Once a believer, always a believer?

Krisan Marotta: This is Wednesday in the Word of Women's Ministry at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Charlottesville, Virginia. Today is October 29th, 2008. We will study various passages of Scripture on the topic once a believer, always a believer, and our speaker is Krisan Marotta. Well, today we're going to go dig in the tulip garden again. We're going to finish our discussion that we began a few weeks ago on reformed theology. And we're going to do the last three petals of TULIP, which is the acronym. But we're going to focus on the question once a believer, always a believer. So let me review a little bit. I'm going to go back to my hypothetical struggle with anger. And the very hypothetical, except when I haven't had much sleep. So the situation is, say, I resolved to curb my temper, I'm determined, I read all the books, I pray, I memorize verses, and I'm convicted that this is something about myself I need to change. And I still continue to fail. Maybe not as much, but I still fail occasionally. And finally, my struggle becomes so painful that I feel like I'm ready to give up. Can I do it? I mean, that that's the question we're going to talk about today. Having genuinely received faith, can I turn and walk away from it at that point? So let's say, for the sake of argument, we all assume that you know it's thanks to the grace of God and the blood of Jesus Christ, my sins are forgiven, and that process has begun of freeing me from my sinfulness. So the question we're going to explore today is can I do something that will fill in the blank? Whatever. Can I do something that will thwart that purpose of God in my life? Or can I not do something? So can I fail to do something, or can I do something that would bring that process to a halt? That's the issue. And let me just remind you, my goal today is not necessarily to convert you to reform theology, although I will tell you that's my position, that's what I think is the best picture of what Scripture teaches. But instead, what I want you to know is know what you believe and why. So whichever side of the debate or the line you land on, know which one that is. And then understand the other side. So if you're absolutely convinced of one way, try to figure out why would someone else believe the other, because there are lots of sincere and thoughtful and faithful Christians on both sides of the line. All right. Sound familiar? Also, oh yes, I should say no one's going to kick you out of Wednesday in the Word if you say, you know, you don't believe all that. And we may continue debating and trying to persuade you, but you this is not a littman's test, you know, for you to stay or anything like that. Realize that doctrine does not save us, which is a good thing because none of us have perfect doctrine. So I certainly don't. We're all still learning. Um if we had to pass a theology quiz to get in the kingdom of heaven, it would be a pretty empty spot. So, all right, so let's review what we've done so far and then where we're going to head off today. What we're going to talk about is what's known as the five points of Calvinism. It's summarized by this acronym TULIP, and which is total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. And the last time we talked about the first two, total depravity and unconditional election, we're going to hit the next three today. So just to review, total depravity is the idea that sin affects every single part of me, that I am corrupt through and through. So however you think of yourself, whether it's mind, soul, and spirit, or here I've got body, soul, heart, spirit, or if you've got personality or will or whatever, however you want to think of the human being, that all of us, every corner is corrupted by sin. So there's no neutral ground. There's no corner of me that is free from sin. And that's the point of total depravity. Unconditional election is the idea that God chose me, not based on any condition in me. So the unconditional part is there was nothing in me that God saw and required him to save me. So he's not, it's a result of his mercy and his grace. It's not a result of me earning it, of me having something, mustering up faith or doing it on my own or anything. There's nothing about me that requires God to save me. And you'll recall that this was debated by Augustine and Pelagius. They started about the fourth century A.D. And Pelagius argued that we are capable of obedience. In other words, he said, look, if God requires us to be holy, then we must be able to achieve it. Because how could God ask us to be holy and it's something that's impossible for us to do? So he argued that grace facilitates our quest for holiness, but is not necessary. In other words, we must be capable of getting there on our own. Now he also argued, in fact, no one did, but at least we're capable of it. But the crucial distinction with him is grace is not necessary. Augustine, on the other hand, argued, no, we are incapable of obedience. He believed in total depravity, that that's what the Bible taught. So he said, grace not only facilitates our quest for holiness, it is absolutely necessary because we are fallen, because sin affects every part of us, and left to ourselves, we will not choose righteousness or we will not choose the things of God. Does it sound familiar? Some of you? Okay. This controversy ended with Pelagius being condemned as a heretic. Um, actually, the first time, and then it rose again, and he was condemned again a second time a couple hundred years later. But that didn't settle the issue. Having condemned Pelagius as a heretic and as wrong, there arose a new challenge to Augustine's views, and that's the one we're gonna hit today. And it really revolves around this question: once a believer, always a believer. So can I do something or not do something, or can I get in the way of God's grace such that I could I am no longer saved? All right, so how are we gonna answer that? For m the more reading I did on this, the more it became clear to me that whether you answered yes or no to that question depends on how you think you came to safe in the first place, came to faith in the first place. And that there are different issues there. So that's what we're gonna spend most of our time on, because theologians who thought that I would cooperate with that initial step toward salvation also believe I can lose it, I can stop cooperating. Theologians who say, no, I don't cooperate, it's a gift of God, God saves me, said I can't lose it. So that's the issue we're gonna have to explore. How do we get there in the first place? All right? Follow me so far? I know it's early in the morning. All right, and one more disclaimer. Before let me just put it into perspective. Both most people frame this debate between this is between Reform theology and Arminian theology. They would say this is more of a debate between brothers. So Pelagianism crossed a line that falls into heresy, and that is that grace is not necessary, that we can save ourselves, and that is too far over the line. So the people that debate in this camp say, we're on the same side of the line. This isn't like a family debate. We're intermural debate, if you will. The issues are serious and they do make a difference, but it's not over the line. Does that make sense? So that's just to encourage you, if you know, say, I really think I'm Armenian, you're in the family. Most people would say, yeah, we're we're on the right side of the line here. Whereas Palladianism, because he said you grace isn't necessary, was that was a step you is too far over the line. Okay. And I expect probably most of you in here are Armenian. Most of us are that way by, I think, by nature, and we have to come to reform theology through Bible study more often than not. Um so even though, and this denomination of this church is uh based on reform theology. So I expect I might be the minority in the room by believing it, but it is the orthodox position of this church. So okay, so let's look at the new debate that came up. It was raised by uh James Arminius, which is why it's called Arminian theology, and he argued these are my these are my little summary statements. I should warn you, these, you know, we're capable of obedience, we're incapable. Well, his, because this helps me remember who thought what. So he argued we are capable of cooperating. So unlike Pelagius, he thought, yes, grace is absolutely necessary for salvation, but it does not ensure your salvation. So you must have it if you're going to get there at all. But because you have it doesn't mean you're actually going to be saved in the end. Alright? So when God elects you, he chooses you to receive forgiveness, but that election alone doesn't guarantee your salvation, you must also have faith. Alright? So let me give you an analogy to kind of explain where this um where this falls. And I got this from Mike Sherrett. Some of you may remember him, been here a while. He was one of the original pastors of our church. The analogy he used to use to describe this is say you're drowning in the ocean. Arminian theology would say, God throws you a life preserver. That's grace. So he's throwing you the means by which you can be saved. But it's up to you whether you reach out and grab it. So you have to cooperate. That is, you have to respond. You have to reach out and grab the life preserver. And God's done his part. He's provided Jesus Christ and the cross and the resurrection. He's now throwing you the life preserver, but you have to reach out and grab it. And that's essentially what the Arminian view would say. Reformed theology would say, you're already dead. Okay? You can't reach out and grab the life preserver because you're not drowning, you're drowned. You're dead. Sin affects every part of your being. You are fish food, you know, on the floor of the ocean. So throwing you a life preserver is not going to help because you're dead in your sins, you are unable to grab it. But what God does is, by grace, is make you alive again, and then you can be saved. So that's it in a nutshell. There's a sense in which I could stop right there, but of course, having a microphone and a PowerPoint presentation, I've got at least another 30 minutes. So okay, so how does this fit into tulip? And our this is the point we're going to talk about is limited atonement. And of all the five points, this is probably the one that's most debated. It's probably the most controversial and where you will find the most disagreement. So, first let me explain what it means. The limited part refers to the fact that only the elect are saved. In other words, everyone who ever lived is not going to be in heaven or is not saved. It's only the elect. So the limited refers to this works for a certain number of people, and those are the elect. The atonement, of course, atonement is making reparations for something or making reparations for a wrong or an offense, and that's what Christ did for us. It satisfied justice. So both reformed theology and Armenian theology would agree at this point. They would say the value of Christ's sacrifice is unlimited. In other words, it was sufficient to cover the sins of the entire human race. And if, for some reason, everybody came to faith and had faith and was saved, there wouldn't have to be another sacrifice. So this paid the penalty, this was enough to pay the penalty for everyone. However, it only is effective for those who are elect. So at this point, both Armenian theology and Reformed theology would agree. And the language you'll often see is Christ's death is sufficient for all, but efficient only for some. So the value of his sacrifice is unlimited. It is worth, it is beyond measuring. It is enough to cover the sins of everyone who's ever lived. However, God only accepts it as payment for the elect. So it is sufficient for all, efficient only for some. So this is where we agree. Both sides would say, yes, that's true. So where do we disagree? The disagreement comes on what determines whether or not I'm saved. So both sides would agree, yes, only the elect are saved, and yes, Christ's death is sufficient to cover everyone's sin. The question is, how do I get into the elect? What makes the difference between the elect and the unelect, the saved and the unsaved? The Armenians say the difference is whether or not I have faith. So if I have faith, I will reach out and grab that life preserver and I will be saved. If I don't have faith, I'm not going to grab it and I'm going to drown. So this is, under this view, it is possible that Christ's death saved no one. Because it was sufficient to satisfy the demands of justice, but it doesn't guarantee that anyone will actually have faith and reach out and accept it. Now, they would argue, we know from from looking at history that people did. So the Arminian side would say that's kind of a you know a hypothetical, but the the Calvinists would say, wait, it makes a huge difference. Because they would say that Christ's death did not guarantee salvation for anyone, but it made it possible for everyone. So in Arminian theology, salvation is possible but not guaranteed. No one's guaranteed salvation until they respond in faith, and they would say faith precedes regeneration. So if regeneration is the act of me moving from unbelief to belief, or moving from unsaved to saved, they would say I have to have faith first. I reach out and grab the life preserver, and then I am regenerated, or God saves me. J.I. Packer was summarizing the Arminian view as it was debated in the Council of Dord in 1618, and this is how he summarized it. He says, Christ's death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone. There is no such gift. What it did was rather create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe. And this synon went on to condemn the Arminian view as wrong. So this is where reformers and Armenians would disagree. So they would look at this and they say, what determines whether or not I'm saved? The reform view would say God's mercy and God's mercy alone. Going back to what we talked about last week of the unconditional election. So they would say, if I have to reach out and grab the life preserver, that's a work. That means I have done something to secure my salvation, and that makes salvation something I've done or not done. It depends on me, and that's not what grace is all about. Grace is God in his mercy gave me faith itself, made me alive again, gave me the gift of faith, so that I want to choose him, and then I do. So in their in the Reformed view, salvation is guaranteed for the elect because it's a gift of God. God has given me faith. So God first makes me spiritually alive, then he gives me faith. So they would argue regeneration precedes faith. First, God regenerates me, he makes me alive again, he gives me faith, and then I am saved. Okay, so how do we know? These are the two views. We have to go to scripture to figure out what which one is right, who's right. And the central question then we have to answer is by the cross, did God intend to make redemption possible or certain? Because that's the crucial difference. So that's what, and I'm going to give you some scriptures. Um just tell me what you think they say. Well, you don't have to tell me now. But this is John 6, 35. Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. And then the crucial verses are in red here All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. So it sounds like we have to have faith, or Jesus has to secure it for us. For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me but raise it up on the last day. Going on in John 17, he says, uh, this is uh near the end of Jesus' life when on earth, when Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son, that your the son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And again, in this same passage, this is John 17, starting in verse 6. I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of this world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. And he goes on from there. Again in John 17, 19, I am praying for them, I am not praying for the world, but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. And on down in that passage, I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost. And just to show you it's in Peter, this is a passage we're going to hit pretty soon here. This is Peter, 1 Peter 2, 21. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example to follow in his footsteps or in his steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth. And while being reviled, he did not revile in return, and while suffering, he uttered no threats, but kept entrusting himself to him who judges righteously. And then this is the verse that caught my eye. And he himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, for by his wounds you were healed. And one more, Revelation 5.9, this is at the new heavens and the new earth, the end of history as we know it. Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. So the question is does that sound like God's trying to make salvation possible or certain? Guaranteed. And there are a lot more. These are just the ones I picked out. Now the argument that comes up at this point, the Armenian, some people would say, okay, wait, you've got the analogy wrong. Say the analogy is not that God throws me the life preserver and I have to reach it out and take it. Maybe the analogy is God puts the life preserver over my head, but I can take it off again. So maybe I don't cooperate initially, but after that point, I have I can take it on or take it off. That brings us to the next point of tulip, which is irresistible grace. So let me just define this, what we're talking about here. And I'm gonna give you lots of big words. These are gonna be great. So you can go home, like at dinner tonight, and and say to your husband, so what do you think of monergistic regeneration? Just where do you stand on that? You know, yeah, it'll be great. Just try it. Or you know, throw it out with your kids, they'll love it. Okay, so the terms we're gonna have to define to get to the heart of this issue. The first one is monergism, and that is something that operates by itself, so it works alone. So it's the Latin word mono is uh alone and ergo is the word for word. So monergism is the idea that something works all by itself, it operates alone. Synergism is the cooperation of two or more things working together. So just try coming up with a visual for monergism and synergism. I hope you appreciate this. I'm like, how am I going to talk about this? So the debate is when it comes to regeneration, so when it comes to the point of I'm not saved and now I am saved, or I'm in a state of unbelief and now I'm in a state of belief, that's what I mean by regeneration. Does the Holy Spirit work with or without our cooperation? So is it a monergistic regeneration or is it synergistic regeneration? And remember, we are talking about the initial step. So the point of unbelief to the point of belief. We're not talking about my life as a believer for the next 20 years. We're talking about how do I go from unbelief to belief. So Augustine is going to say it's monergistic, God does it for us. Is going to say it's synergistic. We have to cooperate. But remember, Augustine would argue this for the initial step. After we're saved, yes, we respond to him. Yes, there's some striving and seeking righteousness and hungering and thirsting. So it's not monergism from start to finish, but it is at the very initial step. So you may have heard the phrase, I choose God because God chose me. This is the theology they're trying to get at. That God chose me, that's monergism, and now because he's made me the kind of person who has faith, I freely choose him. Okay, let's look at um. Oh, I should go back, let me go back one more. The language the Arminians would use at this point would they say use, if you read through their stuff, they talk about I'm crippled by sin, but I'm not wounded, I'm not dead in my sins. So they say there's still a certain freedom that I'm crippled by sin, but I'm still able to turn to God. So we're sick, but we're not dead. We're wounded, but we're not mortally wounded, is kind of the language you'll hear. So grace helps our crippled nature turn to God, but we have to cooperate with it. We have to help add our faith to the equation to be saved. So that's a crucial distinction. Okay. So again, the reformers use the analogy of Lazarus coming from the tomb to explain their position. And I thought it was one of the clearest ways to explain it. So I'm just gonna uh go through that for you. This is this is John 11, 38. This hopefully is a familiar passage to you. So Jesus again, being deeply moved within, came to the tomb. Now it was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. And Jesus said, Remove the stone. Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to him, Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead for four days. And Jesus said to her, Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God? So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised his eyes and said, Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I know that you always hear me, but because of the people standing around I said it so that they may believe that you sent me. When he had said these things, he cried out in a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. And Jesus said to him, Unbind him and let him go. Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary and saw what he had done believed in him, but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done. So the reformers use this as a picture of what happens, what happened to Lazarus physically is a picture of what happens to us spiritually. So they would argue Lazarus was dead. He'd been dead four days, he wasn't ill, he wasn't just, you know, in a coma, he was dead and buried. And the miracle of his resurrection was accomplished by no means. There was no medicine, there was no CPR, there were no machines, there was no laying on of hands, there was no touch, there was nothing. Jesus spoke and it happened. So the only power that brought this about was the word of Christ. He uttered a command. So it was a command, it wasn't a request, it wasn't an invitation, he's not wooing Lazarus, he's not begging, he commands, and Lazarus comes forth. So they say that's monergistic regeneration. God speaks, and we are now alive and respond. Now, you might say, but wait, Lazarus did respond. So he did cooperate in a sense, but the re for the reformal, the crucial point is he didn't respond while he was dead. He responded after he had been made alive again. So he didn't walk out of the tomb until Christ made him alive. So restoration or regeneration preceded any response on his part. Just if you'd like to know, that's where they think the tomb of Lazarus is today. I thought that was kind of cool, so I put him in. So from that point on, you could say there is some cooperation going on. Lazarus is responding, but for the reformer, the crucial point is he didn't respond while he was dead. He only responded after he'd been made alive. Okay? Follow me through there. So this is the crucial distinction between the two views. Before regeneration, so while we're in this state of unbelief, while we're still in bonding to sin, can we cooperate with grace in any way that affects our destiny? The Arminians would say yes. In fact, we must cooperate, and the reformer would say no. We don't recooperate because we're spiritually dead. It's only after God makes us alive. So just to summarize where we've been so far, that's what irresistible grace is. Irresistible grace means God gives me his grace and I cannot resist it. I'm dead. And the act of grace is making me alive again. And because I'm dead, I can't get in the way, I can't mess it up, I can't turn against it. It's irresistible at that point. It is monergistic in that it's a gift of God, it's something he does in his mercy for me, and regeneration precedes faith. So they would say even the sinner's sinfulness cannot thwart God's election. The Arminian view would say, no, grace is resistible. God offers me grace, but I have to add faith to the equation, and I can resist it or I can thwart that. So it's synergistic. We have to work on it together. Faith precedes regeneration. That is, I have to have it before I can be part of that elect or be saved. So while grace is necessary, the sinner may resist it. Alright, so that is where we've been so far. The problem I have with this, and this is what tips me into the reform camp, is if grace is necessary but not effectual, that is, God offers it to me but it's not guaranteed, what makes it work? So why does it work, say, for me and not for you, or work for you and not for me? Or why am I, why do I come to faith and my neighbor does not come to faith? How do we solve that question? Um and that's a crucial difference. Because if the answer is there's something in me that makes it work, then isn't it a work? Now it's something I've done. And if the answer is, oh, it's something on God's side that makes it work, how am I cooperating? You see the problems with that? I it's um it's it's one I just can't get over. If if I have to, and that raises the further question, if I have to cooperate to be saved in the first place, how do I know that I'm going to continue cooperating ten years from now? I mean, if it's something I have to do, I I don't know about you, but I don't trust myself to say I'll continue doing it. Luther ran into this same problem, and he responds, he summarized it this way. His language is a little long, but so if you get lost in all the language, this last sentence is the one that's probably the most important. He says, I frankly confess that for myself, even if if it could be, I should not want free will to be to, and by this, by free will here, he means that I have to cooperate. He's talking about me freely choosing God, uh, apart like as the synergistic view we've been talking about. Okay. So I should not want free will to be given to me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavor after salvation, not merely because in the face of so many dangers and adversities and assaults of the d of devils, I could not stand my ground or hold fast my free will, for one devil is stronger than all of men, and on these terms no man could be saved. But because, even were there no dangers, adversaries or adversities or devils, I should still be forced to labor with no guarantee of success and to beat my fists at the air. If I lived and worked to all eternity, my conscience would never reach comfortable certainty as to how much it must do to satisfy God. Whether I had whatever I had done, there would still be a nagging doubt as to whether it pleased God or whether he required something more. And that is, this is from the bondage of the will, that is the problem of reformed theology. Or of Armenian theology that they they kind of have to answer. Okay. How are we doing on time? Good. So this leads us to the last point then, the perseverance of the saints. So limited atonement is the idea that while Christ's death is sufficient to cover everyone's sins, only the elect are saved, it's limited to the elect. Irresistible grace is that God saves us in his mercy, and I can't thwart it. Even my sinful heart cannot make, cannot get in the way. And now we're down to perseverance of the saints. And this is the claim that once a believer, always a believer. So God having saved me, God having begun this work of election and giving me faith and saving me, he will finish it. And you'll notice that scripture often talks about our salvation in various tenses. There's a sense in which we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. Because there's a sense in which our salvation began before eternity when God chose us. It's being realized now in time as we live our lives, but it we're looking forward to heaven when it's fully realized. So the question we're looking at here is once a believer, always a believer. Are there people who are given genuine saving faith and then do not ultimately endure to the end? The Arminian would say, once a believer, always a believer, no, because salvation is a cooperative effort, and we can resist, and this is a possibility. I think a lot of them would argue it hasn't happened, but it is at least theoretically possible. The Reformed scholar would say once a believer, always a believer, yes, because salvation depends on God's grace, which cannot be resisted. So let's go back to my struggle with anger. And think about what where you stand on this line, how would you deal with this issue? So I resolve to curve my temper, I'm determined, I read all the books, I pray, I memorize verses, and I have the best intentions, but I fail. Or I fail, you know, maybe it's only occasionally, but I'm still failing. If I'm Armenian, I have a real problem. Because how do I know that failure isn't going to ultimately break me? How do I know I'm not going to walk away? I'd better start figuring out what I need to do to cooperate better. But if I'm a reformer, I have every reason to hope. Because it's true, I don't have a guarantee that I won't sin tomorrow, but I do have a guarantee that eventually I won't sin at all. But that's the hope I'm looking forward to in heaven. That God will eventually make me a new person. Don't you love this line? You want to say it again? There I am, cracked, rotten egg. But God will make me alive, something, a new creature. That's like an hour of work. I just want you to appreciate it. Coming up with these visuals is not always easy here. Dave, I showed it to my husband, and goes, okay, that is way too corny. I said, Well, it fits right in. It's corny. We're corny. Okay. All right. So reformed theology gives you every reason to have confidence because the basis of my hope is not how well I cooperate. The basis of my hope is how trustworthy God is. And He has shown us to be infinitely trustworthy. He's signed in blood, if you will, to secure my salvation. And having sent His Son to die for me, there's nothing He won't do now to make sure I get there. So I have every reason to hope, despite whether I fail in the next five minutes or not. My hope is not in vain. I know that ultimately sin will not beat me. And that's truly good news, if you think about it. So I don't know about you, but I found my heart is pretty deceitful. I know that if it's left to me, I'm going to break the promise. I'm going to break the covenant. Okay. Now, perseverance of the saints means ultimately we will be saved, but it doesn't mean we're going to be perfect now. So perseverance does not mean perfection. That's the point we want to clear up. So it is, it does not mean that the elect will never fail, but it means they will never fully or finally fall from grace. And if you think about it, genuine believers just open any page of the Bible and you'll see genuine believers experiencing great sin and tragedy. And this is David and Bathsheba or an artist's rendition of that, and then Peter at his denial. I mean, both of these were tragic. They had real consequences, they were hurtful, they was they were, but they had serious consequences for everyone involved, but they were not full and they were not final. Both David and Peter were restored to hope and repentance and grace. And that's the hope of the gospel, that even if I fall into grievous sin, say in my anger I commit murder, even that is not going to kick me out of the kingdom of God. But I can commit no sin that's so deep or so dark or so final that the blood of Jesus will not cover it. So even in my darkest night of the soul, I can see there's the light of the cross. God has guaranteed that He's loved me enough to get me there. Okay, that leaves one more question then. What about people who profess to believe and later reject the faith? And I bet everybody in this room knows somebody like that. For the Arminian, there are three possibilities, but for the reformer, there's only two. So for the Arminian, they would say, yes, there are genuine believers who have failed to cooperate with grace and have lost their faith, that that is a possibility. The reformer would say that is not a possibility. They would say instead, there are people who profess belief, but they never had saving faith. And the Arminian would say that's also a possibility as well. So these are the kind of people say that Jesus was talking about in the parable of the sower and the seed, where the seed initially springs up, but it has no roots and it doesn't last. Or here in Matthew 15, 7, Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees. He says, You hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you when he said, These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines, the commandments of men. And he's quoting Isaiah 29 there. So he's saying, There are people who honor me with their lips, but their heart is not there. They profess to have faith, but they in fact actually don't. 1 John also writes of this, this is 1 John 2, 19, they went out from us, but they were not of us. So he's talking about people who've left the faith. For if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. It's very simple language, but what he's saying is if they really had genuine saving faith, they would have stayed. But if they don't, they would leave us. And Paul writes about this, I think it's in Romans 5 saying, how do you know if you have saving faith or not? If you hit those trials and you stay, that's a mark that you have real faith. If you hit the trials, life gets hard, God doesn't maybe give you everything you want, and you turn away, then you know that it wasn't genuine faith. Okay, so what about people who have left the faith? Armenians would say maybe they really had faith, but they lost it. Reformers and Armenians would say maybe they just claimed to have faith, but they never had it, and then both would have the final possibility that they are true believers who've fallen into sin but they have not yet repented. So this would be David and Peter after their big famous sins, but before coming back into repentance. And they would say if they have genuine saving faith, God will not let that go on forever. Now, it doesn't mean it'll be resolved by Friday, but for in his way and his plan and to reveal his glory and to glorify his name, he will bring them back. Okay, and one of the passages that points to this is one of my favorites. There are quite a few, but I like this one. This is Philippians 1, starting in verse 3. I thank my God in all my remembrances of you, always in every prayer of mine for you, make for you all, making my prayer with joy, because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. And then verse 6, and I am sure of this, that he who begin a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. In other words, God will be the one that will complete this work. This is Paul writing, and he's stressing it's God's job, not our job. He will complete the work where his handiwork. So let me just wrap all this up with an analogy as an as a way to kind of get your hands around this. And this actually I stole from R.C. Sproull. He says, this is an easy way to think about the differences. Suppose you have a father and a child and they're walking down a dangerous path and they're holding hands. There are two ways in which you can hold hands. In one view, the child can grasp tightly to the father's hand, and if he lets go, he may fall. And this would be the Arminian view. In that view, the child's safety depends on how firmly the child clings to the father, because he can let go. The reformed view would say, no, the child's safety depends on how firmly the father holds on to the child's hand. In other words, we may stumble and fall, we may let go, but God will never let go of us. And that's that's a picture of our salvation. Do you think it depends on how tightly you hold on to God's hand or how tightly God is holding on to you? And both say our job is to hold on. That's obedience would require us to cling with all our might as and as far as we're able. But the reform view would say ultimately it depends on God and how firmly he's holding on to me. And we could even push the analogy a little farther and say, God may, as we loosen our grip, he may let us stumble and fall and scrape up our knees or fall flat on our face so that we learn something, but he will never ultimately let go of us. So our salvation depends not on how tightly we hold to God, but how tightly he's holding on to us. Okay, now let's make all this real. This is a lot of words that are giving you, you know, fun things to go talk about at the dinner table. But, and I know for some of you this was probably an exercise in frustration. You know, it just makes your brain hurt to think of all this. You know, why debate this? Jesus loves me, this I know it's enough. You know, that's okay. Um, if you're in that category, thank you for bearing with me. Um I find all this stuff energizing, and I know other people find it draining. I was talking to a lady who cleans houses for a living, and she goes, I feel so energized when I'm done cleaning. I'm like, is that even possible? I just I didn't get that gene. I it's not in my makeup, but this stuff I find energizing. I'm and she we were talking about this and she looked at me like, you do? Okay, so if you're in that category, thank you for bearing with me, and you can forget all the big vocabulary and all the theological terms, but just remember this. Because this, I think, where it all comes real. I mean, how many of you are just tired? You know, you feel like you're gonna crack under the pressure of daily life and your to-do list. And you know, for most of us, we live in a culture where we have an activity addiction. You know, we ha we always have to be busy, and if you're not busy, you're not really important. And if you better, if you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself. And somebody always needs you to do something. You know, there's something that needs cleaning, or something that needs fixing, or an errand that needs running, or someone needs changing, or feeding, or updating, or you've got to get through your email in basket, or there's always something that needs you to do something. And when do you get to stop and say, you know, I'm not really up to it. I if it's up to me to provide for myself, I just can't do it. I can't control all the circumstances of my life, and it's exhausting. And no matter how hard I try, no matter how many circles I run, it just things slip up or fall through the cracks, or this unexpected storm just swamps you. I that's my daily experience. I mean, think about how hard we work just to prove ourselves, to prove that we've got it all together, you know, and that that I can meet, you know, I can be the daughter my parents expected, or the the wife that my husband deserves, or, you know, the kind of mother that I know I really ought to be, or I have to meet all my bosses' expectations, prove to him I'm a valuable worker, or I have to be the best boss ever, or you know, get the grades in school that my parents know I'm capable of, you know, or just have to be there for all your friends whenever they need you. I mean, we're always trying to show everyone we've got it all together, that our life works, and that everything is okay, but it isn't. I mean, for most of us it isn't. I mean, when do you get to say, I need help? And wouldn't you rather depend on someone who's absolutely, completely, and totally dependable? Think about what that would mean. If you had someone to depend on that you could absolutely guaranteed count on it, someone you could rest in and trust that no matter what happens, it will turn out right in the end. You know, do wouldn't you just like to crawl in someone's arms who will love you no matter what and take all those promises and all this stuff that's overwhelming you and say, Yes, I can handle it, I will do it. You can trust me. You don't have to pretend, you don't have to put on a mask, you don't have to get me to love you, I will just do it. That's the promise of the gospel. That's what all this is about. If reformed theology is right, that's the promise we have. And if you think about it, how often the Bible uses, talks about our salvation in terms of rest. This is this is Psalm 46, 10. Cease striving and know that I am God. This is the place where you can lay those burdens down, where you can say, I'm not in control, I can't make it. I if this is left to me, I'm in trouble. Matthew is probably one of the most famous, but think about it with what we've talked about today, Matthew 11, 28. Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Rest. Think about that. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. My yoke is easy and my burden is light. That's what's so amazing about grace. Is that ultimately I can rest in the finished work of Christ. And I know that my success tomorrow, ultimately, you know, in the next five minutes, is not dependent on how well I strive, but it's dependent on the love of God. And He has shown how mightily He loves us by sending His Son to die for us. He's holding tightly to your hand and He will not let you go. Okay, let's pray.