Sunday School | Doctrine of Salvation - Q&A (part 1)

Alright everybody, come on in. Stephanie, grab the mic, do your thing. Alright. You guys, this is the day I've been promising we would get to forever and we're finally here to do some Q and A about our last several weeks talking through the doctrines of salvation.

So here are some of the ground rules for what we're gonna do. I got a long list of your questions. I don't think we're gonna get them all done today, but I'm not really trying to get them all done today. What I want to do, the goal is not to burn the list, the goal is just to be as helpful as I can, right. As I've told you my preference for questions is I like to disagree out loud, let's work, let's workshop it, let's figure it out. You'll never offend me. I really wanna be as helpful as I can.

So what I'll do is I'll take a question, I'll offer an answer to it. And if it's your question and you're willing to be identified as the owner of that question, then you get dibs on a follow-up if you need one. And if you don't need a follow-up, no problem. That's great, we'll just move on to the next one. But I don't want this to be like a news conference where the politician tries to deflect the question, right? I just want to try to be helpful. So if you're like, yeah, but that's not what I was getting at or I don't understand this or that doesn't take into consideration that, no sweat. You get dibs and you can follow-up. And then if you guys are content with what I say, we'll move on to the next one and we'll just do this until we're done.

Okay, that's the rule. All right, so here's the first question. It's a total depravity question. The question is: are children born with a sin nature? And the answer to that is yes. And that's actually not very controversial in Christianity. I think that's not particular to a reformed understanding of salvation, that's just broadly understood. Are we born with a sin nature? Yes.

Now what that means, or what people think that means, might vary somewhat. So when I say yes, what I really mean are two things. We are born not only with a propensity to sin—like your newborn is fundamentally selfish, right? Now the fact that your newborn would like to eat is not sin, right? I mean, not all selfishness is sin. But we are born with something that inclines us to consider ourselves more important than everybody else. That's ubiquitous, right?

A common place you'll see that is in Psalm 51. This is where David is working through his whole thing with Bathsheba. And he says this:

Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin, for I know my transgressions and my sin is always before me. Against you, you only have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge. — Psalm 51:2-4

And then more famously, verse five says:

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. — Psalm 51:5

Now, you gotta be a little bit careful building your theology on the Psalms because the Psalms are poetic language, they're not didactic. It's not like you're reading Romans. And so we have to be a little bit careful—you could extract a line from the Psalms and then give it too much weight because it's poetry. We read poetry differently than we read the epistles. Nevertheless, that idea is gonna be played out elsewhere in Scripture.

I said it's two things. Number one, there's a propensity towards sin, right? That's what Psalm 51 is going after. But number two—and this is more controversial, this is harder to swallow—but I think the biblical case for this is undeniable. We are also born guilty. It's not just that we're going to do bad things eventually, but the moment that we are born, we are born under the shadow of Adam.

And so when we talk about being born with a sinful nature, that is just a hair's breadth away from a doctrine known as federal headship. I'll show you this. Probably the central place for this is Romans 5. So if you have a Bible, this one would be worth looking at.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people because all sinned... — Romans 5:12

And then in the NIV you'll get a dash. What that means is he's cutting himself off—he's not actually finishing the sentence. When you say "therefore, just as x happened," we're expecting him to say "so also y happened. Just as x is true, so also y is true." But he never gets to the y. He interrupts himself.

And the reason he interrupts himself is because it's like he's hearing himself and he realizes, I just said something so extraordinary, so explosive, so controversial, so unlikely to be believed by you, that I need to stop and go back and explain what I just said. That's what's happening in Romans 5:12.

He says, I'll do it again.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. — Romans 5:12

That's the line. When he says "because all sinned," he's like, stop, hang on, forget it. Let me back up. I need to say something else first. Because that's what's going on in that passage.

And that might seem a strange controversy because you're like, yeah, everybody sinned. That's not a strange thing. I don't know why he's making a big scene about that. Here's why. He is not saying, Adam sinned and then Cain sinned and then his kids sinned and then his kids sinned and all the way down and now you committed sins. He is not saying that you've just done this bad thing and you've done this bad thing. That's true, but it's not what he's saying here.

What he is saying is: when Adam sinned, you sinned. He is saying you are culpable for the sin of Adam. That is unquestioningly what he is saying, and I know that's going to make you say, what? So because of that, he pauses. He's like, I know, I know. Hang on. Let me explain myself. And then verse 13 and following is him explaining that.

Now, you don't have to believe me yet, but do you understand the claim that I'm making? Does this make sense? He is saying that the Puritans used to say, "In Adam's fall, we sinned all." We are culpable. We are in him. And you might be like, well, that's not fair. But hold on to that thought. You're gonna like it before we're done.

The Explanation: Sin Before the Law

Verse 13, he's gonna explain it. He's gonna walk through and say, like, what do you mean that we sinned in Adam?

Before the law was given, sin was in the world, but sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command as did Adam who was a pattern of the one to come. — Romans 5:13-14

I want you to vision a timeline. Here we've got Adam and then up the line we've got Moses giving the law. What he is saying is between Adam and Moses for this massive period of time, everybody died even though they hadn't broken the law. Why didn't they break the law? There was no law. And his explanation for death before the law was given—everybody in this whole massive window of time—why did they die? They died because of the guilt of Adam. Adam's sin brought death to all.

And then he's gonna go on and he's gonna say that exact thing about 500 times.

The Central Argument: One Man's Act Affects All

Listen to this. Go back to Romans 5, verse 14:

Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses even over those who did not sin by breaking a command as did Adam who was a pattern of the one to come. — Romans 5:14

Now listen, I'm gonna repeat it over and over.

The gift is not like the trespass. For the many died by the trespass of the one man. How much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ overflow to the many? Again, the gift of God is not like the result of this one man's sin. Judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation. But the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For, if by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and the gift of righteousness reign through the one man Jesus Christ? — Romans 5:15-17

I'm gonna get to the Jesus stuff in a minute.

Again, verse 18: Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man, the many were made righteous. — Romans 5:18-19

Over and over and over again. He is claiming that in Adam, we are condemned. Over and over and over again. That is the case. So the idea that we are born with a sinful nature, that we're conceived in sin, that we are fundamentally sinners—we're not just prone to doing bad things, but we are guilty right out of the gate. That is basically an undeniable text.

The Two-Edged Sword

Now, here's the thing. You're gonna want to say, well, I don't like that. I don't want what one man does to determine my eternal destiny. But before you say that, think about it. Your only hope is that what one man does will determine your eternal destiny.

The doctrine of federal headship cuts both ways. If you are in Adam, then you receive the full blame or credit, whatever it is, of Adam. And if you don't like that system, then beware, because your only hope is that you would be transferred from Adam to Christ. And if you are in Christ, you get full credit for his life.

The federal headship, the fact that Jesus's life can be credited to you is predicated on the fact that we are the sorts of things that God has ordered the world such that what is true of Adam becomes true of us. It's both. If you are in Adam, you get his condemnation. And the offer of the gospel is kingdom transfer, that you could become in Christ and all of his blessings flow.

So to reread what we just looked at, but now emphasizing the other side of it. He says:

The gift is not like the trespass for if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of a different one man, Jesus Christ overflow to the many. — Romans 5:15

Again, the gift of God is not like the result of one man's sin that we just talked about. The gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. What that means is that Jesus didn't just forgive you for Adam's sin, He has forgiven you for the giant truckload of things you've added to it. The federal headship of Christ is bigger, grander, greater, more than the federal headship of Adam.

For if by the trespass of the one man death reign through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. — Romans 5:17

So, are we conceived in sin? Yes. We are given a propensity towards sin. Psalm 51 is a pretty good place to see that. But we are also born guilty, which is what Romans 5 is all about. But the good news is that though we are given to sin, though we are guilty of sin, the work of Christ overcomes them both. He erases our guilt and he gives us an ability to walk in newness of life.

That is my answer to question one. Anybody need a follow-up?

Question Two: Irresistible Grace vs. Coercion

Question two: How does irresistible grace differ meaningfully from coercion at the level of the will? This is a very important question and we did talk about this in class. So I'm not sure if what I said didn't land or if you just don't agree with it or where we're at on that.

It's irresistible will not coercive will. Think sex and chocolate. Think irresistible, desirable, delightful, you want it. Not that you're being forced to do it. The promise of the gospel is that God in his mercy would fix that thing that is broken in you, your supreme love of yourself. The fact that you look at Jesus and you think he's so stupid. I've preached the gospel, shared the gospel so many times with people you can just tell that they're just like, this is pure idiocy. The gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing. And it remains foolishness until and unless he opens our eyes, regenerates our heart, enables us to see, oh my gosh, he's been amazing all along. I was just too self absorbed to see it.

And once the lights come on and once we see it, he doesn't need to force us to come, he just lets us come. And we do come because he is irresistible. He is delightful. He is desirable. He is beautiful. He is wonderful. He is everything we wanted. You need not coerce someone whose eyes have been opened, whose ears have been unstopped, who have been brought from death to life. Once he has quickened us, we come and we freely come. We choose to come. We want to come because he is delightful. That's what we mean by irresistible. It's not coercive. He overrides our broken will and then we freely come.

Follow-up: Prevenient Grace vs. Irresistible Grace

Reese is asking, are irresistible grace and prevenient grace different ideas? So they are. They tend to be different ideas, but I think prevenient grace simply means prior grace. Pre-grace, early grace. That language tends to be used by Armenians and they mean something slightly different by it. But if someone were to assert that God shows grace to sinners while they're still sinners, a hundred percent. Jesus is very clear. The sun shines and the rain falls on the wicked and the righteous alike. We all walk in a sea of what we might call common grace. All day long, the fact that none of us are dead is a grace.

So if by prevenient grace what we simply mean is grace before we believe, a hundred percent that exists. But the irresistibility of grace, I think we resist him and we resist him and we resist him. Stephen gets really frustrated in the book of Acts. He says:

You're always resisting the Holy Spirit. — Acts 7:51

And indeed we are. But there is a moment where God overrides that resistance. And that's when we come. Does that help?

I think it's not always a moment in time, and I think that's absolutely the case. For some of you, you came to Christ and it was like, "I know the time and the day—it was a Tuesday afternoon." But for many of you, maybe most of you, it was like, "Yeah, it was my sophomore year, right? It was just a broader thing." For me, it's much more like that. I don't know the exact moment, but I do know there was a wooing process.

Which is why I think we should be hopeful in evangelism—that it's not just like once and done. Evangelism is overwhelmingly a process, not an event. Although there is some moment in that where the lights come on. And then of course, once we're converted, we grow for years. I mean, it's been—I'm constantly discovering, surrendering, repenting. That just doesn't end. It's not like that was all finished in 1991 or something.

[Audience member: God got me when I was in second grade.]

And I think that was important because He got you before you were old enough to think about not believing. Second grade is early. That is a grace, right? That in His mercy, He saved you when you were seven years old.

You might say, maybe He had to get you early before you made such a shipwreck of everything that there was no hope, you know? Most likely. So whatever it takes. And that's what you want. You don't want your kids to be like, "Yeah, I came to Christ after five years as a prostitute." You'd love it if they came to Christ in second grade.

[Audience member: I was in the class that you did on irresistible faith...]

Irresistible grace is maybe what you mean, but these things go together. So you have New Testament scripture for that. How does this reconcile with the Old Testament? Like, was it available in the Old Testament? Would you say it was always the same?

Okay, this is great. So yes, I do think—between the Old Testament and the New Testament, there are both continuities and discontinuities. Among the continuities: we are saved by grace through faith in the Old Testament. We are saved by grace through faith in the New Testament. That is absolutely the same.

Sometimes people feel like in the Old Testament they're saved by obeying the law. That is not true. In the Old Testament, they were saved by grace through faith in what God would do—future tense. We are saved by grace through faith in what God has done.

Total Depravity in the Old Testament

Now, what you will see very vividly in the Old Testament is the doctrine of total depravity played out over and over. If anything, you want to say, "What is the whole point of the Old Testament?" It is to prove that there's not an Israelite in the world that is going to voluntarily follow God. You put them under this situation, they're going to sin. You put them into another situation, they're going to sin. You rescue them, they're going to sin. The book of Judges is like, "Hey, no matter what we do," it's over and over and over again: "You will never bend the knee to me because you love yourself."

And then in the midst of it, yes, you will see something different. Maybe one of the more vivid places is the story where the worshipers of Baal are worshiping Baal, and Elijah wants to get them to worship Yahweh. They build these two sacrifices and call for fire. You know the whole story, right? In the midst of all that, Elijah is so discouraged. He's like, "Nobody obeys Yahweh and I'm the only one left."

And God tells him, "There is a remnant chosen by grace that I have reserved to myself, who have never bent the knee to Baal." So the notion that God is mercifully overriding these rebellious sinners—this shows up multiple times in both the Old Testament and the New Testament for sure.

[Follow-up on irresistible grace and why that's not coercive grace.]

Okay. Third question: Also in the broad category of irresistible grace. The Bible makes it clear that in the context of salvation, faith and works are opposed. Would you say that Calvinism considers belief or faith in Christ as a meritorious labor for God?

Before I answer the question, I want to address the supposition. The supposition is: "The Bible makes it clear that in the context of salvation, faith and works are opposed." I don't think the Bible does make that clear.

I think what you're trying to say is the Bible makes it clear that we're saved by faith and not by works. And that I would richly agree with. We are not saved by our works. However, we are also not saved from our works, rather we are saved to good works. We are saved by grace through faith apart from works so that we might walk in obedience. So that we might have our loves reordered. So that we might become what he has called us to be. Right? So Paul will say to Timothy in Second Timothy 1, God has saved us and called us to a holy life. He will say in the book of Romans, which is like the book of faith—Paul's job is to call Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. So I'm not comfortable with the language that faith and works are opposed, rather that faith and works are different and that faith produces works. Okay. So I know that wasn't your question but I want to address that in the setup. Faith and works are not opposed.

You might even look at it like this—Ephesians 2:8-9:

For by grace you have been saved through faith that not of yourselves as the gift of God not a result of works that no one should boast.

That's verses 8 and 9. Remember what verse 10 is? Does anybody have that in their head? Very advanced, you might walk in them. Yeah, that's exactly right. Right?

We are therefore God's workmanship. And this is the masterpiece verse. Guys, you masterpiece people, right? We're God's workmanship, which really is masterpiece, right? Created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

So Ephesians 2:8-9 shouldn't stop at verse 9—it should actually go on to verse 10. And truthfully, it should go on for the rest of the chapter because the second half of that is all inflected in this. But we'll leave that there.

Faith as Gift and Response

Okay. But here is the question that is asked. Would you say that Calvinism considers belief or faith in Christ as a meritorious labor for God? And I would say, no. I don't think Calvinism or Christianity in general treats faith as a labor. I think that faith is simultaneously a gift that God grants. Faith is a gift. Right? We've received faith as precious as this. God grants repentance. And faith is a response to God's goodness. Faith is simply trusting, it's believing things. Right? It's believing that something is true and choosing to live according to it. And so faith is something that God grants to us in the midst of our unbelief so that we can believe.

And as we continue to believe, we are demonstrating that we think it's accurate, it's true that he rose from the dead, it's true that he died for my sins, it's true that his way of ordering society is better than the way I would order society. It's true that if I give up my money, he'll still provide for me. That it's true that if I live according to his sexual ethic, it's more likely to lead to flourishing than what everybody else is telling me. That it's true that someday he's gonna raise me from the dead. That it's true that he's renewing all things and I can wait on him. That's what I mean. Faith is simply the belief that something is true and the capacity to believe that it is true is simultaneously a gift from God and a response to his goodness. Okay. Does that satisfy that or do you wanna follow-up on that?

It does. Chris, yeah, John 5 maybe. Said like the work of God is basically to believe in the one he sent. Right? Yeah, okay, good. This is good. So Chris is pointing out that Jesus says the work of God is to believe. Let me tell you what I think he means when he's saying that and the context in which it is. This is great. Chris, thank you. Be like Chris, right? Disagree with me. It's more fun that way.

So this is when he's arguing with the Jews after the feeding of the 5,000. Let's read a chunk of this. We'll start at verse 26:

Jesus answered, tell you the truth, you're looking for me not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils but for food that endures to eternal life which the son of man will give you, on him the father has placed his seal of approval. Then they asked him, what must we do to do the works that God requires? And Jesus answered, the work of God is this, to believe in the one that he has sent. So they asked him, one miraculous sign, will we see him believe you?

So in this, Jesus is being asked, what do we need to do? And he says, I'll tell you what you need to do, you need to believe me. Right?

So it's not that he's saying this is a work, but they're asking within this framework like they're assuming there's something I'm supposed to do. He's like, yeah, I'll tell you what you do: you trust me. And it's not so much to fulfill work as to contradict it. So when Paul is gonna say, we're saved by grace through faith apart from works, he's not disagreeing with Jesus. Jesus is simply using their framework, their construct and saying, the only thing you need to do is trust me. He's really saying, the only thing I want you to do is trust me.

Does that satisfy that? Does that address it?

A questioner responds, noting that the NIV says "the work that God requires" while the ESV says "the work of God." They offer another perspective: everything God requires, he provides by virtue of regeneration, since you can't even believe apart from the Spirit opening your heart and causing belief. This reflects the Old Testament new covenant promise:

I will put my spirit in you. I will cause you to obey me.

So even the work that we should give ourselves to is that of believing. And even that work—if you want to take it from the NIV—God provides all that is necessary. All that he requires, he provides by virtue of the regeneration.

A long question is posed:

"Just seeking to understand. God bless you. That's what we're trying to do here. Doesn't dividing all this into a choice between the two schools of Calvinism and Arminianism seek to place God in one of two boxes which can then be discernible by men? It seems to deny God his sovereignty and his innate ability that only he has to do more than one thing that may seem impossible to us. To me, it seems like one more attempt by men to try to figure out an incomprehensible God. In the end, and in the grand economy of man's spiritual destiny—and this not being a question of salvation—does any of this ultimately matter to the degree of weight we seem to assign to it? If we as followers of Jesus Christ are called to follow and serve him and show his love to others, why do we place so much weight on how we each got here? If I'm being honest, it kinda seems like being right on this doctrine can become a bit of an idol."

Responding to Concerns About Doctrine and Idolatry

For sure, we can make anything an idol and we do, right? John Calvin said that the human heart is a perpetual idol factory. Whatever good thing that we think we're valuing can suddenly become larger than it needs to be, right? And I think the best working definition of an idol is something that you think can save you, but it can't. I mean it could be that your idol is mountain biking. It could be that your idol is doctrinal punctiliousness, right? I mean you could do it with anything, by all means. And we should be thoughtful and aware of that risk. It's caution worth heeding.

Having said that, you asked the question: it seems like one more attempt by men to try to figure out an incomprehensible God. Yes, yes, it is that. And that's a good thing, okay.

When God gave us the Scripture, if I were God—and it's for many reasons, it's good that I'm not, right?—I would have written a systematic theology textbook. The Bible would be like chapter one: here's how things work. Chapter two: here's what we do about it, right? He didn't do that. He did not give us a systematic theology textbook. He gave us this collection of stories and poems and laws and like actual letters from one dude to some other group of people. It is the strangest thing. He did not write a systematic theology textbook.

Therefore, what we do is we take the poems and we take the stories and we take the letters and we take these prophetic oracles and all this stuff, and we peer into it. And we're trying to extract from it. But what's behind this? Why did you let that story play out? Why was this written in this letter? What was going on?

So we have to do all this. And so, is what I'm saying here in theory about Calvinism—is it an attempt by men to figure out an incomprehensible God? Absolutely. And I want to invite you to that same process: to peer into the book, to extract from it, to be faithful in saying, what is going on here? And by the way, if you're getting it right, it's gonna be consistent with what it says over here, right? It is a difficult work.

I do believe that the Bible rewards diligent study, that it's filled with treasure, that you can find it, but it's work and we have to do it. And along the way, it is possible that you get enamored by the information. You get enamored by Bible trivia. You get enamored by the idea that you can be right while all these imbeciles are wrong, right? There's all kinds of pitfalls along the way. Nevertheless, yes, we are to do the work.

I'll come to you in one second, right? And I would say not only is it work, but as we do, because we're finite and he's infinite, we really have no choice but to try to look at things one piece at a time. Right? If you go back like a year in this class, when we were talking about the attributes of God, we would say, okay, God is omniscient, God is omnipotent, God is omnipresent, God is loving, God is just, God is merciful. And the risk of doing that is that you feel like today God is in a just mood, and tomorrow he's in a merciful mood. And the next day he might be flexing his omnipresence or something, right? But the truth is, God is all that he is at all times. He is loving while he's being just. He is merciful while being wise and creative. He's all that he is at all times. We, however, are pretty stupid and we can only think about one thing at a time. So we break it down, we'll say, let's talk about his justice, let's talk about his sovereignty, let's talk about his holiness. Because we can't do it all at once. We're just too dumb.

In a similar way, when we walk through TULIP—the T, the U, and the I—as you walk through all these things, you could get the impression that God sat down and said, okay, I'm gonna save people and I'm gonna use five steps to do it. I'm not telling you that's how the world is. It's all instantly available to him. He is all that he is at all times. We're just dumb, and so we have to break this down. Let me understand something propositionally: what is true about human nature? What is true about God's right to make decisions? What is true about how we engage with him?

There's no question I am trying to systematize—I am borrowing the systems of someone else that have gone before me and trying to present this to you in an orderly way. Not because God thinks of the world in these categories, but because we don't have much choice but to think of the world in smaller categories. And along the way, it's really important that we let the scriptures be preeminent, not our preferred systems, right?

My theological convictions deviate from whatever my little subculture says I'm supposed to think. I reject the L of TULIP. And that's because I think scripture conquers it, right? And so I'm on board until I'm not. There are other things we've talked about throughout this class where my views are not necessarily like the center of what teachers have thought. But I'm a slave to the Bible and I think I'm gonna believe. Even if my community thinks I'm wrong about something, I'm gonna stick with what I think is true. I'm gonna do the best that I can to understand that.

The Power of Story and Narrative

J.R.R. Tolkien said once that fiction often portrays truth better than truth because you can use it to walk past sleeping dragons. Yes. And I think that's one beautiful thing about the way God uses story and examples such that when we do have theological questions that seem insurmountable, you can reflect back on stories to figure out, well, what was it I was missing with the theology?

Just observing, if you didn't hear all that: God speaks to us in stories and it's not just a random weird thing to do, right? Our hearts are driven by stories and story, fiction conveys truth. And he has clearly chosen to do that, not only with Jesus telling overtly fictional stories, but he also tells true stories, historical stories. Most of the Bible when I say it's a narrative, it's a historical narrative. These things really happened and truth comes through those even as truth comes through your story. Like the David and Goliath thing, that actually happened. But it's also framed as a narrative. And whatever happened to you at work on Thursday also happened and you can frame it as a story and you can extract meaning from it.

One of the most helpful books I've ever read on this very topic is called Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God because I think those feel at odds. The framing of that question is, aren't we just trying to reduce God to human understanding? And I loved the answer to that.

J.I. Packer calls what so often shows up in scripture an antinomy. And it's when there's something that looks like a contradiction, but in God's economy, it does not.

So the temptation is to say, well, it can't mean this because it says this somewhere else. And what we have to do as disciples of Jesus is say, it says this. It says this. God, they're both true. Help me to understand. And I think that book, for those of you that are struggling with whether it is God sovereign or are humans responsible? Yes. And it is only when we just say, God, let God be true and everybody else a liar, that we begin to understand who he is at deeper levels. And he will always be mystery. Like, if we have our hands around him too much, we probably are in a dangerous place. So I'll just throw that in. The book is J. I. Packer. He's a great Anglican theologian, seminary professor, although he's dead now—recently dead. He wrote that; I read it in college probably in 1990. And it's funny, the only word I remember from that book is "antinomy." It struck me too. It's funny that you mentioned that.

Okay. So we are almost done. I'll do one more and then we'll do more next week.

What is Calvinism?

Question: What exactly is Calvinism? And what defines a Calvinist? C. S. Lewis, like me, explains how the doctrine of irresistible grace works, but then you say that he isn't a Calvinist. So I assume there must be more to it.

Yeah, I like this question; it's interesting. I'm not crazy about the label Calvinism or Calvinist because Calvin's a dude, right? And Calvin got some things right and he got some things wrong. So technically a Calvinist would be like a follower of Calvin. I think it's a little bit of an unfortunate quirk of history that all this stuff is named after him. I would probably prefer something like Paulism than Calvinism. But whether you call it Calvinism or predestination or election or reformed soteriology—while technically Calvinism will be all the things that Calvin taught—what we really mean by Calvinism usually is just a systematic explanation for how salvation works. And it is known for a particular focus on man's total inability to respond in faith and God's intervention on unbelieving sinners to enable them to believe. That's what we mean by Calvinism.

And as I've said, Lewis is a contradiction, right? He is not fond of Calvinism in his day. He sees it as too deterministic. He feels like it has been used and abused, and I'm sure that in his context, it was. Because like anything that's true can be distorted and misused. He's reacting against an oppressive version of this that people would use to excuse their bad behavior. And he's like, yeah, doesn't like that. When he talks about how the doctrines of Calvinism had been abused by wicked men in his autobiography—but in that same autobiography, he unquestioningly describes himself as having been pursued by God against his will. You—I've quoted this to you before, right? He calls himself the most reluctant convert in all of England. He talks about man's search for God as making as much sense to him as the mouse's search for the cat. He does not like the idea that God is coming for him until he finally realizes the condescension of his grace to accept him despite his great reluctance, right?

So yeah, Lewis affirms depravity. Lewis affirms election. He just doesn't like the context in which or the ways that he's seen it played out. And truth is—I would say though I have spent most of my Christian life in the community of reformed people. I would suggest to you that reformed people tend to be arrogant people. And that arrogance is not only antithetical to Christianity, it is antithetical to Calvinism. If you feel like, yeah, I got called because I'm better than you, or if you think I figured this out because I'm smarter than you—you are wrong on both counts. Properly understood, this stuff should drive you to your knees. You should realize that everything is grace and you get credit for nothing. So stop preening about how smart you are and how chosen you are and recognize that everything is a gift.

Okay, we'll stop there and we'll pick it up next week with what I think is probably the thorniest issue in all theology. We'll kick it off there and we'll take it as it comes. And there's still time; you can still add to the questions, although I didn't put the slide on screen. If you want to feel real uncomfortable, you can read ahead to what I'm preaching on next week. Good. Strap in. It'll be great.

Alright. We'll do more next week. Thank you, friends.