Systematic Theology II - Lesson 16

The Doctrine of Salvation (Part 2)

Rob Lister continues by reviewing the Arminian position (conditional election), then explains the Calvinist view. The Calvinist position is based on God's sovereign rulership over everything, salvation by grace alone, and God's love and justice. There are major differences between the ideas of conditional and unconditional election.

Bruce Ware
Systematic Theology II
Lesson 16
Watching Now
The Doctrine of Salvation (Part 2)

The Doctrine of Salvation (Calvinist Position)

b. Calvinist view

1) Unconditional election

a) God’s sovereign rule over all things

b) Salvation by grace alone

c) Deficiency of conditional election

d) Effectual calling

e) Election and foreknowledge

f) Love is particular rather than just universal and general. Justice is demonstrated by destroying vessels of wrath and extending mercy to the elect

g) We are not responsible to sway the will of the hearer in evangelism. God is responsible

  • Both the Old and New Testaments teach that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully human. The Old Testament contains specific references to His pre-incarnate existence. The New Testament teaches that the incarnation is an historical event that was prophesied in the Old Testament. Christ fulfills the roles of prophet, priest and king. His deity is emphasized by the names of God that are ascribed to Him.

  • The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ had attributes belonging solely to God, and did works that were done by God alone. Christ was worshipped and accepted worship. He Himself claimed to be God.

  • Christ was fully human, as well as fully God. The Old Testament prophesied it and His historical life demonstrated it. Philippians 2: 6-8 uses the word kenosis to explain the relationship between Christ's human and divine natures.

  • The "impeccability" of Christ deals with the question of whether or not Christ could have sinned. The answer to this question has implications for both His life and ministry. (At the 51 minute mark, the reference to "John the Baptist," Dr. Ware meant to say, "John the Apostle.")

  • Delegates at the Council of Chalcedon tried to explain the hypostatic union of Christ's natures. The theological bases for the work of Christ on the cross focus on the sin of humanity and God's holiness and mercy. The atonement is God's self-satisfaction through self-substitution

  • Christ's atoning sacrifice was comprehensive. The different aspects of the atonement may be compared to light refracting through a diamond – you can see different colors, but they are all light. Three aspects of the atonement are sacrifice, substitution and redemption.

  • Three more aspects of the atonement are propitiation, expiation, and reconciliation. Christ's resurrection is a ratification of the efficacy of the atonement.

  • The most significant aspect of the past work of Christ is the atonement. Some people teach that the extent of the atonement is limited, while others teach that it is unlimited. Christ's present work is mediator and Lord. His future work is coming judge and reigning king.

  • Throughout Scripture, the Holy Spirit is referred to as having the attributes and performing the actions of a person. He is also shown to have the attributes of God, and is declared to be God. Both the Old and New Testaments cite examples of the work of the Holy Spirit in empowering people.

  • The work of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament is characterized by the empowerment of selective individuals for a temporary period of time, for the purpose accomplishing a specific task. The Old Testament prophets record a vision of the role of the Holy Spirit in the latter days.

  • The Holy Spirit had a central role in the life and ministry of Jesus. Many Old Testament passages prophesied the coming of a Spirit empowered Messiah. The New Testament records specific examples of the involvement of the Spirit in Jesus' life and ministry. Jesus also promises the future coming of the Holy Spirit and describes what he will do.

  • At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit came into the world and filled the lives of every believer. The first great work of the Holy Spirit is bringing people to Christ. He also empowers believers for service in the Church where we are remade and conformed to the image of Christ. The purpose of the gifts of the Spirit is for us to serve one another.

  • The Holy Spirit has come to glorify Christ and bring attention to Jesus. He does this by empowering believers in the areas of evangelism and discipleship. There are specific gifts of the Spirit and He gives specific gifts to each believer. There is a question about whether all the gifts are still active today. There is also a distinction between people having a certain gift and God performing mighty acts.

  • The Holy Spirit accomplishes the work of regeneration in a person by bringing them new life. The Spirit also indwells and fills a believer, produces fruit and gives us the freedom to become what God created us to be. The Holy Spirit is also the guarantee of the hope of our eternal future in God's presence.

  • Rob Lister, a Garret Fellow, introduces concepts that are basic to the Biblical doctrine of salvation. Salvation is both physical and spiritual, includes all of creation, it is "already, but not yet," and the goal is the glory of God. Election is a key concept in Scripture. Some people think that there is a conditional aspect to election.

  • Rob Lister continues by reviewing the Arminian position (conditional election), then explains the Calvinist view. The Calvinist position is based on God's sovereign rulership over everything, salvation by grace alone, and God's love and justice. There are major differences between the ideas of conditional and unconditional election.

  • Among those who hold to the view of unconditional election, there are those who believe in single predestination, and those who believe in double predestination. There is also a difference between a "general call," and a "special" or "effectual call."

  • Continuing in the logical order of salvation, Rob Lister examines regeneration, conversion, justification, adoption and sanctification.

  • Christ is Lord of the Church and it is formed by the Spirit. As a community, we testify to what God has done in our lives through the ordinances, the proclamation of the word and the testimony of our lives. We worship God together, and Jews and Gentiles are united in one community, testifying to the preeminence of our identity in Christ.

  • The "mystery" of the Church refers to the truth that was formerly concealed, but now revealed. Another aspect of the "mystery" is the inclusion of Jews and Gentiles in one community of faith. There is some debate about whether or not Israel and the Church are the same. The "Body of Christ" and "Bride of Christ" are two metaphors used in the New Testament that refer to the Church.

  • An additional New Testament metaphor for the Church is a "Building," which is made up of the "Cornerstone," "Foundation" and the "Living Stones." "Christ's Flock" is also a metaphor for the Church and relates to Jesus as the "Good Shepherd." There are also passages in the New Testament that give us insight into local congregations by referring to elders as the leaders.

  • New Testament passages give specific instructions about the functions of elders in local congregations. There are also lists qualifications for elders that emphasize character qualities. The roles and qualifications for deacons are also given.

  • The question of the role of men and women in ministry is a significant issue. The main question is, "According to Scripture, is gender particularly and uniquely relevant in assessing whether or not a person is qualified for a given ministry in a church or home?"

    You can download the Roles Handout by right-clicking on the link and selecting the "Save Link As" option. 

  • Different denominations have chosen different models of hierarchy and leadership based on their understanding of Scripture. The two ordinances of the Church are Baptism and the Lord's Supper. They are ordained by Christ, point to the Cross, and are to be done in remembrance of what He has done for us.

  • There is value in studying eschatology besides curiosity about what will happen in the future. The three most common views of the millennium that can be supported by Scripture are postmillennialism, amillennialism and premillennialism. Also related to eschatology is the Scriptural teaching regarding physical death and the intermediate state.

  • Within the premillennial position, there is a difference of opinion on whether the rapture will be pretrib, midtrib or posttrib. Regardless of your position on the millennium, there is clear teaching in Scripture about the final judgment and our eternal state. There will be a final judgment and everyone will spend eternity either in heaven or hell.

The second of a two semester class on Systematic Theology.

Dr. Bruce Ware
Systematic Theology II
The Doctrine of Salvation (Part 2)
Lesson Transcript


TH504-16 – The Doctrine of Salvation (Part 2)


Well, last we were together, we were talking about the doctrine of election and we moved into a discussion of conditional election in the Arminian understanding and we put up on the board, if you can see this, Seven categories on the basis of which Arminians commend their view of the doctrine of election. 

 We won't labor the points again, but just to remind ourselves in our discussion last week, an Arminian would mention in defense of their position, free will, and of course we suggested that that's in the libertarian understanding of freedom. That's a debate in and of itself with textual issues to deal with philosophical issues as well. They argue that, the universal love of God in an equal, impartial and undifferentiated manner is the only kind of love that we find in Scripture. 

 And so to be faithful to Scripture, we ought to affirm this universal love of God, which means that everyone has an equal opportunity. We talked about the universal and general call. We looked at a couple of texts. First Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9. There's a universal call in the Scriptures and this is the only one that Arminians acknowledge. So there's a universal call. There's God's desire that all should be saved. 

And it's on the Arminian understanding the two cannot go together. That is unconditional election and God's desire that all be saved, if God desires that all be saved, it is incomprehensible that he would then elect some and not others to this salvation, the justice of God. How can it be just of God to require of someone to do something that they cannot do If they are incapable of doing something, namely repent and believe and they can't do this, how can that be just so on the justice of God. 

 They argue that they have the stronger interpretation. Election according to Arminians is based on foreknowledge, which we have already mentioned. Their definition of election is based on foreseen faith. And so they'll point out in Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:1-2, that clearly in the text election is based on foreknowledge. And so that's the proper understanding. And then finally we mention prayer and evangelism as one of the, pillars in their argument. If you want prayer to matter, if prayer is to be effectual, and I mean let's face it, we, we indulge ourselves predominantly in intercessory types of prayers. 

So if the majority of our prayer life is to be significant, if missions is to matter, then we ought to be Arminians. We ought to hold the model of conditionally election. So says the Arminian. Well we mentioned those. Now in the process of critiquing these, we'll look at the Calvinist model, which is the model of unconditional election. 

And rather I should say that in the process of expounding upon the Calvinist model, we'll critique some of the Arminian positions. So we're on the question of unconditional election, a definition of unconditional election. God's election is not conditioned on anything about the elect To make it the opposite of conditional election where God's election is conditioned on foreseen faith. 

So namely something about the individual, an unconditional election, God's election is not conditioned on anything about the individual. Now this is not to suggest that there's a capriciousness in God and as we mentioned last week, it may well be, it probably is the case that God has reasons for why he elects some and not others. We're not privy to those reasons and it is clear from the text we'll see shortly that those reasons are not based on anything about us in terms of human will or human works, these sorts of things. 

So to return to a couple, to some arguments and in parallel with what we've just done with the Arminian position, we'll outline seven arguments in response. Number one, God's sovereign rulership over all things, God's sovereign rulership over all things Just to point us to one text by which to enter the discussion. 

 Ephesians 1:11, if you were going to look at one passage that were to articulate this doctrine of what Calvin is referred to as meticulous providence, that's a term you should be familiar with meticulous providence, namely that God is sovereign over every intricate aspect in detail of life and his creation. If you're going to one text that would articulate this, it would be Ephesians 1:11, which reads in him, 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 there you have it in the last clause of the verse, who works all things according to the council of his will, meticulous providence, the larger scope and then the individual predestination or the election of individuals which is talked about earlier in the verse is a subset of the meticulous providence. So you have the larger category and then the election of individuals as one subset of God's meticulous providence whereby he is sovereign over all things in his creation. 

Now as we move along, we'll discuss this, it is worth pointing out that there is an asymmetrical relationship between God's sovereignty over good and God's sovereignty over evil. In fact, you talked about this last semester and your discussion on the doctrine of providence and we'll get to that some a little bit later as we move through these points. But it's worth pointing out at this point, not that this text fleshes that out specifically, but it is worth noting. Nevertheless, it is sovereign rulership overall in a meticulous sort of way. 

Second salvation by grace Alone. Now you say surely this isn't going to be a fair argument because Arminians profess to believe in salvation by grace alone. Well, they do profess that. And my response to that is that that's an inconsistency and let me suggest that I'm happy that in my understanding that're inconsistent on this, it's better than not arguing for salvation by grace alone. 

Nevertheless, it's an inconsistency that needs to be pointed out. So let's take a look at a couple of passages and the point here is that if you want to affirm salvation by grace alone, it requires unconditional election. First, Ephesians 2:8-9, you should already have your finger in Ephesians 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 so that no one may boast. 

Let's just look at a couple of more texts before we make some comments. 2 Timothy 1:9, 2 Timothy 1:9, pick it up in verse eight for the sake of context. Therefore, do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord nor of me his prisoner, but share and suffering for the gospel by the power of God who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works, but because of his own purpose and grace which he gave us in Jesus Christ before the ages began. 

So you see something of grace alone in this passage as well. And then lastly, look over at 1 Corinthians 1. Pick it up with verse 26, 1 Corinthians chapter one, picking it up with verse 26 for consider your calling brothers, not many of you were wise according to worldly standards. Not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth, but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise. 

God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not to bring to nothing, things that are. And as we've mentioned in our discussion, even on Tuesday, we find that a lot of times God's election is counterintuitive to human convention. So you look in Romans nine and you have the Esau and Jacob passage, human intuition says the law of primogenitor, the oldest son gets the blessing. But God's election in this passage precisely to show that it was not based on works or anything about the two, the blessing is given to the second child. 

You see in Deuteronomy chapter seven, the nation of Israel, God elects them not because there was anything commendable about them, but because they were mighty. Not because they were strong but because they were the smallest and the weakest of the people. So a lot of times you see it as counterintuitive to, human intuition. It is a gracious election. We talked last Tuesday about what it is that is the ultimate purpose in salvation and we looked at a number of texts, Ephesians chapter one and other places, the ultimate aim of salvation is that God would be glorified. 

And so if we're talking here with respect to salvation by grace alone, what is it that's in view? It's that God be glorified in salvation. Now certainly salvation is for our benefit, no doubt, but it is to the ultimate end that God be glorified. And so what's at stake here is whether or not God gets the glory alone. Now, you might say still you haven't proved the case against Arminians. They're still arguing for salvation by grace alone. Well that's fine. Let's just say this in response on the Arminian understanding of salvation by grace through faith alone as it relates to the doctrine of election, there is something that the Arminian does that God does not do, namely believe. 

Now why is that significant for the Calvinist? Okay, you have to believe to be saved as well. And the Arminian system, there's this doctrine called prevenient grace. The grace that comes before, it's not effectual grace, but it's the grace that comes before it goes hand in hand with the general call to salvation, overcoming total depravity such that it enables a person to respond to the gospel. 

It doesn't draw them effectually to respond to the gospel, but it enables them to respond to the gospel. Well, if that's the case, if the general call goes out and it's accompanied by prevenient grace and everyone who hears is enabled to respond and you know you, you, you and you respond and you, you you and you don't, what is it that sets the group apart? The what sets the group apart is the faith that these people exercise on their own initiative. This that is there is a minimal basis being as consistent as possible for boasting on the Arminian model. 

If it is preveient grace that's extended to all and not all come. What separates the two groups, the responders and the rejectors, what separates the two is based completely on what the responders do. So the Arminian professes to believe in salvation by grace alone and let's esteem that. That's that's great. We're glad that they do. But what they're trying to do is have it both ways. And the fact of the matter is you can't have it both ways. 

They say on the one hand it's grace alone, on the other hand, they want the blame all on you. If you don't come on the one hand, it's all of grace. On the other hand, the onus is really all on you whether you come or not. So a bit of inconsistency here. My point is that to be completely based on grace alone, the consistent teaching on election that goes hand in hand with this is unconditional election. 

 Let's move on to a couple of other categories. We will pause to take a question and comments, but if we can move through these as a group like we did on Tuesday, I think that'll be helpful to see the big picture. What I want ot argue for in 0.3, we might just call the deficiency of conditional election. I think this is a pretty simple point. We won't need to labor too much time on it. But the point being conditional election is no real election at all, okay? Conditional election is no real election at all. God's choice is superfluous and conditional election, it's a rubber stamp of sorts. 

God's going to affirm elect in this sense everyone and whom he has for foreseen faith. Everyone who agrees to come, he's going to elect them. My point here is that this doctrine of election, it's not weighty, it's not significant. The way in which Paul emphasized the weightiness in Ephesians chapter one, I mean you know right off the bat, number one reason you praise God the doctrine of election predestination, if you opt for the conditional election route, it's hard to understand why that's such a significant issue for the apostle Paul in Ephesians chapter one. 

So, so my point is it it minimizes, the doctrine of election makes God's choice superfluous. Point number four, Effectual call effectual calling. A lot of times this is, spoken about, you think of your tulip rubric and you talk about irresistible grace. 

 Well we're going to talk about the doctrine of the call here shortly and we're going to see that case from the text that there are calls in 2 cents. There's a general call and there's an effectual call. Arminians argue that there is no such thing as an ineffectual call Calvinists to argue that there's a general call and an effectual call. The point being here that effectual calling goes hand in hand with that is it requires unconditional elect and the effectual call then, just to give you a a definition, it is the call that when it goes forth it affects what it seeks to accomplish.  

So the call affects what it seeks to accomplish, namely it brings about faith in Jesus Christ. So it's the call that affects faith. If there's a call to salvation, that's more than just the general call and that's what we're arguing for. And we'll look at a couple of texts now and and demonstrate some more later. 

But if there's a call to salvation that's more than just the general call and it's the case that not everyone is saved and nobody's going to dispute that, I don't think, then that means that not all are called. Does that make sense? If there's a call that goes out that's more than just the general call and not all are saved, then not all are called in this effectual sense. John 6:37. And we'll look at this in a minute when we come to the doctrine of the call, but just to give it to you now, John 6:44 as well. 

John chapter 6:44, as long as you've got your finger in First Corinthians, let's take a look at 1:22-24. One Corinthians 1:22-24. We may comment on this at a bit more length shortly as well, but for Jews demand signs and Greek seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles. So you've got two categories of people, Jews and Gentiles, but those who are called both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God. 

So you've got two categories of people, Jews and Greeks who receive the general call and frequently are known to reject this call. But then from within the category of Jews and within the category of Greeks or Gentiles, you have some that receive the, call in an effectual sense and come to faith. That is the call affects what it seeks to accomplish. Romans 9:23-24. And if you recall, we've dealt extensively with Romans chapter eight verses 29 and following in Romans 8:30, you have this golden chain of redemption as it's sometimes referred to and you have predestined called justified and glorified. 

Well it's interesting in verse 30 that they called are justified and we already mentioned that these are spoken of in the past tense. Indeed the called are glorified spoken of as though it had already happened. So there's not a point in the chain at which this can be interrupted. So this has to refer to the effectual call point number five, Election and foreknowledge the Arminian has told us and he is pointed to texts where election is said to be based on foreknowledge. 

So is he right? And if so, what does foreknowledge mean? Well a couple of things. First, what does the text not say? The text says that election is not based on human will or human work. Point out a couple of texts to you for this Romans chapter nine verse 11 through 16 verses 11 through 16. 

 And it'd be worth pausing to read this and then I'll just point out a couple of other texts to you. Romans chapter nine, verses 11 through 16, 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 his call she was told the older will serve the younger as it is written, Jacob I loved, but he saw I hated. What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? And by no means for he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I'll have compassion on whom I have compassion. 

So then it depends what does it depend on or not depend on, not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy. So it does not depend on human will or exertion. Just a couple of other texts in this same vein, Romans chapter 11 verses five through six arguing that it's not based on human work. John chapter one verses 12 through 13. We'll look at this later, but here teaching that it's not based on human will, okay? So it's not based on human will, it's not based on human work, but the Arminian says, I still have you on the horns of a dilemma because it is based on horn knowledge in the text we need to look at Romans chapter eight verse 29. 

And then one Peter one, well let's see if he's right. Romans chapter eight verse 29. For those whom he for knew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son in order that they might be the firstborn among many brothers. Okay? He predestined knows whom he four knew. And let's take a look at one Peter chapter one just to remind ourselves of this passage. 

One Peter chapter one verses one through two Peter in apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in ponto galacia Cappadocia Asia, bethia according to the foreknowledge of God the Father and the sanctification of the spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood, may grace and peace be multiplied to you. Okay? So the issue is they've rightly pointed into the text a couple of places where election is said to be based on foreknowledge. That doesn't settle the question because the question now arises, what does foreknowledge mean? 

Does it just mean foreseen faith or is there a reason to believe that it means something a little bit different? I'm going to argue from both of the contexts that it does mean something different. And I think the appropriate way to understand foreknowledge in these passages is not that it means foreseen faith, but it means something like a predisposition to favor, a predisposition to love. It's an intimate kind of love, an intimate kind of knowledge that we're talking about, not just foreseen faith. 

Now we will look at the text here in a second and examine that, but you think in the Scriptures from time to time you have, it's spoken of the fact that husbands and wives, when they engage in marital intimacy, it's sometimes spoken of as knowledge. Adam knew Eve for instance. That's not just a factual knowledge or a a forcing foreseen knowledge of particulars, but it has to do with this intimate kind of relationship. And so when you add the, preposition pro to the, the term just here, just to give you this, the term that's at issue here is pro gco for knowledge. 

When you talk about foreknowledge in these contexts, I'm going to argue that it has to do with a prior disposition to love a prior setting of one's affection on these people. So look at Amos chapter three verse two just for a second to illustrate what we're talking about and then we'll look at him in context. 

 Amos chapter three, verse two, we're going to talk about God knowing Israel in a way that he does not know the other nations. Pick it up in verse one. For context sake, hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you. Oh people of Israel against the whole family that I brought up out of the land of Egypt, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore I'll punish you for all your iniquities. You only have I known of all the families of the earth. Now that's interesting and is this a denial of God's omniscience? 

Does God not know that Egypt and Kush and Siba and Assyria and Babylon and these other national entities exist? Of course it's not denial that God doesn't know factually about the other nations and these sorts of things. It is this intimate type of knowledge, this intimate relationship whereby God has bound himself to the nation of Israel, this kind of knowledge, this kind of love in a way that he is not with other nations. So you see this illustrated in the Old Testament. 

Now let's go back to our context and see if we're just making it up in Romans chapter eight and then in first Peter chapter one, this kind of background that we're working with, Romans chapter 8 29, we're told that predestination is based on four knowledge. Well, in the similar context, look at Romans chapter 11 and read verses one through two because the same term is used. I ask then, has God rejected his people? By no means for I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin, God has not rejected his people whom he fore knew. 

Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? So verse two, we have our term again, God has not rejected his people whom he for knew on the Arminian reading of this text of Romans 11, chapter 11 verse two, what's the Arminian reading? It's that God has not rejected those in whom he has for foreseen faith. What's the problem with that? 

Remember Deuteronomy chapter seven, we looked at it, it was one of the very first texts we read as we got into this discussion last Tuesday. Israel didn't choose God, God chose Israel. So the relationship works the other way around. And so on the Arminian reading of this passage, you have an affirmation of something that isn't historically true, that God had foreseen faith of Israel and then will not reject them. Rather it works the other way around. God elected Israel when there was nothing about Israel to commend her to God and therefore he will not reject his people. 

So there's a problem with the Arminian reading of this passage on the Calvinist reading. If we're right to argue for something like a prior disposition to favor, it's an argument that God has not rejected his people on whom he said his affections from eternity on whom he has had a prior disposition to favor. So the disposition to favor this prior disposition to favor is manifest in Romans chapter eight verses 29 through 30. In what? In Predestining. These people. 

So take a look now at one Peter chapter one, one Peter chapter one, verses one through two we're told that these elect exiles are elect according to the fore knowledge of God. Well is this foreknowledge in the sense of foreseen faith? Take a look at verse 20 of the same chapter, verse 20 of first Peter chapter one, and I suppose we ought to pick it up again in verse 19 for the sake of context. But with the precious blood of Christ like that of a lamb without blemish or spot, he was fore known before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake. 

Okay, so we're talking about Christ in verse 20. Christ was for known before the foundation of the world. What does that mean? Well, on the Arminian understanding, it would have to mean something like Christ's choice to come was known in advance. That is Christ's choice to come logically proceeds the father's decision to send the son. It would have to mean something like that for known before the foundation of the world. 

 But the question is, and the problem with the interpretation is that's not true. In fact, it's contrary to Christ own teaching, the choosing of the son to come. It does not logically proceed The father's decision to send you think of texts like John three 16 and in particular verse 17 where it's clearly articulated that the father's decision to send proceed in a logical sense. Now, okay, we're talking in an illogical pret temporal sense, but it is logically prior to the son's decision to respond and come. 

You think of the prayer of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane reflecting here again the fact that the father's decision is logically prior to that of the Son. So the Arminian position on this passage is, is contradicted and it would teach something that goes against the own teaching of Jesus Christ himself. So contextually then what we ought to affirm in one peter as well as in Romans chapter eight is that for knowledge has to do with this prior disposition to favor this setting of affections on the basis of nothing that commends the individual and the basis of nothing that commends the nation. 

 And again, we see that as a result of this, God gets all the glory for salvation and that as we have argued, is the ultimate aim in salvation. Now a couple of other issues to consider love And justice and we'll take these in turn, the Arminian has told us that there's one kind of love operative in the Scriptures and that's the universal love of God. 

And the Arminian has also told us that to be conducive with God's justice for God to actually be just in this election, that we must affirm this conditional election because it's unjust of God to require something that an individual can't do that would be an unjust, okay? Does the condition or the unconditional position, the Calvinist position actually have a better accounting for these two issues? I think that in fact they do First on the issue of love, as we mentioned, the Arminian argument has to do with the fact that there's only one kind of love that you find in the Scriptures that that is love from God and it's this universal, equal, impartial love for God that is, spread and demonstrated equally to all people. 

Well, in response to that, we can't spend a great deal of time here, but it's wrong to reduce the different types of love in the Scriptures to one. Let me recommend a book to you here that will hopefully supplement your study of this and then we'll make a few comments. 

 If you're familiar with Don Carson's slim little volume, I don't even think it's a hundred pages, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, he makes this argument, he argues that in the Scriptures based on various contexts, there are five dimensions, at least five dimensions perhaps more in which we can speak of the love of God. I'm not going to remember them all, but he argues that one. And perhaps the most important one is the eternal intra Trinitarian love of the members of the Trinity. He talks about God's love and providence and creation. He talks about God's love in a universal sense. 

So the Calvinist doesn't deny this, he just says that's not all there is to it. So something like John three 16, there is a sense in which God loves the whole world, but there is also a a sense as we'll look at in Romans chapter nine verses 10 through 13 and other passages where there is also a particular love of God and I can't remember the fifth one in Carson, so I'm not going to spin my wheels trying to do it other than to say that's a very helpful volume and you ought to pick it up and take a look at that and see his argument as he moves through these issues textually. 

But the problem with the Arminian position is that they want to maintain that the love of God is simple. The problem is it's complex, it's multifaceted, it's spoken of in more than one way. And context must control your interpretation and it it forces an unfavorable grid to say it can only be read one way every time you come across it in the text. So that's a serious problem with the Arminian argument. Now let's back up to Romans chapter nine and see the statement of God's particular love. And let me mention to you here for the sake of time, I suppose we ought not to go into this, but let me just mention to you that you ought to take a look at Isaiah chapter 43, in particular the first five or six verses when you get a chance because you see this kind of thing a love for the nation of Israel that is Israel is loved in a way that the other nations are not. 

C Seba are given as a ransom for Israel. Other people are given in her place. So Israel is loved in a way that the other nations are not. And how can she tell? Because they are not and she is. And you see that even particularly here in Romans chapter nine, verses 10 through 13 we see that God has chosen a line of saved people picking it up in verse 10. 

And we've looked at this at some length already. Not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad and order that God's purpose of election might continue not because of works but because of his call she was told the older will serve the younger as it is written, Jacob I loved but Esau I hated. 

Okay, so we have a line of saved people in Israel, but we also know that not all Israel is saved. You have Jacob, not Esau. And I mentioned earlier that you have human convention broken here to show that election is not based on human work or human merit. Rather the older will serve the younger. So our own conventions are broken to show that election is unconditional. But the point in particular that this is a particular kind of love whereby Jacob is shown a kind of love that Esau is not, if this were universal, equally distributed, impartial love, an equal opportunity of some sorts would've been given to Esau as well as to Jacob. 

But there's a kind of love shown to Jacob that's not shown to Esau. And that on the mildest reading, I mean you look at verse 13 as it is written, Jacob, Jacob I loved, but Esau, I hate it. It's pretty powerful language. It clearly draws a distinction between, the kind of love for that was shown to Jacob that was not shown to Esau. Now there's a reading of this text that tries to, to minimize the strong language, nevertheless says there is a difference in the way that the two are loved. 

But it might more properly be read something like Jacob, I loved Esau, I loved less this kind of thing. I don't think that this is the proper way to read the text. Now that makes the acknowledgement that we want to make that there's a difference and the kind of love shown to the two, a particular love shown to Jacob, not to Esau, but I think a more stronger reading of the text is warranted. And we'll see why. If you flip back to Malachi chapter one where this quote is taken from, if you flip back to Malachi chapter one, we'll see that the stronger reading is is actually to be preferred here Malachi chapter one verses one through four, the oracle of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi, I have loved you, says the Lord, but you say, how have you loved us is not Esau. 

Jacob's brother declares the Lord. Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, I have laid waste to his hill country and left his heritage to jackal of the desert. 

If Edom says we are shattered, but we will rebuild the ruins, the Lord of hosts says they may build but I will tear down. They will be called the wicked country and the people with whom the Lord is angry forever. So you have in the passage, Edom is another way of referring to to Esau. But not only do you have Jacob, I love Esau, I hated, but the Lord is going to perpetually be against Esau and his descendants, if they try to rebuild, I'll be there to oppose them to tear down. See verse four, if Edom says we're shattered but we'll rebuild the ruins. 

The Lord of hosts says they may build but I will tear down. They'll be called the wicked country and the people with whom the Lord is angry forever. So there's something stronger than just loved less or liked less. The proper way to understand the particular kind of love that's operative here in Romans chapter nine and in Malachi chapter one where the quote is taken from is to ask, how do you know that I've loved you? You know, pose that question to Jacob, how do you know that I've loved you? Jacob? The answer from the text is because I've hated your brother. 

The way that you know that I love you is because the way I have not loved your brother or in fact hated your brother. So there's a particular kind of love operative towards Jacob, not operative towards Esau. So as we mentioned the conclusion to draw from this, the appropriate conclusion is that the biblical love of God is complex and not simple. It's multifaceted and you have to let the text be determinative, the different context be determinative of which category is in view. Lemme just mention a couple of things. 

We talked in our unpacking of the Arminian view of some objections they would raise and and maybe some responses they would give here. They talked about God's desire for all to be saved and mentioned passages like one Timothy two, four and two Peter three, nine, God desires all to be saved and come to repentance, these sort of things. So what's the Calvinist response to that? Well, let me mention a couple of things that I think are helpful First, and you ought to be aware of this when you come in your reading now, just like we talked about love, okay? 

Context has to be determinative for how you interpret God's love. Well context has to be determinative for how you interpret every passage. So when you come across a word in the text, like all, it's not enough just to have your predetermined grid that you lay over the passage and you read it in a particular way. Context has to be determinative for what all means. And if you've not heard about this distinction, it's helpful to understand that sometimes what's operative is all without distinction. That would mean every single individual. 

 And sometimes what's operative is all without distinction. Sometimes what's operative is all without exception. All without exception would be the inclusion of every individual. All without distinction would be something like you have in Revelation five verse nine, every tribe and tongue and people that is kinds of people, people from every tribe and tongue and nation, this sort of thing. So it's not enough just to foreclose the debate before you look at the text and determine what the all means. It's possible in some passages, clear in some passages that all means all without distinction. 

That is every kind of person, not every person individually. In Hebrews you have it spoken of Christ's death once for all. Okay? The biblical writers are not universalists, it's not everybody that's going to be saved, but it's a once for all time kind of salvation kind of sacrifice that's taken place once for all kinds of people. So you have to let context be determinative on these text. 1 Timothy 2:4, second Peter three, nine. Let me mention another resource that would be helpful to you and Dr. 

Ware and Dr. Shreiner's book on still sovereign John Piper has an essay. It's also in the, updated version of I think desiring God entitled, are there two wills in God? And not to belabor the point here, but he makes a helpful argument for the fact that we ought to see in some sense two wills in God and and what you would think of in this sense would be a will of a revealed will that is the will that God has revealed to us. How we are to live, conduct ourselves, repent and believe these sorts of things. 

And there is a decreed will which is secret, which is not always made known to us. Deuteronomy chapter 29 verse 29. And so on the one hand you have texts like two Peter three nine that indicates that God desires the salvation of everybody. And on the other hand you have passages that indicate a particular love of God for a particular people, that there is this doctrine of unconditionally election. And so the reconciliation of it is as Piper works it out in a very helpful way and it would be worth your paying attention to, is that there are two senses in which we would speak of the will of God, one of decree and one of revelation. 

And that's helpful to call into play here as well. Let me mention a couple of things just by way of concluding this matter on the doctrine of God's love on the Arminian model, God can't save everybody because he's opposed by autonomous free will. In fact, it's not necessarily true that God can save anybody. Now they would say, look around you. 

Of course people have been saved. But from a logical standpoint of necessity, it's not necessarily true that anybody be saved because in every case, every individual has this barrier of human free will. So you have the Arminian position where God can't save because he is opposed by human free will. On the Calvinist position, God could save everyone, but he does not because he has some alternative purpose for not saving all. So on the one you have an Arminian model where his saving desire is universal but his ability is not efficacious. And on the other hand,, you have the Calvinist model where God could save everyone if he wants, but he doesn't because he has some alternative purpose. 

Now come to the issues of problem of evil and this sort of thing. You come to a place where you're left with and appeal to a greater good argument. And I think for the Calvinist, the Armenia would make a greater good argument and appeal to free will. The free will defense, this sort of thing that the greater good is libertarian human freedom. For the Calvinist it's going to be something like we see in Romans chapter nine verses 22 and 23. The greater good is going to be God's pursuit of his own glory. 

And if you just take a look at these verses here for a moment, pick it up in verse 21, has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use. What if God desiring to show his wrath and make known his power has endured with much patience, vessels of wrath prepared for destruction in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy which he has prepared beforehand for glory. So you have vessels of wrath on the one hand vessels of mercy. 

On the other hand, God enduring with patience, the vessels of wrath preparing beforehand the vessels for glory so that a full array of God's attributes and and power and wisdom is displayed in the salvation of some. Well if you want to follow up on that with questions when we come to the end of this, we can, but we'll say that for now because of the sake of time. Okay, so we're talking about love now we're talking about justice on the two models. Well first the Arminian tells us that it's unjust for God's require of some something that he cannot do. 

 So let's ask what the text says. What does the text say about this issue? Romans chapter nine, verse 13, as it is written, Jacob I loved but he saw I hated verse 14, what shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part By no means So first, and we could stop here and go no further because we are submitted to biblical authority. The Scriptures tell us that God is not injust to unconditionally elect. And that's enough in and of itself. But there's another, a couple of points that we should point out. 

We just looked at Romans chapter nine, verses 22 and 23. God's justices manifest in a couple of different ways. It's manifest in his just condemnation of the vessels of wrath. But they are getting what they deserve. They are sinners in Adam. They're getting what they deserve. There's just condemnation. On the other hand in verse 23, you have God's justice displayed in his just showing of mercy to the vessels of mercy. Now this in the biblical mindset, in the biblical frame, this is the one that would cause the problem and not the other way around because the vessels of wrath are getting exactly what they deserve and is a problem when wicked people prosper. 

Or it's a problem according to Romans chapter three verses 21 through 26, when it appears that God has passed over sins. That's a massive passage for your understanding of the book of Romans. Even how you present the problem of evil, the problem of evil is turned around from the way we traditionally formulated in a philosophical set of categories in the biblical model, the problem of evil, it's turned the other way around. 

Why has God allowed sins apparently to go unpunished? Just take a look at Romans chapter three for a minute. You've probably heard,, Dr. Ware mention to you that Murray Harris and others have argued that this is the most important paragraph in the entire Bible. But you come to verse 24 and are justified by his grace is a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness because in his divine forbearance he passed over former sins. 

It was to show his righteousness at the present time so that he might be just in the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. So it apparently could appear that God has passed over sins. You think of the Old Testament, the sacrificial system, well the sacrifice, the Day of Atonement, these offerings are repeated every year. They were continually offered. The people were never made clean in a final sense. And so the accusation comes that, well, maybe God's passed over these former sins. And the argument of Romans chapter three verses 21 through 26 is no, these sacrifices pointed to the salvation historical turn of events that hinges on the coming the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

And so pointers to this efficacious insofar as they're tied to this but not independent of it. And so while it looks to some perhaps that sins have been passed over and that maybe God is actually unjust, no in the coming of Jesus Christ, sins are punished, God's wrath is fully visited on a substitute and those who trust in him have salvation. 

So the problem and the biblical frame actually works the other way. It's the problem of God's showing mercy, but God's justice is demonstrated in two ways. First, the just condemnation of the vessels of wrath and then the just showing of mercy on the basis of a substitutionary atonement to the vessels of mercy. So that's the larger problem. We mentioned already that our place in Adam would be sufficient to condemn us. You think of Romans chapter five, verse 18. One trespass led to condemnation for all men. And so what we have as you formulate this through in the theology of Paul and the theology of the New Testament, the fact that anyone saved is mercy. 

 So I mean, it's not the case that God's being unjust. It's not the case that some people are being treated unjustly. It's the case that some people are receiving mercy. A final point to make on this issue of the justice of God. Another helpful distinction to make, maybe you've heard of this, I'm going to scroll that up. Assuming you've gotten most of those so far, another important issue to make a discrimination against is moral versus natural ability or inability. 

Moral and natural ability, natural ability or natural inability. There would be a problem of natural inability. If I were to put a gun to your head and say fly or I'll shoot you, well there's a problem with that. That would be an unjust command whether or not a crime was perpetrated. Why? Because your nature doesn't allow for you to fly. 

That is your physical constitution doesn't allow for you to fly apart from other aids and instruments and planes and these sorts of things. So natural ability has to do with what our physical constitution permits us to do. Be unjust in this sense for God to say, you know, fly or you go to hell, something like this. But that's not the case with what's going on in the discussion of election. What we're talking about is a moral ability or a moral inability. So in this case, a moral inability is not the fact that we lack the physical features to repent and believe it's the fact that we lack the desire to do so. 

And Jonathan Edwards has labored this point at at some extent and very helpful in thinking through this. But the fact of the matter is that as sinners in Adam talking about original sin and total depravity, the disposition to sin is passed down the line. It's a moral ability that we lack. It's a moral inability that we have that is the command comes, the call goes forth to repent and believe. 

And we don't do it not because we're physically or in a stature kind of sense, incapable of doing it. We don't repent because we don't want to unless God comes, changes the heart in an effectual call that goes forth with the general call and draws us to himself. That's the kind of distinction that's operative here. Now it's interesting if you challenge the notion of moral ability or moral inability, that puts you in a borderline palant situation. It was palous who said that if there is a command that's given, I must be able to do it. 

And so then he questions the universal nature of sinfulness. So to challenge that puts you in a borderline palant situation. And that that's the distinction that's operative here. Not nobody's saying that we have a natural inability to repent and believe in that God's demanding us to do something that naturally we don't have a capacity to do. It's a moral inability. It is. And this comes down to the distinction between the Arminian understanding and the Calvinist understanding of freedom. This is libertarian freedom versus compatibilist freedom. And the fact of the matter is that we don't come because we don't want to. 

The problem is with our heart. And until our heart is changed, then we can't or we won't come as the case may be. Okay, final point or set of points, evangelism and prayer. Now the Arminian has told us that if we want, prayers to matter and if we care about missions, then we should believe in conditional election and we should be Arminians. Well, the question is, is that true? First of all, there are some problems for the Arminians on their formulation with respect to evangelism and prayer. 

Let's take evangelism first. We already mentioned that one of the problems for the Arminian is that in the proclamation of the gospel, there is continual running up against the barrier of autonomous free will, continual running up against the bear of human freedom and a libertarian sense. So, but God is committed in the Arminian model not to violate this. So he's doing all he can apart from violating libertarian free will. So where does that leave us? Is the proclaimers of the gospel. It leaves us in a situation where there's a lot at stake in how you present the gospel. 

There's a lot at stake in what kind of persuasion and rhetorical artifice even perhaps, that you can manufacture and bring together to do what? To sway the will. Now you see a lot of this in the North American revivalism and from Charles Finney, this kind of decision to evangelism where the goal is to get the decision to be made and you, you sway the will and and there's a lot of emphasis on the particular kind of persuasion that you can bring to the,, task of the proclaiming of the gospel. 

And what's the problem with that? Well, one problem is that in one Corinthians chapter two, Paul warns against rhetorical artifice, okay? And there's a difference between the kind of persuasion, the kind of reasoning that's going on with Paul at the Areopagus in Acts chapter 17 and what he's warning against in one Corinthians two. There's a difference between a reason to persuasion and this kind of rhetorical artifice that is trying to draw people to a decision that's not reflective of their very best judgment that's going after the decision and will employ any number of means to do it. 

Now hear me correctly, this is not a criticism that says every Arminian does this. It's, but it is a criticism that some are susceptible to to, and it's a problem in that it puts so much of the burden on us. Luther I think has a better formulation of this when he talks about our role in presenting the gospel and the spirit's role in the work of the gospel. He says, our job in presenting the gospel, it's the Romans 10 position. Our job is to get the gospel from our lips to their ears. It's the spirit's job to get it from their ear to their heart. 

And in the sovereignty of God will do so as he pleases. So let's don't take on ourselves the task of being the Holy Spirit. Thankfully we don't have that to worry about. We all we have to worry about is being faithful proclaimers of the gospel fulfilling the great commission and the the word will go forth as God sees fit to prosper it in relation to evangelism. Now in relation to prayer, and particularly here, we're thinking of prayer in relation to the unsaved prayer as it relates to intercessory kind of issues that we've talked about. 

That is so much of what our prayers are on the Arminian view. Our prayers intercessory at least are not very significant. They're not efficacious. Okay? So the, the problem with the Arminian model here, God's already doing all he can. The Arminian gives up efficacious right there. God is already doing, he has a universal desire for everybody to be saved. If he has a universal impartial, equally distributed love for everybody, then he's already doing all he can. In that sense. 

There's no efficaciousness to your prayers. You're asking him to do what he already knows he ought to do, and you're asking him to do what in fact he's already doing. So you have this issue of no efficacy. It is possible that Arminians might respond to this and say, well, but maybe a better formulation of prayer is to say that God,, waits, he holds back on some of his work until you pray for it. So that he answers the prayer and res or, or he, he accomplishes the work in response to your prayer. Well, let me say a couple of things in response to that first, that's a version of a means ends argument. 

 So an Arminian can't make that argument and then turn around and criticize the Calvinists for doing the same thing. And a lot of times Arminians will say your means ends arguments are, you know, they're, they're not impressed by them, let's say. And one of the issues for the Calvinist on prayer and evangelism is that these are ends. That God has ordained the ends and the means to the ends. And the means are necessary means. So it won't work to say on the one hand, okay, well we'll affirm a means end argument over here. We're going to criticize you when you make a similar argument over here. 

 Another problem with that and perhaps a bigger problem with this, for the Arminian who's already affirmed the universal love of God, the universal desire that everybody be saved, it kind of puts him on the horns of a dilemma because it calls into question God's universal love. So on the one hand, you either have a problem where your prayers don't have efficacy. On the other hand, you have a problem where you would really call into question the universal love of God. Why is that? How can it be loving in the Arminian understanding for God to sit back and wait to work in these capacities to do all that he can do for you to pray for somebody? 

I mean, there's a lot of people that we don't pray for. A lot of people, your family members and tribes and tongues and nations, people groups. Is God just kind of sitting on his hands waiting for somebody to pray for them. So he worked in that response kind of on the horns of a dilemma. They want both things and you can't have them both. Okay, so now kind of a positive statement of the Calvinist position on prayer and evangelism. First, as I mentioned here with respect to evangelism here, God ordains the ends and the means which are necessary, means to the ends. 

This is not an insignificant argument as much as Arminians aren't impressed with it, sometimes it is also necessary for our salvation that there be an atonement that Jesus Christ die on the cross for our sins. Nobody says if God has elected people from the foundation of the world, why did Christ have to die on the cross? Nobody makes that objection. But that's another case where there is a necessary means. 

Christ's atonement for our salvation without Christ's atonement, nobody saved. It must happen for sins to be forgiven, for God's wrath to be perpetuated as we saw in Romans chapter three. But nobody objects on that count and says, why is it that Christ had to die on the cross? So there's something to the argument that is to be allowed. Secondly, the elect are not born justified. You think of Ephesians chapter two. This is not an argument for what sometimes called eternal justification. Think of Ephesians chapter two where you move all the way verses one through 10 and you have this great statement of justification by grace through faith alone. 

In chapter two, verse three, well, let's just pick it up in verse one for context sake and you who were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked following the course of the world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit 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 he is talking to people who are now believers, who are celebrating the work of God for predestination. 

This other litany of praises in chapter one. And he says, but you were once children of wrath, meaning you weren't born justified. You may have been elect in the mind of God before the, foundation of the world in a sense that it would necessarily follow that in time you would be justified, but you're not born that way. You were born a child of wrath, infected by original sin and total depravity and all of the rest are. So the objection won't work. 

You know, if they're God's elect, then he's just going to do whatever and they'll be saved. No here you think of Romans chapter 10 verses 10 through 13. Again, how will they be saved unless somebody preaches to them? Salvation comes through hearing and it is necessarily the case that they hear and respond to the gospel and necessary means to the end. Okay, we mentioned the atonement again, another point. This removes a massive burden from our shoulders. All we have to do is be faithful in sharing the gospel, faithful shares of the gospel. 

We don't have to give a sales pitch, we don't have to kind of tweak our commodity and be a used car salesman. So to speak. We just have to be faithful in sharing the gospel. And as Luther said, it's the Holy Spirit's task as God sees fit to get the gospel from the ear to the heart. One verse that you should look at though, and it's kind of a paradigm verse for Calvinists on in terms of missionary activity. Take a look at second Timothy chapter two, verse 10. I'll pick it up in verse eight for the sake of context. 

But this is kind of a paradigm verse for Calvinists, thinking about missions and the necessary means to the salvation. Picking it up in verse eight, remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David as preached in my gospel for which I'm suffering bound with chains as a criminal, but the word of God is not bound, therefore says, Paul, I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. So Paul is going about on his missionary journeys, enduring all things suffering, all kinds of persecutions. 

Why? So that the elect may obtain their salvation. That is they are elect and they have not yet moved outta this category of children of wrath, their elect as yet not justified people. And so Paul says, God has his elect out there. I don't know who they are, but in faithfulness to the great commission, I'm going to go and share the gospel so that the elect may obtain the salvation for which God has destined them. 

 It is a means ends kind of argument, and a necessary means at that Calvinist on prayer, kind of a positive formulation of their view on prayer and unconditional election. Okay, what are we not talking about here? This is not a prayer to change God's decree. We don't know who, who the elect are. We're not privy to that. We're not praying for God to change his mind. We don't know who the elect are. An interesting point to note then is that in the New Testament, and most of the prayers that you see that have to do with missions, evangelism, salvation, these types of things are not prayers that Susie and Uncle Johnny, and even my little son Eli, my son Eli,, be saved. 

They're prayers that the person who is already a Christian would be faithful in sharing the gospel with Aunt Susie and Uncle Johnny and little Eli. So patterning ourself off of the New Testament, just in terms of patterning ourself off the New Testament model, my prayer or you know, hopefully your prayer for me, my wife's prayer for me, my prayer for my wife is that we will be faithful in sharing the gospel with my son Eli, and raising him in the nurture and the fear and admonition of the Lord. 

 Not so much a prayer, you know, Lord, will you convert little Eli today? The paradigm, the picture that's given to us in the New Testament is this prayer for the Christian to be faithful in proclamation to those around them. Just take a look at,, Ephesians chapter six, and you'll get one glimpse of this Ephesians chapter six verses 18 through 20, praying at all times in the Spirit with all prayer and supplication. 

To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints. So this, the saints and also for me, Paul, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel for which I'm an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly as they ought to speak. So Paul says, pray for the saints, pray for me that we may give bold proclamation, bold voice to the gospel. Why? Because we don't know who the elect are. 

We proclaim the gospel indiscriminately. The great commission is to proclaim it indiscriminate to the nations, and those who are God's elect will hear and come. So, so this is kind of the model that we have in the New Testament. Sometimes it's mentioned in this regard that in Romans chapter 10 verse one, you have a statement that Paul's praying, praying for the salvation of people, not just for faithfulness. And wi Gospel witness, it says, brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them, he's speaking of Israel, is that they may be saved. 

 The reason why this probably isn't a counter example is because Paul, I mean the promises throughout the Old Testament, and even as Paul's going to argue here in Romans chapter nine through 11, is that there's a promise that Israel's going to be saved. So he has knowledge that Israel's going to be saved in a way that we don't have knowledge necessarily that Aunt Susie and Uncle Jimmy and little baby Eli are going to be saved. So it's a little bit of a different scenario. Okay, we're going to pause here. We've got a few minutes and I'm happy to try and field some questions. 

Maybe we'll commence the next unit. Maybe not. Uh, Dave? Yes. With regards to the natural ability and moral ability, pardon me, maybe I'm just trying to go down this road. It's not even necessary, but trying to figure out the intuitive thinking that God wouldn't ask us to do something we're not able to do risk of being ablation. I mean we were created in his image by the very nature of the fact that we've sin. It's like we, we, there is that moral ability that we were created in his image, but since we forfeited that sin, I guess, is that a correct understanding? 

In the moral In Adam, we sinned, we're guilty, we're justly condemned for the sin of Adam. And so in that respect, we have lost the desire to do what pleases God. We have, in the terms of Romans chapter one, exchanged the glory of God for a lie. We've traded that glory. We prefer to worship the created thing rather than the Creator. So the impulse of our heart is idolatry, idolatry, idolatry, not worship to the one true and living God to whom worship belongs. 

Is that an accurate statement of what you're saying? I guess maybe to clarify, is it, is it correct to say that we have an ability to, to worship God because we're created in this image, but sin completely hinders us from exercising That? Yeah. Well, okay, so in the disposition of sin being passed on, I was articulating my position just a second ago thinking it was yours. I think you're saying something similar. Yeah. 

The problem is as the inheritors of Adam's sin is we don't want to worship God. So we don't do it because we don't want to. It is a moral problem, not a natural problem. Our lips could profess in accordance with Romans 10, that Jesus Christ is Lord. I mean, physically we have the ability to say that the problem is not that we are prevented from saying that in some sort of natural or physical sense. The problem is we don't say it because we don't want to. We don't say it because we're idolaters. And that's the distinction between moral and natural inability. And so what takes place in the gospel for those who who are elect, is that God brings this moral ability in the effectual call in the conversion or the regeneration of the sinner's heart. 

And so the response out of the regenerate heart is trust, repent. Yeah, yeah. But is the ability to not, not want to glorify God a choice. It, it was a choice for, for Adam, a choice for us it's, well, it's a choice for Adam and it is a choice for us in the sense that, I mean, you've already talked about the doctrine of original sin. 

You've talked about Adam's fall in the sense that Adam was appointed as our representative in the sense that we were participants in some form and Adam's sin. Yeah. It is an accurate representation of us. And this is a common objection that's given The best response to it is that among other things, if you have a problem with Adam's sin being credited to us in his train, you ought also to be logically consistent, to have a problem with the reckoning of Christ's righteousness to us who are sinners. 

So here again, you can't have it both ways. And to the degree that Adam was our representative, and let's face it, I mean God and his,, salvation or his eternal ordination, who's going to be our representative, his selection of a representative is going to be the perfect selection of a representative. It's not like how, you know, we may elect our representatives to Congress, we may elect people with this kind of a mixed bag. Some things we like, some things we don't 'cause that's the best choice we've got. 

God selects the, the most, the perfect and appropriate representative for us both in the case of Adam, then in the case of Christ. And if you, in other words, you can't have one or you can't reject one and then take the other. And then to the degree that it's true that we participated in Adam's sin in some seminal sense as Dr. Ware has argued for either earlier this semester or last semester. Yeah. Then it's true of us. Yeah. After Bruce Calvinists argue on one stance that we have, I guess moral ability in middle and the other stance turn around and say, we're spiritually dead and our trespasses and we're slave saying, we seem to contradict ourselves. 

 Right? Okay. I didn't say we had moral ability. I said, we are guilty of moral inability now in the wake of Adam's sin. We are born as children of wrath. And the significance of that being with respect to moral ability or inability, is that we don't want to worship God. And so we bring just condemnation upon ourselves, our sin flows out of our idolatrous nature. Maybe I'm not understanding your question, but I don't think we've got an inconsistency so far. 

Um, Oh, okay. Well, with that you use the analogy, if God were to go, hold a gun to our head and tell us to, to fly or, or go to tell, um, you know, obviously we don't have the capability to flying. Right? Um, Now if you were to say that's Adam, that would, that would be a different situation. But I, I mean Adam would not have the natural s as well. Um, and so Adam would not be able to do it just like we could. However, if he were to say to us, you know, head and say, choose me, we don't have that capability. 

Okay. I assume Well, okay, first, well let's do, let's don't press the analogy too far because God's not holding a gun to our head in this sense. And you can press any analogy too far. Secondly, I think maybe you're, maybe you're mixing your categories with moral and natural ability or inability, or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you because so far I don't see an inconsistency between saying moral ability involves compatible is freedom. 

And philosophically there's a problem with libertarian freedom because it can't account for choice anyway. But on the Calvinist model, moral ability compatible is freedom. The issue is we don't do it because we don't want to do it. Now as inheritors of Adam's sin and inheritors of Adam's corruption, we've inherited this disposition not to want to. But as we've already talked about with respect to original sin, our participation in Adam's sin, Adam's right representation of us in terms of God's eyes, I just don't see the problem of, I understand it's a difficult issue and that some people, you know, may, maybe they don't like the formulation, but there's a difference between saying a demand for something that they're naturally unable to do and a difference for something with respect to, to moral inability where the problem is not a can't, but a won't. 

 There, there's a difference between can't and won't. And, and I think that's a helpful distinction. Yeah. I just had a question concerning the practical application earlier, um, you, you had said, you know, we're not to pray for the boss. 

We pray for the effective evangelism of the people that are the gospel. Um, and just so I can, I guess something on my own mind when we opened up the class in your prayer, you actually prayed for the lost in say, right. I was just wondering if you could That's a good point. Lemme clarify my position. I said that's the general pattern of the New Testament. I don't know what Dr. Ware would say on this, but I think that Calvinist prayer comes down to a situation of thy will be done. 

 So in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prays, father, if it is permissible, if it's possible, let this cut pass. Not my will, but thy will be done. So Jesus Christ was the lambs slain before the foundation of the world. I don't think it was in question at the point when Jesus was in the garden of Gethsemane, when he intentionally set his face to go to Jerusalem, that what was coming after this, namely the cross. I don't think it was endowed at that point. And so Jesus prays, father, if it's possible, let this cut pass, but not my will, but thy will be done. 

 So I think there is, in my view, some permissibility to pray for the salvation of people whose eternal status we don't know so long as we conclude that prayer in a fashion similar to Jesus, not my will, but thy will be done. So the major pattern of the New Testament is the praying that Christians will be faithful in their witness hand in hand with that. I tend to think this permissibility to pray in a way the Lord we would love to see. And here again, I mean, my prayer was that the larger Muslim world, that the Iraqi people would come to salvation. 

I also think that's in accord with Revelation five, nine, that people, every tribe in Tonga nation will be saved. In other words, I think there will be Iraqi people in heaven, for instance. Um, so I don't think there's necessarily a contradiction, but to, to the degree that we pray specifically, I mean, I'll say it, I pray for my faithfulness and my wife's faithfulness to, in the gospel presentation to our son and to raise him in the fear and admonition of the Lord. I pray that predominantly. I also pray, and maybe I'm wrong here and I'm willing to be corrected on this, but I also pray that Eli will be saved. 

I do pray that particularly for him trying to trust the Lord's will in particular, so I, I don't think we've necessarily pit the two squarely against each other. Does that make sense? Okay. Is there a question over here? Yeah. About the, um, nor Berg you, how do you answer predetermined knowing or Determinately knowing and knowing the Termin? Are you His, um, you'd have to elaborate on it a little bit. I'm, well, I'm real sketch. 

I don't think he even knows what he Thinks. Yeah, but it's, well, we give him a little more credit than that. But, um, Dr. Ware knows that in vastly greater detail than I do. I think are redone it four 10. Is that right? Okay. Well, we're a little bit over Dr. Ware I'll answer that question on Tuesday. Oh, yes. Your papers, your meditation papers, if you just set them up here on your way out, that'd be great. Thanks.