Welcome to Theology.

Throwdown.

We, the Christian podcast community of podcasters, gather to discuss our theological differences with love and charity.

This is a ministry of striving for eternity.

Welcome to another edition of Theology Throwdown where those who are part of the Christian podcast community, we get together and we discuss our theological differences.

Tonight's topic is one that is definitely not controversial in any way whatsoever.

I mean, there's been no trees, you know, destroyed over the warfare of Calvinism versus Arminianism.

Not controversial at all.

I'm sure all of you listening, you have no controversy of it because you think whichever position you hold to, you're right and everyone else is wrong.

And so we are going to have that discussion.

We've waited a long time before having that one because, well, we want to see what.

How that would.

That throw down would go.

So this is a ministry of striving fraternity.

We have the different folks that are part of the Christian podcast community.

We're going to give them each a chance to introduce themselves so you hear their voice and let them tell you about their podcast so that you can go and check out more from each of them.

I will start in the order in which people came in.

So, Brandon, you actually, I think, Eve, you were up first.

So Eve, why don't you go first?

Certainly.

Hi, I'm Eve Franklin and I am the co host of the podcast called are you just watching?

In which we ask our listeners to apply critical thinking to their entertainment.

And we usually once a month talk about a movie, typically something in the theater, but sometimes something streaming.

And we just take it apart thematically by applying scripture in a Christian worldview to it.

And just encourage you, if you like, to watch movies that you come and check out our podcast.

Eve, do you know why they don't teach critical thinking in school anymore?

No.

Because you can't teach critical thinking and get away with teaching evolution at the same time.

Okay, that's a good point.

Brandon, you're up next.

I'm Brandon Hol.

I am the host of the podcast Rooted Reason.

Mainly focus on Christian worldview type stuff with some apologetics mixed in there.

Yeah, I'm excited to be here.

All right, Daniel, you are up next.

So my name is Daniel Minick.

I am the host of the Truth Espresso podcast.

Sometimes my wife Chelsea will co host with me and we talk about an array of different topics, some devotional, some apologetic, some historical, and done some series on things from church history even to did Trump really say that?

And Trump's New York trial.

And recently, I am doing a series going through the Book of Mormon.

And what spurned that is because I met some Mormon missionaries and have been having regular conversations with them.

And so I am kind of swimming around in the world of Mormonism.

So why not let you all take part in that?

I, I just, I forgot about your one on.

Did Trump really say that?

I need to, I need to send that to another person.

Someone's been messaging my wife telling her that, you know, Trump is like Hitler.

And like, I'm like, yeah.

Do you know that every president since Hitler, every Republican president has been called Hitler except for George H.

Bush.

Like, there's nothing new under the sun there.

I should send your, your, your episodes to them.

So, yeah.

And, and folks, you can clearly see Daniel, out of all of us, has the best voice for radio, but Aaron, you're up next.

All right, I am Aaron Brewster.

I have two podcasts.

The first one that I'm not currently producing live, but which is Evergreen.

And I always encourage anyone who, who wants to listen to it to start at the introductory episodes, which lays a foundation for why it exists and how to handle it, how to use it moving forward is called the Celebration of God.

Which takes our holiday calendar and our regular everyday, you know, busy requirements.

The things that get sketched out onto our, onto our calendars from the high days like Christmas and Easter or, excuse me, Resurrection Sunday all the way to those average Tuesdays where we're on a lunch break and we learn how to worship God better during those and we learn how to disciple our friends and our family in the process.

Other podcast which is currently producing and we have over 500 episodes creeping up on our 1 million mark.

So I hope everyone who's listening will help us to hit our 1 million downloads here this year.

That would be really amazing.

It's called Truth Love Parent and it's all about how dads and moms can better worship God in their parenting.

Because parenting really isn't about us and it's not really about our kids.

It's about how we worship God as we bring our children up in his truth and nurture.

So Truth, Love Parents and the celebration of God.

And I am Andrew Rapoport, as I said earlier earlier, I am the host of a couple of podcasts.

One is, well, I host this one, but we all kind of join in this one.

So almost all the, those members of the Christian podcast me are kind of like we're all co hosts.

But the other one that I do is the, the pre recorded one, Andrew Rapaport's Rap Report where we deal with biblical interpretations and applications for the Christian life.

And then the more fun lively one is on Thursday nights, 8 to 10 Eastern time called Apologetics Live.

And you can watch it live at apologeticslive.

That one is a live stream where we deal with apologetics.

We usually have a guest for at least the first hour but anyone can come in with any question, challenge whatever they would like.

In the second hour we will address as many of those questions whether it's in the chat or someone comes in as we can, we can cover.

And sometimes when people come in and challenge me, they, they can, you know, carry over and we'll do a whole week, you know, a whole two episode with them at a, at a follow follow on show.

So I know it's weird.

They, people are prepared to debate me.

There's people that come in, they prepare for weeks and they come on the show.

I don't even know there's a debate.

They planned one.

They come in and they're ready to debate and I have no idea we're debating that night.

So I like that.

That's fun.

I'm weird.

Gotcha.

All right, so let's deal with a very non controversial topic.

One that I'm sure, I'm sure that when we all get to he we'll be in 100 agreement at least I know that for sure it's this side of heaven, we might not be in agreement.

So I, I'll, I'll state that I want to use some.

I, I want to, I would like to do first is go through with each person just ask two questions for you, each of us to answer.

One is which side of the debate would you consider yourself on if either, okay, so either Calvinism, Armenianism, but there's other things that would might be in the middle and so if it's not either one of those, that's fine.

But then what would be your understanding of both Calvinism and Arminianism?

So I will, I'll start with, I'll start with Brandon.

So if you don't mind, what position, if there is one would you hold to and what would be your understanding of each side?

Yeah, so I on classical Arminianism or sometimes can be referred to as Reformed Armenianism.

It's where I land my, I guess trying to think of a short way to understand.

I think there's a lot of overlap actually between the two.

Especially classical Armenianism kind of builds from.

Builds out of the Reformation.

Yeah, yeah man, that's a, that's a big question.

To try to tackle in a few.

Just a short time here.

What is my understanding of both?

I'm not really sure how to answer that honestly.

I wasn't prepared to give, like, a short breakdown.

What do you think would be the differences between the two?

Like, how.

How would you differentiate?

Okay, so, yeah, maybe that's an easier way to think about it.

I think the.

The biggest thing with, at least for me, on the Armenian side is very often words like election or predestination.

It seems like for some reason a lot of modern Armenianism has kind of rejected those terms or pushed them away.

And they're clearly biblical terms.

They're clearly part of God's decree, They're clearly things that he's doing, like election, predestination.

Those are all basic Christian theology terms.

And so I would say that.

Oh, go ahead.

Didn't say anything.

Oh, sorry.

I think I was catching a little bit of feedback on your side.

I'm sorry.

All right.

Yeah.

So to me, I think the differences come down to just how we understand.

So like with election, if it's going to be unconditional or conditional, are generally the two categories, at least within Calvinism, Arminianism, that things fall into.

But as far as is there an election?

I.

I don't think we disagree on that.

It's just how we understand God's electing grace.

Same thing with like, atonement.

Generally, the conversation is going to come to a limited or unlimited atonement and kind of how those things play out.

Okay.

And if, if I remember correctly, I think that you had either very early on in your podcast, the first few episodes, or somewhere in there, didn't you do a short series on your view of Reformed Armenianism?

Am I correct on that?

Okay, so yeah, yeah, super early on, I kind of just covered.

Went through just kind of the five kind of the five points of like the remonstrance or what's normally like the five points of Calvinism, but just how I understand them from an Armenian perspective.

So if folks want to get more into that, rooted in Christ would be the podcast.

So go check that out.

Is.

It was like.

I mean, you'd have to go way back in the early episodes.

Yeah, it was a couple of years ago, probably.

Yeah.

So, Mr.

Brewster, we'll put you on the spot next.

Same same questions for you.

I guess if I had to really boil down the two extremes, I would say it comes down to a question of who is.

Who is away almost fully responsible for their.

For salvation.

The one extreme is it the person Being saved.

The other extreme is it only God?

Right.

And so I guess those are two very stark extremes.

Probably not very many people, maybe, maybe they would, maybe there are people who would say on either extreme, I get myself saved.

Someone on the other side would say, God saves me and there's absolutely nothing else.

So that's probably how I'd summarize the extremes.

They're obviously not doing either of them really much fairness for myself.

I don't find myself necessarily invited into either camp.

I would definitely say that I am not an Armenian, I guess.

I guess I kind of jettisoned myself from that camp.

But then all of the five point Calvinists who like to joke that if you're not 5 point Calvinist and you're not a Calvinist, they don't see me as being on that side of the line either.

So I would say that I'm, you know, I am four point Calvinists.

You know, somewhere in there, 3.5, 4.5, I'm not 100% certain, but that's kind of where I would land if you're looking at it from that perspective.

Perspective.

Eve, how about you?

So this is a topic that I was actually kind of scared to take part in because I was raised not even knowing what those terms meant.

So my Christian tradition, we just believe that, you know, you believe in Christ and predestination was, you know, that God knew you were saved.

And I've been slipping more reformed.

I'm now going to a five point Calvinist church, but I am still learning.

And so I kind of take a back seat and listen to people who understand the, the topics better than me.

And I would say that I would probably agree with Aaron that I'm not all the way to five point, but I'm definitely in the Calvinist camp to some degree.

And the fact that I know who your pastor is, I know he really likes to talk about those things and New Covenant theology and things like that.

All right, Daniel, you're up next.

Yeah, so I guess it depends on how you define terms.

But if we're just, if we're talking about the points, then I would probably, you know, sheepishly label myself and more in the Calvinist camp.

Like that's not how I was, you know, raised.

That's not even how, you know, what the churches that I, you know, go to proclaim it was as arguing with someone as well, I guess what would be considered four point Armenian.

Like over 20 years ago online.

Eventually I started reading some scriptures and then kind of be came convinced of oh, election and irresistible grace.

I guess I'm a two pointer.

And then eventually like three, three point.

And then eventually, you know, I embrace the limited atonement and stuff.

So I guess I'm five point.

But thank God that I never experienced a cage stage as some people talk about, you know.

So the way I look at it is it's something that is the groundwork for how I do apologetics.

Like it's, you know, when I'm talking with Mormons, like it's, it's not like a topic in particular I bring up much to anyone, but it's something that kind of influences why I do what I do.

And I.

So, so I think I might consider balanced, I guess if you want to label me Calvinist there.

Yeah, well, I would say that me growing up, yeah, the rabbis never taught any of that.

So it was never an issue growing up for me.

I actually was in a church that was more independent fundamentalist Baptist when I started going to church.

So it was.

Would be more against Calvinism but not Arminian.

And so I would kind of agree with as you know, Aaron and Daniel said, like it depends on your definition.

I actually don't take the label Calvinist because I don't know what others mean by it.

The one thing I've been, I've known for sure is most people that say they're not Calvinist usually don't know what it means.

It seems.

I can say that I listened to Brandon's early episode so I know he, he did understand them.

But the, and, and I will say I did a debate with a guy if you go back on my apologetics live and his name was Ra Fuentes.

Just do look for debate Calvinism or his name and the guy actually was a Calvinist.

He just didn't understand the definitions and it was really kind of sad because he debates Calvinism against Calvinism all time and he doesn't, he's never taken the time to understand it.

So I would, I would say that the differences would be this and the language that I end up using.

And maybe we, we could talk about this more what you guys think about this language.

I use the terms God's sovereignty and human responsibility because that's really what I think the two sides come down to.

If I had to say what side, what position I hold to, I would be what is referred to as a classical Calvinist.

Now some of you, that may be a new term.

It's a classical Calvinism because it is the Calvinism that was held to prior to the work of John Owen in his death of death in the death of Christ.

That is the volume that really solidified a view of limited atonement that I would not hold to.

And so some people would say I'm not Calvinist because I don't hold to John Owens definition of limited atonement.

And so we will go through each of the five points and see where what everyone thinks.

But just since I've brought that up, I hold to a view that 1st John 2:2 when it says that Christ was a propitiation not for us only, but the whole world, the whole world is unbelievers.

Because I believe he's saying the us he's referring to are believers.

And if it so the not us must be unbelievers.

And that was a view held to.

Now logically, in the mind of God I admit God knows who he died for and who he applied that to.

But in our mind we don't know that.

And so I don't pretend to know the mind of God well enough to speak for him other than what he's revealed in Scripture.

So that's what I try to be faithful to.

So if you want an episode that I dug deep on that is on my Rap Report podcast.

If you just search there under rapport for the previous episodes, search for bonus and the word superintending and I'm sure we'll get into that later what I mean by that, but that's how I rectify and, and bring together the view of God's sovereignty and human responsibility.

So let's start with you know, really what most people talk Calvinism or Arminianism, they talk about this, this acronym tulip and a couple of us kind of mentioned it.

Now if folks, if, if this is somewhat new to you, Brandon mentioned a, you know, a council that they had a dort and that is really where a lot of this comes from is the remonstrance is what he referred to.

And there was a.

So historically there was some disagreements over these issues between a follower, two followers of Calvin.

Okay, and this may shock some folks, but both Calvinism and Armenian Marminianism, they are, they come out of the, the, the ideas that we define those are both out of Calvin.

Jacob Arminius was a Calvinist.

He was a follower of Calvin.

Now he was four years old when Calvin died.

So he wasn't a direct student under Calvin, but Beza was.

And Beza was teaching.

And it was really Beza who had the disagreements with James Arminius.

And as they were disagreeing, they they both kind of pushed each other it further out on further extremes.

And that's what we have now is the Calvinism Arminianism debate.

It is something where the, the Armenians, while Arminius was alive for like a dozen years before he died, they, they were trying to get a council together to define.

Yeah, they wanted Arminius to define what he believes and he was putting things in writing.

They wanted a council.

He died before that.

They did have the council a few years afterwards and there became five points that the Armenians had.

And for folks who are big on the five points of Calvinism, the remonstrance, the, the Calvinists that responded to the Arminians, they actually had eight points.

So for those Calvinists say well if there was a six point of Calvinism, I'd be a six point Calvinist.

Well there was originally eight.

They scaled it back to match the five from Armenian, from the Arminians.

And so just a little bit of history.

So let's go through Tulip.

It's the way most people know this topic.

The first one, the T in Tulip is total depravity.

And so just go through.

I want to give each of you guys a chance to explain if you want your, your understanding of total depravity from, from the position that you would hold.

So let's go, we'll go different order this time we'll go with Daniel first.

So total depravity, like I know some people might misunderstand that to think that it means that everyone is as wicked as they can be.

That's not what total means.

It means that every aspect of the person is affected by the fall.

And so their people can do good things, human good things that exhibit the image of God in them morally.

But as far as every aspect of our being because of the fall, fall and being dead in trespasses and sins, being dead to the truth of the gospel, total depravity means that it requires a supernatural work of God to change our heart like from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh so that we will believe the gospel for what it means and to realize that we are in fact depraved and in need of salvation.

So I think, I hope that was a good short summary of total depravity.

From my understanding and one that I'd agree with it.

The only addition I'd make and I'll see if anyone else wants to add, either disagree or add on to it, I don't.

You know, in case everyone has their reviews.

But the only addition I would make.

Would be so really the struggle with that, I think between Calvinism, Arminianism is I think both sides hold that the effect of the curse affected our thinking, our emotions.

The question is, did it affect our will?

So a total depravity means that our mind, our emotions and our will, our volition were affected by sin.

And those that would say that we have a free will, we all believe, everyone believes we have a will.

It's whether it's free.

And so free will would say that it was not affected by the, the curse of sin.

And so I think that would be where the, the difference would be.

I'll just open up if anyone wants to either add to that or give a view they have that might be different than that for, I guess, Eve, Aaron or, or Brandon like it.

Daniel, good job.

And Andrew, your additions were great.

Wonderful guys.

Good job.

Brandon, any.

Any thoughts from you?

No.

As far as the definition of total depravity?

No.

I'm pretty much in lockstep with everything Daniel said and, and I think you.

Did you bring up a good point about free will.

The only thing I would add to that, at least my understanding.

And I think, yeah, and it's not original to me, but kind of where I've landed on that idea of a free will is that I, I do think total depravity affected our will, that our wills are affected by sin.

And so I don't actually hold to what's typically free will in just a broad sense because it has a lot of baggage that comes with it.

What I generally say is that we have a freed will, that the grace of God, the power of God and the Holy Spirit, frees our will so that then we can, by his power and by his grace, be obedient and follow him in faith.

And so I don't think we have a natural free will, that we're born kind of neutral and can, when we want, decide to follow in faith, but that by God's grace, He frees our will from the effects of sin so that we can exercise faith and be obedient.

Yeah, I like the way you worded that.

And I, yeah, I would agree that's.

And that's the point that I was trying to make is that we're.

We have a free will after Christ, but not before.

And so, and I think most people would agree on total depravity.

I mean, there's, there's some true Armenians that may not.

But, you know, there's.

I mean, definitely if those who deny original sin would not But I think for the most part, and even Jacob Arminius, I think until his death, held to total depravity the way we defined it.

So let's get to one that Brandon mentioned the word earlier, but election.

But it's more specific to unconditional election.

So this one I'll take a shot at defining first and then you guys could either tell me where I'm wrong or you know, add to it, correct it, give your view on it.

But the idea of unconditional election, the unconditional is the part.

So is our election conditioned upon our belief or not?

That's really the question in unconditional election.

The way it would be worded from an Arminian position is that the way some often will say it is get God looks down the tunnel of time.

He sees who would be saved and then he elects them before the foundation of, of the world.

Because that's what it says in Ephesians, that we are before the foundation of the world, that we were elect.

So because of that, they would say that God looked through time to figure out who he would elect based upon their choice.

And so I would disagree with that.

I would believe in an unconditional election, meaning that God chose us without anything that we have to do.

And I think that's the purpose of Ephesians 1:4, where it says just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we might be holy and blameless before Him.

The idea, I think there is, it's not that he's trying to explain it chronological issues.

I think what he's trying to do is in the strongest way possible, say that you and I had nothing to do with our salvation, that God did it all.

And so the issue here, I disagree with God looking down the tunnels of time because that's a different God.

The God that actually exists is a God who is omniscient.

He's also outside of time.

So he's not.

He didn't have to learn what we would do and he didn't have to put himself in within time to, to understand something.

So I, I would disagree with those that would hold to a, a conditional election because then it makes the choice we made as the reason God chose us rather than God's glory.

And I believe God chose us for his glories.

And that's so that unconditional part is that it's not conditioned on anything that we do.

Anyone either disagree with that, want to add to that, have a hold to a different view than that.

This, this is Kind of where in the past, and I kind of like Daniel did too, you know, grew and changed and saw things a little bit differently.

I struggle with unconditional election.

And even now I find myself of two minds on the point.

For this reason, from one perspective, theologically, God's sovereignty, I easily say that there is not a single atom in this world that somehow escapes the sovereign control of God.

So in the exact same way, not a single person's salvation is going to somehow be anything less than God's 100% sovereign control over it.

Okay, so I acknowledge that.

However, and this is where people start in these conversations, I start losing friends, this idea we have a God who is infinite.

Now, sometimes I use the word paradoxical, and some people don't like that term because it suggests that, that they read, I guess, too much into my use of that term.

You know, God can't be paradoxical because he is.

And a paradox can exist and so on and so forth.

But I think the reality is that we are English word of a paradox refers to something that we cannot, that exists as far as we can tell, as far as we can observe, but that does not fit the reasoning and rationality of our minds.

So when I look at God, I see.

I see some, some things that can be considered paradoxical.

And if we don't like that word, we can jettison it and just use like, just.

I'm not sure what word is better.

If you guys have one, toss it in there.

But so the, the Trinity as an example, three separate personalities, one God.

That is not something we try, we try, we try.

We fail miserably to truly wrap our brains around that because it is impossible and from a certain perspective, almost paradoxical from that perspective.

But he does exist in that form, even though we don't understand it.

The hypostatic union of Christ, I think, is the exact same thing.

Fully man, fully God.

That's another example that we cannot truly wrap our brains around.

And there are other ones in Scripture like this.

So sometimes I suggest, and I don't, I don't know, I don't think that it's a statement of a logic, an argument of logic.

Yes, logically, I think you can come to these conclusions.

I believe one of the reasons there's such a big disagreement over this concept of whether or not we have a free will, or as Brandon put it, a freed will, is the fact that we see things in Scripture that definitely lead in that direction.

Definitely.

Even though the terminology free will doesn't use definitely looks like, well, if that's not free will.

What is that?

And so I've suggested that because God is who he is, that mankind can have a free will.

And how we define that's going to be potentially different and can have a free will and God still be 100% sovereignly in control.

So, Aaron, that doesn't make sense.

And I just have to come back.

Well, neither does the Trinity, not really.

I mean, let's be honest.

Again, all of you Christians out there, all your theologians out there, I understand that.

We, we understand it to a degree, but the moment we stretch just a little bit further beyond that basic understanding, that basic acceptance of what it is, it doesn't actually make human sense, and it shouldn't because he is an infinite God.

So if we're going to say it's absolutely impossible that man having a free will and God being perfectly sovereign can coexist, I would say at that moment I'm like, well, I think perhaps you're cramming God into a box that he doesn't necessarily deserve to be crammed into.

And if we're going to say that free will doesn't exist, I think we need to do it.

We need to find passages and things in the Scripture that says man does not have a free will.

And obviously not that, not that clearly, but that will point to the fact that free will is not a thing.

We can't just say, well, it doesn't make sense for men to have a free will and for God to be completely sovereign, because if we're going to go from that type of an argument, we have to jettison miracles.

We have to jettison the very identity of God.

And again, Christ himself coming in human form, we have to jettison so many truths about God simply because it doesn't quote, unquote, make sense to us.

All right, any.

Go ahead.

Yeah, yeah.

I would probably, I mean, echo a lot of the sentiments that have been expressed so far that, you know, people can become what could be called Hyper Calvinist if they deny free will and turn people into robots or puppets.

And yes, like, I think that's where an understanding of compatibilism comes in, which is probably where Andrew or Aaron would refer to as his paradox there, because, yeah, like I read passages is talking about free will, the will of people.

And you know, you can't deny that they're actually exercising, purposing their will.

And you know, to turn that into just a facade is, you know, kind of ridiculous.

But then you also recognize the compatibilism that with like, the past One of the primary passage that convinced me of unconditional election wasn't Romans 9.

I mean, I was battling and arguing Romans 9 for years before I got convinced it was actually John chapter six.

As I was reading the statements that Jesus gave and trying to line them up and trying to figure out, okay, what comes before what, and so on.

So in John 6.

37, where Jesus says, all that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me, and I will in no wise cast out.

And of course, I've been in many churches that would just say the last part of the verse, but never the first part.

But the Father gives a people to the Son.

And then in verse 39, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing.

So our securities and the fact that the Father gave us to the Son, then the Son will lose none.

And then also thinking about Aaron mentioned the Trinity before.

Like, you know, there's a lot of passages talking about salvation, the roles of the Trinity, and when we really, like, just try to question the sovereignty of God and salvation, recognizing where our wills play a role, of course, but you end up almost putting a wedge between the Father and the Son.

Because if the Father purpose is to give a people to the Son, but the Son is not able to keep them, and the.

And the Father, all that the Father gives will come to come to Him.

He will lose none.

Like, if the purpose of the Father is to save, you know, everyone in an absolute decree, atoning sense, you know, in the, you know, however you want to stretch that in the most absolute sense.

And then the Son fails to do that, well, then there's a.

There's a disharmony in the Trinity there.

And so when we see salvation as a trinitarian work, you know, a threefold cord's not quickly broken.

I say, like, oh, wow.

Like, I can't escape the sovereignty of God and unconditional election there.

When I see how the Trinity's involved in it.

Yeah, for me, the verse Daniel was.

I was.

I used to get into discussions with folks over Ephesians 2, 8, 9.

What's the.

The gift?

Is it.

Is it the gift of salvation or is it the faith?

And then my first pastorate, I was preaching through Philippians, and I came to Philippians 1, 29, which says, for it.

For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for his sake.

And I went, oh, because our belief is granted.

And I realized, oh, okay, that's There goes that for me.

So, Brandon, anything you would like to add?

Yeah, so I think I actually also struggle with the idea that God looks through the corridors of time and sees who has faith and that's who he then elects to me.

How I've come to understand that, and some of that's built from Arminius's like, fourfold doctrine of decrees that he kind of lays out in one in his second works.

But that for me, because I agree that would be a problem if God looks down through time as kind of like a passive observer and learns that, okay, one day Brandon will put his faith in me and okay, I'll write him down in the book of Life.

And that definitely would be.

I would struggle to see that as the biblical God that's explained to us in Scripture.

So for me, how I understand that is because I do believe in conditional election, but that once, you know, God decrees an attorney pass to appoint his son as savior, as king, as Redeemer, as priest, those things, and he decrees an eternity pass to save believers.

And as soon as that decree has taken place, as soon as that plan of salvation is, is decreed by him and sovereignly chosen by him in his wisdom, that automatically puts people individuals, because I believe an individual election as well, that automatically puts people in one of two places.

Those that are going to be believers and have faith through grace, and those that are going to be reprobate and be damned because they reject that grace.

And so I don't see it as a He looks down through time as a past observer and learns who's going to come to Him.

I see God has decreed a plan of salvation, and because he is sovereign and omniscient and all powerful, that automatically places people either inside of the conditions he has set for salvation or outside of those conditions he set for salvation.

So that's the one thing I wanted to add.

There is I don't actually, I don't follow that same same pattern that's sometimes normal in Arminianism of God learning or looking down through the quarters of time to see if he's going to get lucky and get enough of us back.

So let me just ask out of curiosity, so do you hold that the election is conditional upon belief in any way?

Yes.

So yes.

So I hold a conditional election that a condition for salvation is faith in Christ, that God saves believers and that the elect are believers.

But I don't think that our faith is the grounds of our salvation.

So I wouldn't say that I'm responsible, responsible for my salvation or that man is responsible for salvation.

I say that God is fully responsible for our salvation.

He gets all the credit in that and that it's by grace and through his power that I'm even able to have faith in the first place.

Okay, so I, I want to, I want to probe this a little more because this is where there's, there's some.

Differences, and this will help me, help me solidify my own beliefs.

Yeah.

And because I actually, I'm not.

I'm listening to you.

I'm going.

At one point, it sounds like you're saying you disagree with me, and then everything you described agrees with me.

And I'm going, wait, so the, the condition of.

So we, we.

I think we both agree that when it comes to salvation, it's for those who have faith.

Would that be fair?

Okay.

Yeah.

And folks, what, What I am trying to do, and I do.

I.

What does I do?

This is what I do in Apologetics Live, is I describe to the audience why I'm doing what I'm doing so that you guys learn as well, so you can maybe mimic some of this when you get into discussions, especially if we disagree with folks.

But I'm trying to first start with where I think Brandon and I agree, and I'm going to kind of probe to where I heard disagreement and see if I was wrong in my.

In what I heard or if there's actual disagreement, and then probe there.

So that's how I approach it.

So with that.

So you know where I'm headed, Brandon, from agreement to disagreement.

So, so we agree it's by faith, but do you, do you believe that someone would have to.

Well, let me first ask this.

Do you think that our, this election is.

Is based upon our belief, not our faith, but is it about us believing or the way some people would say choosing God?

In other words, do we choose God or does God choose us?

Do you believe it's that He's.

He.

He regenerates us because we have believed.

Okay, so let me, Let me maybe draw a distinction between the grounding of our election or our justification and the condition.

And so one thing I would say is that like the grounding of our election is that God foreknew us in.

In Christ.

And I think we see that in Ephesians 1 for that he knew us in Christ and so he chose us in Christ.

So the grounding of our election, the basis of it is that foreknowledge of God, that deep connection, that deep understanding, because again, I don't think foreknowledge is a simple.

He foreknows future events.

I do think there's a deeper meaning to that.

It's more of a loving relationship.

And so I'd say, yeah, so the grounding of our election is that foreknowledge that he knew us in Christ.

But I do think that there is that condition of faith.

And so God foreknows that we're going to meet that condition of faith, but the only reason we can even meet that condition is because of his grace.

So I don't know if that answers your question or if I rambled on too long.

No, no, no, it did.

And that's where I'm.

I think that we're both agreeing.

God is omniscient and therefore he didn't need to learn what we would do.

So that's.

That.

That's the first part.

So I think we agree there.

And I think.

I wouldn't be surprised.

I think of us probably agree so far.

Do you.

And they put.

Let me post this as a question when this comes up, when it comes to election.

And, and so I'm gonna, I'll, I'll start this with Brandon, then ask, you know, Eve, Aaron, Daniel, if you guys want to pipe up in that order.

But do you believe that there is.

I'm going to ask this two ways.

Is there a chronological ordering?

In other words, do you believe we have to we first believed and then were regenerated or that there's a chronological ordering to being regenerated and then believing?

Okay, so first chronological.

Is there one that precedes the other?

Second question.

Is there a logical order that one precedes the other?

If everyone understands that question.

So, Brandon, I'll ask it of you then.

Eve, Aaron, Daniel, do you hold to a view that there's a chronological ordering of belief and then regeneration or regeneration then belief.

And if you.

Whether yes or no.

Well, I guess if there's a.

If it's yes, then obviously the logical one is there.

If it's.

If no, then is there a logical ordering in your mind?

Yeah, I would say chronologically, faith comes before regeneration in a simple sentence, but that God's grace is.

So I would hold to prevenient grace, which just means grace that comes before.

So grace prior to regeneration is absolutely necessary to take our.

Our totally depraved will and bend it towards Christ, bend it towards belief and faith in God.

And so I would think.

I would say chronologically, yes, faith precedes regeneration in the, I guess maybe a final sense.

But I think where I would have.

Maybe the logical side of it would, would be that God's grace is prior to our faith, that he excites our will, that he bends our will, that he calls us.

Trying to think of other words to use in that sense that almost sounds.

Like you're saying he's, it's irresistible.

But we'll get to that.

Yeah.

Okay.

I so just, I mean before it would be like I don't, I'm not.

That's why I think I've, I, I tend to fall in that camp of like a reformed Arminianism because the vast majority of what's typical, especially with like a classical Calvinism like you kind of talked about 90 some odd percent of it, I don't really have any disagreement with.

It's just the real nuanced understandings of those things.

So.

Okay Eve, how would you answer those questions?

I'm having even a hard time following this discussion.

I think part of the problem that I have with the whole debate between Calvinism and Arminianism is that it seems to ones they both seem to try and box God into a time frame.

And I really, my understanding of God is that he's eternal, he's completely outside of time.

And the existence that we live in a linear, very closed.

We see beginning and end and a beginning and a middle and all that stuff that it's just God knows it all, all the time.

And so to try and put things in a particular order as we understand humanity is to try to box God into our view of, of time.

And God is in my estimation, as far as my human brain can understand it, all of this is completely outside of our understanding in, in the, in the same way that we can't understand what it's like to be outside of time.

So you know, to, to Is it linear in our understanding?

It probably is because that's the only way we can view time is in a linear way.

And our, you know, by, by grace we are saved through.

And that's the order that's given to us in scripture.

How that applies to predestination and election, I'm still struggling to figure that out.

Well, that is the struggle that we have in some cases.

Aaron, go ahead.

I think Eve, you actually just did a really great job there.

You hit on something that I think is desperately important.

The fact that God, in fact I think one of the most God esque things about him is his ability to exist outside of the flow of time.

Human beings cannot and will never be able to do that even in the eternal State time was created for us.

It wasn't created because of God needing it in any way, shape or form.

And so you're 100% right about the order of things.

From God's perspective, there really isn't one.

From our perspective, there might be one.

And just so you guys know a little bit about my background, I haven't a master's degree in biblical counseling.

And so when I got that at Bob Jones Seminary, that was a third of the M.

Div.

There.

So I got, I got a third of the M.

Div.

Program.

I should have finished it, but I didn't.

Anyway, I can my regrets later, but I remember, you know, going through seminary classes, systematic theology and the doctrines and all that.

And we got to this point where we're looking at all, and we're having, we're having to put all of these different terms in a chronological order.

And I, and I appreciated the, the, the exercise that it was for our brains, the exercise that it was for our theological muscles under getting to the Bible and doing that work of really pushing to understand a text and understand concepts as they're presented in the Bible.

Because I do believe there is only one meaning to any given passage.

This whole idea of what does it mean to you?

Is inappropriate.

God has a meaning.

And so, you know, we have, we have differing thoughts and disagreements here.

Well, we can't all be right.

There is only one.

We're all wrong to much larger degrees than we realize.

And we'll spend all eternity celebrating who he is and to know him as we are known.

And so with that said, I think that's a good exercise in many ways.

But also it lacks significant practicality.

And I think too often it also just lacks.

Maybe because it's impossible and maybe because it doesn't really matter.

I try not to put them too much in order.

Does this regeneration come before faith and does faith before justification?

Yes, I can argue those things on paper.

I'm not 100% certain that once I've done that, A, I can say with all certainty that my order is the right one, or B, that it has any significant practical impact on that which is the Christian life and needing to grow in sanctification, be salt and light and so on and so forth.

Daniel, you're up next.

Okay, so to address the two questions you asked Andrew about the like chronological and logical order there, I would say that a lot of people might get confused by the statement regeneration precedes faith and think that, oh, God regenerates someone and then they're walking around for a while before they ever exercise faith.

No, I, I don't think there's any chronological order per se there.

But I would say logically, regeneration precedes faith.

And I think that the Philippians 129, among other verses, like, kind of explains that it's granted to you to believe.

And that doesn't mean, you know, you get regenerated and then later you have faith.

It's kind of like pulling the trigger on a gun.

You know, what, what's the cause and what's the effect?

Is the faith the cause and the regeneration effect or the other way around?

And I think the Bible teaches that regeneration logically proceeds, I.

E.

It's the cause of faith because it's, I think, the same faith that we have every day, you know, in Jesus is the faith that we first receive when, when we're granted then justification conditioned on faith.

But it's.

It' a different faith.

It's a maturing, sanctifying faith.

But it starts with regeneration given to us immediately when we're regenerated.

We believe the gospel and then that's con.

That's the condition for justification and the sealing of the Holy Spirit and then sanctification to follow.

And that's my position.

And you have anything else else you want to add to the idea of election?

Unconditional election?

Me?

Yeah, you had something you put in the chat, so I figured now would be a good time.

Okay.

Yeah.

I wasn't sure when Brandon was talking about when you were trying to ask him a question about unconditional election.

And I wasn't sure if maybe he was equating election with justification, like, because some people might think unconditional election, I mean, means God just picks people and then there's.

And they go to heaven regardless if they have faith and stuff.

But I think anyone who would believe in unconditional election believes in conditional justification, that it's a justification by faith.

Without faith, you're not justified.

Even if unconditional election is the precursor to the.

The faith that you're given, which is the grounds for justification.

So, Brandon, you were the only one that, that thought there might be a chronological order.

So follow up question that I have just for you.

I was hope.

I was hoping we'd get both sides.

So I can only ask this of you do from the what?

If I heard you correctly, you said you believe that faith would proceed chronologically precede regeneration.

So do you think that someone could be a believing, unregenerate person?

So they, they have belief, but they're not regenerated.

No.

And so.

Sorry, that's where.

When Daniel kind of specified chronological as far as from his side.

Sorry, excuse me, saying that he doesn't hold.

That somebody could get.

Could be regenerated and then six months down the road, believe.

So, yeah, if.

If by chronological.

That's what we're getting at.

Maybe I just misunderstood that.

I think.

No, I'm not going to.

I wouldn't say somebody could express a faith in Christ and then two days later be regenerated and receive the Holy Spirit.

So, no.

So maybe.

What about chronological?

What about a millisecond later?

I think faith precedes regeneration.

What about a millisecond later?

Can.

I mean.

Because this is where I had what pastor that.

He said he disagreed with me because he believed you have to first be regenerated.

And then he, he said a millisecond later you'll have belief and faith.

And so he's.

I believe they're simultaneous.

So he.

He said he disagrees with me with a millisecond.

But that's the chronological.

Even if it's a millisecond, do.

Do you believe there.

There could be a millisecond there?

In other words, can someone be a believing, unregenerate person?

I would say no.

No.

So I.

Maybe I don't even actually hold any kind of chronological distinction.

I was just thinking more.

And so maybe.

Maybe what I mean is more.

More of a logical.

More of a logical sense of faith procedure, generation.

Because.

No, I think that they're simultaneous as far as, like in time.

Yeah, I think I just misspoke there.

No, no, it's like you said.

I mean, this is.

This is what we're trying to do with theology Throwdown.

Right.

Not only express our differences, but also sharpen one another for the audience.

They get to learn the differing views, and yet no one's calling each other names.

I mean, I, I might call Aaron a name, but that has no bearing on what he believes.

It's just because I like to do that.

But.

No, but.

Right.

This is, this is what we want to do is be able to have discussions like this and show folks how to conduct ourselves where we actually listen to one another, try to understand one another, and not try to win points with one another.

So.

All right, actually, if I can, really quickly, Andrew, to the question that you just asked.

Brandon.

I've heard this argument made before, and to a certain degree, because you heard it from me, why people might.

You've heard me.

No, no, no, no, the.

No, the Idea of faith, someone being able to have faith and not be redeemed.

There's one passage in particular that comes to mind that is very interesting and gives people some pause.

In the parable of the soils.

Jesus gives us the parable, the soils, you know, hard, rocky, thorny, and then the soft soils.

But then as he's interpreting it for the disciples, and I think that.

I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of your audience and all of us here would agree that it is only the soft heart, the soft soil, right.

That that actually bears fruit.

Meat for repentance is the one that shows us an example of somebody who truly believed and was born again.

If you disagree with that, sorry, my dog made a noise.

If disagree with that, I'd be interested in hearing why you say that.

But in his exam, in his description In Luke chapter 8, in verse 13, he's.

He's talking about those that on the rock.

Those that fell on the rock are those, when they hear, receive the word with joy.

And these have no root.

This is the key thing he says they believe for a while.

Now, that is our word for belief.

That is our.

One of our key words for faith, primarily belief.

But, you know, intrinsically tied to the concept of faith in the Scriptures.

Believe for a while, but then it says that, and in a time of temptation, fall away.

So that is an argument that I've heard that people have made.

Well, this person had faith, right?

But whatever was necessary to bump it to the next level, where he was now regenerated or that was now justified, that didn't happen.

Now, it's difficult to argue somebody else's position, but I've heard that one enough.

I thought it might be interesting enough to throw it in there as part of an answer to the question you asked Brandon.

Yeah, and I, I actually got it from one of the Puritans.

I forget which one now, but yeah, they were making the point.

And this is.

This is in the time of John Owens a little bit before.

But the argument being you can't be an unregenerate regenerate believer, nor could you be a unbelieving regenerate.

Right.

So they're.

They arguing that there is no chronological order there.

And so that's, you know, this is where I think a lot of what we have is.

Now, to your point, Aaron, we always have to be careful to interpret the parables because I know if, you know, folks know Leighton Flowers.

I know Aaron.

You.

You and I know him personally.

And, and so he will often talk about the parables of the soils and make arguments.

The problem I have is when we do hermeneutics, how to interpret the things, specifically the scripture, we have to recognize the parables are illustrations, so we cannot give them meaning beyond what they're illustrating.

Right.

And so we always have to be careful with that.

But let's move on.

And Aaron, I'll let.

I'll start with.

Let you define limited atonement, your at least your understanding of it.

And then we'll go around and see where we can add or if we disagree with the definition that you might have.

It's fun that I get a first crack on this one, because this would be the one that I struggle with the most.

And I say, why say struggle with?

I definitely.

Well, this is where most people have.

One argument that maybe start to even consider it.

But as I understand it, and I love to be corrected as I understand it, limited atonement simply says that Jesus died for a limited number of people.

He did not purchase redemption for everyone, but he only for a select few, the elect.

Okay, any.

Anyone.

Anyone want to add to that?

Disagree with that.

I.

I know I will have some ad, but I won't let others.

Daniel, I'll go with you first.

Sure, I know, Yeah, I.

I don't know of anyone who embraces limited atonement as the first.

First point of the tulip that they embrace.

It's usually the last.

And some people, you know, understandably, will never embrace it.

And that's okay in a sense.

I.

Yeah, that was the last one for me.

And the way I look at it, of course I know there's better terms for like, particular redemption or definite atonement, something like that.

But then we also have.

Have to talk about what is this?

What is the power and scope of the atonement?

But the way I look at it is not so much just limiting the atonement, but it's more of an understanding of penal substitution.

And when I look at passages like Isaiah 53, verse 11, where it says, he shall see the travail veil of his soul and be satisfied by his knowledge.

Shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities like he's bearing the iniquities of the people he justifies.

And then Acts 20:28, where Paul says, take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made you overseers to feed the church of God, God which he hath purchased with his own blood.

And if the church, referring to the collection of all the redeemed.

Like what was the purpose of Christ's atonement?

Yes, it is sufficient to save everyone in the whole world.

The power is of.

The atonement is absolutely infinite and unlimited.

Like the question is what?

Like what was Jesus intending to do and what did he purchase?

And then that also comes into a view of, of like sin and like the penalty for sin.

Like is it just generic or does each sin basically carry its own penalty?

And was that penalty paid in full?

And then Jesus pay for the sins, pay for sins that will still be punished and so on like that.

So I look at it more in terms of an understanding of, of penal substitution.

All right, Brandon, anything you want to add to that or Eve?

Okay, I would say this, and I kind of mentioned it earlier, the definition Aaron that you gave is what most people would hold to today.

That Christ when he was on the cross knew who he was dying for and that his death was only for them.

And so there we get into the question of can we say Christ died for you?

Speaking to an unbeliever, can we say that Christ died for all people, that that's where there be.

And this is where I think the biggest debate for this is right.

Did, was Christ, did he pay the punishment for all people or just the elect?

And as I said earlier in, in the show, I think that that is something that we, we really see honed in an excellent work of John Owens.

Very good, very very.

He lays out a very good logical argument for his view of limited atonement.

So much so that really ever since John Owen's work on On Death of death, it has become the definition for limited atonement.

But prior to his, his book, not everyone held to a view like that.

And so that's why I say I'm a classical Calvinist, because I would say that Christ did die for all.

And I don't mean all groups of people.

I don't mean Jew versus Gentile.

This is what it says in First John 2.

2.

Let me, let me start in verse one because a context is always good.

But it becomes important to know who is the US in verse two.

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.

And if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous.

And he himself is the propitiation for our sins.

And not for us only, but also for those of the whole world.

And so where a lot of people will get into discussion is well hold tied to, you know, like world doesn't always mean every Single person, even whole world could just be all, all, all the nations.

The issue that I make is not, I mean that is supporting the point.

The main point is who the propitiation is for.

The propitiation is for, for our sins and not ours only.

Well if it's not.

If the hours referring in verse one to our, to my little children, if that's talking believers, then the not us is unbelievers believers.

And I don't want to allow a view of theology to affect the way I interpret scripture.

I want to allow the scripture to interpret my theology.

So I look at this passage and there will be people that try to say, oh, this is the Jew gentile distinction.

The us is Jewish people, the not us is Gentiles.

I disagree with that only because by the time John's writing it's pretty late.

There really isn't a Jew gentile distinction in anymore.

The, the real issue John deals with is the Gnosticism.

That's what his, his book is is addressing is the, the heresy of Gnosticism.

So as I look at this, it's, it's not that it's going to be the believers unbelievers who are the.

My, my little children.

I don't know anyone that disagrees that that is believers.

So the not us has to be unbelievers.

So I would argue that Christ's death paid the, the penalty, the, what we would call the, the word propitiation.

Okay, Propitiation is the satisfaction satisfying of wrath, but it doesn't mean it's applied to them.

So as the Puritans used to say, God's, God's death was efficient for all but, or sorry sufficient for all, but efficient for few.

In other words words, it was worth every single person, but not.

It wasn't applied to every single person.

So the way I would end up defining this and I'll see who agrees or disagrees with me with this, but I, I illustrate it this way and it's, it's the only way I know to how to try to explain this.

I went into a restaurant.

We, we were sharing the gospel with different people in the restaurant.

A friend of mine and I, we had a good conversation with a guy who just did want to believe.

And, and my friend Mark paid his, his dinner bill and the guy found out that his dinner was paid.

He knew one of us at the table paid it and he went up to the cash register.

He paid it a second time and came over to us and said, you can, you could take your money back if you want, but I paid my bill.

No one's paying my bill.

And my response to him is yes, and you will go to hell for the same reason because you won't allow anybody to pay for you.

You want to do it yourself.

So even though the bill was paid and, and we never took the money back, it was paid.

But since he refused it, refused to receive it, he paid it on his own.

And so it, it was paid by him.

So it's, I think this is where it's hard for folks that would hold to the, the view that Aaron and you mentioned.

They feel that if it's paid then, then somehow you're, if you, if it's paid for all.

And this maybe gets back to what Daniel said.

It's, it's like it's a unconditional justification.

Like if it's, it's universal justification.

So I would argue that anyone that believes someone is in hell believes the atonement is limited.

Now we're just defining, wanting to understand how it's limited, if that makes sense.

Because it's obviously limited because there's people in hell.

What limits it.

You know, I think what, I think there.

What limits it is Christ paid for it, but there's those that don't receive it.

And so they will pay it on their own if, if that makes sense.

Anyone.

I'll just go around and see if anyone wants to correct that, add to that, give a different opinion.

I'll start, I'll start.

Brandon, since you're first in my list there.

No, actually I pretty much agree with kind of how you laid that out.

Kind of how just in my own words, how I would kind of express that was that the extent of the atonement was for all.

And so I, I hold to a general atonement, but the intent of the atonement was it would actually provide salvation for those in union with Christ.

And those that are in union with Christ are those that are united with him by faith.

And so pretty much every the way you laid it out, I, um, I'd say we're pretty much in total agreement on how we understand the atonement and how it is limited in the sense of we're not universalists.

It's limited in the intent on those that are in union with Christ.

But the extent I do agree it is universal or general.

Hey, so folks, be listening to Rooted in Christ.

He's going to be coming out with an episode.

Why?

I'm a classic Calvinist.

I'm just teasing.

Who knows?

Who knows?

I will have to say that I appreciate how you explain that because one of the drawbacks that I've always found with the way Calvinism has been explained to me is when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, he said that the God so loved the world that he gave his only son.

And that's the first verse that most of us learn as Christians as little kids, is for God to love the world.

And then when you're brought into the Calvinistic viewpoint, they're saying, no, he only died for just the elect.

He didn't love the whole world because he hated the sinners and the ones who would not be saved, the ones he didn't choose.

And that has always been a real struggle for me to try and put those two thoughts together between God or Jesus only dying for the elect when, when he himself told Nicodemus that God sent him for because he loved the whole world.

And does he exclude the people that he doesn't save from that love?

And so, yeah, that's, I guess that's where a lot of my struggle has always been.

And understanding that, you know, that a lot of people will leave the gift on the table, they won't take it.

They don't want anybody to pay their way.

That, that.

I thought that was a really good way of explaining that.

And, and for those who do that now, obviously God knows who's, you know, he knows who's going to be regenerated and who's not.

But I mean, Psalm 54 and 5 says, for you are, you are not God, for you are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness nor evil dwells with you.

You know, know the boastful shall not stand before your eyes.

You hate all who do iniquity.

And you know Psalm 7:11, that's always an easier one to remember because you know, people who know seven eleven, that store.

But you know that that verse says God is a righteous judge and God, a God who is in.

Has indignation every day.

Or in some translation, He, He's, he, he hates.

He has anger with the wicked every day.

So the idea there that we see is that God does hate those who do wickedness.

It's not that he doesn't, but I, I just, I personally say he, he does it based off of, you know, the he.

He's.

It's, it's not that he's like, hey, you never get a chance because in the, in the human mind.

And this is where I think we struggle and we've already dealt.

You guys already talked about this, right?

Eve, I Think you brought it up about the mind of God versus the mind of man.

We can't understand omniscience, so we can't understand knowing, okay, this person's gonna, you know, be regenerated and this person isn't.

God knows that, but yet we don't.

And when you and I talk to people, we're sharing the gospel, we don't know who's the elect and who isn't.

And so I think a lot of the times, some of the Scripture is for us to talk to, to understand it from a human perspective and other times from a, as, as best we can from a divine perspective, if that makes sense.

Now if you tell your thought here that, oh no, I was just going to joke with, even say if you tell your pastor that he may get mad at me because he might disagree, but go ahead, Aaron.

So I think this is, this is something where I think sometimes it fries people's brains too just a little bit to hear me argue on one side against limited atonement, then to also say that I do believe in what some people would call reprobation or double predestination.

So I think from that perspective, and it's touching on the fact that not only does he predestined people to salvation, but also predestined people to hell.

I think it's interesting myself when a five point Calvinist shies away from that second one, like God is completely sovereign in my, my, in my salvation, but he's not completely sovereign in another person's rejection.

And I always, I always smile at that a little bit because logically I think that doesn't make sense.

And biblically, there are passages that I believe can very much argue reprobation.

But I say that because this concept of limited atonement, these concepts of elections on all that have to be taken, we can't just look at them individually as tiny little slices.

I think we need to see them, how they interact with each other.

Understanding them, you know, starting at that perspective is good, but if we always leave them separated, I think we end up finding that we have holes here and there in the discussion.

So I encourage, you know, all the listeners, obviously I hope that none of you decide to believe something based solely off of what we're saying.

Oh, that, that sounds like that makes sense.

Please don't make any theological decisions based off of that.

Definitely want to continue to study and to look into it.

And I like Andrew, what you said about not forcing the Scriptures to bow to a theological position, but to do the exact opposite My theological positions need to be framed and need to be defined by the Word.

So I would just encourage all of us to continue doing that.

And unfortunately, because we're limited, we will not all agree this side of eternity.

But again, as Andrew said, by God's grace, one day in eternity we will all perfectly understand exactly what the Lord intended when he.

When he wrote the Scriptures.

So you and Brandon brought up the idea of retrobate so and double predestination.

And this actually was where as I gave it in the beginning the very quick history.

If you want the longer history folks, unmind my Rap Report podcast.

Just search rap with two two P's Rap Report.

The Some time ago I did a, I put on there the sermon I did on a history of Calvinism.

So I walked through all of this.

But, but that is the issue that really I mentioned Bezo and Arminius, that's where they had their disagreement.

They had this view of Calvin had a view of predestination that God in his, his foreknowledge, he knew he who he would save.

And Beza, I think took a logical view that well, if he knew who he was going to save, then he knows who he isn't going to save.

And this became what's known as double predestination.

So one is predestined to eternal life, the other is damned to, you know, or retrobate for damnation.

And the reason that Jacob Arminius had such an issue with that is because it sounds like when you read Beza that well, we have no choice in the matter.

We can't do anything.

God, like God saves us against our will.

That is where the, the rub between the two started.

And I would say this, that had Beza and Arminius been able to sit down one on one early on and listen to one another, we not may not be having this discussion today.

Wouldn't have had as big of a rift.

I'll say it this way before we get on and I'm going to, I'll have Brandon do Irresistible Grace to find that one.

But you know, I, I had a, I, I was at a conference recently.

I was sharing a room with one of the deacons that used to be at Doug Wilson's church.

Now he's at one of the satellite churches from Doug Wilson's church, but very much in line with Doug Wilson, if you know who, who he is.

I'm Baptist.

Doug Wilson would be Presbyterian.

They've actually gone in and I think they're kind of creating their own denomination.

They have Way different views than I would, not just on infant baptism, but infants partaking in communion.

So, so there's a lot of differing views.

Doug Wilson actually did a debate that Roman Catholics are our brothers.

And I was like, so I got a chance to sit down with this deacon of his and talk to him and ask questions about that and what was really healthy.

And I still to this day wish that we put on a camera just so folks could see how we had the discussion, so that people could learn how to have discussions, because it was really just each one of us asking one another questions and trying to really understand each other's position, even if we didn't agree with it.

And I walked away.

I, I, so let me give the frame.

For instance, I walked in thinking, so Doug Wilson believes Catholics are Christians, like they're going to heaven.

And that's actually not the view.

The view is that, you know, that, that they hold to, is that they, that individuals can't claim someone is not a Christian.

The church can.

And so since there was no council that kicked the Catholics out of the church, they would still be part of the church.

They're just not believers.

And so, so, but we wouldn't, as we as individuals wouldn't know who the believers are.

The church would, would do that Differing view.

Do I agree with it?

No.

But do I walk away going, ah, so it's, it's not the heretical view that I thought it was, right?

It's, it's different.

And all of a sudden I say, okay, you know, it's, it's not, this is what we need to do is to, to hear one another.

I hope that's coming across in, in this discussion tonight.

And so there, I mean, there's things, things, you know, there's things we need to do with, with doing that.

So, Brandon, I'm going to ask you, let's move on to the, the fourth point.

Two more to go.

It is referred to as irresistible grace.

Now, you know, I know that you're Reformed Arminian, but if you could, you know, give both sides, what would you view the issue is between irresistible grace, between irresistible and resistible grace.

That's really the, the differences there.

How would you see that definition?

And, and then what would your view be?

Yeah, so if I had to try to define irresistible grace in the best way I could, I would say that it is irresistible grace is sublific grace that God through the Holy Spirit provides to the elect, that ultimately leads the elect to faith in Christ, that ultimately leads to regeneration.

There is that the sinner cannot not resist that grace as one of the elect, that it's its end goal of regeneration will be completed.

I guess if I had to try to define it, even though I don't hold to it.

Well, give us, give us what you hold to and what you think the differences are between them.

Yeah.

So I think that ultimately grace is resistible.

I think that God works on like an influence response kind of model instead of a cause effect model.

And so I think that the grace of God bends our will.

That it.

I think in one.

I'm trying to remember where I had actually read about, might have.

I don't just matter now anyways, at some point in time I read about the concept of like an overcoming grace.

And so where I would kind of land on that is I think the grace of God bends our will, that it is an overcoming grace that will succeed in bringing one to faith unless it is ultimately resisted by the sinner.

Now how you kind of parse that out?

I'm not going to say that I have a direct or like a super specific way on.

Well this is how that happens between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.

But I do think ultimately, I think in scripture we see people resist the Holy Spirit, we see people resist God's will for their life.

And I think that applies even in his call to salvation.

Daniel, how about you?

You want to add anything to it?

So, okay, so irresistible grace, I would say would probably be the most attractive of the five points to anyone, regardless if they hold to them or not.

It's almost one of those things that whatever position you hold to, you want that to be true.

And it's, you know, irresistible grace means that the grace that God gives to the elect ultimately to bring them to faith will result in them having faith.

And so resistible grace would mean that like the grace that God gives is, you know, it's kind of like here's the, here's the gospel message, here's what you can get if you believe.

But it depends on your autonomous faith to believe so it can be resisted.

And I know that we can have verses, you know, in Acts chapter seven where Stephen talks about you stiff necked and uncircumcised.

You know people, you always resist the Holy Ghost as your fathers before.

So there are verses that talk about resisting the Holy Spirit in some way.

But so the one verse in favor of irresistible grace that I, I can see Second Corinthians 4, 6.

And I remember reading this and just contemplating it and what it's Telling us, it says, for God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

And I, as I read that and just contemplated, okay, Paul is referring to back in Genesis, you know, where God says, let there be light.

And there was light.

So he didn't say, let there be light.

And the not light said, I don't want to be.

He says, let there be light and there is light.

And Paul is saying, God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, dined in our hearts the knowledge of Christ.

And so it's like, whoa, this is the same power to regenerate and make me a new creature as it was for God's creation ex nihilo.

So I think that verse kind of succinctly captures the idea of irresistible grace.

Aaron, what about you?

And then after that, Eve, if you have anything you want to add, I.

Would say that I do believe in irresistible grace, but I don't believe that that necessarily contradicts the statement I made earlier about mankind kind having a free will.

Based off of the same argument that I made earlier, I believe that both of them work in perfect synchronicity.

Man is not a robot.

We aren't a marionette.

And yet I do believe that the Scriptures are clear that we cannot resist that, that that call.

The Bible is very clear that those whom he calls.

And I'm not going to get all of the.

I apologize.

I probably should just look the verse up.

Is you think?

Hit me out here if you guys.

Remember Romans 10 referencing Romans 10, I believe.

Yeah.

Predestined.

Yes.

I want to read that though, but I know I'm gonna botch it if I'm not careful.

So trying to find the verse, but anyone jump in if you know.

Yeah, There's a Romans 8 I'm looking.

For, because Romans 8, 39.

You know what it is?

It is.

Yeah, it is.

It is 29, isn't it?

Yeah, that's right.

That's right.

That makes sense.

Okay, I was wrong.

It's in my Armenian Bible.

It is.

It is.

Yeah.

Good for you.

Because it says here that those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his son, that he would be called the firstborn among many brothers.

And those whom he predestined, he also called.

To those whom he called, he also justified.

Those whom he justified, he also glorified.

So we see that everything from the Foreknowing to the predestinating, to calling, even the future state, that is glorification is said and done.

It's in the books.

You can't fight it.

If he foreknows he predestines you, you are going to be justified, you are going to be glorified.

And yet that beautiful paradoxical reality that we do, we're not robots and we do have free will, I believe is exhibited in part in here.

What we're seeing there about the irresistible.

Grace, and I guess I would just say that I think that what this is, is where we struggle with resistible versus irresistible grace is the difference between the mind of God and the mind of man.

The passage that you refer here in Romans 8 is, is the mind of God right?

He knows who he will predestined, who he fornew, who he will call.

Right?

And so because I don't believe that this is a chronological issue, I, I don't see it as you're regenerated and then after regeneration, even for a millisecond, you then have belief or vice versa.

You believe and then you're regenerated.

It's the irresistible.

My.

My view of this is it.

It is irresistible because we are believing, which is granted to us as God is regenerating us.

He's not doing it against our will, but through our will.

And so I mentioned this doctrine of superintending earlier.

Maybe now would be a good time for me to define it.

When we look at Scripture, if I was to ask you, who wrote Romans?

Many of you probably will say paul.

To which I will ask again, who wrote Romans?

And you'll realize what I'm asking and you'll say, oh, God.

Well, which one wrote it?

I mean, Paul actually didn't write it.

He said it and others wrote it down.

Right, but the words are Paul's words.

Paul chose them.

His style is so different than John.

Right, so you have these different authors had different styles.

They choose their own words.

And yet every single word is exactly as God intended it to be, such that we call it God's Word.

And I forget which one of you guys said it when we talked about salvation, but God gets all the credit.

I think it was Brandon.

And so that's the idea here.

God gets all the credit for His Word.

That's the idea of superintending, that, that when we talk inspiration, the doctrine of superintending is that God works through the human authors such that the very words they chose are exactly as God intended it to be.

So that God gets.

Gets all the credit.

Now, if we can agree with that, I will then move to sanctification and ask you, do you do good works to which your initial response wants to be yes.

But now you're worried because did I just trick you on the last one?

So you hesitate.

And good that you hesitate because the answer would be, well, no, God does those good works through us, at least according to James.

So do we do the good works?

Well, yeah, we choose.

Choose to do good works, but only because God did that through us.

So again, that doctrine is superintending.

We chose to do good works as believers only because God worked through us so that the things we chose are exactly as God intended it to be.

I apply that to the doctrine of regeneration.

And that's how I explain irresistible grace and, and the different.

The how to resolve the human responsibility or the God's sovereignty.

Human responsibility.

God worked through us.

So the very choices that we made were exactly as God intended them to be, such that God gets 100% of the credit and we can't take any.

So did we choose God?

Yes.

Did God choose us?

Yes.

Does that.

Is that a contradiction?

Well, as Aaron said, no.

Right.

It's paradoxical, but it's.

That's the difference between the mind of God and the mind of man.

And that we see here is God is working through us even in our choices.

And so it's irresistible in the sense that God is regenerating us at that moment that we are believing.

And that's why I would say it's irresistible.

The idea of resistible is that I think when people argue for resistible grace, I think what they're really arguing and I don't think enough Calvinists focus on this is a ministry of the Holy Spirit that comes, that precedes faith and regeneration, and that is the convicting work of the Holy Spirit.

The convicting work of the Holy Spirit can be resisted.

Regeneration is something that God does to us where he changes us and that can't be resisted.

But he doesn't do that based upon himself against our will, which is what many think irresistible grace is.

He's doing it with our will such that we are choosing.

I'll just open it up to the floor here to see any of you who agree.

Disagree with what I just said, have a differing view.

Want to tackle that?

Just open the floor.

Oh yeah, yeah, I agree a lot.

Agree a lot with what you said there.

Andrew and I mentioned the previous verse from Acts 7 about you resist the Holy Ghost because we know that the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness of judgment.

And the Holy Spirit does things in both a general and a specific sense.

The Holy Spirit convicts can convict people of their wrongs, but not go as far as to regenerate their heart.

And that's why they resist, because of conviction.

And then we also have Paul.

I think it's first Thessalonians 5.

Is it where he says quench not the spirit?

Like okay, even believers can quench the spirit.

At least Paul admonishes, admonishes us not to do that.

So we can presume that it means we can quench the Holy Spirit in some way.

So I think, yeah, we don't want to flatten out the work of the Holy Spirit as only just something that regenerates people's hearts and doesn't regenerates people's hearts.

It's more broad than that.

Thank you.

Any, anyone else?

If you've been quiet for a while.

So I just opened the floor to you if you want to add any, anything else, but you may not.

Nope, just listening.

Okay, well, if nothing else then Eve, I'll ask you if you wouldn't mind mind doing the last of the five points, which is the preservation of the saints and probably the one that out of all of the five, I think the, this fifth one is the one.

If someone says there are one point Calvinist, this is usually the point they agree to.

If they're a two point, it's usually preservation of the saints and total depravity.

If there are three point, it's usually unconditional election of four point irresistible grace.

And the last point, as I think it was Daniel who mentioned is limited atonement.

So Eve will give you the easiest one here with preservation of the saints if you could maybe help us understand what that is and your view of it.

Well, it's what it sounds like.

It's.

He preserves his church, he down through time.

He hasn't ever let the Christian faith falter or disappear because his work is constant until eternity through eternity.

Really.

Yeah.

And so at the heart of this issue is can we lose our salvation?

Right.

And that's absolutely not.

Yeah.

And, and that's that.

So this one.

So let me go through with, you know, I'll start with Brandon and then Daniel and, and Aaron and, and so do you hold to the preservation of the saints?

Do you believe that we can lose our salvation or once we're regenerated, are we secured?

So Brandon, your thoughts?

Yeah.

So this is probably the one that I'm, I Don't know, the least strict about, I guess, or whatever.

Basically where I kind of land on that.

I don't think we can just lose our salvation in that.

Like, I wake up one day and I've.

I've sinned too many times and now, you know, Christ's sacrifice doesn't apply to me anymore or things in nature.

I can go through a season of doubt and that means I floated in and out of being justified by his blood or anything like that.

Where I, where I do land, where I can't, where I'd say I probably can't hold just a super strong opinion is like the Hebrew warning passages.

And then I think it's First Peter talks about denying the master that bought them.

I just haven't come to a robust understanding of that, of those not being genuine, I guess warnings or that apostle apostasy is.

Somebody was never actually a believer.

To me, there's a lot of scripture that I.

That just seems like people are actually falling away from the faith.

They're making shipwreck of their faith, things of that nature.

And so this is one that I don't have a.

Where I just stand on.

This is where I'm going to plant my flag, per se.

I'm definitely still learning about it and exploring it.

But with that said, I'm not in any fear of like losing my salvation or wondering if, oh, am I going to mess this up or mess up too bad.

I rest fully in the work of Christ and his blood covers my sins.

And yeah, by faith I am saved.

And so I don't know if that's helpful or not.

I know for some it kind of becomes this.

They become overly anxious and worried about am I going to lose my salvation?

Am I going to mess it up?

And so I definitely don't fall into that category at all.

I'm fully secure in my salvation in Christ.

But there are some warning passages, like I said in Hebrews and First Peter, that I just struggle to square those, I guess, with a perseverance of the saints.

Daniel, how about you?

Yeah, so I know this point has been called preservation of the saints.

It's also historically called perseverance of the saints.

And I know that that can have a lot of nuance.

Especially there's probably a huge spectrum with how people define that because some people, even people that call themselves Calvinists, can have a legalistic understanding of that, that you don't know if you're persevering, you know, as a saint unless you do all these good deeds and, and you have to keep worrying and examining yourself and like, okay, there's a place for examine yourself to see if you're in the faith.

But it should not be out of a fear that you can lose it because, you know, on.

It's also preservation of the saints, though the way I look at it, that is primarily the endurance of faith and how faith is tested.

Not necessarily that I have to worry about what good works I'm doing and how many good works.

And one passage, like I know we mentioned Hebrews, Hebrews chapter 12, verses 6 through 8, is how I look at perseverance of the saints and the, and kind of the role it plays in understanding, justification and sanctification.

For whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

If you endure chastening, God dealeth with you as sons.

For what son is he whom the Father chasteneth not?

But if you be without chastisement whereof all are partakers, then are you illegitimate children and not sons?

So, like we look at preservation or perseverance of the saints, as I will never leave you nor forsake you, as, hey, I'm a son of God, he will lead me on the straight and narrow during for my sanctification.

And when I become, you know, at times wayward, he will chastise me and point me back in the right direction.

I will.

The Holy Spirit will convict me when I do wrong.

And you know, it's not about like, oh no, have I done enough?

Oh no, can I lose anything?

Anything?

It should give us great confidence how the perseverance and preservation of the saints works, that God has a purpose for us in this life and that he had.

We are adopted as children, we are legitimate children.

And therefore as a father, he, as a, the ultimate good Father, he will treat us as sons and not as those who are not sons, who don't get chastening to help us, us, you know, live a sanctified life.

Aaron, any thoughts you would like to add?

I'm glad that Daniel brought up the other terminology.

I think that I, I definitely have heard people talk about this to the degree where, like, more on the Armenian side, they're like, no, the saints are.

Are.

Oh, I just lost my.

The word I was looking for.

So there's the, there's the preservation of the sense and the perseverance.

That's right.

So on the Armenian side, I've heard it argued that we're persevering.

Right.

So it's still kind of focusing a little more on what we're doing.

Whereas the Calvinistic side tends to talk about the preservation where God is doing the one who's preserving us.

I think that both of those terms are legitimate.

I think they're both biblical.

They both work.

But I think that you start to into trouble if you start to claim one of those because you believe it's more accurate.

Again, going back to the initial question that was brought up, what are the differences between these two positions?

Who's saving who?

I'm making the choice.

God sees it and saves me or God saving me.

And I think when people talk, it's wise for us to understand that they may be using those terms and they could be a little bit loaded, potentially with more meaning than we realize.

And that's why it's good to ask questions, to ask what people mean when I say preservation of the saints or perseverance of the saints.

Yeah.

And I would say we can't.

We.

I don't think we can lose our salvation now.

Brandon brought up a good point.

There are passages in Hebrews, specifically Hebrews 6, Hebrews 10.

I'll encourage you if you want to dig deeper on this, just as a resource.

If you go to strivingforeternity.org just do a search on Hebrews 6, you'll find my article that I wrote that, you know, explains this in much more detail than I have time to do here.

But.

But what I would say is that what those passages are referring to, and I don't have time to flesh it out here, but what I think those are dealing with is what much of the New Testament deals with.

And that's the point of hypocrisy.

So it's not someone who is genuinely regenerated and believing and then they walk away.

But I think it's people who are in the church pretending to be believers.

They think they're believers, they're doing things with the church and yet they don't believe and then walk away.

And I think that is what we're actually seeing there is the idea that you have people who are false converts or hypocrites, because that's what most of the parables we mentioned earlier, the parables of soils.

The purpose of the parable of the soils is actually not the first soil, the rocky soil, and it's not the last soil, the good soil.

It's actually a condemnation on the Jewish religious leaders that are one of the other two soils, the false convert soil, the ones that think they believe but don't.

And it doesn't mean they believed and lost it.

It means they, they're partaking with the church, they're thinking they're believers, they're thinking they're going to heaven.

Heaven.

And they're not, they've deceived themselves.

And I think that is what those passages are referring to that, that Brandon mentioned.

And so we'll see what he, if he, what he thinks of that.

The other thing that I would say is that when I so in my ignorance I remember being in a Bible study in college and for folks remember when I went to college I, I came out of Judaism, I studied the Bible on my own for two years.

I didn't understand theology and so I was really kind of just ignorant about things.

And as in a Bible study where this was bring disgust whether you can lose your salvation.

And the person who was teaching, a very godly man who.

I'll put this in your head so maybe you might want to think to do this.

A couple who.

The wife loved to cook, he loved to teach the Bible and they knew that college students loved a home cooked meal.

And so every other Friday night they would have college students come into their home.

The wife would cook, the husband would teach.

And so it, it really was great.

It helped me a lot.

But I remember him talking, we're going through and he's talking about, got to a passage where he mentions about some people believing that you can lose your salvation.

And it turned out to be someone there that believed you could.

And it was the first time I heard anything like this.

So I was completely ignorant and I was thinking about what salvation is.

And as we discussed it, right?

If, if God is the one saving us, if he's the one regenerating us, how, how do we lose that?

Because if God is the source of it, how could we be the source of getting away from that, right?

Is God, are we greater than God that we could do that?

And so that was the, the, the thing I struggled with and I, and I just said, well I asked that like oh, if we're, if God saved us, how can we get away from it?

Like how could we lose that?

Because God says he, he can hold us, right?

And so that was my, my ignorance, my kind of question.

And, and it really kind of helped me later in life to realize that's that's really what it is, what is salvation?

And I think if God saves us, we, we can't, we can't undo that.

You know Aaron, you mentioned Romans 8.

We are looking at 29 and 30, but if we just Continue on in that.

This is what it says in there.

What shall we say to these things?

The things actually that Aaron had referred to as far as the predestination and all that If God is for us, who is against us, he who did not spare his own Son, but delivered him over for all of us, how will he not also freely give us all things?

Who can bring a charge against God's elect?

God is the one who justifies, who is the one who condemns.

Jesus Christ is he who died.

Yes, rather, who is raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Us who could separate us from the love of Christ Will tribulation or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or sword, just as is written for your sake, we are being put to death.

All day long we are considered as sheep to the slaughter.

But in all things we are overwhelmingly overwhelming.

Conquer, overwhelmingly conquer through him who loved us.

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

No, I actually think that I don't need to expound on that.

I think it's kind of clear just in the reading that he's making it clear there is nothing that can separate us once Christ saved us.

Amen.

So any, Any other thoughts on that now?

Brandon?

You're one that kind of disagreed a little, so I'll open it up first with you to see if you disagree with any of it or have any different view.

Yeah, no, so I guess first I would say so I, I don't think that.

I don't know if this.

Yeah.

So I don't think that my perseverance is in any way held together by my, my own will or my own strength or my ability to hold on to God in those things.

I think that prior to faith, all of you know my, my will is completely broken, maimed, distorted.

And it's only by grace that I ever even come to faith.

And even post faith, when our will is freed and we're indwelt by the Holy Spirit, even from then on, any good work that I perform is by grace alone, by God's grace in my life and his power, power over me.

And so that, and tied with what you were just reading there in Romans 8, I definitely lean and that's towards that side of like, I'm not going to lose my faith because you know, there's lots of verses that speak of who can remove us from God's hand.

And so that's why I would say I don't have any fear or anxiousness about am I going to, am I going to mess this up?

Because it's not in my power to hold myself in my salvation.

It's all by grace and all by God's power.

And there's lots of scripture that clearly tells us that once we are saved, there is no.

Yeah, there is not really a falling away early.

Least I have no fear of falling away.

Um, but so just like you mentioned, Hebrews 6, Hebrews 10, there's just a handful of verses that I struggle to, I guess, square that with like Romans 8.

Now the, my inability to, to square those things is a problem with me, not with scripture.

Scripture's clear, I'm just misunderstanding it.

So I, I don't want to say there's like that scripture isn't clear on these things.

Things I'm, it's, it's a lack in my ability to understand them.

But just.

I'll go, I'll go and read the articles, you know, that you wrote, Andrew.

But even like looking at, you know, at Hebrews 6.

Let's see.

And this, let's start.

In verse three, it says, and this we will do if God permits.

For it's impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and who have tasted the heavenly gift and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and it tastes the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come and then have fallen away to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding them up to contempt.

Now that, that brings up a whole nother question of if somebody falls away, can they then be restored?

But that's a different.

Well, that's a different thing for a different time.

But just it's hard for me to read that and think that that's not talking about a believer, somebody that has faith in Christ.

Um, it seems it just.

Yeah, somebody's been enlightened that shared in the Holy Spirit taste the goodness of the word of God.

Uh, those things just, it's hard for me to square that.

That's not an actual believer.

Hey, Brandon.

But again.

Yeah, go ahead, go ahead.

It's interesting because I just finished in my small group study of a very over a year long study of Hebrews and I had had a pastor before that who would also preach through Hebrews and both of them had different positions on Hebrews 6 because everybody really struggles with that, putting that one into perspective.

But my small group leader, who's actually an elder in my church, he brought something up to me that it was kind of like a light bulb moment for me on that passage and that it's a conditional statement in which he's saying if this were possible then.

And when you read it in a conditional, like he's making it a.

If this were possible, this is what would happen, but this isn't.

He's kind of putting in a position of this isn't even possible and that's what.

And you just kind of have to read it in as like a, like a conditional statement.

And, and there, there's actually more than one of those passages in Hebrews where the author of Hebrews is saying, you know, if this were possible, this is what it would look like, but it's not possible.

And, and when he brought that up to me, it was a really eye opening view of that passage.

Just for what it's worth.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

I would say my view is that these are people when it says that they were tasted of it.

They're, they're attending church, they're in the, they're in the community of believers.

And that's, and that was my first pastor's position.

So I've heard both positions.

Yeah, I will say this if you want.

And, and Brandon, this is going to take way more time.

This is more like Eve said, it's, it's longer than a one year study.

But one of our podcasts at the Christian Podcast Community is the.

Well, basically it's the preaching ministry of Jim Osmond's church, Kootenay Community Church.

So if you do a search, if you go to ChristianPodcastCommunity.org go in their shows, you'll see Kootenay Community Church and if you go there, they actually, Kootenay actually has their.

So we host their.

Or we have their, their morning worship.

But if you go into all of their ones, they haven't broken up by book.

Jim Osmond did a several year study in Hebrews and I have been begging him to write a commentary on Hebrews because he's probably done the.

He has provided the best understanding I've ever heard through, through Hebrews.

Now granted, I personally think Jim Osmond is the best preacher alive and so I might be biased, but he did an outstanding job with it.

And so that might be another resource with some of those.

But, but that aside, back to Preservation of the saints.

Aaron, Daniel, either of you want have anything else you want to add or Brandon, if there's anything else you want to add?

I agree 100% with what Eve said about interpreting that passage about it being were this actually possible, then you can be for certain guaranteed that that person is not going to be able to regain the.

Their salvation.

And I think that flies in the face of a lot of the Arminian theology that believes that you can lose your salvation, but then you can be saved again.

I think that that passage really refutes that.

And I've never heard an argument that even logically makes sense from what that Scripture is saying right there.

But I also don't believe, as Eve said, that it truly is a situation where God is suggesting it can happen.

That's not the point being made.

The point being made is that if it could, then you'd be in a worse state than any other person on the planet.

Yeah, I probably can agree with a lot of what has been said there about this passage that it seems to be kind of a conditional hypothetical, even though we shouldn't just read it as, oh well, there's no such thing as a genuine warning passage to that even we who consider ourselves regenerate shouldn't take too hard.

And as a way of, well, this is how the Scriptures keeps me focused on Christ and not falling away.

But yeah, I would say it's.

It's kind of a conditional.

And it could also be referring to people who have tasted, as it says, like they didn't, you know, eat it all down.

They tasted it, they experienced, says made partakers of the Holy Ghost.

Ghost.

That could even be people like Simon the Magician or something like that.

You know, maybe at this time people somehow managed to experience in some way gifts of the Holy Spirit.

But we're not regenerate.

I mean, I'm not.

I'm just throwing ideas out there.

But if, if they should fall away as a conditional and then, yeah, to renew them again to repentance.

Like, why is it impossible to be able to restore someone?

Even though Paul talks about restore such, the one who's spiritual restore someone.

And you know, why can't someone be brought back to the faith?

You know, if this is really everything that can happen, how can someone crucify to themselves the Son of God again?

And then verse nine where he says, beloved, we are persuaded better than things of you and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.

So it's kind of like, okay, he can warn them to focus on, don't fall away, even though a true believer doesn't.

And it's, you know, it's a conditional, like say, like I think it was Jesus in the.

All the discourse saying that if it were possible to deceive even the elect without, without saying, well, then therefore the elect can be deceived finally and fall away.

But like, that's to know what it means to be an elect.

And a true believer means we don't do this.

So once again, here we come to a theology throwdown where we think we're going to be super controversial.

We're going to get lots of disagreement and what do we do?

We actually listen to one another and, and come to a lot of agreement.

Strange.

Could it be that have.

If we did this, like on social media, there might be.

Well, okay, let's not go overboard.

But folks, do you see what, what even in an area where we would think we'd have such disagreement?

Brandon referring to himself as a reformed Armenian and several of us that might call ourselves Calvinists.

I personally call myself Reportian.

My last name is Rapaport.

In other words, I don't put myself in any category because that way you have to ask me what I believe.

But I, I hope this is helpful for folks to see that even though we would think we might come in here with lots of disagreement, as we have done with so many of the other episodes that we have done here on Theology Throwdown, where we've taken issues that we think might be controversial, where we might think that there's going to be, you know, a lot of debate and discussion over things, and yet what do we do?

We tend to find a lot of agreement.

You know, we, we have now, this is episode 40, and we actually kind of find ourselves agreeing yet again, even where I actually anticipated a lot more disagreement, having listened to Brandon's early episodes, I thought, okay, this could be good.

I'm glad he came in.

And yet we kind of agree a lot with one another.

So, you know, so I, I guess if I'm a Reportian, just in the chat, you know, we have a Minikin, we got a Brewster in a Franklin and a Holian.

So I guess Reportian does not good.

Now a good thing that Matt Slick's not here because that would be a Slickian.

So, you know, Brandon's saying he's a Holy Brewsterian.

I think that sounds a little bit better to be a Brewsterian.

See, I wanted to claim.

I wanted to claim all night.

That's good.

I actually liked Daniels.

He came on and said that it Looks like a Minikian.

It's like.

I don't know.

It doesn't roll off the tongue very well.

I was like, no, no, no.

I want to be a Minikinian.

I think that's.

That's fantastic.

That sounds really cool.

Yeah.

Oh, Manikian.

That's another good one.

That's good.

Yeah, like I said.

But, you know, Matt Slick suffers because if Matt was here, he's a Slickite, you know, and that just, you know, Matt's one of the other podcasters on the Christian podcast community.

Matt Slick Live is a radio show that he does, and it is one of the podcasts, and he.

He's a personal friend.

And it's.

It's funny because this is no joke backstory, if you guys don't know this, but Matt actually had a Mormon that came into the radio show and didn't believe he thought Slick was a radio name.

Now, Matt Slicks.

It.

It.

It's.

It is his real name, but his grandfather who came over to the country.

I forget the.

His.

His name, but basically when he came to the country, they were just like, yeah, that's too hard.

We'll call you Slick.

And so.

So.

And.

And actually, the Slick name will die, unfortunately, with that generation, because Matt has three brother or two brothers.

They.

They only have girls.

So the name is.

Is going to die out soon with that.

With that.

With Matt's daughter's generation.

So.

But it's really kind of funny because this guy comes in thinking it's a radio name and going, yeah, like.

Like pretend like the guy's giving a fake name, like, as if Matt's not using a real name.

Matt actually pulled out his ID and showed the guy that's his real name, and the guy was like, oh, wow.

So, yeah, be stuck with a name like Slick.

I mean, are you saying Reverend Slick, no less.

You're saying that the.

The Slick Slick last name is not going to persevere?

It's not going to be preserved?

Is that what we're saying?

No, as much as.

As.

As Matt Slick is a Calvinist, a horrible hardcore Calvinist, has a whole website dedicated to Calvinism.

His.

His last name won't persevere.

Poor Slickianites.

They just.

They're gonna die out soon with his daughters.

So.

But, you know, folks, I hope this is helpful for you.

I hope that you get to see as.

As we close up, you know, I hope that you get to see that.

You know, we end up saying we're going to have lots of disagreement, and we end up agreeing a lot.

So I hope that this has been helpful for you.

I hope that you got something out of it.

I hope you've learned a lot and you learned how to disagree with one another.

This is a ministry of striving for.

Eternity, because one of the things we want to do here is encourage you not just to understand theology, but to know how to discuss it, to disagree with one another, how to learn more about what others believe.

We hope this has been helpful for you, and we'll see you next month on the Theology Throwdown.

We're glad you are here.