to me makes the most sense logically and ethically but rather what scriptures say and so that that's where I'll come down on that yeah if you ask the question I could simply say I don't know yeah and we we all for fairness like we all appealed to mystery on some point now I would much rather appeal to the mystery of man's capriciousness than God's character and just so in other words I would much rather say I'm not sure exactly how freewill works than to say I don't know how God just because I do think there are some biblical replies and some answers that give us some clarity and and therefore if those who are listening are still on the fence which I know there usually is quite a few people who are watching these kinds of programs for trying to decide what they believe is that a mystery that the Bible affords if it is then you should adopt it okay I mean in other words if what Calvinists are saying if what Brian here is saying is true I mean that's a mystery that the Bible affords that we just don't know how God's just and holding people accountable for something they have absolutely no control over from birth if that if that's the mystery you're willing to live with and that you think the Bible of fords and by all means I think you probably should become a Calvinist however if what I'm about to explain to you seems to make biblical sense as well and seems to align with what the Scriptures teach then I would just ask for you to use your again your freewill and to decide whether it's it's reasonable and whether it's it's biblically sound or not and so just as you kind of begin by explaining what you believe let me just give a little bit of rundown Brian and then and then feel free to interact in fact if you want to wave at me if you've got a question and want to jump in feel free to do that as we go because I don't necessarily want this just to be a monologue they hear enough of that on my podcast so feel free to jump in and push back on something but for me the concept of total inability I don't believe it's biblically established and I think if it were it would have first arisen in Genesis but instead what we see in Genesis is almost the opposite of what is being claimed by total inability is that after the fall and after eating from the tree which is aptly named the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that it seems to me Adam and Eve were granted an ability not that they didn't lose one they got the ability to know both right and wrong to know both good and evil and that they are responsible for their choices there thereafter for what they do for good or for evil and it also seems even from their own children Cain and Abel the story that plays out that you will know as one of their their sacrifices is accepted in the other ones not in God's own words to Cain is that the sin is crouching at your door lest you resist it and calls him to repentance and and seems to treat him as if he could have brought just as equal of an acceptable sacrifice as his brother did and so there there doesn't seem to me at least in the Genesis account when you talk about the the toiling of the soil and the you know the labor pains it seems to me he would have mentioned among the the results of the fall the worst of them all which is that your your children will all grow up hating and rejecting me and they won't have any choice in the matter they they will only be able to hate and reject me naturally because of my decree I've decided to punish you in this way and I see you you just motion there so I'll stop go ahead well I want to jump in here and just say that of course Calvinists understand and wholeheartedly affirm say the account of obtain and and God telling him all right you you you must resist this sin okay and you must not let it not let it overtake you of course Calvinists believe and and the question is that you have brought up before and then others have thrown that before is are we consistent in believing this but Calvinists still believe that that men are willing they're acting they may sin out of a heart that desires it that loves it that wants it and so the question is what does God's sovereignty what does God's decision have to do with that and of course the issue of God determining to allow Adam to act as our as our head such that his decision affects those that come after him which by the way all of us would agree with the question is the extent to which his sin affects us I mean none of us are fully Pelagian in the sense that we think that all of us are born as new Adams and so you have that question you also have the question of his decree and so forth and then man's responsibility and as I said I I hold those two things in tension I don't know exactly how they relate but I do want to ask you about about Cain and please don't let me get too far afield because I do want you to go through and keep explaining your view but in in your opinion was Cain as a fallen son of Adam was he responsible to God to love God with all his heart soul mind and strength and to love his neighbor as himself was that something that God expected him to do the law of God was given as a schoolmaster a tutor to reveal our need I think for a Savior it wasn't it wasn't ever given for the purpose of attaining righteousness it was given to reveal our need for Jesus and so I don't think that God ever had an expectation for mankind to fulfill the demands of the law I think the law was purpose was to reveal our need for a savior our our need to trust him and so no I don't think Cain was held ultimately accountable or responsible for and not fully loving and in fulfilling all the demands of God I think his caned it and I mean Abel didn't do that either he brought a sacrifice in faith and so it was through faith that he was declared or credited as righteous it wasn't through his perfect obedience and doing what you just now listed out as it's kind of the summation of the law it was through bringing a sacrifice in faith and so I think the law is to reveal our need for a savior and I think it's perfectly sufficient to do that okay so I think you see then where I'm going because my question would be not just detained have the responsibility before God to love God with all of his being and then to love his neighbor as himself but do does every person have that responsibility and it would seem like it would be so and so my question would be then are we able to fulfill it or not and I think that we would also say that none of us is able to perfectly love God and yet it would seem to me that God nonetheless holds us responsible for failing in that regard if after all is first John sin is lawlessness sin is law breaking and the summation of the law the greatest law is to love God and we don't do it and it seems as though I'm not sure that we could say that we're able to I mean in acts 15 Peter is talking at the Jerusalem Council and he's saying brothers we don't need to put the burden of the law upon the Gentiles because we have not been able to bear it ourselves and and so it would seem that that uncontroversial unless we want to say that it is possible for man to to attain righteousness by the law it would seem that we're all unable and yet God holds us responsible for failing to love him and for failing to keep his law which is what the essence of sin is and I said I didn't want to get too far off the beaten path because I know you had some more things you wanted to say that I did just want to raise that issue because I think that inability is a problem then for all of us because I would assume I would presume that you would say that Adam's sin has made it impossible for us to live in our natural state in our fallen state in 100% compliance to the demands of God right but the intention of God in sending the law was never for us to be in a hundred percent compliance of it that's intention of sending the law was for us to recognize and acknowledge our need for him which we are able to do and Calvinism says we're not based upon the fact that we're not able to fulfill the law and that's where the non sequitur is is committed the fallacy of the non sequiturs committed that ultimately what your argument is is in the same way that we can't build the demands of the law there we can't confess our inability to fulfill the demands of the law when a sufficient Savior is offered in our stead and that's where I don't I don't find that connection in Scripture and so when when when Calvinists appeal to the perfection be perfect as I am perfect and you can't be perfect as he is perfect therefore you can't admit your imperfections either God has to do that for you through some effectual means then I just say you know chapter verse I don't find that's that link in Scripture what I see instead is that God sent the law for the intended purpose of revealing to our need for a savior to recognize our inabilities to keep his commands and therefore to trust in him to throw ourself at his mercy and we are capable of doing that because the law and the gospel are sufficient in what they were sent to do and under Calvinism they're not sufficient for what I think the Bible says they were intended to do without this so-called effectual or irresistible working of regeneration or grace or effectual calling and I don't I don't find that taught in Scripture I'm not convinced that it's taught in Scripture okay well I just want to be clear that I'm not arguing that because we're unable to obey the law therefore were unable to accept the gospel to believe on Christ confess our inability or our failure to keep the law etc my point was if if perhaps you understood this anyway but just to clarify my point was that if there is a problem if people say well this is unjust for God to hold us responsible for failing too for not believing and by the way we're all unwilling to it's not as though as we all pointed out so there are some people knocking on the door of the kingdom that God is keeping out but we are all haters of God and so if it's unjust for God to to hold us responsible for not believing on the son because we're unable to believe on the son it just seems to me that God is still holding us responsible for failing to keep his law and yet those people haven't heard anybody do people go do do all people who break the law go to hell because the reason I mentioned that is because obviously they're lawbreakers in both heaven and hell the difference is whether or not somebody humping forgiveness is that fact or not and yeah reason that we are ultimately held accountable is in other words responsible are as on the actual point that we are able to respond and that is whether or not we accept the word of Christ which is a call to repentance a call to believe and trust in him and so yeah and you were right there that we are kind of getting off the beaten path a little bit but and if you want to just if you want to jump in with a question yeah as I kind of go through this and great just for clarity but we may end up going down a thousand rabbit trails but you and I both mentioned that London Baptist confession that we talked about and you did establish I think with me and our private conversations and we just want to I want to establish it here for our audience is that you do affirm chapter 9 that the London Baptist confession with regard to free will as created within Adam and Eve and and that that was the in the he was endowed with the human will the natural Liberty and power to act on choices so that it's neither forced or inherently bound by nature to do good or evil which is what I would describe as libertarian free will in other words able to to accept or reject able to eat or not eat of the the forbidden fruit that would be libertarian free will as I would define it and you affirm that mankind was created with that but that they lost it is that accurate yeah so chapter nine of the second one a confession paragraph one God hath endued the will of man with that natural Liberty and power of acting upon choice so we choose something and then we act upon it so the will is that which acts upon choice it is not forced so it's not coerced externally and it's not by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil so in other words God does not create us with you know in the state of creation Adam for example did not have by by creation a perverted will and so then number two paragraph two says man in his state of innocence II so this would be Adam and Eve in the garden had freedom and power to will to do that which was good and well pleasing to God and so the point of that statement in paragraph two is to prepare for what comes which is that that power and freedom to will and to do what's good and well pleasing to God was lost now so you're asking specifically and I would affirm that now you're asking specifically about as you call it libertarian free will power of contrary choice right now when it comes to libertarianism libertarianism has a specific definition it is in determinism as it's also known so it's as opposed to determinism determinism is a philosophical construct it's not something that's necessarily theistic because they're a theistic determinists for example sam Harris is a hard determinist who doesn't believe that there's any sense in talking about freewill whatsoever Daniel Dennett would be a soft determinist because he's a compatibilist and so when you get into this I'm uncomfortable as saying that Adam had the power to obey God had the the ability not to sin and yet he misused that freedom and fell from it and lost his ability to do what is well pleasing to God so that is what I would say and by the way there's a whole strain of of Calvinistic scholars who would also say that there are libertarian versions of Calvinism that are acceptable I say and I accept what they say whole cloth Richard Muller for example who is a historical theologian whose expertise and post-reformation theology is well well beyond mine for him he would say that determinism has not been the historic position prior to Edwards Alan well you know so I would be willing to say yes I mean I agree with that with the confession that he was mutable this is paragraph two and so that he might fall from it and so he missed use what he had the freedom and power to will and so therefore therefore fell from it by his state of sin has lost the ability and just like I know scholars from both sides you know like to be able to define their own terms you know you you want to be able to say what I believe compatible isn't is for example and in the same way a libertarian scholar wants to be able to say this is what I believe Liberty freedom is and and the reason I go to this confession is because I think the chapters I mean points one and two thereof chapter nine well-established what I mean by libertarian free will I think that the the whole concept of the ability to to self-determine in other words to choose to do otherwise that that Adam is not acting necessity in a necessity by decree God did not decree or ie causally determine the circumstances and his nature in such a way that he had to choose to sin at that moment in time at least as far as I can tell points one and two would affirm that aspect now there could be a lot of philosophical debate around that and how that works with regards to God's knowledge of future events and all those kinds of things which you and I both really rather probably not go down that road but nevertheless the point is is to stay before it's one and two are establishing contra causal or self determined ability that Adam had was making the decision within himself it was not something that was somehow causally determined decisively determined if you will by God prior to his decision if that makes sense well I would also agree with chapter three of the confession which follows you know right from I mean let me pull this up here chapter 3 of the LBC right from the Westminster Confession God hath decreed in himself from all eternity by the most wise and holy counsel that's will freely and unchangeably all things whatsoever come to pass so I do affirm that and again this is where I'm going to have to simply say I don't understand how this have this work whatever happens in time is something that God has decreed but as the confession goes on to state God is neither the author of sin he has no fellowship there in North Island offered to the will of the creature and it says that the liberty and contingency of second causes is not taken away but rather established it so I have to I do take that now now you have said well that that's determinism not gonna understand why you would say that I mean I would I would say yes God has determined what is going to happen in this world but determinism as I was kind of saying earlier is a philosophical system and it has a precise definition that for any event in the physical world being a physical event or a volitional event be it you know a tree falling down or a choice that a human being makes there is a series of causes preceding it that render that are sufficient to bring about the the event the the say the tree falling down or the hurricane coming up and gin destroying a town or a choice and so you know usually the Calvinist who would go in that direction like say uh Narcisse we're all following after in Edwards they call themselves compatibilist and so they take the view that calls of determinism is compatible with human freedom not libertarian freedom of course but they would say they adopt a position known as volitional ISM or freedom of inclination that you're free to act according to your strongest desire and etc and so forth and so I understand those distinctions I get what they're doing I'm with you I'm not really wanting to go down that road I will say this from what I understand about the Westminster Divine's who wrote the Westminster Confession and of course the London Baptist confession following from that it would seem that they would affirm a power of contrary choice and Adam they didn't want to explain how that works out with God's decree or how God in acts is decree in time they simply seem to let the mystery stand uncomfortable with that for example Luther also now Luther in in the bondage of the will is is arguing with her Asmus and actually says when he discusses Erasmus its definition of the will he says you're quite right to say that man has a will in some instances but not in the things of God when it comes to the things of God when it comes to belief in the gospel our ability has been taken away because of what sin has done to us it is rendered us unable and so yes so that that's what I'm comfortable with one of the reason that you know you've got you got some Calvinists that disagree with each other for example Piper taking on packer who ultimately appeals to an attending me or an apparent contradiction just a bit Bob oh yeah when you do that with your microphone there sorry brother that's all right what I was saying was with the with you know Piper taking on Packer and saying you know this apparent contradiction or this Atena me it kind of goes with what Westminster kind of was doing you know hey God God decrees everything he's ultimately determining everything that comes to pass but somehow Adam and Eve were we're free to make their choices and we just don't know how those two things to work and we just accept the truth that those two things whereas Piper steps in with a more philosophical compatible istic answer to say well the way that works is here's your philosophical explanation of compatibilism and what you're saying is I would rather appeal to mystery before trying to jump into a compatible istic or deep philosophical answer whether it's mullen ism or compatibilism or you know whatever else might be out there and the reason that I I continually in my debate in Houston in in in my discussions online with you and others I continually go back to the the confession is to try to find some common ground is to finally to finally say hey look this this is a good explanation of humanity with this liberty of the will if you will because that's the word it used with natural Liberty power to act on choices not forced by by nature or necessity of nature and the reason I point that out is this is just this with regard to the fallen nature if the if the Fallen nature is making a choice to sin excuse me if the if the if the unfallen nature like Adam and Eve the the the unfallen person is able to choose to sin in response to Satan's appeals his temptation that there's a mystery there that that spur all says I don't know how he fell I don't know how he said I don't know how Satan was tempted and said I don't know how that happened there's an appeal to mystery there so there's a the the unfallen nature choosing to sin there's a mystery to freedom of the will in other words it's a self determined will but we don't really know we just know he's to blame and we don't know exactly how that works well in the same way one who chooses to confess sin in response to God's appeal is-is-is I think just as mysterious for us but it's still the person's responsibility in other words it's still it's still within the natural capacity of the Fallen will to admit that you're fallen to confess your fallenness so the same mystery that Calvinist I think ultimately appealed to you with regard to the freedom of the will with regard to Adam and Eve is ultimately the same basic mystery that that libertarians are appealing to with the self determined will of every sinner to confess that they are that and that's why when you get the number one question of the Calvinists which is well why did you repent and so and so else somebody else didn't well they answer for the Calvinist is because well God elected and effectually called them the answer for us is that God loves and provides for all but that all are responsible I II have the capacity the freedom of the will to self-determine and to make a choice for yes or for no for accepting or for rejecting and therefore they are justly punished for their rejection it's not something that's necessitated by a sovereign decree something that they have absolutely no control over and that ultimately goes back to the exact same mystery that Calvinists whether they're recognizing it or not they're they're punting to the same mystery that we are ultimately punting to with regard to human freedom do you understand my point sure okay I just wanted to make sure that that was understood why I established that within the confessions but continuing on in my explanation of total inability and why I reject it as a biblical doctrine I don't I don't find it convincingly taught in the scriptures is is something even mentioned earlier you talked about the moral ability is inhibited because we are we are hearts of stone James white put it that way in the debate as I know you listen to where I kept pushing on you know what do you mean by a hardened heart well the that you have a stony heart you have a heart of stone and this seems to be something that you believe is a natural condition ie decreed by God from birth due to the fall of Adam and that's something I don't find established in Scripture instead what I see again and again and again at the scriptures is that as we see in Romans chapter one is that those who suppress the truth will eventually be given over to the depravity of their hearts that their hearts become darkened it says Acts chapter 28 which I reference quite regularly that talks about some of them being convinced by what Paul was preaching all day long and some of them not being convinced and then he goes and declares to go declare to these people and say to them you are ever seeing but not perceiving ever hearing but not understanding now for a Calvinist that's everybody from birth because everybody is seeing but not perceiving hearing but not understanding because of the natural-born condition but that declaration is specifically made in prophecy to hardened Israelites and in the renunciation of that by Paul he is saying it to Israel because he even goes on to say your hearts have become calloused otherwise you might see you might hear you might turn and I would heal you expressing his desire is to heal them and then he goes on to say therefore I'll take the message to the Gentiles and they will listen thus contrasting the nature of the Jewish people who are self-righteous and hardened both are sinful obviously Gentiles are just a sinful they're very immoral people but the contrast that Paul is laying out there in Acts chapter 28 is the difference between those who have grown calloused or hardened they don't think they need a physician because they think they're the physicians they're the old wineskin that can't take the new wine why because they have grown calloused and hardened like that the skins the leathers of that day would have grown calloused in hardened they can't take the new skin the Romans 9 reference to the calloused I mean the hardened clay this is unique to the condition of the Israelite people and that they have grown calloused and hardened to the revelation of God so much so that they no longer can see here understand in turn and it seems to me that what Calvinists have done is they just assumed onto this text that everyone is already born not as bad as they could be as you rightly I think delineated but they all right yeah did you lose I'm sorry I lost you for just a second I'm sorry I lost you for did a second so yeah you refer to acts 28 and they have become hardened judicially hardened and therefore God was turning from them to go to the Gentiles I'm sorry go ahead yeah and I was just saying I don't think that the Calvinistic worldview allows room for this hardening process the difference between an eight-year-old for example and an 80 year old the the eight-year-old is the child that would be brought out of the audience and Jesus saying you must become like children you must humble yourself like the child to enter the kingdom of heaven well why not bring up an 8 80 year-old why not bring up one of the Pharisees and say that something well the difference between the two is not that one of them is innocent and it doesn't need a Savior and one of them is guilty now they're both guilty they're both sinful the difference is one of them is moldable one of them is humble when it was lowly the other ones self-righteous knows all it knows everything already and doesn't need anybody telling him what to do and so the the contrast I think that that Calvinists are not recognizing in the scripture is that we are yes in sin and incline toward sin and and woefully in need of a savior but we are not born in a condition where we can't confess that we're in bondage to sin in other words the bondage of the will is something that I would affirm I just don't think that being in bondage necessitates an incapacity to recognize your bondage to recognize your chains and confess them and to say I can't stop sinning I can't for a while you know I can I can kind of you know really stay on my diet for a while I can kind of really resist lust for a while I can you know I can stick for a fro up but inevitably I go back to sin and and I know that about myself and I can recognize that and I can humble myself and I can confess that especially in light of the law in the gospel and I am held responsible for whether I come out of the pigsty and my humility and beg for help or whether I try to pull myself up by the bootstraps and work my way out of it I'm responsible for how I respond to the revelation of God and that that's I think the distinction because it seems to me that Calvinists just have it's kind of black and white it's either it's either you you know you're you're a like Adam with with you know kind of a perfect nature so to speak or your this hardened heart that can't see here understand in turn apart from some kind of irresistible grace and I'm saying what I think there's there's a middle ground here that paint mankind is is sinful and responsible for their sins and they're inclined towards the sin and if they continue to suppress the truth of who God is and they continue to go down the road of sin that they will grow more and more calloused more and more hardened to the point where they can become ever seeing but not perceiving ever hearing but not understanding and therefore they can't see hear turn and repent because of their hardened callous condition but that's not a natural ie inherited condition from birth due to the fall of Adam that you have no control over does that make any sense no I see what you're coming I see what you're saying but you said it you did say a second ago that you say I can't stop sinning and so you do understand and recognize an inherited condition and you did say that there is an inability right there is an inability to cease from sin and yet we are responsible for sin that that's what you just said and so if we have an inherited condition which renders us unable to live righteously I would have to go back to my original question is God just in still holding us accountable for that sin if we inherited the condition that means we cannot stop sinning well that kind of goes back to the point I maybe at the very beginning is that the reasons the law ie the recognition of sins and soon as you know sin doesn't exist without the laws that's what Paul was saying is it sin comes alive when I realize that there's a law in other words there's nothing to do wrong if there's not a tree in the garden and are forbidden forbidden fruit there has to be the law there in order to break the law and so without the wall there is no sin but the reason that the law was sent the intention of the law wasn't that you fulfill it I don't think he put the tree in there so that Adam and Eve would would would not eat it I think he put it there for the ability for them to make their own free choices and to experience what it means to have true love and relationship worth having an unconditional love and learn what it means to be dependent upon somebody else in to trust in God I think that's why he gives the inheritance to the son for the exact same reason in the prodigal son story and so the the point is is what is the intention of ie little law and sin if the intention of the law in sin is to somehow merit righteousness and to ultimately be held accountable as to where you spend eternity then I think you've got a really good point but since the law wasn't given for that intention the law was given for the intention of being a schoolmaster a teacher and the question is is it a sufficient teacher I say that it is because I think it teaches us exactly what we need to know which is that we need to God we need a Savior we need his help but what Calvinism is ultimately doing in my estimation again you can correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me they're in their in their insinuating in a non sequitur by saying look in the same way that you can't obey the law you can't submit to God's law therefore you can't trust in the one who fulfilled the law for you and yet that undermines the very reason the law was sit in the first place it's like the analogy I've used which you've probably heard at the you know standing at the top of the staircase with my kids at the bottom telling them you can't touch the staircase but you got to get to the top and all of them go yeah it's impossible dad they're whining and griping until finally one of them realizes you've got to help us dad and and I offer I said well I will help you if you ask and not they each asked gonna carry them up the stairs and then we sit down and we have a little discussion about salvation hey salvation is the same way you can't get to heaven but you can receive the help when it's offered by Jesus and he has offered that help to each and every one of us and anybody who submits to him anybody who gives their life to Him he will carry you know it's his work not ours it's his righteousness not ours now how would that analogy work if I'm at the top of the stairs and the the children because of their incapacity to get to the top of the stairs without help also means that they cannot ask for help when it's offered our they can't even recognize their need for help when it's offered the whole point of the analogy is to make them realize that point and yet they can't realize that point either I might as well have just gone down and picked either one of them up and just carried them up the stairs without even telling them the the situation of the scenario because they're no they're not not involved at all and it just it becomes it becomes I think inconsequential as to the purpose of the law if we don't recognize that the purpose of the law is to reveal our need for a savior to reveal our need in dependence upon God and if people are born in a incapacitated state to realize that need and to accept it when it's offered genuinely by God to everyone through the gospel then I think you undermine ultimately the intentionality of God it makes it seem like he's being duplicity us by offering something that he is withheld the ability for us to accept yeah well I think that Paul Paul's argument in Galatians 3 is relevant and I look at the time and we only have about 30 minutes left and so I don't want to belabor at this point too long because I would like to get to some texts some other texts that haven't been brought up yet but but in in Galatians 3 Paul says that as many dis is Galatians 3 and verse 10 for as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse for his written curses everyone who's done abide by all things written in the book of the law right so we're under a curse because we're lawbreakers now no one is justified verse 11 by the law before God because it's evident the righteous man shall live by faith so we have a contrast there between faith versus works of the law you live because you have faith in Christ verse 12 however the law is not of faith and so again Paul draws this distinction the law and faith are two separate principles and then it on the contrary and he says quoting quoting from Leviticus 18 that he who practices them shall live by them and so it seems as though Paul is saying that if you did live by the law which you cannot do if you kept the law then you would live by it and so the law I would agree with you does point us to Jesus but it points us to Jesus because we understand that we are lawbreakers and are unable to to keep God's righteous demand we need somebody not only to forgive us for past failures and and future failures but even to give us an ability to love the things of God and of course I think that this is where the various text Ezekiel 36 31 deuteronomy chapter 30 speaking of the new covenant where God gives circumcise our heart and the language of Deuteronomy 30 so that we may live and that is so that we may obey the Lord and do that which pleases him and so I my argument again just to make one more point about this my argument is not we are unable to keep the law of God perfectly to obey God perfectly therefore we're also unable to to confess our need for a savior and to believe the gospel my point is is if God is just in holding us responsible for breaking his law which we are not able to fulfill then why is God not also just in holding us responsible for failing to believe in Christ when we are morally unable when we don't want it we don't have any desire for it again we're not striving to keep the law and yet falling away striving to love God and yet falling away we don't want it and we are we did not turn our hearts to it in the same way we do not turn our hearts to Christ in the gospel but so that that's that's what well that's pretty much all I want to say about that but continue on if you want yeah and I would just say I think I've already kind of answered that question because the intention of the law was never to to save or to attain righteousness and no one goes to hell simply because they sin they go to help because of rejecting the word of Christ according to the Scriptures or they're judged by the words of Christ they're not judged by what Adam did or a breaking of a number of laws in other words that the reason that law was sent was not to be that which judges that that which ultimately judges us were held accountable for as as Paul himself said those who perish perish because they refused the truth so as to be saved so not perishing just because they broke some rules they are ultimately perishing because they suppress the truth they reject the truth of God and and so that's how I would answer that but moving on the the problem I think that the biggest problem think the Calvinistic system is one of the reasons I ended up leaving Calvinism really was the whole concept an idea that when Jesus was here on earth he wasn't trying to convince everyone to follow him he was actually speaking of parabolic language so so that some of them wouldn't come according to mark chapter four in Matthew chapter 13 he says he spoke when he spoke to those on the outside he always used parables according to Mark 434 I believe it is and and the reason it says he does this it says lest they see hear understand in turn unless they understand that I am their Messiah and they failed to do what I Volta mately come to do which is to be crucified it's as 1st Corinthians chapter 2 verse 6 and 7 talk about at least these are mysteries that have been hidden from the rulers of this age and had they understood them they would have never curse if I'd the Lord of glory so when Jesus was here he's not revealing his true identity to everyone he's only has a remnant especially from Israel that he's telling these parables and explaining these things - he's keeping these things secret you got mark nine nine you got Matthew sixteen twenty where he says things like I don't tell anybody yet it's not the right time keep these things secret and it seems as if there's what's called the Messianic secret there's this sense in which Jesus isn't fully revealing how he drawing everyone to himself with telling everybody who he is that's not until Pentecost when he is raised up I will draw him into mom's to myself he says so it's after he accomplishes Redemption after the death bear on resurrection when he's raised up he sends the gospel to draw all men to himself but until that point he's using parabolic language speaking to them intentionally parabolically lest they understand who he is in other words they're using their self their own self callousness their own self-righteousness he's using that against them to keep his identity hidden and he's in he's revealing it to babes to fishermen to common folks while hiding it from the wise and learned of the day and and it just doesn't make sense to me there's a couple things that don't make sense to me if total inability is true is one why even use parables to prevent them from coming to faith and being healed as per his own words if indeed they're born in a stone like hardened condition that can't respond to willingly to the gospel unless given some supernatural ability through an effectual work of regeneration it seems to me that there would be no use for the parabolic languages to hide the identity and his truthfulness if indeed the the natural combat capacity of man was incapable of believing those things and the second thing is the redundancy of Satan throughout Scripture we see this quite often where he blinds the minds of unbelievers it says the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel the glory of Christ in 2nd Corinthians 4:4 what is the purpose of Satan blinding the minds of unbelievers to keep them from seeing the light if they're born blind in the capacity in the way that your your your system tells us and and and it also talks about Satan plucking the word of the people lest they have faith unless they believe snatching it from them in mark 4 1 through 9 it seems to me that that this makes work the work of Satan somewhat inconsequential and I would just wonder why Satan would would be striving to blind them or why God with hardened or blind the the nation of Israel or why for example would he harden Pharaoh's heart at times if he's already fully blind and hardened and it just seems to me that these are acts of God and/or Satan at different times for different purposes one for evil one for good and other in other places that we've talked about and you know as from our perspective that God can in a sense let Satan have his way with them let them over let them go over to their defiled ways because he's been patient with them held out his hands to them all day but then eventually says you know what I'm gonna let you go I'm gonna let you give you over your defiled mouths and maybe even use them in their rebellion as they did when they cry out crucify him use them in their rebellion to bring about a good purpose but never being the decisive cause of those evil actions and desires it just seems to me that the concept of total inability kind of undermines those other texts which seemed to indicate that people become callous become hardened the warnings against hardening your heart when you hear his voice as we see in Hebrews three and four the warnings about Satan plucking up the word lest you believe it the warnings about him blinding your eyes all of those seem unnecessary if the true of what total inability teaches is truly a biblical doctrine so that that kind of brings me now a conclusion of one of the reasons really the reasons that I think I've rejected the concept of total inability yeah and the issue I heard you go round and around with James wide about the issue of hardening judicial hardening and being dead and sin and so forth and you're in your Romans nine debate with him and so you bring up the issue of Satan blinding right second Corinthians the minds of the unbelievers and I would say that part of what it means to be to be dead in sin and unable I mean I would say that God is using the influence of Satan in part even to render us unable so so God is so when Satan fell he fell into the kingdom of Satan he was then a slave a son of Satan a slave of the devil a slave of sin and so it could be that part of our own I mean I'm just kind of floating some so because I understand your your question and so some Calvinists have said well it's just sort of inability layered on top of inability right so we have this inability and Adam and then Satan is sort of still blinding us and over the top like a mindful put on the corpse like okay why are you no earmuffs and blindfolds on corpses what are you doing yeah yeah and so and so I understand that that I'm I suppose I have a question rather than a solution but I do think it's interesting that in Ephesians chapter 2 Paul explains what it means to be dead in sin and he says it means verse two that you were walking according to the course of this world so it's like a runner running down a rate a track so he's running on the track the track is directing his his steps and so the world directs our steps so the world has a part to play in our sin and then so we also walk according to the Prince of the power of the air the spirit that has now at work in the sons the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience and so the fact that we have all and we are now within the realm of darkness rather than in the kingdom of the Sun we are transferred out of the domain of darkness as Colossians says into the kingdom of the Sun I think that perhaps some of that is is part of what it is that constitutes us unable to believe and so because we have come under the sway of the devil we have been blinded by him now of course our own wills are working with it as well and seeing that we only have about 15 minutes let me if you don't mind let me just reply to that and then then jump to the next point if you'd like to well let me summarize again just what I'm saying I'm my question is then is Satan playing a role in our inability and again I'm comfortable actually with just accepting what some Calvinists have said that his sort of inability heaped on top of inability where we're dead in sin Satan is nonetheless still blinding and so forth that's fine if you want to go there I understand that again I'm just yeah my question is what is what is the text not to say but I'm wondering if Satan's work is part of what it is that is keeping us blinded right if it's total a total blindness that you put a blindfold on somebody born totally blind like a corpse you know you you take the eyes out of a corpse just in case he sees it it doesn't make a rational sense to me what makes more rational sense to me is that the they are the these are hardened and self-righteous people who think they've got it all figured out and it makes sense to me that he is blinding them from his true identity unless they are convinced unless they do come to faith because faith cometh by hearing hearing the Word of God and if they hear Jesus speaking clearly without parabolic language then they could be convinced as some of them are later and and he's not ready for that to happen so I think strategically he's speaking parabolically to keep them in the dark so as to fulfill his strategic purpose in Redemption ie crucifixion they have to cry out crucify them I think that makes rational sense and it makes sense of passages which say that lord I thank you that you've hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to babes what does he mean well does he mean Calvinism because that's the way Calvinists read that verse and they think well that means cow I think it means that Jesus reveals it to fishermen blue-collar workers from Israel and he's hiding it from the Pharisees and he's making his truths known to no names nobodies and and he's explaining to them the parables he stays after the party so to speak and explains what he means by the parables to those guys but to those on the outside he only speaks to them in parables lest they see hear and understand that to me makes more rational sense than this this moral and capacity from birth that God decreed for all mankind that Genesis never talks about when he talks about all the results of the fall that we never see any explicit text as far as I can tell again we may be able to have some time if we do today to go over some explicit tests that you may think teach total inability and we can we can look at the duck and the rabbit interpretation as we've talked about on my podcast of how you might interpret that depending on what picture you're looking at but with with response to Ephesians 2 just real quickly we would say that deadness is talking about a separation because of rebellion not a moral and capacity in other words the idiomatic use of the first century uses the term dead like he does in the Church of Sardis when he says you're a dead church wake up it doesn't mean they're morally incapable of waking up it means that they are distant from God because of their rebellious actions and that's the same with the prodigal son you are lost but now you're found you were dead but now you're alive that's is separation due to immorality in an unbelief not due to an inability to confess that fact or to realize that that fact and so I think it's incumbent upon the Calvinists to establish biblically where the term dead is ever used in such a way as to certainly connote this natural incapacity to to believe otherwise or to receive that which God offers his life giving truth that's I think the the shortcoming of that plus just one other application of that Paul also says in Romans chapter 6 that we as Christians are to be dead to sin what does that mean we're not able unable to sin no it means we're to separate ourselves in the same word separation there we're separating ourselves from sin much like a father would say to a rebellious child you're dead to me that means you are separate for me I'm treating as if you are not what you are in the same way I am dead to sin meaning I'm separating myself from that not meaning I'm morally incapable of doing that or following that anymore or changing where I am and so that's that's the argument I would say with regard to the misapplication of deadness in the Calvinistic worldview okay yeah and and I I wanted to say this too I I would not want to hold out Ephesians 2:1 as sort of the the final proof I think I think that the the total context of Ephesians 2 1 through 10 would lend you to in this direction and you know you're talking about going over into revelation and the opening chapters of Revelation is pulling dead out there Luke 15 and so forth and I would want to be careful about certain context but I do agree fundamentally with your definition that it means a separation that we've been separated from God and therefore we have no spiritual life and so Paul defines it it doesn't mean complete inability because as I just pointed out we're walking according to the course of this world and according to Satan's Kingdom etc but I do find it instructive and that that's as far as Paul goes this is what we are doing but then verse 4 says that God has made us alive and it doesn't even get to what we do until verse 8 with faith and of course I understand that you would not interpret that the way that I do I I see Ephesians 2:1 as part of a cumulative case I want to point out to with what you were saying and about Satan blinding eyes and it seems like you're you're saying that 2nd Corinthians 4:4 is referring to I guess maybe a select group of unbelievers who have been judicially hardened but I mean 2nd Corinthians 4 3 even if our gospel is veiled Paul says it's available to those who are perishing not to a select group of those who are perishing that have gone so far that God is judicially hardening them but it seems as though to all those who are perishing this gospel is veiled in whose case the god of this world has blinded the eyes of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of glory of Christ who is the image of God and I would say that I'm not sure that that an exegesis of second Corinthians 4:4 in context would bear out that point I do understand the point that you are making but well how do you think that their other just for real reference for that I would back up also into chapter 3 because that's where the narrative begins obviously there's not chapter divisions in the original text and so you've gotten in verse 15 and following but to this day whenever Moses is read a vile avail lies over their hearts so specifically speaking of Israel this veil lying over their heart because they're just not getting it there they've become blinded and hardened and callous because they've continually rejected the truth of God and so that's specific to Israel again just like the acts 28 passage I talked about earlier is that they're ever seeing but not perceiving is not a natural condition of all people from birth some inherit nature this is talking as specifically about the condition of Israel in their calloused condition and so in verse 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord the veil is taken away given I think a good order salutis if you will if you turn to the Lord then the veil is taken away not that the veil is taken away through some supernatural irresistible grace therefore you will turn to the Lord but no it's your responsibility to turn to Christ to trust in the wisdom that's being brought through the Apostles revelation rather than trusting in your own man-made traditions that you know Talmud and the Mishna and all the other you know religious systems in the world has created but instead to look to to the Lord for healing and that's again the tutor the schoolmaster is to point us to Christ all of its to point us to Christ and I think it's sufficient to do that well Leighton I only have about ten minutes left and and I understand what you're saying I just have I I guess I just respectfully disagree at this point and so there are other texts of course that I would point to to provide a positive case for inability as to why I believe it Ephesians 2 would be part of a cumulative case as I said but since we don't have very much time of course I do I would love to go to John 6 and look at what Jesus says in John 6 specifically in verse well 36 44 verse 65 and so forth and also John a referring to to slavery you know and this that's where Jesus specifically points out that they are sons of the devil and the people are sons of the devil which again I I wonder if some of that has to do with our inability what Satan's work is doing in us however I think it might be beneficial and instructive to go to Romans chapter eight and of course I know you know this text and so forth but I mean what do you do with this that he's talking about the mind set on the flesh the mind set on the spirit the mind set on the flesh verse six Romans 8:6 is the mind set on the flesh is death Minds healing spirit is life and peace the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God it does not subject itself to the law of God it's not even able to do so for those who are in the flesh cannot please God faith and repentance would obviously be pleasing to God I think that that is germane to the idea of how much ability we have prior to coming to Christ yeah and I have several episodes on this point and I don't think that this passage says enough to establish the Calvinistic system I understand how you would read it but again I don't believe that an inability to submit to the law of God equals an inability to trust in the one who did and that's that's the the part of the that I would reject and I would also say that Paul is contrasting those who are in the spirit or dwelled by the spirit those who are truly redeemed versus those who are not he is not giving us a dissertation on how one goes from being in the spirit for being lost to being found he's simply contrasting the two and so then it becomes a question of how does one go from setting their mind on the flesh to setting their mind on the things of the spirit is that something that's irresistible accomplished by God through some effectual work or is that your responsibility in light of what the spirit brings through his truth and through his light and so this verse just doesn't say enough for me to be convinced that it's teaching total inability it seems to me just to be contrasting the life of those who are in Christ versus those who are not and those who are not in Christ won't ever please God because the only way to please God is to believe in him therefore you should believe in him there sure therefore you should follow him and so that again I'm not sure why this text is probably the number one most quoted or referred to to teach total inability one because it doesn't even refer to the gospel in specific as far as the the means by which the spirit may help somebody to set their mind on the flesh on the spirit as opposed to the flesh and it seems to assume that somebody doesn't have the moral capacity as to where they ultimately set their minds it seems to me to be more of a you know an admonition to say you need to be setting your mind on the things of the Spirit especially the carnal church in Corinth that he refers to in first Corinthians chapter 3 where he says because of your carnality you're not pleasing to God and in anybody even the Christian who is a believer if you're setting your mind on the things of the flesh you're not going to be pleasing to God and so in the same way I might say to my child you know son as long as you're in rebellion or as long as you're acting rebellious Lee even if you may be following the rules by doing your chores as long as you're acting rebellious Lee you're not gonna bleep pleasing to me your attitude has to change that would no in no way apply and imply that my son has the the lack of responsibility or the lack of the ability to respond to my warning it would only imply that he needs to change his attitude and that he's responsible for that in the same way but me to be giving an admonition to people to set their mind on the things of the Spirit rather than the things of the flesh well a couple of things you said it's not talking about the gospel I mean verse one no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus I mean that's gospel language verse three for what the law could not do you're misunderstanding I'm not saying that there's not the gospel principles within this text what I'm saying is it is not talking about somebody being presented with the spirit rock gospel truth and their ability to respond to that and so that's the only point I was making is that he's not he's contrasting those who are already gospel believers versus those who are still in the flesh and are not gospel believers he's not he's not trying to give a an exhortation or a delineation on how one goes from being in the flesh to being in the spirit and therefore yeah but I it that way is not a to me you know a good and hermeneutic well I mean Paul might not yet although he will later in the chapter issue are bringing the language of calling for example but just a couple of things I mean you're right he is contrasting two groups of people those in the spirit and those in the flesh but he does say in verse nine however you're not in the flesh but in the spirit if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you so he's he is talking about those who have come out of the fleshly realm and into the spiritual realm even though he doesn't yet talk about the idea of calling he is still what withering to a straight look to a change that has happened right well this this question I'll illustrate my point do you believe somebody who's been regenerated born-again you know that given new heart but has not yet been and dwelled by the spirit in other words there's some if there's some momentary moment there to where the in the order salutis however it might be where somebody is under conviction they've been born-again in the sense that their life is now they see the truth of their own error they see their sinfulness they have not been in dwelled with the spirit yet obviously there were a lot of people who believed but who were not in dwelled by the spirit before Pentecost and so there's that person who is still in the flesh in the sense they're not dwelled by the spirit but they have been quote-unquote regenerated in the Calvinistic way are you saying that that person can't please God or does somebody have to be regenerate in order to please God because that's the whole point you you get into the mic the micro of this it's not it's not explaining to us the the way in which somebody goes from being in the flesh to being in the spirit ie through the Calvinistic Ordo salutis versus the Arminian or traditionalist order salutis it's it's talking about the contrast between those who are already in dwelled with and have the Spirit of God living and abiding in them versus those who don't and so I don't know how you got it towards a sociological you know proof text well well I mean you just said a couple I mean how is it that we please God you said about a minute ago through trusting in him verse eight it says that those who are in the flesh cannot please God and so if somebody in the flesh that has the ability to trust in him apparently they have the ability to please the Lord but verse 8 specifically uses the language of ability they are not able to please God in any way so if it says those are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God and what you're assuming is that you have no responsibility as whether you stay in the realm of the flesh or don't that's ultimately God's responsibility as to whether he plucks you out of the realm of the flesh or not and what I'm saying is that there's not enough here that says that you're assuming that on the text and I and what I'm saying is that you have some control as to whether you set your mind on the flesh of the Spirit especially when the Spirit of God brings his truth to you and reveals himself to you in a clear and robust way as he does through the gospel and so that that's what I'm saying it would be like if as long as you're in the strip mall or as long as you're in the strip club you cannot please me okay so does that assume therefore you can't leave the strip club no does that assume therefore I have to come in and manually remove you from the strip club I'm not trying to impugn your character by the way I know you wouldn't do that I'm just trying to say saying that somebody in the realm of the flesh ie in the club can't please God does it therefore connote an inability to leave that realm and enter another realm once confronted with the Holy Spirit gospel if there's just not enough there for you to establish that okay well I would just reiterate the point and I understand I mean we could go around and around on this but the question I think must be asked our repentance and faith pleasing to God you asked the question the retort you know the question yourself how do you please God you come to him and you believe in the repent and so if they are pleasing to God and yet Paul says talking about what God has done for us that we were unable to do for ourselves that what the law could not do this is in you know verse 3 of chapter 8 God did for us by sending his son we were in the flesh now we are in the spirit and so he says if you're in the flesh you can't you can't please God and so my question is well then it goes on this is coming out of the of the house of ill-repute or whatever does that does that please God and so say you however not in the realm of the flesh but you are in the realm of the Spirit if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you so he's talking about those who who have the Spirit of God living in and even the Calvinist based upon my understanding of Calvinism and reading of many other texts one is not in dwelled by the spirit until they have faith in other words Calvinists order salutis is that you're regenerated so as to have faith so as to be in dwelled by his spirit marked in him through the Holy Spirit biding and therefore he's talking about those who already have the indwelling of the Spirit and therefore already have faith so according to your own order salutis this verse would not work for you because ultimately you have somebody who's regenerated he effectually called who who is not yet believing so he's a bit but he's but he's going to believe effectually because of what the regenerative work has done and that's what I'm saying is that you have you have no more basis to acclaim this verse than I do because there's nothing here that gets that specific as to what the order is or what is the cause of somebody putting their faith in the gospel whether it's effectual or whether it's pervy Myint or whether it's just sufficient a revelation none of those things are covered here and that's what I'm saying it doesn't say enough to establish this total inability from birth okay well okay and that helps me then to understand your perspective and I'm sorry I do I do have to go in in just one second but let me just ask you if I could again there's so much more that we could have talked about today just in in maybe you know 20 or 30 seconds because time time is short IIIi would be curious and I'm not gonna I'm not gonna try to refund it I just want to know how you how you I don't want to say do I mean what do you think of John 6:44 so no one is able literally dunam I well no one is able to come to me are you saying that that only refers to hardened Israel no I mean that has to be understood that he is speaking to Israelites and I think that's contextually needed to be understood because he is speaking to Israel but but I think the easiest way for us to kind of delineate that verse is if if we replace the word drawls with the word drags and that's not to say that the the way you would do it I'm just saying drags as a more of an irresistible thing and I'm not saying that that would connote exactly what you would believe but it does from the word hELCO it does these use that way sometimes and so a Calvinist a rough and Calvinistic interpretation would be something like no one can come to me unless the father who sent me drags them and I will raise those up those who are dragged at the last day and the way that we the traditionalist would would more likely interpret that because the word hELCO has various possible interpretations just like in any language we would say and said no one can come to me unless the father who sent me in Abel's helm which is also the word he uses in 65 or 65 in in other words I think the word draw here more connotes the idea of of ability and abling it not not effectually causing it so no one can come to me unless the father who sent me enables them and I will raise those up those who come at the last day and so the referent is back to the coming not the dragging or enabling and so that that's the difference between the two interpretations and I think Greek scholars on both sides of the issue you both argue that both are possible which is normally the case when you come to these kinds of issues but I and I know I'm getting along here but I think the bigger issue with John chapter 6 is to ask the question why is the audience incapable of coming and knowing who Jesus is and that goes back to the parabolic language we talked about before that comes back to the hardened condition that we talked about before they're ever seeing and not perceiving which has to do with the hardening of Israel which we see again repeated over in John chapter 12 which no not only says that when I'm lifted up I will draw them into myself which goes along I think with that interpretation but it also goes on down in verse 39 this says this is the reason they they could not believe because they are ever seeing therefore perceiving they're ever hearing but not understanding because their hearts have grown callous they've grown hardened and so this is a condition of the Israelites during this day prophesied in Isaiah in other places to say this is the condition of their heart because of their self deceit and rebellion because of an effectual you know or an irresistible decree of God or a natural condition of man from birth some ontological reality from birth but instead because of their own rejection they have become this way and and therefore the warning is don't be like them don't be like the Israelites we're in the desert don't don't follow that example because you too can grow hardened and callous when you hear the voice of God don't allow your heart to grow calloused and so contact surely I think it's just really important to understand that Jesus is trying to describe if you believe the father you would believe me in other words if you're like Cornelius and you're like some of the other Jews that day who are actually genuinely were believing in the father if you've been living and learning from the father as verse 65 says then you would listen to me but those who refuse to listen to the the father they're gonna refuse to listen to me because I and the father are one I think that's the point that Jesus is really trying to make and obviously much more could be said yeah of course and and I don't base my understanding or I don't base my case for I guess at that point it really wouldn't be an ability it would be irresistible grace effectual calling on the meaning of hELCO has dragged or anything like that I know that the RC sprawled make quite a big deal about that I was just curious in I mean I do think that you can get an effectual call out of John 6:44 and its surrounding context but that's another conversation for another time so I was just curious just so that I can understand because that was one of the questions I had coming in I hadn't listened to everything that you've done and I haven't listened to you address Roman or John 6:44 and sorry are a couple articles in quite a few a podcast on the subject if you googled John 6:44 or it just do a search so triology 101 on John 6:14 there's a whole article there on how we you know how we interpret that passage okay yeah so I was just curious about no one is is able and so you know Jesus is using the word do number which is literally is able and so but you're but you're saying it's obviously not a universal condition it refers to well ability on some degree for example you know Romans 10:14 says how will they believe if they don't hear that that that expresses an inability to believe in something you don't know yet and so in that sense if they can't see if they're ever seeing but not perceiving if somebody's ever seen but not perceiving then then how can they believe in something they're seeing but not perceiving they've got to be able to see and perceive and so if the reason for that inability to see and perceive is an ontological reality from birth due to that fall of Adam then the Calvinists have won the debate I mean we need to become Calvinist if however he's talking about the inability of somebody to perceive and to see Christ for who he is because of the the nature of their own choices free loved choices by the way and their callous condition then Calvinism doesn't really have a leg to stand on because then it's it clearly explained in the text the narrative of these texts that Jesus wasn't saying that he doesn't love these people and didn't want him to be saved there's too many texts about him weeping over Israel and holding out his hands to them all day long and desiring for all to be saved to come to that conclusion I think we just simply have to understand the context of what's happening in the first century and understand that Jesus isn't trying to reveal himself to all the Jews at that time he's coming to his own the Jews and his own received him not but the the ones he is entrusting himself to the the remnant of those Jews are being explained these parables and and the reason is is because he has a purpose to accomplish while he's down from heaven uh well thank you I do I do have I do have more questions I suppose about that but I've I do have to run but I appreciate everything man thank you so much yeah brother I appreciate you and go and feel free to log out I know you've got another place to go to and go ahead and feel free just to drop out and and and I'll close off this this podcast with just explaining a little bit more from our perspective for those who are tuning in because we've got quite a few watching and I just want yes blessing thank you for for jumping on with us and guys by the way let me just say about Brian he is an example of what I would like to see more of with these discussions there was not anything vitriolic about that discussion if you noticed he wasn't you know shouting me down he wasn't calling me names he was simply having a discussion and cordially disagreeing with me what why can't we do that I don't understand why that's not possible that baffles me as to why we can't have cordial discussions but but John 6:44 is one of the biggest proof texts and I did I wanted to spend a little bit more time on that one and so let me pull this article up just because I think it might help for some of those who really want to understand a little better why we don't interpret John 6:44 to mean what the Calvinists think it means and what I was referring to earlier is that if you put the two you know extreme versions of the definition side-by-side the Calvinists would say no one can come to me unless the father who sent me drags them and I will raise up those who were dragged at the last day so the referent is back to the dragging the the verb here of hELCO of what God is doing in the Calvinistic interpretation so that's why they get irresistible grace out of that because after all if he's dragging them that's an irresistible compelling thing even though they do argue on other hands that he's not dragging and kicking and screaming unwilling he changes your will to make you want to come so the word dragged here is more about it irresistible work on your will not some external physical coercion so just to be clear on that and that's what sprawl and others would argue as well so so no one can come to me unless the father who sent me drags them and I will raise up those who are dragged on the last day that's the way they would render that presumably but to traditionalists we would say more like this we would say no one can come now the no one can come this is what he's referring back to later okay he's talking about the person here no one can come unless the father who sent me enables him and this does make more sense in the context of the first century when Jesus is there and he's not enabling everybody he's speaking to half of them in parables lest they come and so that does make sense to understand that he's speaking to Jews and he's not enabling them all to come and it's interesting and later on in this same chapter everybody leaves except the twelve that's just kind of interesting only his disciples stick around he chases them off using what parabolic language flesh drink my blood and doesn't get a lot of explanation for that so it does help to know the context and understand what's going on in the context of John six and to recognize what's happening so he says no one can come to me nobody can believe in me unless the father enables them grants that to them and then I will raise those who come back to the referent I will raise those who come at the last day and so he's referring back to the coming not whether or not he's effectually drawing or dragging them again there there are linguist from both perspectives that try to argue that that one of them is the only way to interpret in the other I think both of them are viable linguistically I just think that theologically the second one makes more rational sense and doesn't make God into a quote/unquote moral monster and I'm not trying to be mean and saying that I'm just saying it it does make those hard questions that even Brian admitted were difficult which is that ultimately there's a mass of humanity born with this moral and capacity to believe and yet they go to hell for eternity for something they have absolutely no control over well this interpretation doesn't have that problem that interpretation does so both of them linguistically are possible why wouldn't you choose this one you know what I mean at least you don't have the the hard pill to swallow of the Calvinistic system now if obviously Jesus meant this one then we should adopt it because Jesus is truthful but if he doesn't then what it would have Calvinists done to mislead people and that's what you got to ask yourself you got to be really careful here because we don't want to mislead people into thinking of something that's not true ie that the people who die and go to hell didn't have any choice in the matter now real choice in the matter anyway that that they had in control over because of their condition from birth and I go on to give other examples I said the Greek Senate structure allows for the author to be referring to them who come not necessarily to those drawn and I also give another example and again sometimes this helps to kind of take it out of the normal baggage of the the theological debate and like put it into another world so that you hear it from a different perspective this helps with the duck and the rabbit perspective and like seeing both sides how does this look what is it what does it look like so you for example have this sentence no one can join the army unless they've been recruited and those who have been recruited will be trained okay so the recruitment here is kind of the reference so does that mean that the army doesn't try to recruit some people that end up turning them down well obviously we know that the army tries to recruit a lot of people but the point is is that you can't join unless you go through the recruitment process and if you've been recruited then you will be trained and so there's an assumption upon the word recruited that there's success in the matter so in the same way that there's there's you know with the word draw you're assuming the success of that for example if I were talking to a group of pastors I might say something like for all of you who have been called to preach the God will empower you to save the right words or something like that okay does that mean that God didn't that God didn't call out other people to preach who are denying and running from that call like Jonah running from his call see what I mean just because you state that those who have been called to preach are the only ones who were called to preach you're not saying that you're just you're just you're just verifying that these are the ones who've responded to the calling and therefore you're calling them the called out ones and in the same way there's there's words like that in the original languages that are that are just assuming the the positive response in the word itself like recruited would be here in this sentence and so there's some more said there about hELCO and how it's used in Thayer's greek lexicon and it doesn't have to mean effectually cause it can mean to to lead or to draw and those kinds of things it's used in an other biblical and extra-biblical text in that in that way and so there's nothing wrong with with that matter of fact there's one word in which it's used hELCO about dragging the nets but they weren't able to do it they're trying to drag the fish up but that's too big and they can't do it so it's actually a an example of when the Elco is used but not irresistible so they're actually trying to drag the net they can't so there's things like that you can use on both sides and then the compelling of the 12 this this talks about more of the the context of the passage because if you don't understand the context you don't understand that the fact that he's in a sense trying to keep these things hidden from his audience he does not telling everybody his identity perfectly clearly and and and the fact that he's using parabolic language like eat my flesh and drink my blood is purposeful I doesn't mean he doesn't love them doesn't mean he doesn't want them to understand in time but it's not the right time yet and that's one of the reasons in mark 9 9 and Matthew 16 20 and about four other texts he literally says don't explain this stuff to everybody yet don't tell anybody yet it's not the right time and you have to understand that context to understand what's happening here then you have jesus's own commentary on the verse because in 65 it does say this is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the father has enabled him and so I think the word enabled fits better than some irresistible dragging kind of connotation that somebody may use and the word enable means just that to enable it so if I were to give you my phone number and I would have put it in the chat room right now and I just give you all my phone number and say I'm enabling you to call me right now does that mean all of you effectually are irresistibly having to call me if I enable you to call me by giving you my phone number right now of course not the word enabled does not mean to effectually cause it never has the word granted same thing I can grant my son permission to borrow my car I can give him the keys to enable him to borrow my car that does not affectionally cause him to borrow my car and it certainly doesn't effectually cause him to treat it nicely and to use it well and the same is true of any gift that God gives he may give me the gift of speaking and I may use that like Bill Maher and become a gross atheist agnostic comedian or I could use it to proclaim the truth of God's Word and to preach that's a gift he's given me though and therefore I can use that gift for good or for evil and I'm held responsible for how I use the gift he has enabled me to use and so the Calvinist can talk all day long about guy granting or enabling something that doesn't doesn't ever mean a actually causing something and it certainly doesn't mean that somebody's going to use the gift for good and and and and use it as entrusted and meant to be used and that's why people are held accountable for how they misuse the gifts of God my next breath is a gift to God but do I use it praising him or do I use it cursing him that's my choice that's my responsibility but it's still his gift that I have this next breath and so I don't deny the gift of his provision I simply say that we're responsible for how he uses that which he's enabled and gifted us to do now I go on to talk about other texts that are considered like John 12:32 when I am lifted up from the earth I will draw on people to myself the Calvinist would have to take this passage to ultimately mean and when I am lifted up from the earth I will drag all people to myself now of course they would never use that vernacular I'm using that as to illustrate the irresistible nature of the word draw in their interpretation and so you can see the problem with dragging all people to myself because that's universalism and so to avoid a universal allistic reading of this passage Calvinists are forced to wrangle the text in my estimation I think they have to wrangle the text to suggest that Jesus does not really mean to sound inclusive here but he's trying to be exclusive ie I will drag a few kinds of all people in other words I'll drag a little bit from the Asian population I'll drag a little bit from the Hispanic population I'll drag a little bit from this nation in that nation I'll drag a few of all kinds of people rather than the idea that I think Jesus clearly expresses throughout the Gospels so that the world may believe that you have sent me this is a an inclusive sounding gospel ie God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish that inclusive kind of word is used throughout the book of John and the entire New Testament over and over and over again so this concept of God is inclusively exclusively just picking out a few from every tribe nation and tongue and he's going to irresistible II caused them to believe I don't think it can be established in this text or any other I think it makes more sense to simply interpret that as to be God will enable all to come to him through sending the gospel to all people because once he's raised up he does Commission the gospel to go and to be preached to all the nations and that's the means by which he draws all people to himself how will they believe and one whom they might hurt well what do I do about that well I send the revelation to all people so that they may hear so the context it cannot be ignored that the the audience of John six is a Jewish audience exclusively and it can't be ignored that they have grown hardened ever seen but not perceiving otherwise they might see hear understand in turn so as to be forgiven according to the text so the reason this audience cannot come is not due to some innate fallen condition divinely imputed to all of humanity because of Adam's sin ie the tea of tulip but I don't but instead I'd ask this question de scripture really teach that God quotes sovereignly decreed for all people to be born God haters who could only willingly reject his own appeals for reconciliation and then hold him responsible for doing exactly what he ordained and created them to do I don't see how that's a mystery worth adopting I don't think that's a mystery that the Bible affords I think this audience is being judicially hardened or cut off in their unbelief as Romans eleven twenty foot sit despite God's longing in his law love and longing for Israel as we see in Matthew 23 37 and Romans 11 21 Luke 19 41 42 where he weeps over Israel only that he would know but these things have been hidden from your eyes he says in Luke 19 Ezekiel 18:20 29 through 31 repent and live why will you die o house of Israel Hosea 3:1 those who those returning to other gods he loves those who hear him turning to other gods Romans 9 1 through 3 where Paul expresses his own willingness to cut himself off for these hardened rebellious Jews he's writing under inspiration so I don't think he's more merciful than his own the the God who's inspiring his words he's willing to cut himself off was was Jesus I think he was I think Jesus sacrificed himself even for those Jews who were hardened in their rebellion and they rejected his teaching for so many years that they had grown blinded to that teaching and thus they couldn't even recognize their own Messiah and God was using their unbelief and their rejection and their self-righteousness to accomplish the redemption of the Passover and to engraft the Gentiles and that is glorious and praiseworthy it doesn't make you go whoa that doesn't seem just at all that doesn't seem glorious at all instead it makes you go wow what a glorious awesome Savior we have we'll look what he did so to suggest that the reason most people will refuse to come in faith to Christ is because God salvific aliy hated or rejected them salvific aliy at least from before the world began is not what I believe the intention of Jesus is or any teaching of Scripture I don't think we can conflate the condition of the hardened Jews of this day for century with the natural condition of all people from birth due to a quote secret divine sovereign decree never expounded upon in any page of Scripture at least as far as I can tell I go through here and talk about Cornelius how he was a god-fearing man how God even noticed it it came before him and he noticed it he was pleased by what Cornelius had done but Cornelius had not yet believed and this was given an example of how there are people who had genuine faith who follow God who followed Jesus who followed the Lord but did not know Jesus and specific in other words they were faithful to what they knew but they did not know of Jesus that is a condition of people during the first century that we don't sometimes recognize that there's a group of faithful god-fearing people genuinely god-fearing people who don't yet know who Jesus is well what's God gonna do God's gonna bring the news to them hit me he's gonna bring them that news he's gonna open their eyes to the truth of who Jesus is because after all they are faithful listeners of God so this those who listened and learned from the father they're gonna want to listen and learn from a son and that those who reject the father and are hardened to the father aren't gonna want to listen to learn from the son so clearly Cornelius is not under the curse of total inability is described by the T of the Tulip systematic as some Calvinists would have to suggest if they're consistent I think he's sincerely feared God and he worshiped him faithfully even though he had not yet heard the gospel appeal the specifics of Jesus nor had to be in dwelled he had been and dwelled by this Holy Spirit according to the text and again you can read through those texts I'm just say time hereby not going through all of that notice that God sees to it that the Gospel appeal makes its way to the ears of Cornelius but not without reason in other words not just arbitrary or unconditional he God heard his prayers and remembered his offering according to the text and therefore had the gospel especially sent to him so as to enable enable him to believe okay so it's not unconditionally the reason he's enabling me to believe he's listening and learning the father so he's gonna enable him to believe in the son that he's going to give him to the son he's gonna make sure the Sun hears which by the way this is the same exact thing that we see in John chapter 10 when he says the reason that you don't believe is because you're not my sheep well the Calvinist interprets that to mean well the reason you don't believe is because you're not chosen by God you've been rejected before the foundation of the world and God doesn't really want you that's ultimately how they're having to interpret that no Jesus is saying is using an idiom which is a figure of speech in the first century of calling somebody a sheep well what's it what's what's idiomatic use for the word sheep means follower so you are not a follower of God therefore you're not gonna be a follower of me so what he's saying is the reason you don't believe in Jesus the son is because you don't follow the father who sent him if you followed the father then you would follow the son which is a theme he repeats over and over and over again through the book of John that if you believe the father you would believe me if you followed the father you would follow me if you were a sheep that followed the father then you would be a sheep that followed the son that's what he's saying and so when you understand that you don't have to walk away with this this concept or idea that God is rejected most of humanity before they were ever born for no apparent reason but that he has selected a certain number of people to somehow call sheep before they're ever even come to faith or ever believed God and that he's going to effectually resist ibly cause him to believe in him that's just not ever established nor in the text and it's so cloud so many other scriptures and makes things so confusing for people it's just not necessary when we understand the context and so those who listen and learn from the father will likewise listen and learn from the son as Jesus himself taught in John 6:45 it is written in the prophets they will all be taught by God everyone who has heard the father and learned from him comes to me that's that's 6:45 that's right after the verse 44 we just went over so that's the context of what he's talking about he's saying those who listen and learn from the father they will also listen and learn for me they will come to me those who don't listen to learn for the father they can't come to me it's impossible to come to me if you're not gonna listen and learn from the father and so that's the point that Jesus is making so why would Cornelius come to Jesus because he was chosen before the world began and effectually caused to want Jesus or could it simply be because he heard the father and learn from him he was faithful to what the father had taught he was a god-fearing a righteous man in the sense that he did not earn or merit righteousness through works the law but in the fact that he believed the the righteous will live by faith as contrast to those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness and refused to believe who are held responsible for that while Jesus is here in the flesh the gospel had not been sent to Cornelius and the other Gentiles Jesus was specifically coming to his own and his own received him not why didn't they receive him now this is the question you have to ask yourself why didn't the audience in John 6 receive him why did they walk away why weren't they willing to believe it's either one because God saw typically hated them before the world began having been sovereignly decreed to be born under the curse of the fall by which they could only desire to hate and reject his appeals for reconciliation and that flies in the face of so many texts about his desire for all to come and all the verses that we just read about his holding out his hands to them all day long but that's the mark you have to check if you're a Calvinist inconsistent or could the answer be simply this because despite God's genuine love and provision for Israel verses listed all they're right there again as we already went over they the Israelites had become calloused in self-righteousness their conscience azar now seared they become the old wineskin that can't take the new wine otherwise they might have seen they might have heard they might have understood and they might have repented and God would have healed them as those verses clearly state doesn't this just make more sense to you guys just if you just drop the systematic of Calvinism doesn't this answer make more sense of the text as a whole you don't have to have some ontological reality from birth of God decree all people to be born in a condition where they're unable to receive the the ailment offer the gospel you simply have the context being explained to where God does genuinely love and provide for Israel but because of their rebellion because of their callous self-righteousness God uses them in their self-righteous rebellion to bring about the crucifixion and to engraft the Gentiles and it had they not grown calloused and hardened they might have seen they might have heard they might have understood and they might have repented which is what they should have done so Israel has become like the old wineskins that could not take the new wine this is not describing a condition of all people from birth but specifically of Israelites who were callused in their ways listen do not conflate Israel's hardened condition with the condition of all humanity from birth as the Calvinists are doing in the doctrine of total inability it's just not necessary to come to that conclusion here's a good conclusion I'll close with this this is by dr. Craig Adams who gives a much more succinct answer than I do as do most other theologians I sorry I'm sorry I'm long-winded but hey you guys tune in so what does that make you sorry it goes like this here's here's a dr. Adams he says it's the context here has to do with the relationship of the father and the son Jesus is claiming that the Jews are rejecting him because in actuality they have rejected the father so the context of this passage is not a discussion of whether God has chosen to send the mass of humanity to an eternal hell while choosing to arbitrarily save by compulsion ie dragged a few the context concerns why these particular Jews have not been drawn to Jesus as Messiah and son while others have in Jesus asserts here that it is because they are they have first rejected the father and the testimony of the scriptures now stop right there just in the same way that Cornelius had not rejected the father but actually feared the father and gave alms to the poor in faith and trusted the father these people are doing just the opposite they have rejected the father in the testimony of the scriptures and therefore they are rejecting the son they're not enabled they're not able to come because they have been rejecting the truth of the father in the same way court contrast to Cornelia who has feared the father and therefore the father is bringing the gospel to Cornelius so that he can hear it and come he's enabling him to do so so Jesus denounces their claim to knowledge of the Father he asserts that their resistance this is my dr. Adams go on again the resistance to the father and the message of Scriptures is the reason they have not subsequently been drawn to the son the point is made repeatedly quote and the father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf you have never heard his voice or seen his form John 537 you searched the Scriptures because you think in them you have eternal life and it is they that testify on my behalf John 5:39 how can you believe when you accept glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God john 544 if you believed Moses you would believe in me for he wrote about me but if you do not believe what he wrote how will you believe what I say in quote John 546 and 47 and earlier in chapter 5 it is stated the other way around anyone who does not honor the son does not honor the father who sent me again clearly Jesus is tying the acceptance of the father with the acceptance of him those who are willing to listen and learn the father will certainly come to him they'll be unable to do so those who refuse the father won't be unable to do so because they will not recognize the son for who he really is they will be given over to the lust of their flesh into their depravity and to their unbelief and to their suppression of truth and God could use them in that unbelief to bring about a good purpose ie crucifixion and that's the person who would say well why do you blame God why are you to blame me if you're being if I'm being used in my rebellion to bring about the crucifixion why you blaming me that's the objector in Romans 9 it's not somebody objecting to the Calvinism reprobation reprobation so make sure you hear that - thus the point is that the Jews who are rejecting him according to dr. Adams here are doing so because they have first rejected the Father but Jesus asserts that those who acknowledge the father were drawn along into acknowledging the son catch that those who acknowledge the father those who to listen and learn to the father they're drawn along they are pulled along they are enabled to go along with the Sun they are given the ability the revelation needed to believe in Jesus how will they believe in one whom they'd not hurt well I enable them by bringing them the gospel faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God so I bring them the truth that has been hidden from their eyes for so long these truths that are just now being revealed for the very first time in history so hopefully this is helpful to you guys giving you some insight into why we as Calvinists why we as non Calvinists reject the Calvinistic structure and systematic and way of understanding the tea of tulip I will mention just briefly that the differences that we have with the pervy Myint grace aspect of the Armenians is to simply say that we we don't necessarily see the need for a whole nother category of grace besides the grace which the scripture speaks of which is the grace of the gospel itself the gospel grace I mean that's the the Spirit is writing the words and sending them and preserving them and indwelling those who are preaching the Spirit is bringing the truth and that is if you want to call per vini and grace I think his revelation the light of his truth is is his pervy Myint grace if you want to call it that and so I don't see another need for another category of saying somehow God has got to fix the broken will because there's nothing in scripture that says the will was ever broken to begin with there's nothing that even suggests I think that because Adam and Eve fell that somehow Cain and Abel aren't able to make the choice as to whether they can bring a faith-based offering or not I don't think there's anything in scripture that establishes that so why would I need a quote-unquote prevenient grace to fix a will that's never been lost you you are able to to recognize your need for Christ because that's why the law was given in the first place the the reason that the law was sent was just to be a schoolmaster a tutor to teach you the truthfulness of who he is and so we have to accept and understand that the law does exactly what God intended for it to do and it's sufficient to do exactly what it was sent to do which is to point us to Christ and thus it's your responsibility as to whether you put your faith and trust in him we are called dozens of times throughout scripture to humble ourselves trust in him if the Bible says that you are called to humble yourselves then I have to believe that you're capable of humbling yourself and replying to his truthfulness especially if you're held accountable for all eternity for whether you do or you don't there's no rational or biblical reason for accepting this concept or idea that those who reject Christ were ultimately first rejected by Christ that those who hate God were ultimately first hated sophistical II at least by God those who don't believe weren't granted or enabled the ability to believe I think that removes human responsibility it also denounces and brings down I believe the Justice of God in a lot of ways in the sense that is it more just for God to bring judgment upon those who are able to accept the provision of his love and grace or for God to bring justice upon those born with the incapacity to have any kind of love or any kind of acceptance of his truth because of the nature in which they were born and they had no control over I think it highlights the Justice of God to recognize the ability of man to repent the ability of men to respond to his life-giving truth in a real meaningful way in real relationship and so the reason I do these podcasts the reason I do these hangouts is to help people to see that the Calvinist though they may sound very robust in their delineations of different things I agree with a lot of what they they do teach on other subjects they're just missing the mark in my estimation on this issue and I think it has to do with just a misinterpretation of several key texts like John 6 for example and I need you to help me to spread the word of God's love and forgiveness for all humanity help people to see there are other throughout Christian history and know right now with the rise of the internet over the last 20-30 years it seems like Calvinism just dominates the the theological worldview I get it every every single time you search anything on Google it's all Calvinist answers I get it but that's not the way it's always been throughout history in fact even al Mohler and and talking with several other Calvinists a roundtable discussion he confessed you know Calvinism has done this about four times over the last 400 years where it resurges up in popularity and then eventually it'll die back out again why I guess God decrees for that I you know if you're a Calvinist but from our perspective I think the reason that happens is that there is something attractive about the concept an idea of interpreting certain text more deterministically because philosophically it does give us kind of a sound a little box to put all of our answers in to be able to answer every question well God's sovereign and and that's the reason that happens is because God decreed it sometimes it's nice to have all those little tidy answers and there's some other reasons that people are attracted to the Calvinistic systematic especially young men apparently because there's a lot of young men in the system but what tends to happen I think is that people begin to examine the philosophical underpinnings of this begin to examine the textual verses used to prop up the system and begin to see the contextual narrative behind these these passages which are often used to proof texts Calvinism and they begin to go wait a second when I look at this through first century eyes when I understand what's going on behind the scenes there's really no need for me to walk away with a difficult pill of Calvinism and nor bringing that kind of confusion into what seems to be a very simple a gospel message which is you are sinners in need of a savior and you're called to repent and to believe in him and anyone can and everyone should and that's a very simple gospel I don't think it needs to be so complex and and brought into a situation to where a lot of people start becoming fatalistic anti evangelistic I'm not saying that the leading Calvinists are that way I'm saying that the system itself can lead groups of people into those kinds of false ways of applying these these things and becoming a higher and higher in their Calvinism to the point where oftentimes they they neglect the need for a true evangelism and and and and gospel counsel and all that's needed there because ultimately everything that's happening is happening because God has sovereignly decreed for it to happen including your own addictions including your own problems everything you you have troubling you in life is is according to God's will and plan and versus what I think scripture says is that we're to be praying for God's will to be done in here on heaven here on earth as it is in heaven because it's not always done here on earth as it is in heaven it doesn't make a lot of sense to pray for God's will it be done here on earth if it always is and always will be by our theological worldview and so there's a lot of things I think that the the Calvinistic system that many Calvinists just haven't simply thought through the implications of their system and how it plays itself out and as a covenant for 10 years I I adopted all of those things and there was maybe a somewhat of a cognitive dissonance with some of the issues that now caused me to reject it but it doesn't mean that I rejected these people as not being genuine in their faith in Christ or unbelievers it simply means that I think they've mistakenly misinterpreted some passages and I'm calling them as one brother would call another brother would you reconsider this would you back away and objectively reconsider what you've come to believe in would you would you explore these issues with me and so God brought me through this I think in order for me to possibly help others to see the the fault of the system and where it can lead and I think it's it's ultimately not healthy for a church and for the church as a whole to adopt this worldview because of where it leads churches that adopt this worldview again that's my opinion I understand that people have differences of opinion with regard to that but but I I just asked the Calvinistic friends that are listening I would just say if if you were convinced about what I'm saying wouldn't you want people to know wouldn't you want people to be convinced as well because if Calvinism isn't true and again I know that's an if because I can't beg the question by assuming it's not if Calvinism is not true look at what it has done to the body of Christ look at the damage that it could be causing to the body of Christ and therefore if one is convinced as I've become that Calvinism is a true you can see why I have a passion for helping people to see the other side and to understand that there are robust deep theological answers that it's not it's not between you know namby-pamby easy believe is emeriti gospel that's out there versus John Piper's rule MacArthur deep robust theologians because that's the dichotomy that's being set up in our world that either you're you know charismatic prosperity gospel type or you're a deep robust theologian like these guys over here I think there are very deep very robust theologians like the aw Tozier 's of the world that are very very exegetical in their preaching and very deep in their their theology that don't land in Calvinism and I don't think that that view is being proposed and promoted very well right now and so help me to spread that truth if you can helps go to search ecology 101 and become one of the patrons of the podcast or give a one-time gift click the support link at the top right corner help us to spread the word we would appreciate any help you can get I also want to tell you about Trinity College of the Bible in Theological Seminary dr. Braxton hunters the president's there dr. Jonathan Pritchett my debate partner there in Houston is also on staff with Trinity and there's a great school if you're looking for a higher education go and check them out you can look at the classroom link there at sociology 101 for more information about Trinity so god bless you guys hopefully this has been helpful I look forward to reading some of the comments in the comments below YouTube sometimes they're not so fun to read and other ones are and so I'm always encouraged by those of you who bring that encouragement so appreciate appreciate that also appreciate you sharing the podcast with others letting people know there are other ways of considering these texts that I think are robust and deep and so help us spread that word god bless you see you next time bye bye

Channel: Soteriology101

Views: 13,352

Rating: 4.6541352 out of 5

Keywords: Calvinism, Traditionalism, Arminianism, Predestination, Election, Bible Study, depravity, unconditional, atonement, soteriology, Leighton Flowers, Southern Baptists, Baptist, Southern Baptist Convention, TULIP, Total Inability, Inability, #hangoutsonair, Hangouts On Air, #hoa

Id: aZNw98AGp9Y

Length: 134min 32sec (8072 seconds)

Published: Thu Oct 11 2018