Latest / Reformed Thinking / Refuting False Accusations Against This Doctrine | John Calvin

Transcript

Refuting False Accusations Against This Doctrine | John Calvin · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Welcome back to Reformed Thinking.
• 0:01
  We're doing another deep dive today and starting with a quote
• 0:05
  from our sources that really sets the tone.
• 0:08
  The decree is dreadful indeed. Yeah, that hits it right on the
• 0:13
  head. It does.
• 0:14
  We're tackling predestination today, specifically that really
• 0:17
  difficult side of it, reprobation, you know, the
• 0:20
  decree of condemnation. Right.
• 0:22
  It's probably one of the most challenging doctrines and
• 0:25
  definitely the one that draws the most fire, wouldn't you say?
• 0:28
  Absolutely. The big accusation you always
• 0:30
  hear is that it makes God out to be some kind of unfair tyrant.
• 0:34
  And that's exactly what we want to get into today using the
• 0:37
  source material. We need to carefully unpack
• 0:41
  those objections and then look at the defense the sources
• 0:44
  offer, which really it all comes down to two main points, doesn't
• 0:47
  it? God's absolute sovereignty, His
• 0:50
  will being the standard. Yeah, his will is the highest
• 0:52
  rule, and the other side is the universal guilt of humanity
• 0:56
  after the fall. That's the framework.
• 0:58
  Got it. So our plan is first establish
• 1:02
  why this duality in the decree is seen as necessary in the
• 1:04
  sources. Then we'll face that God is
• 1:07
  tyrant accusation head on. And finally, look at what this
• 1:10
  means for, you know, practical Christian living for holiness,
• 1:14
  and how this kind of heavy teaching should actually be
• 1:16
  handled. Right.
• 1:16
  For anyone serious about reformed theology, this is core
• 1:19
  stuff, even if it's uncomfortable.
• 1:21
  So let's start with defining reprobation itself.
• 1:24
  What do the sources say it is? Well, they don't pull any
• 1:27
  punches. It's called a dreadful but
• 1:29
  righteous decree of God's will. Dreadful, but righteous.
• 1:32
  OK, And what does this decree do?
• 1:33
  It essentially marks specific was out for destruction,
• 1:38
  condemnation and being excluded from eternal salvation.
• 1:41
  And the origin of this marking, Where does that decision come
• 1:44
  from? That's crucial, isn't it?
• 1:46
  Absolutely crucial, the sources insist.
• 1:47
  It comes only from God's free, deliberate and secret decision.
• 1:52
  Secret decision, meaning it's not based on something God sees
• 1:55
  in the person beforehand, like foreseen faith or unbelief.
• 1:59
  No, not according to these texts.
• 2:00
  It's independent of any merit or demerit in the person.
• 2:03
  It's unsearchable with the word they use.
• 2:05
  Unsearchable. God condemns those he passes
• 2:09
  over, and the reason given is stark for no other reason than
• 2:13
  that He wills to exclude them from the inheritance.
• 2:16
  OK, that's blunt. And if the origin is entirely
• 2:19
  hidden in God's will, that leads straight to the idea of
• 2:22
  hardening, right? God's active role in someone's
• 2:26
  unbelief. Yeah, that's the really
• 2:27
  uncomfortable part for many. The sources connect God's secret
• 2:31
  plan directly to hardening. It's stated as the cause of
• 2:34
  hardening. The cause?
• 2:36
  Not just allowing it, but causing it.
• 2:38
  That's the language used, and they draw a parallel.
• 2:40
  Hardening is in God's hand and will just as much as mercy is.
• 2:44
  It's presented as an act of sovereignty, like mercy is.
• 2:47
  So how is hardening defined here?
• 2:50
  It's not like God actively puts evil into someone, is it?
• 2:52
  No, no, that's important. It's defined more as an act of
• 2:55
  withholding. God withholds that more powerful
• 2:58
  grace, the kind of grace that would be necessary to overcome
• 3:00
  the person's inherent hardness and rebellion.
• 3:03
  So he doesn't convert the obstinate.
• 3:05
  Because He does not manifest that specific irresistible grace
• 3:09
  in their lives. It's an intentional withholding
• 3:12
  based on His decree. Which really underscores why you
• 3:15
  can't just talk about election without also talking about
• 3:18
  reprobation. They seem inseparable in this
• 3:20
  view. Completely.
• 3:21
  It's called the concomitant of election.
• 3:23
  They're tied together. Concomitant.
• 3:24
  The sources are really firm on this.
• 3:27
  Election itself could not stand except as set over against
• 3:30
  reprobation. So explain that connection a bit
• 3:33
  more. Why couldn't elections stand on
• 3:35
  its own? Well, think about it.
• 3:37
  If God sovereignly chooses some people for salvation, that's
• 3:40
  election. What about the rest?
• 3:42
  He passes over them. Right.
• 3:44
  And in passing them over, according to this view, he
• 3:46
  effectively condemns them because they remain in their
• 3:49
  state of sin, which merits condemnation.
• 3:51
  If you take away the passing over or reprobation part, then
• 3:55
  election stops being a specific free choice out of humanity and
• 3:59
  become something different, maybe like a general offer or
• 4:01
  potential. I see the specificity of
• 4:04
  election requires the specificity of non election or
• 4:07
  reprobation. That's the logic and Paul
• 4:11
  analogy of the vessels really brings this out, doesn't.
• 4:13
  It Yeah, the vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath.
• 4:16
  Can you lay that out? Sure, Paul, Contrast them.
• 4:19
  The elect are vessels of mercy. That he is prepared for glory.
• 4:23
  Notice the preparation for glory.
• 4:25
  OK, prepared for glory. But the reprobate are vessels of
• 4:28
  wrath, made for destruction, prepared or fitted for
• 4:31
  destruction. It paints a picture of two
• 4:34
  distinct destinies determined by God's purpose.
• 4:37
  And there's another image used to about planting.
• 4:40
  Yes, drawing from Christ's words those whom the Heavenly Father
• 4:44
  has not deemed to plant as sacred trees.
• 4:47
  Are intended for destruction. Exactly.
• 4:49
  They're marked and intended for destruction.
• 4:51
  It all points back to that initial sovereign choice by God,
• 4:55
  either election or reprobation. So we've got this sovereign
• 4:58
  duality. Free mercy leads to adoption for
• 5:00
  some, and God's free will passes over others, leaving them in
• 5:04
  their sin, which justly leads to condemnation.
• 5:06
  That's the framework presented. And framework or not, this is
• 5:09
  precisely where people raise the biggest objections.
• 5:12
  Isn't it the fairness question? God playing favorites, maybe?
• 5:15
  Which brings us to that main objection.
• 5:17
  God as tyrant. Yeah, this is the heart of the
• 5:19
  pushback. When you lay out the doctrine,
• 5:22
  like we just did, that individuals might be marked for
• 5:25
  destruction based purely on God's decision apart from their
• 5:30
  actions, the human reaction is often intense.
• 5:33
  How do the sources frame that core objection?
• 5:35
  What's the specific charge? The charge is that it makes God
• 5:38
  seem like an unfair ruler or tyrant.
• 5:41
  The key question critics ask is by what right the Lord becomes
• 5:45
  angry at His creatures who have not provoked Him by any previous
• 5:48
  offense. Right, because our human sense
• 5:50
  of justice is based on cause and effect, right?
• 5:53
  Punishment follows a crime. Exactly.
• 5:55
  So the idea of condemning someone to eternal death solely
• 5:57
  by his decision, apart from their own merit, it just strikes
• 6:00
  the human mind as inherently unjust, arbitrary even.
• 6:03
  And the sources acknowledge this reaction that it seems more like
• 6:07
  arbitrary power. Oh yes, they record the
• 6:10
  sentiment that this feels more like the Caprice of a tyrant
• 6:15
  than the lawful sentence of a judge.
• 6:17
  Caprice. Just a whim.
• 6:19
  So people feel they actually have grounds to argue with God
• 6:21
  about this. They do.
• 6:23
  The sources say. Men feel they have reason to
• 6:25
  expostulate with God. They think they're justified in
• 6:28
  questioning him, accusing him of biased justice.
• 6:32
  Bias because if everyone starts out fallen and guilty, choosing
• 6:36
  some and not others seems partial.
• 6:38
  That's the feeling. It demands that God operate
• 6:41
  according to a human standard of fairness, of equal distribution
• 6:45
  almost. But the defense offered in the
• 6:47
  sources doesn't try to meet that human standard, does it?
• 6:50
  It goes in a different direction entirely.
• 6:52
  Completely different. The first line of defense is to
• 6:54
  challenge our very competence to judge God.
• 6:58
  Humans are called incompetent judges of God's actions.
• 7:00
  Incompetent judges. And God is not liable to render
• 7:03
  an account. He doesn't owe us an explanation
• 7:06
  that satisfies our limited understanding.
• 7:08
  And this is where the Potter and clay analogy comes in again,
• 7:10
  isn't it? Yes, heavily leaning on Paul.
• 7:12
  It's presented as unlawful for the clay to quarrel with its
• 7:16
  Potter. We're the creation, He's the
• 7:18
  creator. The created thing has no
• 7:21
  standing, no right, and frankly, no ability to critique the
• 7:24
  creator's reasons. OK, but to the objector, that
• 7:27
  sounds like dodging the question, right?
• 7:29
  Saying I'm God, I don't have to explain myself could sound like
• 7:32
  the very definition of tyranny. Yeah.
• 7:34
  How do the sources argue this is justice, not just raw power?
• 7:38
  That's a fair question. The argument shifts to the
• 7:41
  nature of God's justice. It's not unjust, it's just
• 7:44
  higher than man's standard can measure.
• 7:46
  Higher meaning beyond our grasp. Exactly.
• 7:49
  God's ways aren't hidden because they're wrong or arbitrary, but
• 7:53
  because they're too vast, too deep for our finite minds.
• 7:56
  His judgments are called a great, deep, unsearchable,
• 7:59
  inscrutable. So we can't understand the
• 8:01
  reasons fully. We can't.
• 8:02
  And because we can't, we're told not to dare condemn what we
• 8:05
  can't grasp. Instead, the posture should be 1
• 8:08
  of awe, of marveling and belief. Belief, even without full
• 8:12
  comprehension. Yes, trying to force God's
• 8:15
  actions into the box of human reason, where if we don't
• 8:18
  understand it, we condemn it. That's called monstrous madness
• 8:22
  in the sources. So the defense isn't really a
• 8:24
  rational explanation of the decrees specific reasons, but an
• 8:28
  assertion of God's incomprehensible authority and a
• 8:31
  call for intellectual humility. That's a good way to put it.
• 8:34
  It forces us to rethink the very standard of righteousness
• 8:38
  itself, which leads to the next point.
• 8:40
  Right. If God isn't judged by our
• 8:42
  standard, then his own will must be the standard.
• 8:46
  How is God's will defined in this context?
• 8:48
  It's defined as the supreme rule of righteousness.
• 8:51
  Even stronger. It's called the Law of all laws.
• 8:54
  The law of all laws. So righteousness isn't something
• 8:57
  external to God that He follows, it's inherent to His being and
• 9:00
  His will. Precisely the sort of stated
• 9:03
  plainly, whatever He wills by the very fact that he wills it
• 9:07
  must be considered righteous. Just by the fact that he wills
• 9:09
  it, yes. Because His will flows perfectly
• 9:12
  from his righteous nature. He is righteous, so his willing
• 9:15
  is righteous. Accepting that definition seems
• 9:18
  crucial because if God's will is the standard, then asking why he
• 9:23
  willed something specific becomes problematic.
• 9:25
  It becomes more than problematic.
• 9:27
  The sources call it wicked merely to investigate the causes
• 9:31
  of God's will. Wicked.
• 9:33
  That's strong language. It is.
• 9:35
  The idea is, if you ask why God willed say to choose Jacob over
• 9:39
  Esau, the sufficient answer is because he has willed it.
• 9:43
  And pushing for a reason behind that.
• 9:44
  Will is attempting to find something greater and higher
• 9:48
  than God's will, which cannot be found.
• 9:50
  It's logically impossible. If something caused God's will,
• 9:54
  that's something would be God, not God himself.
• 9:56
  OK, I see the logic there. His will is the ultimate
• 9:59
  uncaused 'cause. Right.
• 10:01
  And this principle isn't just about individual election or
• 10:03
  reprobation. It applies to everything.
• 10:05
  His will is the necessity of things.
• 10:07
  Meaning whatever he wills must happen.
• 10:10
  It will of necessity come to pass, and this is applied
• 10:12
  directly to the fall of man. OK, this is often where the
• 10:16
  friction really increases for people, the idea that the fall
• 10:18
  itself happened by God's will. Yes, the sources state that all
• 10:23
  of Adam's descendants fell into misery by God's will.
• 10:27
  And they make a point of saying this wasn't just God passively
• 10:29
  allowing it, right? They distinguish between
• 10:31
  permission and determination. They.
• 10:33
  Absolutely. Do they explicitly reject the
• 10:36
  idea of mere permission? So what do they say instead?
• 10:40
  They say God meted it out in accordance with his own decision
• 10:44
  that Adam should fall. It was by his determination and
• 10:47
  bidding. Determination and bidding.
• 10:49
  That sounds very active. It does.
• 10:51
  It wasn't seen as some cosmic slip up that God had to clean
• 10:54
  up, the sources argue. God judged it expedient for the
• 10:57
  glory of His name. Did the fall happen?
• 11:00
  Judging the fall, the entrance of sin and death as expedient
• 11:04
  for his glory, that's that requires some serious thought.
• 11:07
  It really does. It forces you to hold two things
• 11:08
  together. God's sovereign decree
• 11:10
  encompasses even sinful human actions.
• 11:12
  While the sin itself, the moral responsibility, remains entirely
• 11:16
  with the creature. Exactly the ultimate reason or
• 11:19
  ordination for the event aiming at a higher purpose.
• 11:22
  God's glory is God's hidden in his counsel.
• 11:26
  But the fault, the corruption, the act of transgression itself,
• 11:30
  that's atoms, and by extension, ours.
• 11:32
  OK. God willed the event of the fall
• 11:35
  for His purposes, but the sinfulness of the ACT was man's
• 11:38
  own self willed corruption. That necessary distinction is
• 11:42
  key, and it leads us directly into figuring out where the
• 11:45
  guilt lies. Right, because if God determine
• 11:47
  the fall and determine who is reprobate, the immediate human
• 11:50
  reaction, especially from the wicked, is to shift the blame,
• 11:53
  isn't it? It is the sources describe this
• 11:55
  precisely, the wicked quarrel trying to pass the buck.
• 11:58
  They ask why God blames them for sin when He Himself imposed the
• 12:02
  necessity of which by His predestination.
• 12:04
  It's a kind of sophisticated excuse, isn't it?
• 12:07
  If God decreed it, how can I be truly responsible?
• 12:09
  Exactly. They try to leverage God's
• 12:11
  hidden sanctuary, his secret plan, to escape the consequences
• 12:15
  of their own actions. They ignore the evident cause of
• 12:17
  condemnation, their own corruption and choices, and
• 12:20
  point to God's hidden decree instead.
• 12:22
  So they want to make God the author of sin by necessity
• 12:26
  effectively. And if they can do that, then
• 12:28
  they feel they're off the hook. So the defense has to firmly
• 12:31
  place the immediate cause of condemnation back on to man.
• 12:36
  Even while upholding God's ultimate decree?
• 12:38
  How do the sources balance that? They insist God is a fair judge.
• 12:42
  Also in punishing, he gives out a merited penalty.
• 12:46
  Merited meaning deserved, yes. The justification for
• 12:50
  condemnation is found in man's own state.
• 12:53
  Man falls by his own fault. He corrupted the pure nature God
• 12:57
  gave him by his own evil intention.
• 12:59
  So God isn't punishing an innocent person based on a bare
• 13:02
  decree, He's punishing a guilty person who is guilty by their
• 13:05
  own fault. Correct, and this relies heavily
• 13:07
  on the concept of universal guilt flowing from Adam.
• 13:10
  That everyone is born inherently sinful and liable to judgement.
• 13:14
  Yes, all humans are initiated by sin drawn from a corrupt mass.
• 13:18
  From the moment we exist, we're subject to the judgement of
• 13:21
  death because of this inherited corruption.
• 13:23
  So when God condemns the reprobate.
• 13:25
  They cannot complain of injustice.
• 13:28
  They are receiving the death sentence they already deserve
• 13:31
  according to justice, based on their sinful nature inherited
• 13:34
  from Adam. So let's summarize the causes.
• 13:37
  Then perdition depends on God's predestination in terms of who
• 13:41
  is ultimately lost. But the cause and occasion of
• 13:44
  it, the reason they are justly condemned, is found in
• 13:47
  themselves, in their sinfulness. OK, that distinction is vital.
• 13:51
  It also helps address that charge.
• 13:53
  Partiality again, doesn't it? Critics say choosing some and
• 13:56
  not others when all are guilty is partiality.
• 13:59
  Right, but the sources counter by defining what the Bible means
• 14:02
  when it says God shows no partiality toward persons.
• 14:05
  What does person mean in that context according to them?
• 14:09
  It doesn't mean the individual self, but rather the outward
• 14:11
  stuff. The things conspicuous to the
• 14:13
  eye, like riches, wealth, power, nobility, or the opposite,
• 14:17
  poverty, need baseness. God isn't swayed by your social
• 14:22
  status, your bank account, or your family name when He makes
• 14:25
  His choice. So he chooses without regard for
• 14:27
  that kind of external merit or status.
• 14:30
  Exactly. And if you apply that back to
• 14:32
  election and reprobation, if both the elect and the reprobate
• 14:36
  are fundamentally guilty, drawn from the same corrupt mass.
• 14:40
  Then they are in a sense, indistinguishable in merit
• 14:43
  because neither has any positive merit before God.
• 14:46
  Both deserve judgement. Precisely.
• 14:49
  And if that's the case, then God's choice to save the elect
• 14:52
  cannot be based on any merit in them.
• 14:54
  It must rest solely on His mercy.
• 14:56
  His free, unearned mercy. Which he is free to give or
• 14:59
  withhold. So the distinction becomes God
• 15:02
  is just to the reprobate, giving them the punishment their sin
• 15:05
  deserves, and he is merciful to the elect, giving them salvation
• 15:09
  they don't deserve. Justice is rendered to the lost.
• 15:12
  Mercy is given to the saved. Right.
• 15:14
  Justice is owed, in a sense, because of sin.
• 15:16
  Mercy is never owed. It's pure grace.
• 15:18
  And framing it that way, the sources argue, clears God
• 15:21
  entirely of the charge of unfairness or biased justice.
• 15:24
  That separation between justice and mercy seems foundational to
• 15:27
  the whole argument. OK, so we've laid out the
• 15:30
  doctrine and the defense against injustice.
• 15:33
  Now what about the practical side?
• 15:36
  If God has fixed everything, what stops believers from just
• 15:40
  giving up or thinking their actions don't matter?
• 15:43
  Yeah, that's a very common concern, the if.
• 15:45
  If I'm elect, I'm saved no matter what.
• 15:47
  If I'm reprobate, nothing I do matters.
• 15:50
  Kind of thinking does. It lead to slothfulness or maybe
• 15:53
  even license to sin. The sources strongly argue
• 15:56
  against that conclusion. They insist that the knowledge
• 15:58
  of election should actually motivate action, not kill it.
• 16:01
  Motivate How so? What's a defined purpose of
• 16:04
  election? The purpose isn't just eternal
• 16:05
  life in the future, it's holiness.
• 16:07
  Now. The elect are chosen
• 16:09
  specifically that we may lead a holy and blameless life.
• 16:12
  So holiness isn't the basis for election, but the goal of it.
• 16:15
  Exactly. We are described as God's work
• 16:17
  created for good works which he has prepared beforehand.
• 16:20
  Election is under good works. So far from making people lazy,
• 16:24
  the sources say the knowledge of election should arouse and goad
• 16:28
  the godly to pursue holiness. Knowing you're chosen by grace
• 16:32
  not for your works but for good works should be the strongest
• 16:35
  motivation not to use predestination as an excuse for
• 16:39
  doing nothing or living carelessly.
• 16:41
  So living a godly life becomes, in a way, the evidence or the
• 16:45
  fruit that confirms one's election, the outward sign of
• 16:48
  the inward reality. That seems to be the
• 16:50
  implication. Persevering in holiness is the
• 16:53
  intended result the path election sets us on, and this
• 16:56
  ensures that those who obey will glory not in himself, but in
• 17:00
  God. Right, because the salvation
• 17:02
  wasn't earned. But the holy life demonstrates
• 17:04
  the reality of that unearned salvation.
• 17:06
  It keeps pride out but demands action.
• 17:09
  It connects the doctrine directly to practical
• 17:10
  righteousness. Which then brings up the
• 17:12
  question of how you teach this stuff, given how easily it could
• 17:15
  be misunderstood or misused. How should pastors or teachers
• 17:18
  handle this doctrine? With extreme care, the source is
• 17:22
  stress, handling it with reverence and piety.
• 17:24
  There's a real danger in how it's presented.
• 17:26
  What kind of danger? What's the wrong way to teach
• 17:29
  it? The main danger is using
• 17:31
  language that encourages either presumption I'm elect, I can do
• 17:35
  what I want, or despair. I must be reprobate, so why
• 17:39
  bother? Teachers are warned against
• 17:41
  making God's secret decree the main point of their appeal or
• 17:44
  condemnation. Can you give an example of
• 17:47
  language the sources specifically condemn?
• 17:50
  Yes, there's a very direct warning against saying something
• 17:53
  like if you do not believe the reason is that you have already
• 17:57
  been divinely destined for destruction.
• 17:59
  Wow, OK, Why is that statement singled out so harshly?
• 18:03
  The sources call it. Cursing rather than teaching,
• 18:05
  and the people who say it are called foolish teachers or
• 18:08
  perverse and foreboding profits Strong words.
• 18:11
  Very strong. What makes that statement
• 18:13
  cursing? Because it takes God's hidden,
• 18:15
  unsearchable decree and makes it the immediate explanation for
• 18:19
  someone's present unbelief. It basically short circuits the
• 18:21
  gospel call. The call is repent and believe,
• 18:25
  right? But that statement suggests the
• 18:27
  reason for not believing isn't your current choice or hardness
• 18:31
  of heart, but a fixed destiny you can't change.
• 18:34
  It removes the urgency and responsibility from the person
• 18:37
  hearing the call. I see.
• 18:39
  It shifts the focus from the revealed command to gleave it to
• 18:42
  the secret decree. Maybe you can't believe.
• 18:45
  Exactly. True teaching, according to the
• 18:47
  sources, should focus on encouraging obedience, faith,
• 18:51
  holiness. Let the success of faith in the
• 18:53
  elect be attributed back to God's hidden grace, but don't
• 18:56
  use the decree to explain the failure of the unbeliever in a
• 19:00
  way that removes their responsibility to respond to the
• 19:02
  gospel call now. So the advice for the individual
• 19:05
  believer isn't to try and figure out their status in the secret
• 19:08
  decree. No, definitely not.
• 19:10
  The advice is to submit to God's revealed wisdom, to tremble at
• 19:13
  His judgment and esteem His mercy.
• 19:15
  Focus on what's clear in Scripture, the commands, the
• 19:18
  promises, the call to faith and repentance.
• 19:20
  Right. Walk the path of obedience God
• 19:22
  has laid out rather than getting lost trying to penetrate
• 19:25
  unattainable secrets. There's a striking line about
• 19:28
  this. What is ignorance that believes
• 19:30
  is better than rash knowledge? Ignorance that believes so
• 19:34
  humble faith in what's revealed is better than confidently
• 19:37
  thinking you've figured out God's secret plan, especially if
• 19:41
  that leads you astray. That sums it up well, except to
• 19:45
  the mystery where God leaves mystery, Trust his justice and
• 19:48
  mercy, and focus on living according to His revealed will.
• 19:52
  So, paradoxically, this doctrine of God's total sovereignty,
• 19:56
  including reprobation, is meant to lead not to speculation or
• 20:00
  despair, but to humility, grace, fueled effort, and practical
• 20:04
  holiness. That's the intended outcome
• 20:06
  presented in these texts. Humility before God's majesty,
• 20:09
  gratitude for His mercy if elect, and a drive towards the
• 20:12
  holy living He elected His people for.
• 20:14
  OK, let's try to wrap this up then.
• 20:16
  What are the key takeaways from this deep dive?
• 20:19
  Well, as we wrap up, I think we need to hold on to those two
• 20:21
  core pillars, the sources used to defend the decree against
• 20:24
  that charge of tyranny. Can you recap them?
• 20:26
  Sure. First, God's will is itself the
• 20:28
  highest standard of righteousness.
• 20:30
  It doesn't need justification from anything outside itself.
• 20:33
  Whatever He wills is right simply because He wills it.
• 20:36
  Right. That's the ultimate, ultimate
• 20:38
  answer to why. And the second?
• 20:40
  Second, the reprobate are justly condemned.
• 20:43
  Their condemnation is an arbitrary it's rooted in their
• 20:45
  own inherited sin and fault. Drawn from that corrupt mass of
• 20:49
  humanity, they receive a merited penalty.
• 20:53
  So the ultimate ordination is God's, but the immediate blame
• 20:57
  and cause for condemnation rests squarely on sinful humanity.
• 21:01
  Holding those two together is crucial.
• 21:03
  It has been a very intense dive. Today we're dealing with
• 21:07
  concepts that push human reason and emotion to their limits.
• 21:11
  We get some understanding, perhaps of the theological
• 21:14
  structure. But the overwhelming command
• 21:16
  seems to be humility, recognizing that God's judgments
• 21:19
  are that great, deep, unsearchable.
• 21:21
  We have to submit, not fully comprehend every angle.
• 21:24
  Yeah. And maybe that leads to our
• 21:26
  final thought for the listener. Drawing again from the sources.
• 21:28
  We started by acknowledging the decree is dreadful indeed.
• 21:31
  And the sources also explicitly state that God ordained the fall
• 21:34
  itself because he determined that thereby the glory of His
• 21:37
  name is duly resealed. That God judged the fall
• 21:40
  expedient for his glory. Right.
• 21:42
  So the closing question for you, the listener, to think about is,
• 21:46
  what does it do to your sense of reverence, your worship, your
• 21:48
  understanding of God, when you affirm that the greatest
• 21:52
  catastrophe in human history, the entry of sin, was somehow
• 21:55
  determined and directed by God himself precisely to display his
• 21:59
  own glory, his goodness, his justice, and his mercy most
• 22:03
  fully? That's a heavy question to sit
• 22:05
  with. How does God's sovereignty over
• 22:07
  even the worst of evils ultimately serve to magnify his
• 22:10
  goodness? That's something to wrestle
• 22:11
  with.