Latest / Reformed Thinking / Calvinistic Theology

Transcript

Calvinistic Theology · Reformed Thinking

• 0:01
  You know, usually when you sit down to sign a major contract,
• 0:03
  like maybe for a house or some massive business deal, there is
• 0:07
  this heavy expectation of just, well, absolute airtight
• 0:11
  precision. Oh yeah, totally.
• 0:13
  You see this heavy wooden desk. You read all the fine print.
• 0:15
  You sign your name on the dotted line and the lawyer points at
• 0:18
  the paper and says you know it is legally binding.
• 0:22
  The ink is dry. It is binary at that point,
• 0:25
  signed or not signed. Yeah, precisely.
• 0:27
  It is clean. Honestly, it is very comforting.
• 0:29
  We like things to be documented, to be guaranteed.
• 0:32
  But then you take that same mindset and you step into the
• 0:34
  world of theology, specifically regarding human salvation, and
• 0:38
  suddenly that paper contract feels incredibly fragile.
• 0:44
  It really does. We start asking these terrifying
• 0:46
  questions. You know, like what happens if I
• 0:48
  break the terms? What if my signature was forged
• 0:50
  by my own fleeting good intentions?
• 0:52
  What if the contract is for your soul?
• 0:54
  Yeah, that is a heavy thought. It is.
• 0:57
  And so, on this deep dive into reformed thinking, we are
• 1:00
  opening Paul Enz's The Moody Handbook of Theology to find out
• 1:04
  what happens when we apply that legal structural rigor to the
• 1:08
  concept of eternal security. I love that we are doing this.
• 1:12
  We are taking his analysis of Calvinistic theology and
• 1:15
  breaking down the mechanics of how a person is saved and, well,
• 1:20
  how they are kept secure. You know the anxiety you were
• 1:23
  describing with the contract that is the default setting for
• 1:26
  so many people? Oh absolutely.
• 1:27
  They walk around wondering if the spiritual contract has some
• 1:30
  hidden loophole, something that will leave them completely
• 1:33
  bankrupt in the end. Right, like they missed a clause
• 1:35
  on page 4. Yeah, exactly.
• 1:37
  Or, well, spot on. The theological system we are
• 1:40
  unpacking today has shaped centuries of Western thought
• 1:43
  because it attempts to answer that specific anxiety.
• 1:46
  It forces people to ask very difficult questions about human
• 1:49
  nature, divine choice and the limits of our own free will.
• 1:53
  Which are huge topics. Massive.
• 1:56
  So we are going to take the structure piece by piece.
• 1:59
  We will look at the underlying logic, the specific definitions
• 2:03
  the scriptural texts ends provides, and his overarching
• 2:07
  evaluation of the entire system. I want to start right in the
• 2:10
  thick of it with what is known as the fifth point of Calvinism,
• 2:13
  which is the perseverance of the Saints.
• 2:15
  OK. Yeah, good place to start.
• 2:17
  Ends makes it very clear that you cannot just grab this fifth
• 2:22
  point out of thin air just because it sounds nice.
• 2:24
  No, you really cannot. It is the final link in a very
• 2:28
  specific rigid logical chain. I am picturing like a massive
• 2:33
  suspension bridge. Oh, I like that analogy.
• 2:35
  If you think about how a suspension bridge is built,
• 2:37
  every single cable relies entirely on the tension of the
• 2:40
  previous one. The whole structure is anchored
• 2:42
  into the bedrock on one shore, and it stretches all the way
• 2:45
  across the water, cable by cable, until it anchors on the
• 2:48
  other shore. If you snap the first cable or
• 2:51
  the third cable, the bridge does not just sag, the traveler
• 2:55
  actually falls into the water. That bridge metaphor illustrates
• 2:58
  the stakes of the theological system perfectly, because NS
• 3:02
  outlines this progression so clearly.
• 3:05
  How does he break it down? Well, the bedrock on the first
• 3:07
  short is total depravity. Because a person is totally
• 3:10
  depraved, they cannot respond to God on their own.
• 3:13
  Therefore, God must act first, which forms the next cable.
• 3:17
  Which would be unconditional election.
• 3:19
  Right, right. God chooses individuals for
• 3:22
  salvation, then for those specific individuals who are
• 3:26
  elected, Christ dies to secure their salvation.
• 3:29
  OK, I am tracking with the cable so far.
• 3:31
  Following that, God irresistibly draws them to make that
• 3:35
  salvation effective. And finally, because He has done
• 3:38
  all of that, He keeps them secure in that salvation to the
• 3:41
  end. So that is the final cable
• 3:43
  anchoring to the other shore. Perseverance.
• 3:45
  Yeah. And stresses that you cannot
• 3:47
  selectively adopt these points if you are following the strict
• 3:50
  logic of the system. Because the tension relies on
• 3:52
  the previous point. Precisely, if humanity is
• 3:55
  totally incapable of initiating salvation, then divine
• 3:59
  initiation is required. If divine initiation is perfect,
• 4:02
  then the conclusion must be secure.
• 4:05
  If one link breaks, the whole system fractures.
• 4:08
  So if I'm looking at this bridge, I am trying to figure
• 4:12
  out the structural integrity of that final cable, right?
• 4:15
  If we accept the first four points, you know, depravity,
• 4:18
  election, the specific nature of the atonement, and the drawing
• 4:21
  of the individual. Is the fifth point just a
• 4:25
  mandatory logical conclusion to keep the bridge from falling?
• 4:28
  That is a great question. Like is it just a philosophical
• 4:31
  necessity because the illusions need the math to workout, or
• 4:34
  does it stand on its own scriptural 2 feet?
• 4:36
  NS argues it does both, actually.
• 4:38
  It operates as a logical necessity to keep the entire
• 4:41
  theological structure from collapsing, yes, but it is also
• 4:44
  a heavily documented scriptural reality that moves from abstract
• 4:48
  logic directly into human experience.
• 4:50
  Which is where we actually live. Right.
• 4:52
  To understand how it stands on its own, we need to look at how
• 4:54
  this security is actually defined in practice, because the
• 4:57
  language we use matters immensely here.
• 5:00
  It really does because we hear phrases tossed around all the
• 5:03
  time in casual conversation. Oh, constantly.
• 5:05
  People say once saved always saved.
• 5:08
  Or they say eternal security or perseverance.
• 5:12
  They get used interchangeably, but they do not mean the same
• 5:15
  thing. I know once saved, always saved
• 5:17
  is the most common phrase, but it always feels a bit like a
• 5:20
  bumper sticker to me. Yeah, that is a good way to put
• 5:23
  it. A bumper sticker.
• 5:24
  It captures the bare essence of the outcome that a believer will
• 5:27
  always be saved, but it lacks any real nuance about how a
• 5:31
  person actually lives their life.
• 5:33
  And Ends breaks down the nuances between these terms very well.
• 5:37
  Eternal security places the spotlight on the certainty of
• 5:40
  the salvation of the elect. OK, so from God's side of
• 5:43
  things. Right.
• 5:44
  It highlights the divine guarantee from God's
• 5:47
  perspective. But the term perseverance is
• 5:50
  where the rubber meets the road for the individual's daily
• 5:52
  experience. It focuses on the active,
• 5:55
  ongoing nature of faith. I want to bring in a quote ends
• 5:59
  and clues from John Calvin himself because it uses a phrase
• 6:02
  that just, well, it stopped me in my tracks.
• 6:05
  Oh, I know which one you were talking about.
• 6:06
  Yeah, Calvin taught that God, who is abundant in mercy from
• 6:11
  his immutable purpose of election, does not wholly take
• 6:14
  away his Holy Spirit from his own, even in And here's the
• 6:18
  phrase lamentable falls lamentable.
• 6:20
  Falls. Yes, if you are listening to
• 6:22
  this right now and you have ever had a week where you completely
• 6:25
  failed morally or your life just fell apart because of your own
• 6:28
  bad choices, this phrase is earth shattering.
• 6:31
  It really changes the perspective.
• 6:33
  A lament is an expression of deep, agonizing sorrow.
• 6:37
  This implies that believers will still mess up terribly.
• 6:40
  Yeah, we are not talking about like, forgetting to pray before
• 6:43
  dinner. Right, we are talking about
• 6:45
  grievous, heartbreaking failures.
• 6:47
  Calvin is addressing the reality of human weakness head on.
• 6:50
  He is not painting a picture of a pristine, flawless Christian
• 6:53
  life. Which is such a relief,
• 6:55
  honestly. The theological weight here
• 6:57
  rests entirely on God's gratuitous mercy preventing
• 7:00
  total destruction, not on human willpower keeping the person
• 7:04
  perfectly clean. OK, when you look at biblical
• 7:06
  figures like David orchestrating the death of Uriah, or Peter
• 7:10
  denying he even knew Jesus in his darkest hour, those are
• 7:14
  textbook lamentable falls. And massive ones, exactly.
• 7:18
  And the doctrine asserts that even in those moments of
• 7:20
  catastrophic failure, the Holy Spirit is not withdrawn.
• 7:24
  Think about what that does to a person's mental health.
• 7:27
  I mean. It is huge.
• 7:29
  The sheer anxiety of waking up every day wondering if a
• 7:32
  lamentable fall just voided your contract.
• 7:35
  Wondering if a particularly bad day or a season of severe,
• 7:38
  suffocating doubt means you have lost your salvation, right?
• 7:42
  This doctrine removes that specific anxiety by placing the
• 7:46
  burden of keeping salvation squarely on God's shoulders.
• 7:49
  Ends also provides a quote from Louis Birkhoff that adds another
• 7:52
  crucial layer to this mechanism. What does Birkhoff say?
• 7:55
  Birkhoff defines perseverance as that continuous operation of the
• 7:58
  Holy Spirit and the believer by which the work of divine grace
• 8:02
  that has begun in the heart is continued and brought to
• 8:04
  completion. OK, let me catch that.
• 8:05
  A continuous operation. Notice the phrasing.
• 8:08
  Yes, a continuous operation. It is an active, ongoing
• 8:13
  preservation by God. It is not a static state where
• 8:16
  you cross a finish line and then just sit down.
• 8:19
  But I have to push back here a little bit.
• 8:21
  Sure, go ahead. I know what a lot of people hear
• 8:23
  when they hear about a contract that cannot be broken no matter
• 8:25
  what you do. They hear a license to do
• 8:27
  whatever they want. Right.
• 8:28
  It sounds like a free pass for bad behavior.
• 8:31
  It sounds like someone can walk down an aisle, sign a card, and
• 8:34
  then go live entirely for themselves doing whatever
• 8:37
  terrible things they want. And say, well, my contract is
• 8:39
  secure, yeah. They say I can have all the
• 8:42
  lamentable falls I want. Does the term perseverance fix
• 8:47
  this by stressing that a Christian keeps on believing
• 8:50
  rather than just coasting on autopilot?
• 8:52
  The terminology is the only thing that fixes this
• 8:54
  misunderstanding and ends explicitly addresses this common
• 8:57
  objection. OK, good.
• 8:59
  He notes that all the term perseverance might suggest that
• 9:01
  continuing in the faith depends on the believer's own strength.
• 9:05
  That is not the main stress of the doctrine.
• 9:07
  So it is not about us gritting our teeth.
• 9:09
  Right, the continuance is dependent on God.
• 9:13
  However, what God preserves is the faith of the believer.
• 9:16
  Oh, I see. Meaning the genuine believer
• 9:18
  will actually persevere in trust in Christ.
• 9:21
  They will not just coast in a state of unrepentant rebellion
• 9:24
  forever. That makes a lot of.
• 9:25
  Sense a free pass idea is a complete misunderstanding of
• 9:28
  what is actually being preserved.
• 9:30
  God preserves the person by continuously working in them to
• 9:33
  keep them returning, repenting, and believing.
• 9:36
  So the evidence of the secure contract is the ongoing return
• 9:40
  from those lamentable faults. Yes, that is a great way to
• 9:43
  summarize it. So it is not a license to SIN,
• 9:46
  it is a guarantee of eventual return and ongoing trust.
• 9:50
  That makes a lot more sense. It frames the whole concept
• 9:53
  differently. Having defined what perseverance
• 9:55
  is conceptually, I want to look at the scriptural blueprint.
• 9:59
  OK, let's look into that. We asked earlier if this
• 10:01
  doctrine stands on its own scriptural 2 feet, rather than
• 10:04
  just being a philosophical requirement.
• 10:06
  Where did the original authors and where does ends find the
• 10:09
  proof for this massive claim? ANS walks through three major
• 10:13
  scriptural pillars for this doctrine.
• 10:15
  Let's take them 1 by 1. The first is found in the Gospel
• 10:18
  of John chapter 10, verses 27 through 29.
• 10:22
  Jesus uses the analogy of sheep, stating that he gives eternal
• 10:26
  life to his sheep and they will never perish.
• 10:29
  He also says no one will snatch them out of his hand or the
• 10:32
  Father's hand. I want to linger on that sheep
• 10:34
  analogy for a minute. It is a rich one.
• 10:36
  If you think about a 1st century Judean shepherd, the sheep work
• 10:41
  incredibly vulnerable. They do not have defensive
• 10:44
  mechanisms. They rely entirely on a shepherd
• 10:47
  and Jesus describes his double grip.
• 10:49
  The sheep are in the Sonny's hand, and the Sonny's hand is in
• 10:52
  the Father's hand. It is a picture of overwhelming
• 10:55
  physical security. The cultural context really
• 10:58
  amplifies the security aspect here.
• 11:00
  How so? A shepherd would often lay his
• 11:02
  physical body across the entrance of the sheepfold at
• 11:05
  night. For a predator to get to the
• 11:06
  sheep, it had to literally go through the shepherd.
• 11:09
  Wow, so he is the gate. He is the gate.
• 11:12
  Jesus is applying that level of physical protective commitment
• 11:16
  to the spiritual security of the believer.
• 11:18
  That's a wild image. What is the second pillar?
• 11:21
  The second pillar ends points to is Romans 8 verses 29 and 30.
• 11:25
  This is often called the Golden Chain of salvation.
• 11:28
  OK, let's layout that chain. Go for it.
• 11:30
  Paul lays out a sequence. He says those God foreknew, he
• 11:34
  also predestined. Those he predestined he called.
• 11:37
  Those he called he justified, and those he justified he
• 11:40
  glorified. The critical point ends makes
• 11:43
  here is that none are lost in the process.
• 11:45
  The chain does not break. Right, The group that is
• 11:48
  foreknown at the beginning is the exact same group that is
• 11:51
  glorified at the end. There is no attrition rate in
• 11:54
  Paul's theological math. I am trying to wrap my head
• 11:56
  around this golden chain in Romans 8 though.
• 11:59
  What part? Well.
• 12:00
  If Paul is writing this letter to people who are currently
• 12:03
  alive, currently struggling, maybe currently failing, why
• 12:07
  would he write their future glorification in the past tense?
• 12:10
  No, yeah. It feels like a grammatical
• 12:12
  error unless you know he is looking at it from outside of
• 12:15
  time, like a movie he has already seen the ending to.
• 12:18
  The movie analogy gets us closer to the Greek phrasing.
• 12:21
  There Paul is employing the aorist tense to indicate an
• 12:25
  action that is so certain to be completed it can be spoken of as
• 12:29
  if it has already occurred. So it is not a typo.
• 12:32
  No, not at all. He is not confused about the
• 12:35
  timeline. He is making a theological point
• 12:37
  about the anchor point of that timeline.
• 12:39
  Which is outside of our timeline entirely.
• 12:41
  Right. The certainty is absolute from
• 12:43
  God's vantage point outside of time.
• 12:46
  And that brings us to the third major pillar, which is Ephesians
• 12:50
  1 verses 3 through 14. Oh, I love that passage.
• 12:54
  It is a stunning display of Trinitarian theology where Ends
• 12:58
  breaks down the distinct roles of the Trinity in securing the
• 13:01
  salvation. Let's unpack how the Trinity
• 13:03
  operates here. OK?
• 13:05
  God the Father plans the salvation of certain individuals
• 13:07
  and marks them out. God the Son secures their
• 13:10
  salvation by redeeming them through his blood.
• 13:13
  And God the Holy Spirit makes their salvation effective by
• 13:16
  sealing them, which is the sign of their eternal security.
• 13:19
  That is a great summary. I am thinking of this like a
• 13:21
  multi stage top tier security clearance.
• 13:24
  Oh, I like where this is going. Imagine entering a highly secure
• 13:27
  military facility. You cannot just walk up to the
• 13:30
  gate and knock. No, they would arrest you.
• 13:32
  Exactly. The father writes your specific
• 13:35
  name on the access list before you even arrive.
• 13:37
  He marks you out. Then the son pays the exorbitant
• 13:41
  entry fee required to get you through the gate.
• 13:43
  He secures the access. Finally, the Spirit hands you
• 13:47
  the uncopiable personalized key card that guarantees your
• 13:51
  permanent status inside. The military facility analogy
• 13:54
  works well because it highlights the specialized function of each
• 13:57
  person of the Trinity. It gives them distinct roles.
• 13:59
  So let's take that key card concept and I'll apply it to the
• 14:02
  ancient world because Paul uses the word sealed in Ephesians.
• 14:05
  Right, a seal was a big deal back.
• 14:07
  Then a huge deal. In the ancient world, a seal
• 14:09
  placed on a document or a tomb or a piece of cargo meant three
• 14:13
  specific things. What were they?
• 14:15
  First, it meant authenticity. This item is genuine.
• 14:18
  Second, it meant ownership. This item belongs to the king.
• 14:22
  OK, authenticity and ownership. And 3rd, it meant protection or
• 14:26
  security. The authority of the king stands
• 14:29
  behind this item, and breaking the seal brings the wrath of the
• 14:33
  sovereign. So the security clearance is not
• 14:36
  just a plastic key card, it is the physical presence of the
• 14:39
  King's Guard standing at the door?
• 14:41
  Yes, when Ephesians says the believer is sealed by the
• 14:44
  Spirit, it means God has authenticated their faith,
• 14:47
  claimed absolute ownership over them, and placed His highest
• 14:50
  divine protection over their final destiny.
• 14:53
  It is a massive claim. But you know, the unbreakable
• 14:55
  nature of this scriptural chain brings up a giant problem.
• 14:59
  I think I know what you're going to say.
• 15:00
  We have talked a lot about God's action, God choosing God
• 15:04
  drawing, God keeping the Father, marking the Son, paying the
• 15:07
  Spirit, sealing right. Where does human free will fit
• 15:10
  into this? If God is doing all the heavy
• 15:13
  lifting, are we just passengers? That is the $1,000,000 question.
• 15:17
  This feels like the natural place to pivot into the
• 15:19
  second-half of our source material, which is ends is
• 15:22
  broader summary evaluation of Calvinism.
• 15:24
  The tension between divine action and human will is where
• 15:28
  the friction really begins. Oh, definitely.
• 15:30
  Ends provides A7 point summary evaluation of the system, and
• 15:34
  the first two points deal directly with this collision.
• 15:37
  Was .1. .1 asserts that the sovereignty of God is a highly
• 15:40
  scriptural concept. He references passages like
• 15:43
  Psalm 135.6 and Daniel 4.35 which speak of God doing
• 15:49
  whatever He pleases in heaven and on earth.
• 15:51
  And .2. .2 addresses predestination and election as
• 15:56
  biblical concepts that cannot be ignored simply because they make
• 15:59
  us uncomfortable. And they do make people very
• 16:01
  uncomfortable. Ends notes that the reason many
• 16:04
  people reject these doctrines is the assumption that they
• 16:07
  completely exclude human responsibility.
• 16:09
  Which is a very common reaction. And it makes sense why people
• 16:12
  think that if God is completely sovereign, if he has written the
• 16:15
  script and sealed the document, how can I be held responsible
• 16:18
  for my choices, right? If I steal a car, but God
• 16:21
  ordained everything that comes to pass, did he not ordain me
• 16:24
  stealing the car? Ends introduces a critical term
• 16:27
  here to handle this tension. The word is antinomy.
• 16:30
  Antinomy. An antinomy is a seeming
• 16:33
  contradiction between 2 biblical truths.
• 16:36
  Notice the word seeming. So it is not a real
• 16:38
  contradiction. Well, not in the mind of God,
• 16:40
  no. But to the limited human mind,
• 16:43
  these two concepts, God's absolute sovereignty and genuine
• 16:47
  human responsibility, appear to collide violently.
• 16:50
  It is like quantum physics. Oh, OK, How so?
• 16:53
  Well, if you look at light through the double slit
• 16:55
  experiment, depending on how you measure it, light functions as a
• 16:57
  particle. It has mass, it hits things like
• 17:00
  a tiny marble right? But if you measure a different
• 17:03
  way, it functions as a wave, like ripples in a pond.
• 17:07
  In our daily experience, something cannot be both a solid
• 17:10
  particle and a fluid wave at the same time.
• 17:13
  But in the reality of quantum physics, it is both.
• 17:17
  Both are demonstrably true based on the data, even if our brains
• 17:21
  struggle to fuse them together into a single image.
• 17:23
  The particle and wave analogy captures the essence of an
• 17:26
  antinomy so well. It melts the brain a little bit.
• 17:29
  It does. NS points out that most
• 17:31
  theologians working within this system recognize this reality.
• 17:35
  They do not try to eliminate one side of the equation to make the
• 17:38
  match easier for the human brain.
• 17:40
  They just let the tension exist. They live with it as a divine
• 17:43
  paradox. NS specifically warns against a
• 17:47
  myopic interpretation of sovereign predestination.
• 17:50
  Myopic meaning near sighted, yes.
• 17:53
  If you only stare at God's sovereignty so closely that you
• 17:56
  sacrifice human responsibility, you are forcing the math to work
• 18:00
  by dropping a crucial variable. Which leads to bad theology.
• 18:03
  And you end up with an unbiblical conclusion.
• 18:06
  To be accurate to the source material, both concepts must be
• 18:10
  preserved to their full extent, even if they create intellectual
• 18:13
  friction. But how does this listener
• 18:15
  actually live with a divine paradox without feeling like
• 18:19
  their theology is fundamentally broken?
• 18:21
  It is hard. Because we naturally want to
• 18:23
  solve every puzzle, we want all the edges to line up perfectly.
• 18:27
  If I have a piece leftover, I assume I built the puzzle wrong.
• 18:30
  Living with this paradox requires a really heavy level of
• 18:32
  intellectual humility. Yeah, it is accepting that the
• 18:35
  finite mind cannot fully comprehend the infinite mind.
• 18:39
  Living with the paradox means acting with absolute
• 18:42
  responsibility. Like making choices, preaching
• 18:45
  the gospel, repenting of sin. Yes, going to work, raising your
• 18:48
  kids while simultaneously resting in the reality that God
• 18:51
  is in complete control of the final outcome.
• 18:54
  So you hold both hands open. You do not sacrifice the reality
• 18:57
  of your choices to save God's sovereignty, and you do not
• 19:00
  sacrifice God's sovereignty to make your choices feel more
• 19:03
  authentic. Accepting this paradox prepares
• 19:05
  us to confront the most difficult aspects of human
• 19:08
  nature, which brings us to points three and four and ends
• 19:12
  his evaluation. This is where it gets heavy.
• 19:14
  This is where we look at total depravity and the incredibly
• 19:17
  heavy dark debate over reprobation.
• 19:20
  Enza's Third Point affirms that the doctrine of total depravity
• 19:23
  is consistent with Scripture, citing Ephesians 2.1 and Romans
• 19:26
  3.1. OK, let's unpack Total
• 19:29
  Depravity. The distinction he makes here is
• 19:31
  crucial for the whole system. The fall of humanity in Eden did
• 19:34
  not just wound people. It did not just give us a moral
• 19:37
  sickness that requires a bit of medicine and to clear up it
• 19:41
  resulted in spiritual death. Dead, not sick in a hospital
• 19:45
  bed. Dead not grounding in the ocean
• 19:48
  and needing a life preserver thrown to us so we can grab onto
• 19:51
  it. Dead at the bottom of the ocean.
• 19:53
  Exactly. A dead person cannot grab a life
• 19:55
  preserver. That distinction changes
• 19:57
  everything. This spiritual death effects
• 20:00
  every faculty, the mind, the heart, and the will.
• 20:03
  So total does not mean we are as bad as we could possibly.
• 20:06
  Be no. It means every part of us is
• 20:09
  affected by the fall. Consequently, a person in this
• 20:12
  state is not naturally disposed to seek God.
• 20:15
  Because they're at the bottom of the ocean.
• 20:16
  Right, they cannot initiate the rescue.
• 20:19
  This inability necessitates the 4th point, which is
• 20:22
  unconditional election. So God has to dive down and get
• 20:25
  them. Since the person is at the
• 20:26
  bottom of the ocean, the rescue must be unconditional.
• 20:29
  Believers are chosen from before the foundation of the world, as
• 20:33
  Ephesians 1.4 states, not based on any foreseen good in them.
• 20:38
  Because there is no good to foresee see in a dead person.
• 20:40
  But you know, this introduces a very dark, deeply unsettling
• 20:45
  corollary. I know where you're heading.
• 20:47
  If God actively chooses specific individuals for salvation out of
• 20:52
  a mass of spiritually dead humanity, what about the rest?
• 20:56
  If he pulls 5 people off the bottom of the ocean but leaves
• 20:59
  50 down there, how do we understand his relationship to
• 21:03
  the 50 NS brings up the doctrine of reprobation here?
• 21:06
  Reprobation is the idea that God eternally decreed the non elect
• 21:11
  to suffer in hell. NS handles this very carefully
• 21:14
  because it is a massive point of internal debate.
• 21:17
  It is a really tough spot. He notes that while John Calvin
• 21:20
  himself taught reprobation, not all theologians within this
• 21:23
  tradition agree on this specific point.
• 21:25
  OK, More critically, NS argues that reprobation is not
• 21:28
  sustained by Scripture in the clear, undeniable way.
• 21:31
  That positive election. Is let me use a medical analogy
• 21:35
  to see if I can map out the tension between the different
• 21:37
  views here. Let's hear it.
• 21:38
  Imagine a doctor is walking through a ward filled with
• 21:41
  patients who all have a 100% fatal, incurable disease.
• 21:45
  They're all going to die. And let's add the theological
• 21:49
  caveat that they all willingly injected themselves with the
• 21:52
  disease. It is a result of their own
• 21:55
  actions. So it is their fault.
• 21:56
  Right. The doctor has a miraculous
• 21:58
  cure, but he only administers it to five people.
• 22:01
  Those Five Live. He walks past the others and
• 22:04
  they die. OK, I follow.
• 22:05
  Did the doctor kill the others? No, the disease killed them.
• 22:08
  He simply passed over them. Right, but if he actively
• 22:12
  injected them with a lethal poison to speed up their death,
• 22:15
  that would be an entirely different story.
• 22:18
  Am I tracking with the difference between positive
• 22:20
  election and active reprobation? The medical analogy gets to the
• 22:24
  heart of the debate perfectly. It highlights the difference
• 22:27
  between an active damning decree and a passive passing over.
• 22:32
  So what do moderate thinkers say?
• 22:34
  Moderate thinkers within the system will often argue for what
• 22:36
  you described. First, God actively intervenes
• 22:39
  to save the elect from their deserved fate, but he simply
• 22:42
  passes over the non elect, leaving them to the just
• 22:45
  consequences of their own willful rebellion.
• 22:48
  A strict view. The strict view of reputation
• 22:50
  suggests a more active, symmetrical decree of damnation.
• 22:54
  Ends points out that the biblical text provides massive,
• 22:57
  overwhelming support for the joy and reality of positive rescuing
• 23:02
  election. But not for the active damnation
• 23:04
  part. Right.
• 23:04
  It is far more reserved or even silent on a symmetrical active
• 23:08
  decree of reprobation. If God actively passes over the
• 23:12
  non elect, that creates a massive logical problem with the
• 23:15
  cross itself. Here we go.
• 23:17
  If Jesus died for everyone, but some are passed over and end up
• 23:20
  in hell, did his death fail? That is the friction.
• 23:24
  How do theologians reconcile a failed cross?
• 23:28
  That friction leads us directly into what Ends identifies as the
• 23:30
  single most controversial point in the entire theological
• 23:33
  system. .5. Let's look at limited atonement.
• 23:36
  Yes, this is .5 and ends as evaluation.
• 23:38
  He states plainly that limited atonement may well be the most
• 23:41
  controversial point of Calvinism.
• 23:43
  I can see why. The debate is fierce even among
• 23:45
  those who hold tightly to the rest of the system.
• 23:48
  To understand why it is so fiercely debated, we have to
• 23:51
  look at the strict logical view versus the moderate view.
• 23:54
  I want to try and logic out the strict view first based on what
• 23:57
  we have talked about. Go ahead.
• 23:59
  If I am building this system and I have to protect God's
• 24:02
  sovereignty at all costs, I cannot have a God who tries to
• 24:06
  do something and fails. Right.
• 24:07
  A failure compromises sovereignty.
• 24:09
  Exactly. If Christ died for every single
• 24:13
  person in the world, and yet some people still end up in
• 24:16
  hell, then Christ's death failed to accomplish its purpose for
• 24:20
  those people. The logic is sound.
• 24:23
  The cross was not enough, or God's intention was forwarded by
• 24:26
  human will to protect the victory and absolute sovereignty
• 24:30
  of God. The strict view has to insist
• 24:33
  that Christ died only for the elect.
• 24:35
  His death was a targeted strike that accomplished precisely what
• 24:38
  it intended, saving those specific individuals and only
• 24:42
  those individuals. You have articulated the strict
• 24:44
  logical necessity perfectly, the strict Calvinist argues.
• 24:48
  From the standpoint of God's absolute success, the atonement
• 24:51
  is limited in its scope but infinite in its power to save
• 24:55
  the intended targets. But many moderates modify this
• 24:58
  because of the scriptural tension it creates.
• 25:00
  What does the moderate view suggest?
• 25:02
  The moderate view suggests that Christ actually died only for
• 25:05
  the elect securing their specific salvation, but his
• 25:08
  death was of such infinite value that it potentially died for
• 25:12
  all. OK, so it was sufficient for the
• 25:14
  whole world? Sufficient for the whole world,
• 25:15
  yes, but efficient only for the elect.
• 25:18
  I'm thinking about a financial analogy here, like a massive
• 25:22
  banking transaction. I like financial analogies.
• 25:24
  Did Christ write a blank check for the whole world with
• 25:28
  infinite funds, but only some people actually take the check
• 25:32
  to the bank and cash it by faith?
• 25:34
  OK. Or did he write very specific
• 25:36
  checks with individual names already printed on the pay line,
• 25:40
  addressed only to the elect? That is a brilliant way to frame
• 25:44
  the 2 views. Both views are attempting to
• 25:46
  protect God's authority in the banking system.
• 25:49
  The strict view protects the guarantee that no check ever
• 25:52
  bounces and no check ever goes uncashed.
• 25:56
  Transaction is flawless. And the moderate view.
• 25:59
  The moderate view protects the infinite size of the bank
• 26:01
  account, saying there is enough capital to cover everyone even
• 26:05
  if everyone does not draw on it. That is really insightful.
• 26:07
  But which view actually aligns better with the full scope of
• 26:11
  the biblical text ends provides? That is where Ends lends his
• 26:14
  critique, and it is a fascinating moment in his
• 26:17
  analysis. What?
• 26:18
  Did he say? He admits that the strict
• 26:20
  limited view is highly defensible.
• 26:23
  Logically, it makes the system perfectly symmetrical, no wasted
• 26:26
  grace, no failed intentions. But he says it is incredibly
• 26:30
  difficult to sustain biblically if you hold strictly to limited
• 26:33
  atonement. You have to restrict massive
• 26:36
  universal sounding verses. Like John 3.16?
• 26:39
  Yes. Think about John 3.16 which says
• 26:41
  God love the world. The strict view has to redefine
• 26:44
  world to mean the world of the elect.
• 26:47
  Which feels like a stretch. Furthermore, Ends lists passages
• 26:50
  like first Timothy 2.6 which says Christ gave himself as a
• 26:54
  ransom for all and second Peter 3.9 which says God is not
• 26:57
  wishing that any should perish, and at first John 2.2 which
• 27:01
  explicitly states Christ is a propitiation for our sins, and
• 27:05
  not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
• 27:08
  The tension between the strict logical system and the broad
• 27:11
  scriptural language is immense. It really is.
• 27:14
  It seems like we are right back to the danger of myopic
• 27:17
  interpretation we discussed with the antenna me.
• 27:20
  If we force the logic too hard, if we need the puzzle pieces to
• 27:24
  fit together so perfectly that we start trimming the edges off
• 27:27
  the biblical text, we might accidentally cut out verses that
• 27:31
  do not fit our neat theological boxes.
• 27:34
  The risk of prioritizing A logical system over the raw text
• 27:37
  of Scripture is a constant danger in theology.
• 27:40
  Definitely, after working through that intense debate over
• 27:43
  the extent of the atonement, the discussion has to resolve how
• 27:46
  this grace, whether limited or universal in its sufficiency,
• 27:50
  actually reaches the individual. Right.
• 27:52
  How does a person at the bottom of the ocean get brought to the
• 27:55
  surface? This brings us to Enz's sixth
• 27:57
  point, Irresistible Grace. The term irresistible
• 28:01
  immediately conjures a very specific aggressive image for
• 28:05
  me. I bet does.
• 28:06
  It sounds like someone being dragged into a room against
• 28:08
  their will, kicking and screaming while God forces them
• 28:11
  to be saved. That is a very common
• 28:13
  caricature. If Ioffer my kids vegetables,
• 28:15
  they resist. If I force feed them, I am using
• 28:18
  irresistible force, but they certainly are not enjoying the
• 28:21
  meal. Is that what this doctrine is
• 28:23
  teaching? ANZ is very quick to clarify
• 28:25
  that massive misconception. Correctly understood,
• 28:29
  Irresistible Grace does not teach that God forces people
• 28:32
  into His Kingdom contrary to their wills.
• 28:34
  OK, then what does it teach? Instead, it teaches that God
• 28:37
  acts upon their wills. He changes their disposition
• 28:40
  from the inside out. So he changes the taste buds so
• 28:43
  the broccoli tastes like candy. Exactly.
• 28:45
  He opens their blind eyes and softens their hard hearts so
• 28:48
  that they genuinely, really want to come to Christ for salvation.
• 28:53
  That is a huge difference. The grace is irresistible not
• 28:57
  because it overpowers human refusal through sheer force, but
• 29:00
  because it radically changes the human desire.
• 29:02
  You stop wanting to rebel and start wanting to submit.
• 29:05
  There is a deep profound, I mean a very heavy psychological
• 29:10
  comfort in that concept. Absolutely if.
• 29:12
  You were listening to this and you have ever felt exhausted
• 29:15
  trying to maintain your own spiritual passion, knowing that
• 29:18
  even the desire to seek God is the gift changes everything.
• 29:21
  It relieves you from the crushing pressure of trying to
• 29:24
  manufacture your own spiritual hunger.
• 29:27
  Right. If you feel a draw toward God,
• 29:30
  if you feel a desire to read scripture or repent of a sin,
• 29:34
  that draw itself is evidence of His grace already at work in
• 29:38
  you. You're not generating it, you're
• 29:40
  responding to it. It places all the credit for
• 29:43
  salvation, from the very first spark of interest to the final
• 29:47
  glorification we talked about in Romans 8, entirely on God.
• 29:50
  It leaves zero room for human boasting.
• 29:52
  None at all. But I have to ask the hard
• 29:53
  question here. Sure, go for it.
• 29:55
  If grace is irresistible and God is the one changing the desires,
• 29:59
  opening the eyes, softening the heart, does a person ever
• 30:02
  actually have a real choice? The robot question.
• 30:05
  Yeah. Are we all just actors on a
• 30:07
  stage acting out a script that was written before time began?
• 30:10
  If God rewrites my source code so that I choose Him, did I
• 30:13
  really choose Him? We must tie this back to the
• 30:15
  antenna me we discussed earlier. The particle and the wave.
• 30:19
  Right. If you only look at Irresistible
• 30:21
  Grace in a vacuum, you might conclude we are just robots
• 30:24
  acting out a predetermined script.
• 30:27
  But Scripture constantly commands humans to choose, to
• 30:30
  repent, to believe. So both are true.
• 30:32
  The divine paradox is that God sovereignly ordains the end, and
• 30:36
  he also ordains the human choices that lead to that end
• 30:39
  without violating the reality of those choices.
• 30:42
  That is wild to think about. We act freely according to our
• 30:45
  strongest desires. Irresistible grace simply
• 30:48
  ensures that for the elect, their strongest desire will, at
• 30:51
  the end of the day, be him. So what does it all mean as we
• 30:54
  bring the pieces of the puzzle together?
• 30:56
  Ends concludes his evaluation by circling right back to where we
• 31:00
  started today. .7 The perseverance of the Saints.
• 31:03
  He summarizes the entire system beautifully because salvation is
• 31:07
  entirely a result of grace, with the believer being chosen from
• 31:10
  the foundation of the world by the Father, redeemed by the
• 31:13
  blood of the Son, and drawn and sealed by the Holy Spirit, the
• 31:17
  loss of that salvation is impossible.
• 31:20
  The chain holds. The suspension bridge does not
• 31:22
  collapse. Ends also provides A substantial
• 31:25
  reading list for anyone who wants to study this further.
• 31:28
  He mentions theologians like Louis Berkoff, Cornelius Van
• 31:32
  Till, John McNeil, and Edwin Palmer.
• 31:34
  OH. Yes.
• 31:36
  Heavy hitters. It is a striking thought that
• 31:39
  these concepts have been debated, detailed and agonized
• 31:43
  over in massive volumes for centuries.
• 31:46
  We're just scratching the surface today.
• 31:48
  The depth of scholarship available on these specific
• 31:51
  points is staggering. Those resources offer varying
• 31:55
  perspectives within the Reformed tradition itself, allowing a
• 31:58
  reader to examine the nuances between strict and moderate
• 32:01
  views even more closely. Which is so helpful they.
• 32:03
  Look into the original languages, the historical
• 32:06
  context of the Reformation, and the philosophical implications
• 32:08
  of every single point we have discussed.
• 32:10
  We have covered a massive scope of material today.
• 32:13
  We really have. We started with the unbroken
• 32:15
  chain of preservation, visualizing that suspension
• 32:18
  bridge angered in the bedrock of total depravity and ending in
• 32:22
  final security. We walked through the multi
• 32:24
  stage security clearance of the Trinity in Ephesians, looking at
• 32:29
  the ancient concept of a King's seal.
• 32:32
  We tackled the heavy friction points of antenna me using
• 32:35
  quantum physics to understand paradox that.
• 32:38
  Was a fun one. We look at the intense debates
• 32:40
  over reprobation with a medical analogy and the logical versus
• 32:45
  biblical tension found in limited atonement with the
• 32:48
  banking analogy. It is a theological system that
• 32:50
  forces you to reckon with the sheer magnitude of God's
• 32:54
  authority and the stark reality of human limitation it.
• 32:58
  Really does. Before we close, I want to leave
• 32:59
  you with a final thought to Mull over, especially regarding how
• 33:02
  this applies to your daily life. OK, let's hear it.
• 33:05
  We have discussed at length how human will and desire are
• 33:07
  affected by the fall requiring God's initiation.
• 33:11
  If our internal compass is as compromised as the theology
• 33:14
  suggests, how might that radically change the way you
• 33:17
  view your own daily decision making?
• 33:19
  Oh, I see where you're going with this.
• 33:21
  Yeah. If you cannot fully trust your
• 33:23
  own heart to steer toward the right path natively because your
• 33:26
  will is fractured, it forces a radical reliance on external
• 33:30
  grace. It means every prayer for
• 33:33
  guidance, every moment of seeking wisdom for a job change
• 33:37
  or relationship issue or a financial decision.
• 33:41
  It is not just a request for advice.
• 33:43
  It is a plea for divine intervention in your own thought
• 33:46
  process. Yes, it is asking God to
• 33:49
  override your broken internal compass and supply the desire to
• 33:53
  do what is right. That is a striking way to look
• 33:56
  at it. It takes this high, lofty
• 33:59
  academic theology and lands it right in your lap on a Tuesday
• 34:03
  morning when you're trying to make a difficult choice.
• 34:05
  It's very real, very fast. It forces you to say I need
• 34:09
  grace just to want the right thing in this meeting.
• 34:11
  It makes theology extremely practical.
• 34:14
  The best theology always leads to practical dependence.
• 34:16
  It really does. It goes back to signing that
• 34:18
  contract we talked about at the very beginning of the deep dive.
• 34:21
  You step up to the massive wooden desk, you see the massive
• 34:24
  requirements of the law written out in the fine print, and you
• 34:27
  realize your own hand is shaking too much to ever sign it
• 34:30
  perfectly. You know you will have
• 34:31
  lamentable falls. But then you realize someone
• 34:34
  else already signed it in his own blood, and the King's Guard
• 34:38
  is standing right there, ensuring the document will never
• 34:42
  be torn up. What a picture.
• 34:44
  Thank you for joining us on this deep dive on reformed thinking.
• 34:46
  We highly encourage you to check out the suggested reading list
• 34:49
  from Paul Enza's work if you want to keep unpacking these
• 34:52
  massive concepts. Until next time, keep thinking
• 34:55
  critically and resting securely.