We're just going to get started. I'd like to start by recapping or having you tell me what you remember from last week. I'm going to let you guys help me recap what we talked about last week. Then I'm going to make some introductory statements about last week. And then I want to give just a minute or two to hear some of the questions that you might have from last week. I don't have time to field a ton, but if you have—like I remember Nick, who's not here, really had a question he wanted to ask Tim. Didn't you love how Tim was like, "Hey, just bring your questions to sleep next week"? Wasn't that great? That's so nice of him.

But I would like to address some of your questions on the front end from last week, and here's why I'm doing it that way on purpose. I know how difficult it is to listen when there's something in you that you feel frustrated by, or a question that you have, or an emotional concern that you have. It's sort of like if you've ever been in an argument with someone that you love or a spouse, and you're listening to them sort of, but deep down, you're just forming your rebuttal.

My hope is that by addressing some of these emotional concerns and addressing some of the questions intellectually or theologically that you may have, it might enable a different posture of listening when we get to making a biblical case for the doctrine of election.

Recap: Total Depravity

So what did we talk about last week? Tulip. And specifically, what part of Tulip? Total depravity. If you were going to summarize what Tim taught us last week about total depravity, what would you say? Give me a sentence or two.

Tim would say—or he did when I was a fellow—that you're not just wounded or in need of repair and help. You're dead on the bottom of the ocean with a bunch of rocks on you. You're not just wounded in need of repair. You are dead at the bottom of the ocean in need of rescue with a bunch of rocks on you.

Total depravity is that doctrine that states that we are in desperate, almost irretrievably lost condition. Total depravity teaches that we don't have the capacity in ourselves, in our own nature, to correct or to change. It's not just that we won't reach for God, it's that we can't. Sin has so marred and damaged us that we are, like Paul would say in Ephesians 2, instruments of wrath, children of disobedience. We have no inclination towards God, and we live according to that nature that we have.

If you want to receive God, if you want to be healed, you want to get whole, you have to first admit the bad news before you get the good news. If you want the good news, you have to first accept the bad news. And I think that's absolutely right. That's why total depravity, in some ways, last week was the bad news.

I had a Bible teacher named Tom Nelson who used to say, "Sin is the black felt behind the diamond of the gospel." If you've ever been to a jeweler, they will put a black piece of felt so that you can see the beauty, the contrast of the beauty of that diamond more clearly. If you don't understand total depravity, then you cannot appreciate grace. You cannot appreciate what the Bible teaches about what we're going to talk about today, which is the doctrine of unconditional election.

Questions and Concerns

What were some of the confusion, concerns, objections that you may have had to what Tim taught last week? Or maybe all the people that were disgruntled just decided I'm not coming back.

I had a hard time reconciling with John 3:16.

Excellent. A hard time reconciling John 3:16, which says:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. — John 3:16

We might say, how is it that that verse can be there and what does it mean if it seems like John is saying, "Whoever believes will be saved and he died for the world"? It's a great question, and we're going to get to that today. What other questions?

I might not answer it on the spot because I know we're going to answer it later. What other questions?

How to put together I believe it. I know the word says it, but free will with elect—you know, that God really chose you out and you had nothing to do with it.

I know the word says it, but how do we reconcile free will with election? You mean, how do we reconcile the idea that God really chose you and you had nothing to do with it? Yes. So you're asking, how does it look like salvation is a response of a human being to, for example, the gospel message? How do we reconcile that with other passages that seem to suggest that it is God's sovereign choice?

What do we do when we see evidence of both? Is that kind of the question? Excellent question. We're gonna answer that today. Anything else?

So I guess I just don't know how to feel about the people that aren't elected and why God wouldn't choose to elect them to have the opportunity to be saved. That is a hard but very necessary question to ask. What about the people who are not elected? People who are not sovereignly chosen by God. That's a great question. I will address that, but there are some things that have tidy answers and there are some things that are just tensions to be held onto.

Two more over here and then back there. Three more, actually. Yes, Eric.

I was gonna ask that you summarized the question, but then you did. So okay. As a follow-up to that, can an Arminian believer find salvation? Can they be granted salvation? Are they saved?

Well, yeah, of course. Now this is, Tim said this at the beginning of his class, I believe. This is not a salvific issue. What you choose to believe about this does not determine whether or not you're saved according to Calvinists. We would just have differing views about what is happening in the life of a believer when that person does happen to be saved. But of course, someone like me might say to an Arminian, "I think that you misunderstood about the process of salvation and how you came to believe him and cling to him." In no way would I ever question anyone's salvation if they had a differing view on this point than me. Does that touch what you're asking?

Anyone else? That will be the last—two more.

The more I've grown in studying the scriptures and knowing who God is, I'm stuck with this free will or selection thing, and I'm not happy with it. But I can't—I think you just have to. But the biggest my biggest struggle with that is it kind of undermines any need, and I've seen it happen, for any kind of missionary work, any kind of outreach, any kind of reaching to others because if God's gonna choose him, he's gonna do it. And yes, he puts us there, but...

This is fantastic. What she is suggesting is such a logical next question to this doctrine. If it is true that God is sovereign in salvation, what is the point of evangelism? Why do we even do it? I'm gonna talk and speak to that.

What's interesting about that is the person who is probably the most overt and prolific in his view on God's sovereignty over our salvation is who? The apostle Paul. Who is the most enthusiastic, energetic evangelist of all time? It is also Paul. And so for some, there is something in Paul that is able to hold this doctrine and also have an enthusiastic passion to reach the lost.

Was there one more hand before I jump in? Yes.

I'm just gonna start with the proverb, training up a child in the way you should go and you will not depart from it. But linking that to your parents attempting to raise the child up. But there's some maybe special thoughts there.

Train up a child in the way he should go and he shall not depart from it.

Anybody have a problem with that verse? Anybody have a child or know a child who was trained up and departed? Yeah. So that certainly does not mean that our experience does not bear that out. But this is a great example.

So there's something that we in studying God's word—the science of studying God's word is called hermeneutics. And one of the most important principles of hermeneutics is that scripture interprets scripture. So for example, whenever we see something like Romans chapter 10, when Paul says that anyone who believes in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead and confesses with his mouth that Jesus is Lord, he will be saved. That's it. Those are the requirements. Anybody who believes in his heart and confesses with his mouth, he will be saved. And you might be tempted to read that verse and say, "This is it. Anyone." However, what we are bound to is the whole counsel of God's word. We are bound not only to Romans 10, but also to Romans 9:

God will harden whom he will harden, and he will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy.

God is sovereign over salvation. This is what Romans 9 is all about.

And in Romans 10—and this addresses your question about evangelism—Paul says:

How will they respond if nobody goes to them? How can someone know unless someone preaches?

And therefore we go. How beautiful are the feet of those who are sent. Paul is saying, "Look, I don't know who God's gonna draw. I don't know whose heart will be opened." But Paul's passion for evangelism was not because he thought he was the key, but because he knew God was, and he was excited to be a part of it.

Paul's Vision and God's Sovereignty

If you look at Acts chapter 16, when Paul shows up in Macedonia, how does he get there? He has a vision, a dream in the middle of the night. God sends a man saying, "Come help us." Paul wakes up and says, "God's calling us to Macedonia." When he gets there, he preaches to a crowd.

Do you remember what happens? In chapter 16, there's a woman named Lydia, and it says God opened her heart to believe what Paul was saying. The fact that God had to open her heart is evidence that if he did not, she would not.

When we preach the gospel, we preach to all because that is the language that is used and because I'm a finite human being. I don't know who God is sovereignly working in, and I'm so thrilled that it's biblical for me to say:

Anyone who confesses with their mouth and believes in their heart will be saved.

That is true. It is also true, however, that unless God sovereignly intervenes, like he did with Lydia, we cannot see. We cannot and we won't want to, and it will be our choice. It will be my sin saying, "I have no interest in you, God." And it won't be God's fault.

Addressing Philosophical Assumptions vs. Scripture

I want to cherry pick something that Tim said last week. Tim said something to the effect of, "I don't care about your a priori philosophical assumptions. What I care about is the truth."

Now, what I know for a fact, what Tim did not mean when he said that, was he doesn't care about how this doctrine makes us feel. In fact, he said at the very beginning that he himself struggled with this. I don't know of a single person who doesn't. It is a difficult doctrine.

But the reason I bring that statement up again isn't so much to clarify what he did not mean, because I know he didn't mean that. Tim does care about your heart and so do I. We care about any difficult—and this will not be the last difficult doctrine that makes us uncomfortable and for which we don't have all the answers.

But I don't bring this up to clean up what Tim didn't mean. Rather, I want to emphasize what I know that he did mean: Regardless of how uncomfortable doctrine and God's word makes us feel, it will never trump our commitment to teach what we believe the scriptures plainly teach.

If this was some outlier that didn't have a whole lot of biblical support, I wouldn't be motivated to teach it. I think a lot of people look at Calvinism as if it is a philosophical framework that has been imposed upon the scriptures, and I want you to know that is not what it is. Calvinism is not a philosophical framework that was created by people who want this to be true about God. Of course not.

Calvinism, on the other hand, is an attempt to explain what is overwhelmingly contained within the scriptures. It is Jesus who said:

No one can come to the Father unless my Father who sent me draws him. — John 6:44

Jesus said:

The reason you don't believe in me is because you are of your father, the devil. — John 8:44

Over and over and over again, what we see is the evidence of total depravity restricting the individual's ability to see spiritual truth.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. — 1 Corinthians 2:12-14

Man cannot understand things of the spirit. He needs the spirit to understand spiritual things. This is not something theologians want to be true. It is their best attempt to explain what the Bible teaches.

You may choose to disagree with that, and I'm not suggesting to you that I have authority on everything the Bible says, and I'm always going to be exactly right. But these are just a few references that discuss this doctrine, and there are many, many more.

Reconciling Free Will and God's Sovereignty

Going back to the example before with Romans 9 and Romans 10, many of us think that this is a debate about choosing one or the other, but we don't have that luxury. Whenever you see an example where it seems as if, for example:

For God so loved the world... — John 3:16

See, everyone, anyone can choose.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. — Romans 10:9

Anyone can choose. Therefore, it's free will, and I'm going to choose those verses and reject the others. That is not an option that we have.

What we do instead is we say, as Paul says in Romans chapter 3:

Let God be true and every man a liar. — Romans 3:4

And when we don't understand what God's word teaches, we look at the whole counsel of scripture, and we say, "How can we reconcile the fact that in some instances man gets to choose, but in other places God sovereignly chooses? How do you reconcile those things together?"

And in that particular example, what I would say—whether it's the person, the thief on the cross, whether it is Lydia, or the person hypothetically in Romans chapter 10 who confesses with their mouth and believes in their heart that Jesus was raised from the dead—we would say anywhere that it seems like Paul is talking in such a way that makes it look like it's free choice, he is speaking that way knowing at the same time, because he's the same person that wrote these words down, that we cannot respond unless God opens our heart like he opened Lydia's heart. This is how we seek to reconcile.

We don't say, "I choose free will and I reject all the sovereign passages." What we say is, "How are they integrated? How can they both be true?" Because they both are. They are both unmistakably in God's word.

I want to tell you one more thing before I dig into this sheet that I have in front of me, and it's my own personal testimony of coming to understand and believe this doctrine.

A Personal Journey to Understanding Election

I was a college student, and I had a guy named Rob Fetz—you know him. He was trying to do the same thing to you, I'm sure. He was like an evangelist for Calvinism, and I was like, "Dude, relax. This is like the most unattractive thing you could possibly do, walking around trying to convince people." And it confounded me that he would care so much that I believe this. To this day, I kind of still don't understand that.

However, I was so resistant to it for the same reasons that many of you may be resistant to it. Until, in my quiet time in my room at 111 Campbell Street, when I was reading John chapter six, and I got to the part where it was in red letters. It wasn't like the bold Apostle Paul saying it. It was Jesus saying it. And I know that all Scripture is God-breathed. I believe that. But there's something about seeing the red letters. Jesus is the harshest voice in the New Testament on this doctrine. I mean, you just cannot read John's gospel without seeing this.

This is why Jesus uses language like: blind people cannot see on their own. They need a touch to have their eyes opened. The new birth—you have to be born again. Could Nicodemus climb back in the mother's womb? No. No. No. You have to be born again.

Last week, Tim likened evangelism to being called out into the graveyard, and I was hoping he was going to go to Ezekiel 36 and 37, because Ezekiel chapter 36 is where God promises the new covenant:

"I am going to put my spirit in you. I am going to sprinkle you with clean water, put my spirit in you, cause you to obey." — Ezekiel 36

What happens in chapter 37? It is the valley of the dry bones. God leads Ezekiel out to this graveyard, and it's a bunch of bones. And he says, "Prophesy to the bones." And the bones rattle, and they come together, and then muscle comes on top of them. God says to Ezekiel, "Can these bones live?" And he says, "Sovereign Lord, only you know." He says, "Prophesy to the breath." And he prophesies to the breath, and what happens? The spirit comes in and opens their eyes, and they stand up.

And what God is saying is this: Ezekiel 36 is the new covenant that is coming. This is what it's going to look like. Dead bodies waking up. Dead bodies do not wake themselves up. They need the spirit.

Now listen. If he prophesies to the breath and only some get up—if the spirit goes out and that one gets up but that one doesn't—okay, well, then we say, "Well, it's just their choice. Some choose to reject the breath." But that is not the picture. All those whom the spirit enters wake up.

Or, to borrow Jesus' language:

"All that the Father gives to me will come to me." — John 6

His calling is effectual. There is no scenario where we see, biblically anyway, where God throws out his spirit for some to take and others not. When his spirit goes to get someone, he is effective every time.

"Whoever God begins a good work in, he will bring it to completion." — Philippians 2

The Weight of Evangelism

Now, I want to talk to you about what this produced in me emotionally, because I was a Young Life leader at the time, and I felt so much pressure, speaking of evangelism.

See, here's the flip side in my view of the Arminian view: if what we believe is that God has invited all, and it's up to human beings to choose, then my role as evangelist is heavy. It is a heavy burden. I'm not just commissioned to go; I am responsible. The way that I communicate, it better be good, it better be engaging. I better go every single day and every minute of free time that I have, because if I don't, people are going to hell because of me, because of my laziness, because of my ineffectiveness, because I haven't worked hard enough to figure out all the answers to the questions that genuine people who have the chance to respond might not hear.

Or we could believe this:

"I did not come to you with wise or eloquent words when I was among you, so that your faith might not rest on man's wisdom, but on God's power demonstrated through the Spirit." — 1 Corinthians 2

Look, logically, friends, if we believe that all of humanity, that it's up to us, then we should not be sitting in this room right now. We should be shaking every person in town, begging them to understand. And let me say this too, why would we even pray? Because if it's really just up to people to decide, I mean, if it's up to people to decide, why would I ask God to move in someone's heart?

See, Calvinism, contrary to what people believe, it does not produce arrogant people. It produces people that go, "I had nothing to do with this."

In Ephesians 2:8-10, when Paul says, "It is by grace that you have been saved." — Ephesians 2:8-10

And here's what it gets down to. The question that comes down to this: What produces new life? Using Ezekiel 36 and 37, we would say it's the spirit. What produces new life? What is the agent? Paul would say in Ephesians 2, grace alone through faith alone. And we might say, "Okay, so faith then is my part. Grace has been extended to all, and now if I show faith, that's how I get new life." What's the problem with that?

Paul interrupts himself. Let me give you the logical answer first. If faith is my contribution to the new birth, if faith is what unlocks the new birth, and faith is what I bring to the table, then no one is saved by grace alone. I was saved because I was smarter than the guy next to me or more humble. For whatever reason, I heard the message and received it. It is because of something in me. You have to conclude that. There is no possible way to separate the fact that if I chose and he didn't, if I believe in free will only, then what I'm believing is there's something in me that enabled me to see something that another person didn't. That, not Calvinism, is what produces pride—that I brought something to my salvation.

On the other hand, what a Calvinist would believe is, "I did nothing. It was a monergistic work of God from start to finish," which is what the Bible seems to teach. Does it present some existential philosophical difficulties? A hundred percent. And I won't be able to satisfy all of those in the next eleven minutes. But what I will tell you is that our commitment is to come under the word. Our commitment is to say, "Okay, God, let everyone be true or let everyone be a liar. Let God be true and everyone else a liar." I'm not going to live my life this way where I say, "God, you cannot possibly be this way, and therefore no." We come to the scriptures and we say, "Lord, I don't get this yet."

It's like Jesus in John chapter 8: "Hold on to my teaching," he said. "Then you will know the truth." — John 8

Here's what it did to me. It took the pressure off. It caused me to realize, "I'm not the reason people get saved. God is." But then here was the second thought: "I'm not the reason I got saved, which means he picked me out of a crowd. I don't know why. It's pretty clear biblically it wasn't because of me. He didn't think, 'Man, I like the look of that one.' He set his affection on me just like he did the nation Israel in Deuteronomy. Not because Israel was better, he chose us. This has been the arc of redemptive history. God always chooses because in my sin, I will never choose him."

The Problem of Hell

The first point I want to make at the end is this: Hell is a problem for anybody that's not a universalist. Have you thought about that? Deep down, we all want to be universalists because it's uncomfortable to think that God would allow anybody to perish, but there's just too much biblical evidence to the contrary to think that's what the scriptures teach.

For the free will or Arminian side, what God loves is your autonomy and your freedom to choose—that he would allow you to choose hell over choosing him. For the Calvinist, we believe that God loves you more than your autonomy, that he chooses you, that he sets his affection on you against your will at first, to wake you up to the beauties of Christ, which is what the Spirit's ministry is, to where you cannot but help but respond.

This produces discomfort, to be sure. But in both camps, hell is a problem.

Either God is committed to His church, His elect, those that He sovereignly chooses to set His affection on, or He loves your ability to choose. He loves your autonomy. But in both scenarios, there are people that end up in hell, and God has the power to keep people out of hell. We know that. Both agree and affirm that. We just believe there's different reasons for it.

Let me pause here and ask if there's any questions.

[Audience member Gil asks a question about Arminianism and putting oneself in the seat of God]

That's a whole separate issue there. Is there a question or a comment? I want to reserve room for people that might have a question.

[Audience member asks: Why would God create people to not be elected to love Him?]

That's probably the better question: Why would God elect to save anyone?

I think when we really begin to understand the doctrine of sin, God is not entitled to save anyone. This is why Tim said starting with total depravity is so important. I mentioned this at our church service during the sermon. It's like we've walked into the movie an hour in, and we don't understand the plot. We don't really understand how offensive sin is.

Sin is far more offensive than we could ever possibly know because God is holier than we could ever possibly fathom. No one can choose God. This is what we believe the Bible teaches. And therefore, every time there's evidence of salvation, it is God extending mercy.

I don't know is the answer. I don't have an answer, nor does anyone, as to why God chooses who He does. I will say this: I do not know why He chose me. I don't feel more worthy than others. I didn't feel smarter, more humble, but for some reason, the penny dropped. Sometimes God does use our families, but sometimes He works in spite of our families.

What are the questions?

[Audience member in back asks about eternal damnation]

My struggle with this is the flip side. We've got heaven. Explain the eternal damnation because that's what I struggle with for my love.

Of course. And this is why this is such a tender doctrine and cannot be handled callously because lives hang in the balance. Let me just suggest this: I'm not going to get into the nature of hell. We don't have time to get into that, but let me just say this. There is no scenario where someone wants Christ but can't have Him. The Bible does not give you that option.

I think some people hear the doctrine of election and think that's what it is—like all these people desperate for God, and He's like, "No." That is not the picture the Bible gives us. The doctrine of election is everybody giving God the finger and Him moving towards you with affection to change your heart from the masses. There will never be a scenario where Jesus says, "I want to save you but I can't."

This is the beauty of trusting the whole counsel of God's Word:

All who come to me... — John 6:37

That means if someone comes, they have been drawn. There's no scenario where someone comes and we say, "They're not elect." So I think that's a red herring. That's not a biblical example.

Question or two more.

[Audience member asks: There's a lot of verses in the Bible that say God wants everyone to be saved]

This is great. Yes, so there's two in particular. One is First Timothy 2:4, and one I think from Second Peter. One of them says:

For God desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. — 1 Timothy 2:4

What do we say? That's a very good question. There's another one that says He wants no one to perish, but also He takes no delight in the death of the wicked. It does not delight God's heart to send judgment on people that He made.

Sometimes God allows things that He hates. The Ten Commandments is a perfect example. There's God's perfect will, but then His permissive will. God does not always do everything that would please Him. He's always carrying out the counsel of His will, but not everybody follows the Ten Commandments, and it would be God's will that people do so from one perspective.

This is why, everywhere we see a picture of God desiring something, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to happen or come to pass. I don't know if that makes sense or helps. But here's the second thing: If that doesn't help, I read Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by J. I. Packer, and I would deeply recommend this book to you.

So what I will acknowledge is that Calvinism does not explain God. If any Calvinist talks as if they have God figured out, or any person for that matter, they don't. We do our best with the scriptures, and we believe that to the degree something has been communicated over and over again, we have a responsibility—especially as teachers of God's word—to expound upon it and try to understand why this is so consistently taught in God's word.

It doesn't resolve every philosophical difficulty, nor does it resolve every seeming inconsistency. But when we do see seeming contradictions, the one you've identified is the toughest one for me. I don't struggle as much with "God so loved the world," but this one is hard. I don't understand a God who desires all to be saved but doesn't. I don't understand a God who doesn't want anyone to perish but come to a knowledge of the truth, and then doesn't sovereignly move for everybody to reach for him.

This is where J. I. Packer would say we don't choose one for the other. We don't say, "I'm going to abandon everything that talks about God's sovereignty in place of free will because emotionally I feel better about that." What we say is that sometimes there are things where we have to say, like Isaiah did in chapter six:

Your ways are higher than my ways. Your thoughts are higher than my thoughts. As far as the heavens are above the earth, so are your ways and your thoughts above mine. — Isaiah 6

God, is it true that God can desire for all men to be saved but only choose some? We have to say yes, because that's what his word says.

And can I tell you something else? Do you know how grateful I am that verse is in there so I can pray with confidence? Because I know that I'm praying to a God who has a heart that wants all to be saved. In fact, I don't know how prayer even makes sense otherwise. I pray to the one who is actually the agent of salvation.

When Paul showed up in a little town in Acts 18, God said to him, "Go back into the city. I have many people for you there." Do you know why he said that? Because God had many people for him there that he was about to draw at the preaching of the gospel.

We beg God for those that we love, knowing that he takes no delight in the death of the wicked, that his heart breaks for every lost sinner. We have so much scripture to support that. But we also have scripture that shows every wicked sinner will not turn unless God sovereignly intervenes. And we hold them both, and we say, "Let God be true and every man a liar."

We don't try to twist and bend the scriptures to say what would make us feel more comfortable. We live with the tension of it, and I can't fully explain that. It's a great question. I'm sorry that we have to stop there. I didn't even get to my outline, but I appreciate your questions, and I appreciate your willingness to sit and grapple with something that is really uncomfortable.

But to reject it—I do think that to be intellectually and theologically honest, it's important to say, "What then do these verses mean?" Because what we're trying to teach and cultivate here is a heart that says, not just on this doctrine but on any doctrine: Lord, I am your servant. You are my Lord. I trust you. I'm not going to bring my own thoughts and say, "God, I think you got this one wrong." Because when people did that biblically, it just was a bad day for them.

"Get behind me, Satan." Peter, our job is to come with humility and say, "God, you alone know. Can these bones live? You alone know. My job is to go therefore to all the nations, proclaiming and praying that in his sovereign mercy, he would open hearts." Amen?