Do I choose God or does God choose me?

Krisan Marotta: This is Wednesday in the Word, a women's ministry of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Charlottesville, Virginia. Today is October 1st, 2008. We'll be studying various passages on the topic, Do I choose God or Does God Choose Me? And our speaker is Krisan Marotta. What do you do when you see something about yourself and you don't like it and you want to change it? So maybe it's you know a quick temper or sarcastic tongue or you know a pattern of thoughtlessness or neglect or selfishness, and you see that about yourselves and you say, I know that's wrong, I want to change it, I'm going to change it, and you try and you fail. So say you resolve to be a better wife or a better friend or a better student or a better daughter, and you're just you're determined. You do everything you can think of, you memorize verses, you pray, and you get better for a little while, and then you know you slip up. So how do you handle that? Now, for some of you, you may be sus surprised that that describes people in our church. It describes everybody in our church. I most of us are probably too spiritual to admit it, but uh, especially if it's a particular sin that we're aware of and we grieve over, but it it does affect all of us. So the question is what do you do? You try, you resolve to try harder, you maybe you enlist the supportive friends, you um you ask people to hold you accountable, and eventually you slip and fall. So anger gets the best of you, or you know, that sarcastic remark just slips out, you can't hold it back, or whatever, you flirt with the married man at the Starbucks counter, or you know, degrade your boss or something behind her back, or whatever. So despite all your best efforts, you end up failing. Now what? Well, how you answer that question depends on your theology. And you may not realize it, but there's some very basic theological questions that will determine how you respond in that situation. And you may never have thought about them before, so today you're gonna get a chance. And we're bringing them up because they're raised by the opening verses of 1 Peter. So let me just review where we've been and notice as I read this what God's doing and what we're doing in this verse. This is you'll recognize this as what we've studied the last couple of weeks. Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed at the last time. So notice God is the agent of everything here. He's the one that causes us to be born again, he gives us a living hope, he gives us an inheritance, he protects that inheritance. Um we are uh in all of this, in Peter's summary of the gospel, we aren't doing anything, and God's doing everything for us. So that raises the issue of well, do I choose God or does God choose me? What exactly is my role in this? And we're gonna talk about that today. We're gonna talk about what are the really the basics of reform theology, which is why I had you read Craig Brown's chapter from his book. He's one of our elders here. It's a wonderful little book. I encourage you to read the rest of it. Um to answer this question, I'm gonna take you through what's commonly called the five points of Calvinism, only we're only gonna do two of them today. If you're a member of this church, this may be review for you, and that's good. If you're not a member, you may want to know what this church believes. And if you're considering joining, you really ought to know what you're getting yourself into. So my goal today is not to convert you. So you don't, I don't expect all of you to leave here and go, oh yes, now I'm a Calvinist, or now I believe all five points. Because we are gonna be talking about some really controversial issues which sincere Bible-believing Christians have been debating since about 300 AD. And I'm not gonna end the debate today, just so you know. Uh I'm not gonna be able to answer all your questions. I don't pretend to have all the answers, um, but I'm gonna try to get you into the debate so you at least understand it. Uh so my goal today, this is what I I've set for myself to try to do, and I hope I would encourage you to set it for yourself. Two things I'd like you to try to do today. And the first is know what you believe. So if you've never thought about these issues, think about them and figure out where do you fall, what persuades you and what doesn't. So know what you believe and why, no matter which side it is. And the other thing I would encourage you is to understand the other side. So whichever side of the debate you land on, try to understand the other person's argument. So if you get into your small groups and the woman across the table believes completely opposite from you, your goal is not to fix her, your goal is to understand and try to understand where she would be coming from and why. Um, I just want to say no one's gonna kick you out of Wednesday and the Word. If you, at the end of the day, you say, no, I don't just don't believe that reform stuff. That's what no one's gonna kick you out of Wednesday and the Word, no one's gonna kick you out of church. Um this is not, as you know, doctrine does not save us, which is a good thing because none of us would be saved. Only the blood of Jesus saves us. So none of us have perfect theology or have it right. So we should all be debating these things from the kind of the humble position of kindergartners, debating who reads the best. You know, the fact of the matter is none of us read that well. So we are all still infants in our understanding, and we know that one day God will grow us up into perfect understanding. So what I doubt what I hope from today is you leave knowing a little better what issues, uh, what persuades you, what doesn't, where you land and why, and that you understand whatever the other side is. And that was that's been real enlightening for me, because I'll just tell you, I land on the reform side, I'm uh a Calvinist, and that is the official orthodox position of our denomination, the PCA. So I can stand here and confidently teach it. However, I suspect that puts me in the minority in this room. I and probably in our church. I think a lot of people haven't thought it through or don't even know what the issues are. So I'm not gonna pretend I don't have a bias, I do, and I land on the reform side, but it's been very enlightening to me to try to un really argue the other side well, and hopefully I've done it. Alright, so here's what we're gonna talk about today. Reformed theology is often summarized by what's called the five points of Calvinism or TULIP because of it makes this acronism. We're not gonna do all five today, but they stand for total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. And we are gonna talk about the first two today. So we're gonna talk about start with total depravity. And finally, I should say we believe reform theology because we think it best describes what all of Scripture teaches. So scripture is the deciding factor. No one holds this theology over scripture. We hold scripture to be the highest thing, and that's what ought to persuade us. And if we come to scriptures that we don't understand, then we need to understand them better or change our theology. So we don't, so we're and all of this scripture is the trump card or the deciding factor. So we're gonna use these first two points to answer the question: do I choose God or does God choose me? So let's start with total depravity. We're just gonna jump right in. Okay, what does it mean? I'm gonna start with this because it's foundational, and I think how you understand this point determines whether or not you're gonna believe the other four. I mean, this really is kind of the pivotal point. If you agree that the Bible teaches total depravity, you almost have to logically follow the rest of Calvinism, I think. Obviously, there are four-point Calvinists and there are three-point Calvinists and people who disagree, but for me, this was the persuasive factor. Um I'm gonna spend most of the time on this. So, what do we mean when we talk about total depravity? It doesn't mean that mankind is as wicked as he possibly can be. So, in other words, if you think of someone who personifies evil, and for a lot of us that would be Adolf Hitler, which is why he's on the slide, and you can prove to me that Hitler loved his mother, or he was kind to his cat, or you know, that he had some redeeming factor or some um act of compassion or something, so that he wasn't wicked completely, that would not negate what we mean by total depravity. The idea is um, well, we're gonna get to that, but evil people or unredeemed people can perform outward acts of goodness or kindness or compassion. That's not what we mean when we talk about total depravity. Instead, the idea is radical corruption, and that's a term R. C. Sproul uses. I stole it from him. And the idea being that sin affects us through and through. So there is no part of me that is not corrupted by sin. So this is one way people often divide us as spirit, heart, soul, body, or you might see body, soul, and spirit, or you might see, you know, mind, personality, will, um, whatever, however you want to think about mankind. The idea of total depravity is if I look inside myself, every corner of me is is corrupt. There is no neutral part. So it's not like my body is sinful, my spirit is perfect, and my soul has to choose between the two, which was an early Greek idea that crept into Christianity. So it's not like you have this uh battle going on. Reformed theology would say the Bible teaches there is no divine spark, there's no um there's no piece of us, whether you want to call it your mind, your will, um, your heart, your soul. There's no piece of you that is not corrupted by sin. All of us is inside and out, through and through, is corrupted by sin and uh and death. And that's a crucial distinction because remember I started this question with what do you do when you sin repeatedly? Well, if I sin repeatedly and there's some part of me that is neutral or free from sin, then what's the answer to my dilemma? I have to find that peace, and I have to lean toward it or access it or appropriate it or whatever language you want to use. On the other hand, if every part of me is corrupted by sin, then what's the answer to my problem? It's gotta be something outside of me, right? It's gotta be a savior or someone outside of me. So, radical corruption doesn't mean we're as wicked as we possibly can be. It means we are completely affected by sin, every part of us. So, where does the Bible teach this? This is, there's actually quite a few verses. This is my favorite. This is Romans 3. And again, if you guys want to, you know, move in, or maybe I should come over here since so many people are on that side now. So this is Romans 3. I'm gonna start in verse 9. What then? Are we Jews better off? No, not at all, for we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin. As it is written, none is righteous, no, not one, no one understands, no one seeks for God, all have turned aside together, they have become worthless, no one does good, not even one. And then he goes on and he quotes various Psalms and prophets, and I put the references in there so you can see that he's um where he's quoting from. And this passage comes in the context of Paul arguing that no one can be saved by keeping the law. So if we are trying to get to heaven because we're keeping the law, he's arguing we can't get there from here because not one of us has what it takes to keep the law. All of us are sinful. Now you could say, okay, what about this teaches that all of us sin, but does it really mean that we are sinful through and through? You could argue, well, yeah, I agree, Paul teaches that we're all sinful, but maybe we can still be good at times. How do you know this teaches total depravity? So the argument against this is often, what about celebrities or people who are unredeemed and they do good things? So that's um Drew Barrymore helping out in Africa and Princess Diana and the So what do you do when you have people that are um you know rock stars or actors who make no claim to faith and they give large sums of money to charity or they volunteer on all these worthy causes? Doesn't that prove that there is still some part of us that is good and therefore we're wrong about total depravity? Well, the reformers called these these kinds of acts civil virtues. They said everyone can perform acts that outwardly conform to God's law. So on the outside, I might refrain from murdering, I might refrain from stealing, I might give generously to the poor, but my actions are not truly good if they're motivated by a desire to please myself. And that's a crucial distinction. God judges us not just by how we look on the outside, but by what motivates us on the inside. So any action that outwardly conforms to God's law but is motivated by a selfish heart is not truly good. So ultimately it matters whether we're acting because we love God or we're acting because we love ourselves or we love the praise of men or we like how it makes us feel or whatever. Jonathan Edwards called these types of acts enlightened self-interest. In other words, I'm doing what's good for me. It's not motivated by a desire to please God or desire to love God or honor Him. It's motivated by a desire to do what's best for me. And the essential question is, where's my heart? What's motivating me? So I may be, you know, a perfect example of middle class morality, married to one person, paying my taxes, not breaking any laws, but the question is, where's my heart? So I may refrain from stealing because I've learned that crime doesn't pay. Or I may obey the speed limit because I don't want to get another ticket, or you know, I may give generously to the poor because I like feeling altruistic. So I may not sin to my full potential because I just don't like the consequences of sin. So outwardly it may look like I'm performing, I'm complying with God's law, but the question is where's your heart? And if it lacks the essential ingredient of a heart that loves God, honors God, and fears God, it's not truly righteous. Okay. That brings us to the question of original sin. So if the idea that is that we are radically corrupt, that is corrupt through and through, every part of us corrupted by sin, the other thing we have to deal with is original sin. Now, virtually every Christian denomination has a doctrine of original sin. Where we differ is what it means and why, and how we got there. But every mainline denomination agrees there is something called original sin. The question is, what exactly do we mean by it? And the debate started really early. It started in the fourth century between Augustine and Pelagius. So I'm just going to introduce you to a little bit of history here. Pelagius believed that moral responsibility, by definition, carried moral ability. So in other words, he said it would be unjust for God to require his creatures to do something that they're not capable of doing. So if he requires us to be morally perfect, then we must be capable of being morally perfect. So I've summarized his views by saying we are capable of obedience. And I think that's him. So he argued grace facilitates our quest for holiness, but it's not necessary for us to reach it. So if I went to Palladius with my problem of repeatedly sinning, say with anger, and I said, look, I'm struggling with anger, and try as I might, I can't free myself of it, he would tell me, God has done everything for you he's going to do. And you are capable of righteousness. He has made you that way, and he's gone beyond the call of duty and given you grace to make it easier, but you should be able to get there, and your job is basically to figure out what you're doing wrong and stop. Try harder, in other words. So he said, just I may have I may be guilty of oversimplifying him. You know, they wrote like 15 books on these subjects, but but the way I understand it is if God requires us to be holy, then we must be capable of reaching it, was his basic argument. Augustine took the other side of the debate and he said, no, we are not capable of obedience. So we are incapable of obedience. So he argued that the Bible teaches total depravity. In other words, every part of me is corrupted by sin, and I am not capable on my own of getting out of that problem. So he argued grace not only facilitates our quest for holiness, but because of our fallen nature, it's necessary for us to achieve it. If God doesn't give us grace, we are not going to get there. So he would say, yes, God required holiness before the fall, he required holiness after the fall. The fall didn't change the requirement, the fall changed me, the fall changed us. So before the fall, we were capable of achieving holiness. After the fall, we are not. So if I went to Augustine with my problem with anger and I said, look, I'm struggling with anger, I can't stop, he would say, your job is to wait for God to change you, to throw yourself on his mercy and trust him that he will change you in his way in his time. Now, it doesn't mean you give up, but it means you know that ultimately God's going to have to free you from that sin. So as this debate continued, Palladius aimed his guns at original sin and started attacking that doctrine. And he said that original sin does not change our essential nature, and that's key from his point of view. So he said, we may sin, but we remain basically good. So he he argued that Adam's sin affected Adam and Adam alone, and following the fall, all of us are still capable of holiness. In fact, we all do sin, but we are capable of not sinning. So he said, um, I'm still basically good. Augustine said no. Before, and this is key, I think, to understanding him. Before the fall, we have the ability not to sin and the ability to sin. After the fall, we have the inability not to sin. It's a double negative, but it's important. So he would say the fall did change our essential nature. We lost something at the fall. Before the fall, we have the ability not to sin. After the fall, we have the inability not to sin. We are not capable of not sinning. Follow me through all that. So left to ourselves, apart from the grace of God, apart from the blood of Christ, we will not be able to get ourselves out of this problem with sin. So the fact that I may refrain from anger now or I may grieve over my anger when I sin is evidence that God is changing me. It's not evidence that I'm doing a good job somehow. So Augustine would argue God is the one who ultimately releases me from sin, and he will do it in his way in his time. Now, Pelagius was condemned as a heretic in 418. So you know, most people don't, I would expect most of you today probably don't would not agree with him. But there are different stripes. So we're going to talk the next time we do one of these sidebar talks, we're going to talk about semi-Pelagianism and kind of probably Armenianism and probably where more of you would fall in line. But Pelagius was condemned because he thought we could get to holiness without grace. And that's kind of the essential, the essential line he crossed. So let me just summarize where we are. To be in a state of original sin is to be in a state of total depravity. So it means I am completely corrupted by sin. There is no neutral part of me. There is no part of me that is free from the effects of sin. And I would argue, and this is me talking, not Augustine or Pelagius, but there are some scholars that I stole this from, but just so you know, this is I would argue that when the Bible uses the term in the flesh, this is what they mean. To be in this state of incapable of not sinning. Now there are times when it's used to mean physical versus spiritual, but when you're talking theologically and they're using this term metaphorically, especially in the Apostle Paul, I think this is what he's referring to. He's referring to being in a state apart from the grace of God. So everything I am without God at work in me is to be in the flesh. So it's a little Bible study tip when you're reading. Reading when you're studying, especially Paul, and you see that term, think this. I think that's usually what he means. Alright. Now, to be fair to Palladius, he was concerned about free will. That was, if you read through his writings, that's what ultimately motivated him. Because he said, How can God require us to be holy if we're not capable of achieving it? And how can you say we have free will if we cannot choose not to sin? So, as a reformed theologian, we have to answer that debate. How do we how do we get there? So, how can a just God command us to do something which we're not capable of doing? Alright? That's the essential dilemma for a reformed theologian. And I've already given you one answer, one piece of the answer. We're going to get to the next in a minute. The first piece is outwardly we can conform to God's law. So outwardly we can do acts of charity and kindness. The question is, what did we lose? And this is from the Westminster Confession of Faith. They would argue, following Augustine, that what we lost was the inability not to sin. And let me see, so I can read from here. So they put it this way: Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has completely lost all ability to choose any spiritual good that accompanies salvation. Therefore, an unregenerate man, because he is opposed to that good and is dead to sin, is unable by his own strength to convert himself or to prepare himself to be converted. So the Reformed theologian would say we still have free will, we still have, we still make choices, and those choices matter, but the problem is we can only make sinful choices. We are capable of choosing exactly what we want. The problem is we want sin. So this is Adam and Eve here. So we have our free will in that we act voluntarily. No one's holding a gun to our head, no one's forcing us to do something we don't want to do, and we are free in that sense. We are free in that we act without coercion or compulsion. The problem is we freely choose to sin. Because now we are in this state of total depravity, we're in this state of original sin. So I would argue, yet this is where I can't remember if it was Augustine or Edwards first made this distinction, but they made the distinction between a free choice and an undetermined choice. And the um free choice means you're acting without, you're not being forced. You're not being, no one's holding a gun to your head. Every choice you make is determined by something. And that's where we get into trouble if we start thinking of free will that way. So our choices are determined in that they have a cause. So I choose based on who I am, based on my nature, my biology, my hormone level, how much sleep I got the night before, you know, your Myers-Briggs personality scores, uh, your past life experiences. Everything that goes into making me me determines what I'm going to choose. So I don't choose in a vacuum. I don't just reach out of nowhere and choose something. I choose based on who I am. So I don't like asparagus, I will never choose asparagus. You know, my daughter, I don't know how she got to be a Maratha, but she doesn't particularly like chocolate. So whatever makes her that way, when you offer her a choice between chocolate or some other treat, she will choose the other. That's just who she is. So who she is determines her choice. She is freely choosing it, no one's forcing her, no one's forcing me not to like asparagus. So in that sense, my choices have a cause. The problem for us is we are sinful. When we used to teach second grade Sunday school, we used to tell us the second graders they had broken choosers. So whatever is inside you that makes you you, that makes you choose to, you know, like rock climbing or makes you like shopping or whatever it is that makes you you, that thing that chooses is broken. It can it's stuck on the sins position and can only choose sin. So you can't resolve, you can't say I'm gonna choose good because your chooser is broken. It doesn't know good. It can't figure out what that good is. And it will always choose the wrong thing. Follow me there? So I'm freely choosing. The problem is I'm now unable to choose good. I'm no longer inclined to God. Alright? So where does the Bible teach this? There are actually, again, a number of places. This is one of my favorites. Romans 7. It says, For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is in my flesh. And I would read that, that is the me apart from the grace of God, everything I am without God's at work in my life. Um in that state of total depravity. So nothing good dwells in me, that is in my flesh, for I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. So he says, I can look at the law or the Ten Commandments and say, that's good, I agree with that. That ought to be how a person should act. So I see that and I say, yep, that's the standard I'm going to achieve, but I can't do it. Even when I look at the law and agree with the law that this is good and right and this is the way a person ought to act, I don't have the ability to carry it out. I keep on failing. I keep on choosing the wrong thing. And of course, you know, he goes on through this passage to end wretched man that I am who will save me from this body of death. How do I get out of this predicament? Okay, Jonathan Edwards added another important distinction, I think, to this debate, and that is he talked about the difference between natural ability and moral ability. So natural ability is what the creator gives to the creatures. So fish have the natural ability to swim underwater and live underwater, birds have the natural ability to fly, and while people may swim or they may fly with machines, they don't have that as a natural ability. But what we do have is the natural ability to make choices. So we have rational thought, we have a mind, we have a will, we have the ability to make a choice and to evaluate a situation. And he would say prior to the fall, we also had the inclination to choose good. After the fall, we lost that. But we still have all the natural abilities. So he argued that fallen man has the natural ability to choose God, that is, we have all the necessary equipment, if you will, to do it. We have the mind, we have the will, we have the rational thought, but we have lost the moral ability to do so. We've lost the inclination or the desire to do good, again, because of total depravity. So he would so again, where does the Bible teach this? This is John 6, starting in, what am I starting in? John 6, 63, this is Jesus speaking. It is the Spirit who gives life. The flesh is no help at all. In other words, me apart from God is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life, but there are some who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe and who it was who would betray him. And he said, This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father. As Edwards would say, we don't have the desire anymore to choose God. And this, I think, is Jesus reaffirming that no one comes to God unless God does something first. After this, many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the twelve, Do you want to go away as well? And Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. And we have and we have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God. In other words, where else could we go to solve this problem of our sin? We're morally dead, our choosers are broken, so that they can only choose sin. And apart from God's grace in our lives, that's where we are. That's what grace is all about. Now at this point, you're all going, okay, it wasn't the question, do I choose God or does God choose me? And have I even addressed that issue? I I have. I've given you the first part of the answer, and that is left to ourselves, none of us would choose God. Because we are totally depraved, because every part of us is corrupted by sin, we are incapable of choosing God unless He does something first. Now I'm going to give you the second part of the answer. Um, and that's where we get to the you of Tulip, the unconditional election. We're not going to spend as much time on this, but it I think it's important to the debate to get into it. When most people think of Calvinism, this is probably the point that comes up, uh, usually known predestination or election. However, um, like original sin, every mainline Christian denomination teaches predestination. So you will find that doctrine in just about every mainline church. We differ on exactly what it means and how we got there. So the question is not, does the Bible teach predestination? Most every denomination would answer yes. Where we would differ is what does the Bible teach about predestination? Okay. So let me just set the stage for you. This is from Ephesians. Blessed Ephesians 1 verse 3. Blessed be the God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places. Even as he chose us in him, so even as God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be humbly, holy, and blameless before him. In love, he predestined us as adoption as sons, for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace with which he has blessed us in the beloved. So this is where you get God chose us before the foundation of the world. He predestined us, he did something first. I'm going to skip through seven to eleven and then picking back up in eleven. In him that is in Christ, we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will. So we were predestined according to God's purpose, who works all things according to his plan is the idea. So these are just some of the verses where God is doing something. The question is, what is he doing? And how do we understand it? So let me define some terms. Predestination is the idea, simply put, that from all eternity or from before the beginning of the time, God decided to save some and let the rest perish. Election is one aspect of that, it's the saving aspect. Some people call that the positive side. There's also the negative side that he did not save everybody or he chose not to elect some. Most people agree on that much. Where we differ is do our lives make a difference? What's the basis on which he chooses and not chooses? And that's where most denominations will go different directions. So, in other words, is predestination conditional or unconditional? Does God take prior knowledge of us into account when he makes his choice or not? And that's where denominations are going to divide. So the question is a non-reformed theologian would say predestination is conditional, and it's conditional on whether or not I have faith. Okay, so it's not, they're not, I don't think any mainline Christian denomination would say it's conditional on works. But they would say it's conditional on whether or not I have faith. So they would argue God looked through time before he saw who would have faith and who didn't, and based on that foreknowledge, he elected those people. So the condition for salvation is faith. He looked to see who would have it and who wouldn't, and he he elected those people on that condition. That's what we mean by conditional. The non-reformed theologian would say, no, it's unconditional. That God looked through time to see who would have faith, and the answer is none of us, because we are totally depraved. So left to ourselves, we're not going to manufacture faith on our own because we would not, we are not inclined to do so. So it's unconditional in that sense. It's not based on anything God finds in me. This is a way to summarize it. Both sides would say faith is necessary for salvation. Everyone would agree on that, I think, on both sides of the non-reformed and reformed. The non-reformed would say election results from faith. So God looked through time to see who would have faith and he elected those people, and the grounds for election is whether or not I have faith. The reformed would say, no, faith results from election. God looked through time and decided for reasons known only to him who to save and who not to save, and he gave those people faith. And so the grounds for election is the mercy of God. It's nothing he finds in me. That's kind of the crucial distinction. So how do we know who's right? Both sides make sense. You can read passages of scripture to support both sides. You're not going to be able to point to a single verse and say, see, this is the deciding factor. We've been debating this since Augustine and Pelagius, and it's probably going to continue. Luther and Erasmus wrote like 15 books between them debating this issue. So I'm going to give you an answer for whatever it's worth. So, you know, not that I expect it to end the debate. But for me, what makes the difference is total depravity. If the Bible in fact teaches that I am sinful through and through and no part of me is capable of achieving holiness on its own, then the reform view makes more sense. Because if we are unable not to sin, how could I turn myself to God? If I am left to myself, all I'm capable of choosing is sin. How could I possibly come up with faith? So that's why I said total depravity is foundational. And I would encourage you if you're on the side of the line, go look for does the Bible teach that? To me, that's the deciding factor. Okay, where do you see this? This is Romans 9. This is probably one of the hardest passages of Scripture, not in terms of what it understanding it, but because of what he's saying. This is Romans 9, verse 10. And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac's, though they were not yet born, and had done nothing, either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works, but because of him who calls. So he's setting up the situation of twins in the same mother, same father, same womb. They haven't yet been born, they've done nothing good or bad. God says, one I love and one I don't. And Paul seems to be arguing, not because of anything they've done, but because of God's purposes. So he says, going on, she was told the older will serve the younger, as it is written, Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means, for he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy. And Paul's conclusion, I think I would understand him to say, it doesn't depend on whether or not I have faith. It doesn't depend on what I do to prove that I'm worthy for God to elect me. It depends on God's mercy. So again, hard in what it teaches. And if you think about it, this is what grace is all about. Grace, by definition, is something I'm not required to receive. If I was required to receive it, it would be a wage. It would be something I earned. But grace is a gift. So what the reformed theologian would say is God is not arbitrary. He's not capricious. It's not like we have some cruel or or evil, you know, heavenly being up there making capricious choices. He has a choice, he probably has a reason, but it's not based on anything he finds in me. I didn't earn it, nothing in me found favor in his eyes. Uh it was dependent entirely on his loving-kindness, his mercy, and his forgiveness. So this is a picture of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. How do you do a visual on that? Anyway. So the idea being that all of us are corrupted by sin. All he would find in me is corrupted by sin. There's no corner of me that requires God to bless me. He makes his choice for whatever reasons he makes his choice known only to him. And he has the right to do that because he is God and He is sovereign. He's the creator and the author of the universe. Now, does that mean that God's unjust? I mean, that is the question that that raises. And Paul answers it directly. Why should one sinful person be forgiven and another equally sinful person not be forgiven? Does that mean that God is unjust? And you're not going to like the answer, but I think the answer Paul gives is basically God can have mercy on who he has wants to have mercy. The fact of the matter is, he's not required to save any of us. There is no oughtness in grace. So if he saves me, ought he also to save my friend? That ought is foreign to grace. Grace is a gift based on nothing that I've earned or done. So if God grants mercy to some, he is not required to grant mercy to everybody. He could have chosen to save no one, and he would have been just and righteous and completely within his authority. So that's what up to here is saying the unsaved are not victims of cruelty, they are recipients of justice. In other words, all of us deserve punishment from God. None of us deserve grace. And yet, unbelievably, God grants mercy to some of us. But if we deserved it, it wouldn't be mercy. Now, if you think about it, throughout biblical history, you see God treating people differently. I mean, look at all the lives of all the Christians in this room. Some people are rich, some people are poor, some people are healthy, and some people are not, and some people have lots of children, and some people don't have any, and some have great marriages, and some have bad marriages, and some aren't married at all and wish they were, and some are married and wish they weren't. You know, some people had a great education and some people never had the chance to go to school, and some of us came from good family backgrounds, and some came from tragic, dysfunctional family backgrounds, and yet we're all here recipients of grace. God treats his children differently based on his own purposes. And if you think about it, so do you. Good parents, you know, treat their children differently based on what that particular child needs. So a child who's learned responsibility early is going to get a lot more freedom than a child who has yet to learn responsibility, for instance. And in my family, my kids are dynamically opposite in the way they handle money. And there was no way we could treat them the same with money because they responded completely differently to it. So we had to adjust and treat them differently. It's kind of a poor analogy, but the idea is God treats us differently based on who we we are, what lessons he wants us to learn, and what he wants to teach about himself. And that means we're different. We're gifted differently, we have different lives, and yet we're all benefits of the same grace. So, you know, we see this throughout history. God called Abraham out of Urb, but he didn't call the rest of the Chaldeans. He saved Noah from the flood, but he didn't save the rest of the people on earth. He revealed himself to Moses, he didn't reveal himself to Pharaoh. He made David king, but he didn't make any of David's brothers king, didn't even give them a little fiefdom, you know. Um He gave Paul and the apostles this uniquely clear understanding of the gospel, but he didn't give that to Pilate or Caiaphas, who were religious leaders of the day. He gifts us differently, he treats us differently because of the story he wants to tell. So here's where the rubber reads the road. Why did I come to faith and maybe my friend did not? And for many of us, that's that's the problem. And for some of us, I think we have the secret pride that maybe somewhere deep down inside of me I am more worthy than my friend. That's not true. That's an insult to grace, I think. What we have to realize is I am not worthy at all. Um or we may fear that maybe God isn't really good, that he doesn't love us enough, or that he's capricious. And that's where you have to just go through the Bible and look at who he is and what we know about him. Is that proven by God? His character. So we all have to realize that God has his reasons, but they have not within for anything he finds within me. And that ought to make us deeply humble. Alright, so the problem I think for those who would say that election is conditional, that is, conditional on whether or not I have faith, is this idea of radical corruption. If if I have if I am unable to choose sin, then I am unable, if I'm unable to choose anything but sin, then I'm unable to choose faith. So the question I think boils down to does the Bible really teach this? If every part of me is is laced with sin, then how do I get out of it except a Savior? And the non-reformed theologian is going to have to deal with that. What makes one person have faith and what doesn't? And that's where you get it, you've got to be very careful that you're not crossing into legalism. How you answer that? How does one person get faith and someone else not get faith? If it's something they do, then isn't it a work? And does the Bible teach that? Okay, just one more scripture and then we're gonna wrap this up. So where does this teach that God saves us and he chooses us? We choose him because he chooses us, I wouldn't say is the answer to the question. This is Ephesians chapter 2. And you were dead in your trespasses and sins in which you once walked following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit is now that is now at work in the sons of disobedience, among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. So we were completely corrupted by sin. We were corrupted through and through, we were under God's wrath, but God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ. By grace you have been saved, and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Jesus Christ, so that in the coming age he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace and kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing. It is the gift of God, not a result of works that no one may boast, for we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. So Reformed theologian would say even the faith itself is part of the gift. Yes, faith is necessary for salvation, but God gives it to us as part of the gift of his grace. It is not something that we come up with. So let me go back to my uh hypothetical, of course, hypothetical struggle with anger. So I see my sin. Just hypothetically speaking. So I see my sin, I want to change, and maybe I can keep from getting angry now and then, but I keep failing. Now what? The non-reformed theologian would have to say, try harder. God's done what he's going to do for you. He's given you the capability of being righteous, so you have to keep trying to find it. The reformed theologian would say, No, your job is to wait and hope for God. God will in fact change you. He's promised to change you, he sealed you with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of that promise. And so you can rejoice that you have the eyes to see your sin. You can rejoice that you grieve over it now where you didn't used to. And you can trust and wait and hope that in his way he will save you in his time and for his plan. It's all part of the plan. So, yes, you keep reading your Bible, yes, you keep praying, yes, you keep studying. You may have people holding you accountable, but ultimately you trust that God will get you there. Um, and your job is to learn, listen, hope, and wait, and know that the promises of God are not going to fail you. Let me just close this in prayer.