Sunday School | Doctrine of Salvation - Why Do Some, But Not All, Become Believers?

Okay. So we are in a long, multi-week series on all things theological. We're doing a giant doctrinal survey. As a subset of that, we're studying soteriology, which is the doctrine of salvation. And we're beginning our study of soteriology by looking at what is sometimes called Calvinism, or predestination, or election, or sovereign grace. There are a million different names for it. But essentially what we're doing is walking through TULIP, which is an acrostic that will help us understand the doctrine of salvation.

As you probably already know, or maybe you've already experienced in the last few weeks or in previous times, it is really hard to talk about predestination, election, Calvinism, any of these things without getting jumbled up. So I'm suggesting here that we take this one very careful step at a time.

The T in TULIP stands for total depravity. And the question that we're trying to ask and answer when we discuss total depravity is: How bad off did the fall leave us?

Total depravity does not suggest that all anybody does, all day long, every day, is just run around trying to murder people. When we say total depravity, we don't mean we're just in a constant state of endless pillaging and murdering. But it does teach that we will never, ever, under any circumstance, choose to worship God. We will not do it unless he first fixes the thing in us that is so broken, that will not come to him.

It is possible that you studied through a previous document a few weeks ago and diligently searched the scriptures for the answer to the question: How bad off are we? And it's possible that you did not do that. Either way, the quality of your answer to that question will shape your capacity to receive and embrace literally everything else that follows in this mini series that we're doing.

If you agree that the bad news is so, so bad—that our hearts are so corrupted, that we are dead in our sins, that we are blind to his beauty, that we are deaf to his voice, that we are willing and eager slaves to sin, living in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another—then everything else about God's sovereign grace will appear to you the best, the kindest, the most wonderful, the most praiseworthy disposition of a loving God toward hateful sinners, and you will love what you hear.

But if you do not—if you reject the vision of depravity that I'm offering you, that I'm claiming that the scriptures teach—you will hate everything else we have to say. And there will be nothing that I can say or show you from the scriptures that will change that. Everything hangs on the doctrine of depravity.

I do believe in total depravity. I do believe that the picture that the scriptures paint is that humanity will not worship God. We will not bend the knee. We can't. We won't. We will refuse. We're dead in our sins and therefore, from that vantage point that I have, everything else about unconditional election and irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints is a joy to me. I do not find this to be an embarrassing doctrine. I don't regrettably accept it. I love it. I delight in it. Because all of my hope is rooted in God's sovereign grace to choose and to redeem sinners who would never choose him, including me.

Why Do Some, But Not All, Become Believers?

That was depravity. That was a few weeks ago. We're going to move on to the next point, to a different question. And here's the question I want you to consider this week: Why do a subset of rebellious sinners escape their rebellion against God and their slavery to sin and become worshippers? Why does the impossible happen?

If we cannot, if we will not, if we refuse, if we are slaves—if we are willing slaves who will never come out of that slavery—explain us. How did this happen to you people? How did what happened to you occur?

I'll give you a fork in the road. Is it because, in fact, you were a little less wicked? A little less enslaved? A little more wise? Perhaps merely a little more desperate? A little more or less of something? Or is it because God in his mercy chose, elected, decided to reach into your rebellious hearts and grant life in the midst of death?

There's no question, by the way, that all of those who come to believe do choose to follow him. I do believe that the first free and willful choice I ever made, apart from sinning, was to worship Jesus. But I think the only reason I was able to do that is because he enabled me to do that. And if he had not, I would be exactly where I had been.

So there's no question that believers do ultimately and eventually choose to worship, and continue to choose to worship God. The question is: Did God choose us first so that we could choose him back? And I believe that God did choose us first, specifically and individually, and that the scriptures affirm this over and over and over again.

And so what I'd like to do is walk through this document. And if you're just getting here and you didn't get one of these, is there a stack? Whoever was passing them out, does anybody still need one of these? We're pretty much out here. There's a few over here. So Chris, you mind running around? Could I trouble you, bro? Thank you.

The scriptures affirm this over and over and over again. I want to show you where it is that it says that God elected. The word to elect is simply to choose. Right? That God chose some to believe. He elected some to eternal life. That your salvation began with God's choice to save you. This is, I think, what the scriptures teach, and I want to try to show it to you.

And so we're doing one question at a time. By the time we're all done with TULIP in, like, a month or something, there'll be more opportunity for questions. But I want to try to give you each block of this, each logical piece of this, one chunk at a time, and then we will really take as much time as you want. We'll take weeks if you want to kind of process through the implications of all this.

Why Do Some, But Not All, Come to Believe?

So why do some and only some come to believe? And as I ask that question, it does presume that we already agree that some and only some will believe. Is that—if you're a—I won't even call you out on this. But if you are a universalist, and you believe that all will be saved, that's an entirely different question. But I think in our context, it's very unlikely that you guys are universalists. You probably already know that some and only some will be saved. And we're trying to answer the question: why is that?

Now, we're gonna begin briefly with one passage in the Old Testament from Deuteronomy.

Yet the Lord set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and he chose you as their descendants above all the nations as it is today. — Deuteronomy 10:15

The root of the doctrine of election in the New Testament, which is where we're gonna reside, is in fact grounded in the Old Testament. For Israel is the elect nation. I don't know if you've ever made the connection. When we talk about election, if you ever hear the word elect, you think about salvation. You think about Calvinism. You think about predestination. That tends to be—elect kind of is associated with that term. But it's borrowed language.

The Old Testament, when the Old Testament talks about election, it's not talking about selecting unbelieving sinners to become followers of Jesus. It's talking about an entire nation. Right? The elect nation is Israel. And I just want you to think about this: Did God choose Israel, or did Israel choose God and then he counter-chose them? Which happened first? God did.

So there tends to be, when we talk about the doctrine of election, there's an attempt to make this—for those that I don't find it unpalatable, but for those who do find it unpalatable—there's this claim that God chooses those who chose him, because we love to preserve our initiative. I chose God, therefore he chose me. I am elect in the sense that he is elected to elect those that elect themselves. Right? This is a common framing from those that would reject what I'm trying to offer to you today. And I would just ask you: does that make any sense about Israel? Did Israel choose itself and God counter-chose them? Or did God elect them out of nonexistence to be a nation, to be his nation? Right? That's—I don't think there's any controversy to that. Whatever is true there, I'm telling you, that framing—that God actually chose Israel out of their non-existence to be his people—that is the root of the New Testament doctrine of God being the primary initiator in a salvific relationship.

So let that kind of sit there in the back of your mind. But let's take a look at the way the Bible talks about this.

All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son. And those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. — Matthew 11:27

This is Jesus very simply, very explicitly saying: Who is it that comes to know God? Answer: the ones that the Son chooses to reveal the Father to.

How about this?

If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, he has chosen, he has shortened them. — Mark 13

Okay? This would be—we're gonna see lots of instances in the New Testament where the term elect is simply used, but not defined.

It is referenced the elect. This is an instance where Jesus defines when I say the elect, what do I mean? Oh, very simple. Those whom he has chosen. Unmistakably, God is the initiator. He is the subject of the verb. We are the object of the verb.

Luke 18: And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off?

And I know that especially if you grow up in an American Baptist context in particular, there will be a very strong sense of like, who are we? We are the ones who chose God. But the way the New Testament speaks about us, is that we are the ones whom God has chosen. We're not cherry picking this. This language is everywhere throughout the New Testament. And we don't know what to do with it, so we tend to skip over it.

John 6:44: No one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up at the last day.

Now, this combines three different points along our tulip spectrum. We've already looked at John 6:44 because it's an affirmation of total depravity. It's explicitly saying, no one can come to me. And we saw we can't, we won't, we refuse, we don't wanna. That's all depravity. But in this comment, Jesus goes beyond just that. No one can, and then he throws in the beautiful unless. It's kinda like in Ephesians 2, when it says, but—we're dead in our transgressions, but—no one can come to me unless.

And the condition of the unless is, unless the father who sent me draws him. Something happens to those who cannot, who will not, who refuse, who are unable. To this crowd, to some of that crowd, God draws. Drags is a reasonable translation of the verb there for draw. He comes in, he gets us, and he turns us. Catherine, do you remember when he turned your face and said, look at me, and he pulls you out of your sin and rebellion? This. He does this. He did this.

And then the result, and we'll get to the result more fully in weeks to come, is that we'll raise him up at the last day. And I'll just say this, we'll look at this again in future weeks. But there is a sense to say, okay, okay, okay, everybody's depraved. Begrudging acceptance. But when it comes to election, does he not elect all? Maybe none of us can. All of us are enabled, and then some of us choose. And we love that because it's like, now I get to maintain my sense of self determination. And I don't for a number of reasons, I don't think that's possible. We'll get to that eventually because he says here in John 6:44, that the ones that he draws are the ones that he raises up. If he is drawing all, he will raise up all. And we are back to a position of universalism, which I do not think the scriptures support.

John 6 (repeated): This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the father has enabled him.

This act of enabling is what we're talking about when we describe unconditional election. That God does something to unable people to make them into able people. In a couple weeks, we'll see what able people do. That's coming.

John 15: You did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last. Then the father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

It's possible this doesn't deserve to be on this list. Do you guys know why? He's talking to his disciples. It's not clear that he's talking about, I chose you for salvation. It could just be, I chose you to be among the 12 leaders of the church, to be the foundational apostles. And if that's all that he means, then it really isn't relevant to this. But I include it as a counterpoint to these other ones that are talking about, that he chose you to be saved. This one, maybe not. But the rest, you guys, it's explicit that into this sea of rebellious, unbelieving, refusing sinners, he reaches in and says, no, no, look at me. And he turns us.

Acts 13: When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord. And listen, and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

It's a subset. It's some. Which ones believed? What's the answer? All who were appointed.

Romans 8: We know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his son. That he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

And those he predestined, he also called and those he called, he also justified and those he justified, he also glorified. Alright. Get comfy because we're going to stick around on this one for a minute.

This language here—"those God foreknew"—how have you heard that explained? Those God foreknew, he predestined. Has that ever been taught to you?

Mark, I heard the thought that he knew he was going to save many, and so he predetermined what he would do with the ones that came.

Okay. So Mark said that he knew that he would save many, and he knew which ones would come, and so he predetermined what he would do with them. Is that right? Okay.

Let me rephrase it slightly differently here, but I think this is the same idea. What God foreknew was who was going to choose him. So God looks down the corridor of time. Here he is standing in eternity past, and he looks and he can see every human being that's ever going to live. And he just looks down the list. "Oh, I see. I see. I see. I see. Got it. Write down these names." He foreknew who was going to come. And based on whoever was going to come, he says, "Hey, let's predestine them." Which is really post-destined because he's basing it on what he saw. But because he foresees them, he foreknows what they're going to do. On the basis of his foreknowledge of what they're going to do, he predestines them and everything runs down the list. Okay? That's all nonsense. Okay? None of that is true.

First of all, if you were to look down the corridor of time to see who would choose him, what would he see? Nobody. Nothing. Back to depravity. I'm telling you, the whole thing hangs on depravity. We will not, we cannot, we refuse. We're blind, we're deaf, we're dead, we won't. What he would see is nothing, first of all.

Second of all, this doesn't say that he foreknew who would come. What did he foreknew? What is it? According to this, what does God foreknow? Not that we've been called. It's not that he foreknew who he would choose. Listen to the diagram of the sentence that we had a minute ago.

For those God foreknew.

God is the subject, "foreknow" is the verb. What is the object of the verb "foreknow"? Those. Those. What he foreknew was people. Not a decision, but a person. And the reason that's important is this is knowledge in the biblical sense. When Adam knew Eve, Adam knew Eve. Right? It means he saw her naked. It means that Adam was with her.

The idea that God foreknows us is not that he knows something about us, but that he knows us. If somebody were to ask me, "Hey, do you know Dave Sloop?" I wouldn't say, "Yeah, I've heard of him. I know his name. I recognize him." I would say, "Oh yes, I know Dave." And what I mean by that is Dave is my friend. I have a relationship with Dave. I've spent countless hours in conversation with Dave. I know him.

When this says that God foreknew, "those that God foreknew," what it means is God had a prior relationship with some. And it's on the basis of that—not knowing what we would do, but his knowing us—that he predestined us. And again, we're getting a little bit ahead of the game. But those that he knows...

One sec. He knows it. Oh, okay. Good. So hold on. Judy's saying he knows, and then let me finish this thought, and then we'll come back to that. Okay?

You know, Judy said he knows everyone, and this is true, but hang on a second. Okay? Notice that if we were to look at the shape of what he's about to do, it's a cylinder, not a funnel. Okay? Meaning, those he foreknows, all of them he predestines. And those he predestines, all of them, he calls. And those he calls, all of them, he justifies. And of those he justifies, all of them, he glorifies. It's a cylinder. It is not—he foreknows a bunch and he calls some, or predestines some, and calls a few, and justifies some, and finally—we're not winnowing anything. Right? It's this whole stack.

If you are foreknown, you will be predestined. If you are predestined, you will be called. If you are called, you will be justified. If you are justified, you will be glorified. It goes all the way. Okay.

Now, Judy, go ahead and make your comment about God knowing everyone.

Your point is like, you're saying a personal relationship—he knows them. Yes. He knows. He knows you when you're created as well. He knew Abraham's... I'm not going to name Abraham's second wife, but her mother, the mother of the second wife. Yes. So was that person before—he knew them?

Hmm. Or what happened to you know? Yeah. It's great. Okay. They had to know that she knows. Hmm. Yeah. That's great.

Okay. So Judy's asking the question, well, if what I'm saying is that God has a foreknowledge of a relationship with, then that does sound somewhat universalistic because he knows everybody.

Does God not? Let me ask this, Judy. Do you think that God is the Father of all?

What is your understanding of John 1:12? Anybody have John 1:12 memorized? Okay, that's a good start. Fetzer, give me John 1:12 loud.

All who received him, to those who believed in him, he gave the right to become children of God. Children born not of natural descent or human decision or husbands' will, but children born of God. — John 1:12

He gave the right to become children of God. Can a child of God become a child of God? You have to be something else. You have to be something other than that to become that.

We have a doctrine. One of the ways we understand salvation is that of adoption. When I adopted Sadie to become my daughter, she became my daughter, and she is my daughter. Which presumes that once upon a time, she was not my daughter. She was an orphan, found forsaken on December 22 in Chongqing, China. But now she's none of those things. Now everything that I have is hers. She became my daughter. We become his children in a similar way.

What Paul will say in Ephesians 2, we can flip there real quick. This is a meaningful distinction about adoption. Look at Ephesians 2:

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. — Ephesians 2

There is this starting point that we have of being objects of wrath. Paul goes on in Ephesians 2, talking about being far away. There is an estrangement, a distance. We who once were far away are brought near. We who once were orphans are made children.

God's Love for All

I will argue that God loves everyone. There are Calvinists that used to give me all kinds of grief when I was on staff with Crew—Campus Crusade always begins a gospel presentation with the phrase, "God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life." And the TRs, the Truly Reformed, the Super Calvinist types, would come in and give us crap about that and say you can't say that. You can't walk up to a non-Christian and tell them God loves them because you don't know that he does.

And I do know that he does because the scriptures affirm that he does.

God so loved the world that he gave his only son. — John 3:16

Jesus looks at the rich young man and loves him, and tells him to sell all he owns and come and follow him. And the man does not. So does God love lost people, including non-elect? He does. And I would richly affirm that he does.

However, he loves his bride in a different way. I have an obligation to love my neighbor, but I love my wife differently than I love my neighbor. God—there is a breadth and a width and a height and a depth to the love of God that we can and should affirm. But there is something particular about the way he loves his bride. I would put his bride and his church, and to a certain extent, depending on your chronology of this, the elect all in that same category.

Catherine? He knew me. What's the scripture that says he knew me before the world began?

Yes. Isn't that like everybody? I don't think that is everybody. I think that language—so there is, when God uses this language of foreknowing here, he's—that is used. I might have to look this up. It's possible that you could prove me that I'm mistaken about this. But I think that whenever we see that sort of language, he is talking about his bride, the elect, those who will believe. Again, maybe I've never really done a deep dive to confirm if there is any instance where he speaks otherwise, but that is my general understanding of that.

So he foreknows not what they're going to do, but he foreknows them, which is to say there is a relationship that is born before the beginning of time. And he predestines. And those he predestines, he calls. And those he calls, he justifies. Those he justifies, he glorifies.

We're gonna get through as many of these as we can. Romans 11. What was God's answer to him?

I've reserved for myself 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal. — Romans 11

Do you recognize what Paul's alluding to here? Elijah. I don't remember the exact passage—it's definitely in Kings.

Elijah's won this great victory, but he's super discouraged and feels like he's the only one left. And God says to him:

I reserve for myself 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal.

So too, at the present time, there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, it's no longer by works. If it were grace, it would no longer be grace. This is an astonishing claim.

Now, this is on the tail end of Paul's primary treatise on this, which is really Romans 8, 9, and into 10. But he is arguing—teaching very, very clearly—that just as God chose to save some of these people among this community where Baal was being worshipped, so also God has chosen to save some.

I listened to the tape from a couple weeks ago when Sloop was talking on this, and there was a question about how this interplays with evangelism. And Dave made the brilliant and exactly on point observation that the guy who literally wrote the book on this is the Apostle Paul. When I was at Penn State, I had a kid ask me—he was very skeptical about Calvinism. He said, "What book should I read if you want me to understand this?" And the answer was Romans. Romans is the book to read because that's where Paul makes the case for this.

Paul and Evangelism

Paul, who is the chief explainer of the doctrine of God's sovereign grace, is—somewhat to our shame—the greatest evangelist the world has ever seen. I don't think anyone has surpassed the Apostle Paul in two thousand years. He saw no contradiction between the driving passion that God's elect would be saved and his own willingness to get his head kicked in over and over and over again.

When he goes to Corinth, you can read about it in Acts 17, or a really fun description of it in 1 Corinthians. But he's afraid. He's tired of doing evangelism because he keeps getting beat up, drugged out of the city, stoned, left for dead. He goes back into it over and over and over again. Everywhere Paul goes, people do believe, but people are also super angry. And there's a point where he gives up. He doesn't want to play anymore.

And God intervenes. This is actually Acts 18. God intervenes and speaks to him and says:

Do not be afraid. Keep on speaking. Do not be silent. Because I have many people in this city.

This is it. Because I have many people in this city. In that moment, what God is telling Paul, and what Luke is transcribing to us in Acts, is that the thing that drove Paul to do evangelism in city after city after city was his belief that the elect were there. The doctrine of election did not discourage Paul from doing evangelism. It drove him to do evangelism.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the great British preacher who was also a Calvinist, he said: "If the elect had yellow stripes on their shirt tails, I will be running about the streets of London, untucking men's shirts. But they do not. And so I will preach the gospel to all men."

Paul was motivated to go into city after city after city because he knew that his success was guaranteed.

Acts 18: A Lesson in Obedience

We're short on time, so I'm going to give you the postscript to this. Go to Acts 18. I want you to see what happens here. This is a fun little thing.

Paul is preaching in Corinth. In verse 6, Paul grew super weary. It says:

When the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads. I'm clear of my responsibility. From now on, I will go to the Gentiles."

That is a big, big, big, big deal. Paul is the ambassador to the Jews. We like him because he talked to the Gentiles, and most of us have Gentile backgrounds. But he loved the Jews. Everywhere he went, he made sure the gospel would be available for his countrymen. He wrote the book of Romans to work out his angst over the rejection of his own countrymen. And right here in verse 6, he decides, "I'm never going to share the gospel with another Jew as long as I live. I'm done. I will go to the Gentiles."

So he left the synagogue and went next door. And verse 7 is the entirety of Paul's rejection of Jewish evangelism. Because in verse 8, he leads the synagogue ruler—presumably a Jew—to Christ. He's like, "I will never share the gospel with another Jew as long as I live." One verse later, he leads the synagogue ruler to Christ.

At which point, the synagogue ruler becomes a follower of Christ, what do you think happens to his job? He loses it. So as the story goes on, we now see a new synagogue ruler. And if you skip down, we're doing this quickly, there's a new synagogue ruler. His name is Sosthenes. And Sosthenes had—I mean, they gotta replace this new convert because you can't let—I mean, to be like, you know, I became a Muslim, I would lose my job. Right? You understand this? So when this Jewish synagogue ruler becomes a follower of Christ, he loses his job.

And in verse 14, as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to the Jews, if you're making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. But since it involves questions about words and names in your own law, settle it for yourselves. I won't be a judge of such things. Has them all ejected from the court. And look at verse 17.

Then they all turned on Sosthenes, the new synagogue ruler, and they beat him in front of the court. But Gallio showed no concern whatever.

Now, what I didn't show you here is this passage that I quoted where God has said to Paul, keep on speaking. Do not be afraid. Do not be silent. I have many people in this city. What's ironic is after he says that, we don't see anybody come to faith. You might, as you're reading Acts, feel like, okay, Lord, show me the people, show me the 7,000. Let's see this great revival. Prove that it's true that you have many people in this city. But we don't see it. All we see is Paul gets in a fight, and Sosthenes gets beat up, and it's unclear either by the Romans or by the Jews who are embarrassed.

Then it says, in verse 18:

Paul stayed in Corinth for some time, then he leaves the brothers and he sails for Syria.

And it leaves you with a little bit of like, oh, but show me the mighty people. If you're gonna be in Corinth, then you're gonna be doing evangelism, and God is sovereign, and there's people, like, where are they? Can we see them? But there's a really fun Easter egg. This is all happening where Acts 18 is set. What's our city? We're all in Corinth. You got two letters written to the church in Corinth. The first one is called First Corinthians. Who is the author of First Corinthians?

Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother, Sosthenes. — 1 Corinthians 1:1

The very one who became a follower of Christ. He leads the synagogue ruler to Christ. He gets fired. He gets replaced with a new guy who leads a big rebellion against him, and then Luke moves on. But you know what happened to Sosthenes, the synagogue ruler? He becomes a follower of Christ. He becomes an author of Scripture, for crying out loud. Because, and I quote, God has many people in this city.

God's Sovereignty and Evangelism

Paul's Calvinism did not keep him from doing evangelism. It is what energized his evangelism. He will say in Second Timothy:

I do all things for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus. — 2 Timothy 2:10

Now, we'll pick up more about evangelism next week. We're gonna just work on this list and start on it next week. But what I hope you'll see is after a couple weeks of drumbeat, over and over and over again, the New Testament affirms: Why do some believe? Because God chooses to override their rebellion. Because God reaches into the sea of depraved sinners to give them what they do not have inherently in themselves. He chooses to save some.

More of that next week, and then we'll eventually, I promise, entertain more questions.