All right, so we are in the final lap here on chapter 19, page 41 of your booklets. We finished off section six last week, and so we're gonna look at section seven here today. And it says this. These uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the gospel, but are in sweet harmony with it. For the spirit of Christ subdues and enables the human will to do freely and cheerfully what the will of God, as revealed in the law, requires. Okay, so again, these uses of the law, how many uses of the law are there? Three, and they are? What's that? Civil? Yep. Ceremonial is a type of law. Three uses of the law. Yes. As a mirror? Yep. And to guide us in our sanctification, right? So those are the three uses of the law. So that's what this has in mind here. These three uses of the law So the first use being as a mirror to drive us to Christ, the second use to restrain evil in society, and the third use to guide our sanctification, and depending on whether you are a Lutheran or a Reformed, you order those differently, but it's the same content. These uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the gospel, but are in sweet harmony with it. Okay? And so let's look there at Galatians 3 verse 21, if somebody wants to take that. Galatians 3 verse 21. Brett, go for it. Okay, very good, thank you, Brett. Okay, so this is staying out of both ditches. With what Brett just read, is it possible that man can make himself right before God by law-keeping? Is that a possibility? No, it is not. And that's why the Bible says, and that's why God stuffed 150 pounds of tanner right into the law and blew it up, because there are no moral expectations on people anymore. Right? Isn't that what Paul is saying in Galatians? Let's just blow this whole thing up. There is no moral law. No, absolutely not. Absolutely not. There is a continued moral law, okay? And this is important. This is actually surprisingly still more of a live issue than I thought it was. We had our pastor's meeting this week and this issue came up. And I'll flesh that out maybe in a little bit. But this is a live issue, okay? So, again, I'm gonna ask, this is your test. Did the moral law begin with Moses on Sinai? No. Okay, good. That should be a very quick answer. No. No, it did not start there. When did the moral law start? Eternity past. Yeah, it was given to Adam, but it's already an ancient law before Adam gets it, right? Because the ancient of days has been who he is long before Adam showed up. It's infinite. The moral law is God's character. Okay? It has no start date and it has no end date. Why do I emphasize this? This is why, because there is a school of thought out there, and this is maybe fitting with Dr. MacArthur's passing, where Dr. MacArthur strongly distanced himself from a school of thought that completely had the evangelical mindset captured from the early 1900s until recently called dispensationalism. And in dispensationalism, there is this, it's called free grace theology. Because in dispensationalism, if God makes a promise, there can't be any conditions involved in it. So if God tells Abram, you're gonna get this land, that means Jewish people still to this day, that promise is still there, okay? Which is why the popular expression of dispensationalism today is all, it's about Israel, Israel, Israel, the nation. That's what we see today But in that school of thought it said this if that's how it works with Abram getting the land and this is just unconditional There's no way Israel can divorce herself from God's covenant, which I clearly believe is exactly what happens in the gospel of Matthew If that's the case, then anytime anyone accepts any offer from God, they accept the terms of any offer from God, there can't be any conditions. Therefore, in classical dispensational thought, in free grace theology, if you accept the terms of the gospel, that's it. That's it. No sanctification is necessary. They'll encourage sanctification. They'll say it's better if you're sanctified than if you're not. But if the offer of the gospel is free, that means it's free. It means it's free. You signed your decision card at camp when you were six. And I don't care what wife number seven says about your porn habit and your heroin use. You made that decision. You made that decision and God's grace is free. You're saved. The minister will preach at your funeral how you are in the arms of Jesus, despite a reckless life of living. One of our pastors, well, Blake, who's at family camp, comes from the deep south. You can hear it in his voice, right? He comes from the American Bible Belt, okay? My hope is built on nothing less than Scofield Notes and Moody Press, as the song goes, right? Big time dispensational thinking. He said, brother, that's not an exaggeration. My cousin was a drug dealer and he OD'd and the minister was unequivocal that he was in heaven. He was absolutely certain he was in heaven because he remembers when my cousin was 11 at a revival meeting, he made a decision. He filled out a decision card. He is absolutely in heaven, despite the fact that there was no indication of fruit or of righteousness or of sanctification in this man's life ever. Okay? Because again, God's promises to believers works the same way in that school of thought as God's promises to Israel. It's unconditional. It's unconditional. Sanctification is good, but it's not necessary. You can have Jesus as your Savior without having Him as your Lord. And the Bible says no very clearly to that. It's a package deal. If He's not your Lord, He was never your Savior. And if He is your Savior, He is your Lord. Period, full stop, that's what the Bible teaches. So how does that not destroy free grace? Are we just smuggling works in the back door? And these brothers who wrote this confession say, no, we're not smuggling works in the back door. Not at all. So I'm gonna ask, again, this is a test. We've gone over this in the past. How can it be that works, that sanctification is a necessary part of your salvation, but we're not, that we're not making it about something we do. How is that possible? It's a natural fruit, right? So there's conditions, but God is meeting those conditions in us by giving us his Holy Spirit, right? It's the Holy Spirit who is sanctifying us, giving us new desires. So the picture I always use is taking your kid to the florist, putting money in your kid's hands, so that they can buy Mom something for Mother's Day. It's grace from first to last. But there is a condition. The florist needs to get paid or he's not giving you flowers, right? So the condition has to be met. Nobody will see the Lord without righteousness. That's true. But that's not works-based. Jesus met that condition in and through us and the Holy Spirit will bring us into conformity with that. Okay, so this is not smuggling works in the back door. Rather, it's just saying, if we have been claimed by Christ, if we have been adopted into God's family, what we will expect is that such a person will, imperfectly, but surely, grow more and more into the conformity of God's holy character, okay? Sanctification is not optional. It's necessary, it's mandatory, It's not the same as justification, but it's one link following the other in a chain. You cannot separate them. We can distinguish them. One is not the other, that is true. But these are links in a chain, and it absolutely cannot be broken. If someone refuses to be sanctified, that is all the evidence you need to say, as far as I can tell, they're not justified. Christ has not put his name on that person. He has not. And I'm gonna stop there. Again, all these sections have kind of led to this summary statement here, but I want to make sure that this is clear in our thinking before we just keep driving on. Is this clear in our thinking? There's conditions, but conditions are met by God in and through us, so it is all of grace, okay? I'm not convinced. I'm seeing some nodding, but I'm not convinced. Maybe we're still just warming up here. Right. Okay, so Dave is bringing up something interesting. Usually, in those kind of Bible Belt, let's say, kind of fundamentalist, independent Baptist kind of church settings, it's very strongly Arminian. And yet, amazingly, there's once saved, always saved. That's a contradiction. Right, at least it would sure seem that way. Can you see that? If it's Arminian, that means I got myself saved by an act of my free will, but now that I got myself into the live catch-mouse trap, I can't get out. Right, there's an inherent contradiction in Arminian's preaching, once saved, always saved, and yet many of them do. How do they get there? I can get myself saved with my free will, but I can't possibly get myself unsaved by my free will. And then they talk about that as once saved, always saved. What's going on there? I think that once saved, always saved is not driven by their Arminianism. In fact, it's contrary to it. It's driven by a dispensational framework. Dave, did you hear the gospel at camp? Hypothetically. You're CMC, so did you hear it at a revival meeting, Dave? Yeah? Yeah, when the revivalist came, you heard the gospel, right? Did you make a decision that night when you were seven, Dave? You heard the gospel. Yep, okay, so you were four. Okay, whatever. If you accept the terms of the gospel, if your theology will not allow for conditions to sovereignly be placed in how God works, that's what's driving it. It's a dispensational reading of the Bible. There cannot possibly be conditions. You accepted the terms of the gospel, no matter what the rest of your life does, you're in. and you cannot possibly get yourself out. So they're right in the sense that a truly justified person actually can't get unsaved, that is true. But that's also why there is actually a difference between teaching once saved, always saved, and perseverance of the saints. Once saved, always saved means cheat on Phyllis, do heroin, do whatever you want, show up at church once for the rest of your life, whatever. You're saved, you're in. It's free grace after all. That's once saved, always saved. Perseverance of the saints would say no. If God got a hold of Dave Weed back there, imperfectly, maybe through setbacks, but we're going to see Dave Weed get holier as he progresses through his life and become more and more godly. There's conditions, but those are conditions that God is meeting in you. So it's not you drumming yourself up. This is the Holy Spirit slowly but surely transforming somebody that he has claimed as his own. which is why I am perfectly comfortable talking about perseverance of the saints, but because of that confusion, I never talk about once saved, always saved, ever, because it leads to that kind of fruitless possibility. I think this is where your branch of Mennonite heritage and mine are drastically different. Dispensationalism made basically zero inroads into the EMC, basically none. It just doesn't exist. It was very radical, two kingdom, all millennial kind of stuff. So I'd say in my background, we were consistent Armenians. You can lose your salvation. And in fact, many have. Right? I think that's wrong, but it is consistent with your starting principles. Right? Because dispensational, that reading of scripture never, it never made a real hold. And I understand in the CMC world that it definitely did. But in my background, I'd say none at all. There was none of that. It was wrong, but it was consistently wrong in my opinion. Yeah, it's a good thing for many people that we're not always consistent. That's how we can get things right sometimes. Yeah, Tim, you've got your hat here. Yeah, so in the crowd where you came out of, would there not have been more them mocking us for once saved, always saved, but then believing that if I don't do enough works, I will lose myself? Okay, I think I'm understanding what Tim is saying. So you're asking about my own background, okay? So EMC background, how does this work? Okay, so I'm not advocating this view, I'm saying how I grew up. The people who say once saved, always saved are Calvinists. And because Calvinism is wrong, what that is going to lead to is loose, unsanctified living. is why my grade 9 teacher told me in social studies when we were studying the Reformation that the Calvinists were those people who wanted to live like Satan and still call themselves Christians. I think that's an uncharitable assessment, but what they are doing is confusing a fundamentalist understanding of once saved always saved with the reform doctrine of perseverance of the saints and they're not the same so they're just seeing that once saved always saved oh well that comes from calvinism and then why not just have a blowout for the rest of your life you got saved at a revival meeting so why why bother after that and that i i don't think that's the right reading but i understand based on the kind of historical experience why that mindset was back there, how they saw that. But I think it's incorrect, obviously, but. Oh, you stay saved by, okay. You stay saved by making that decision day in and day out, and by making sure that your works match your decision. And if you'd ask, so we are kept by works? I think the answer for most would be no. But it has to be yes for that system to work. And again, this is a happy contradiction. R.C. Sproul talks about it. It's good for many people that we're not consistent, because sometimes if we followed our theological path consistently, we'd get into the weeds pretty badly. So I think it's inconsistent for them to say, no, you're not kept by works, but really, What's the level of bad deeds I need to do to be unsaved for Christ's justification to be canceled, right? It's a combination of choosing and then living, which of course isn't entirely wrong, but it sees it as this is something you generated on your own rather than that the Holy Spirit is doing this through you. Like, it really is Tim that wakes up every day and says, I'm gonna disciple my family. That is you. Now, there's two ways to interpret that. That's either Tim, on his own steam, getting up and pulling himself up by the bootstraps every morning and saying that, or it's you recognizing that the Holy Spirit has claimed you, so now this is him working in and through you. But we agree, it's actually Tim who has faith. How did it get there is the question. And how does it stay there is the follow-up question. That's the point of difference. Sean. How do I define apostasy? Okay, now we're, there's several layers here. Are you asking me or are you asking me how I was taught? Okay, so biblically what I understand apostasy to be is a turning away from an orthodox profession of faith. So someone has all the appearance, let's say, I'm not gonna pick a name, but let's pick somebody who's a member of this church, and they're walking with us, and they're doing everything right. Everything looks good, there's no red flags. Then we find out they're cheating on their wife, they become an atheist, they leave the faith, and they stay out until they die. That's apostasy. Now, was that person saved? back there and they got unsaved, okay, I would say no. That person was never saved, but they were going through the motions. They apostatized from their orthodox profession. They left the faith. So there should be nothing about us that's scared to talk about apostasy or backsliding or leaving the faith, because we can't see into someone's heart. When we accept members into this church, we don't know for certain that they're regenerate. We go with the fruit, we go with the profession, that's what we can work with. If they depart from that, they have apostatized. They've left the Christian faith. That's right. I would not understand that a justified person can leave the faith. If they do apostatize and they stay in that state, then I think we would say the grace of God never touched them. Depart from me, I never knew you, despite casting out demons and despite your many prophecies. There was never any point along the way at which this person belonged to Jesus, ever. It can also happen, though, that they spend a season like that and they come back, like King David, So I don't think we can say, until someone's in the ground, I don't think we can finally say for certain that someone has actually apostatized. We don't know, because what if they do come back in their last days, right? So we don't have enough information about someone's heart to say this person did or did not apostatize. Certainly, we give the warnings. They may come back at the end, and they may not. And so, but we can't see what's there. But I would just, to go back to your original point, I would just say apostasy is leaving the Christian faith, turning your back on it. And it may be temporary in the case of a true believer, or it will be permanent in the case of an unbeliever, I would say. Unless I'm not understanding what you're saying. Okay, so if you're doing that, so now, okay. What they would say is you are Christ, right? Like if you actually read the book of Graves and like the baby baptisms, like they're saying that these babies have the Holy Spirit, like they say that verbatim. And so if you have that, and then when they're 16 and people turn, like is that apostasy, does that count as apostasy? Because they never really were Christ's in the beginning. Right, so I'd say, so Sean's asking now more specifically, so not only are we all Protestants now, but we're all covenant theologians, we're all Reformed, but then the difference between Reformed Baptists and Reformed Paedo-Baptists, the understanding of apostasy in one sense is identical. Somebody visibly left the Christian faith. So the actual core understanding is identical. How that relates to covenant theology, we would say people can be close, like they're touching on the covenant body of believers, but the only, in our Baptist understanding, the only people who belong in the new covenant are truly regenerated believers. And so only Christ actually knows who's truly in the new covenant. Whereas Pato Baptist would understand that the new covenant includes all believers and their children are in there just like Old Testament Israel the children are included and so to them they would say apostasy is leaving the circle of the New Covenant. And we would say, no, those people were never actually in the New Covenant. We'd agree they were never saved. We would agree they never actually belonged to Christ, which is why the language that some of the Pado-Baptist churches use that they actually have the Holy Spirit is confusing. because they don't really believe that, and it's very unfortunate language, I think, in their form, because if pressed, they don't actually believe that. Their understanding would be the same, that if you have the Holy Spirit, you can't lose him. We're agreed on TULIP, we're agreed on perseverance. There's zero daylight between Baptist and paedo-Baptist whatsoever. It's just how we understand, are people born into the church part of the new covenant, or aren't they? by birth. They would say yes, they are. We would say no, not until you're regenerated. That's the difference. But in terms of what's actually happening in someone's heart, zero difference. It's identical. It's identical. More on this. Now we got warmed up. Okay, so let's go to Philippians 2, 12 and 13. Okay, so Lisa's question is, this verse in relation to how you were brought up? How I was brought up? Oh, okay. Okay, we've got so many backgrounds here, I'm losing track of whose upbringing we're talking about. Okay. Yes, 100%. Okay, I think the answer is in the text. Philippians 2, 12 and 13 says this. Therefore my beloved as you have always obeyed so now not only as in my presence but much more in my absence Work out your salvation with fear and trembling For it is God who works in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure Okay, so in My background, verse 12 was emphasized and verse 13 not so much. And if verse 13 was ever mentioned, it was very much a servant of verse 12. Verse 12 is the control. You do this. Matt, no one's gonna run for you. No one's gonna have faith for you. You better do it. You better work. And the more you work, the more sure you're gonna be that you're saved. Verse 13 is the control, yep. I'm just gonna sit back and do absolutely nothing while the Holy Spirit just zaps outcomes without any means at all. Yep. Right? And especially in a hyper-Calvinist background, for sure, for sure, that would be emphasized because there's probably like nine elect people in the history of the universe, right? And won't that be a glorious festal gathering in heaven, all nine of us staring at each other, right? The outcome is almost the same, right? We're failing to see how these work together. I'd say there's verse 12 and verse 13 work together. There's not one, that's counteracting the other, right? It's not your verses versus my verses, verses versus verses, as someone says, okay? It's not that. This isn't one set of verses against another set of verses. It's right here. This is an organic connection. Who's gotta work out their salvation? Well, I do. I'm the one who was saved. I have to get up in the morning and put sin to death and keep growing. That's true. No one will do it for me. That is true. Okay, so the working here says don't sit around asking God for a ditch while you're leaning on a shovel. Don't do that, that's sinful. To just, oh, just help us, I'm not gonna do anything, I'm just gonna wait for God to miraculously make a ditch. No, you put a shovel in your hand, get digging. Do something, okay, move. So they're both right there, but then once we do start working, Once you have a desire to come to the Lord and to put sin to death and to grow in righteousness, what this verse is saying, now there's no cause for boasting. Because look back over your shoulder, and it was not your choice that got you there. It wasn't your series of choices that got you there. It wasn't pulling yourself up by the bootstraps that got you there. It was God working in you to work and to will for his good pleasure. God took out your heart of stone, he put in a heart of flesh, which is why you desire to get going. So it's still grace, top to bottom. So I think a verse like this keeps us from the works-based salvation that Arminianism has to lead to, and it also should protect us from the kind of passive, unsanctified form of kind of hyper-Calvinism that says there's nothing for you to do whatsoever. There is something for you to do because the Holy Spirit has empowered that work. So there's no cause for boasting. Ephesians 2, eight and nine, sometimes people cut off verse eight and nine from verse 10 the same way they do it here. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not of your own, right, so there's no cause for boasting, to do those works which God has prepared beforehand. Verse 10. Verse eight and nine, the outcome is verse 10. You can't divorce it. You can't just emphasize the good works prepared beforehand without remembering that it was by grace through faith that God is there. And you can't just leave the by grace through faith dangling as though that's the finished thing. No, it's for the good works. God doesn't save us by our works, he saves us for good works. That's what he saves us for, is for good works that he would have glory and praise in his creation. So it's all grace, top to bottom. 100% grace, okay, full octane grace, there's no works whatsoever that gets us justified, but once we are justified, the Holy Spirit does indeed start working in and through us. So both are true, and we have to say 100% yes to both. We've got to work, and 100% it's the Holy Spirit in and through us that's energizing that work. Does that, Howard, your hand was up. Well, okay, very good, yeah. Yeah, no, that's fair. Yeah. Yep. No, that's good. Howard's just saying that even if you divorce verse 12 and verse 13 in Philippians 2, if the salvation by works, people would even be misreading verse 12 because there's fear and trembling there. There's a reverence that if it was just by works, we wouldn't need to be worried about, right? Just waltz our way in. Angela and then Carter. Okay, so this kind of introduces another question. Are there degrees of reward in heaven? The text was 1 Corinthians 13? Three? Okay, why don't we go there, let's read it out. Where did you start, Angela, verse 12? Okay. Well, here, why don't we, let's go back to the, first of all, can I get an amen that context matters? Okay, this is actually about church planting, which is interesting. Okay, so let's go back at least to verse 10. According to the grace given of God, given to me, Like a skilled master builder, I laid a foundation, and someone else's plant is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it, for no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one's work will become manifest, for the day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work "'that anyone has built on the foundation survives, "'he will receive a reward. "'If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, "'though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.'" Okay, that's the passage you had in mind, okay. First instance here, context does matter. This is about church planting, okay. Now elsewhere, Paul says if somebody is preaching a saving gospel with bad motives, what do you do? Leave them alone. God will deal with his bad motives. But he's preaching a saving gospel, so just leave him alone, okay? Contrary-wise, if somebody has really good intentions and they are the sweetest, most warm-hearted church lady you've ever met, but she's teaching a heresy, what do you do? You remove the opportunity for her to be teaching falsehood. Okay, and we do almost the exact opposite of what the Bible says today. We hang people for their bad motives, and we give anyone a pass for no matter how wicked their doctrine or their morals are. If they mean well, we give them a pass. We do almost the exact opposite of what the Bible actually instructs on this thing, okay? So there is a connection between fruit and root, and so here Paul is saying that there's only one foundation on the church, which is the apostolic deposit in scripture. So there's only this foundation for the church. If somebody comes along and puts error on top of that foundation, the foundation remains. Kind of in keeping with that other teaching. Just leave them alone. Their works will be revealed on the last day. But the gospel remains. So one takeaway we can say is that Not every true church is healthy, and not every church that appears healthy is a true church. What's the foundation underneath here? You can have an orthodox sound church that's a true church that's cold and maybe unhealthy in some ways, but you can also have a very warm church, if it's not built on this foundation, that is no church at all. despite all the fellowship that's happening, despite all the warm relationships and the hospitality, it's not a true church if they're not built on this foundation, okay? So the foundation matters. What goes on top of the foundation, which is what we're doing, we're gonna get wrong sometimes, okay? And not every error is a damning error. So someone may indeed be genuinely persuaded of bad doctrine, and they're even teaching it. That doesn't mean they're unsaved. It just means they're poorly taught. Okay, so they will be, they will be saved. Okay, they are saved. But I would also say there is a secondary application here to degrees of reward in glory. Heaven is not any more egalitarian than anything else. Heaven is not egalitarian. Some go on to a great reward, some send much treasure ahead, and some send little treasure ahead. And so I think by secondary application, we can go there too with a passage like this, is I expect Jonathan Edwards' cup of glory is gonna be vastly superior to mine. but because we're in heaven, I'm not gonna be envious of that. I'll be happy of what God did through Edwards, and I'll be happy with what he did through me, and I'll be happy with what he did from you. There's not gonna be envy, but there are seemingly degrees of reward in heaven, and also degrees of punishment in hell. Both, right? There's only two outcomes, but within each outcome, there's degrees of the intensity of the punishment, Someone who is apostatized will indeed receive a heavy beating, by Jesus' own words, and someone who never heard will receive a lighter beating. Right, that's by Jesus' own parable of the servants. And I think it works the same in heaven. Some send much treasure ahead and some send very little. But I wouldn't say that this cancels out the importance of sanctification. In fact, if anything, I'd say it undergirds it. Do you want to send more treasure ahead or less? What do you want? You're a Christian. Sanctification matters. Store up your treasure in heaven. Get on it. Let's go. Does that cover that? Yeah? Carter, you also had your hand up. Okay, good question. So Carter's asking, what did you call it, Pastor Bob's Salvation Show? Brother Loves Traveling Salvation Show, okay. Okay. Oh, I didn't know that, actually. Okay. You stumped me on a classic rock reference. That's embarrassing for me. Okay, so Carter's asking, in that IFB, fundamentalist, dispensational, once saved, always saved, you made that decision at the revival meeting, so you're good to go regardless of your fruit, how would they understand apostasy? To some degree, you'll see a difference here. Some of them would understand like us. that it's primarily, well, no, I should back up further and give a less confusing answer. Give me a second, I'm processing here. In that mindset, salvation is not so much a change of heart, it's merely a change of mind. Okay, and we would affirm, yes, salvation is a change of mind. Repentance, metanoia, that means here's sin and here's Christ, I'm doing this, okay, that's repentance, that's metanoia, and it involves the head and the heart in a classical reformed or Protestant or evangelical understanding. The whole man turns, head and heart. But because in that particular system, in fundamentalism, where the one saved always saved, in that world, they would say, no, metanoia is more strictly defined, it's just a change of mind. If you cognitively accept the terms of the gospel, you're in. So the only way out is to change your mind. But it's not about fruit anywhere. It's not about the heart anywhere. It's a change of mind. And so, again, if this is mixed with Arminianism, which it is 95% of the time, Some of them who are consistent would say, you can change your mind and get out. Others would say, no, you can't. These are hypothetical warnings. It's a hypothetical apostasy. But no true believer actually will change their mind. So again, to some degree, we would agree with that. No true believer will change their mind. But they would just very much have a separation between head and heart that I would say classical Reformed theology would not want to separate head and heart like that. We'd want to say it's the whole man. The whole Carter repents. Carter's mind changes, his thinking changes, your affections change, your works change. The whole man is involved in repentance, right? The whole Carter is doing a 180 in that act of repentance. So it's not just a cognitive acceptance of an abstract propositional truth. It's the gospel captured all of Carter. and now all of Carter belongs to Jesus. And we would say, and you can't leave because you don't want to. So I'm just trying to be fair that there are, in that world, there are, not everyone would give you the same answer, necessarily. I thought this was gonna be a chip shot. We've got like four lines here, but there's a good discussion and I have no need to rush it. Okay, let's keep going here then. Four, the spirit of Christ subdues and enables the human will to do freely and cheerfully what the will of God as revealed in the law requires. And that's really what we've been discussing now. is a thorough biblical view is not that people become robots in the gospel, but that our will itself changes. Our desires change. So no violence is done to the will of the creature. In Reformed theology, there is no violence done to the will of the creature. People are always doing what they desire in their heart, 100% of the time, okay? And your experience would say that's true. You always choose what you want. Always? Yes, always. 100% of the time. Well, what about when I have conflicting desires? Well, the strongest one wins. If our choices mean anything, it's because we're doing what we want. Our choices reflect what's going on in our heart. And that's why I would actually follow up to say Armenians, as much as the whole system is based on accountability because of our decisions, I'd say, again, if we're going to push that all the way to the limit, you say, well, how can God hold us accountable for something that may or not be a reflection on what's going on in my heart? If my choice can become spontaneous, how can I be accountable for that decision? Versus saying, yes, we have competing desires, yes, we're complex creatures, yes, this is all true, But in the moment of decision, we always choose what we most strongly desire, and that is the basis for accountability. You chose what you wanted. The couple that got famous this week at the Coldplay concert were doing exactly what they wanted. Do you think there was conflicting desires that got them there? I bet there was, okay? You don't cheat on your wife or your husband without a whole lot of little decisions that get you there. There was a billion ungodly decisions that got them into that spot. But each and every one was what they wanted in the final event. They did exactly what they wanted. And I'm sure there was lots of guilt and lots of competing desires mixed in there. But the reason that they are held accountable in all centers, that's just a popular example from this week, the reason that God holds any or all of us accountable is because our decisions are an accurate picture of what's happening in our hearts. It's accurate. It's correct. Your fruit successfully and invariably reflects what's going on in your heart. There's no way around it. Your actions are a reflection of your heart. With what the heart is full, the mouth speaks. Right? We're on. Right, okay, so Ron is saying, or was there more yet? No, okay, so what Ron is saying is they think many people would grant that we're always doing what we most strongly desire, right? And I think many people would grant that. But then it gets more difficult if we say that God is providential over all things. That means, it gets more difficult because then those sinful desires are sinful desires that God has not restrained. Right? God was intentional about letting this happen. Yeah. Right. And I would say, I would say we're not just puppets because it's actually us who want those things. But at a certain point, I would also say this, and this is hard to say, but John Frame, who's a theologian I respect quite immensely, would say this. That's always brought up as such a strong opposition, but are we so committed to human autonomy, I have to be careful how I say this, because John Frame's not saying we are robots. He's not, he would deny that. He would hold the same view of free will that I would hold. Why are we so offended at that? What if the Bible does teach that we're robots? Are we willing to accept that? And I would agree with John Frame, we're not. But it's the same thing that does this. We read in the Bible about catastrophe falling on people for sinning. And who do our hearts automatically sympathize with? Boy, I read that and boy is that a damning thought. I feel sorry for Uzzah. I feel sorry for King David. What is wrong with me? Good night. A holy God is vindicating his holiness and I feel sorry for the bad guy who got what he deserved? What is wrong? Something is seriously disordered in my heart that I feel sorry for the bad guy when God strikes them with a heavy blow. What is that? And I think that just shows we are deeply, even if we know better from the Bible, we are deeply committed to man-first theology. Right? Because I'm more like Uzzah in that story than like God. And so I see myself getting struck dead, which is why I sympathize with him. At one sense, it's understandable. But in another sense, I'd say why, I'd say what does it reveal about us that our sympathy is, we phrase the question this way. If God is loving, how can there be so much suffering in the world? It's a question we can answer. Why do we never ask, if God is holy, why are we allowed to live here? Where's our sympathies at? And I'm not saying that can't be answered what you're saying. It does make it harder when we put God's providence in there I agree fully But I would there's so many assumptions that make us ask those questions rather than the contrary question That I'd also want to dig into the human heart. Why do we sympathize with the bad guys and not with God? Why why is it this big moral problem when God tells Joshua to leave nothing alive? I? That is actually a moral problem because none of Joshua or his men deserve to stay alive either. That's the moral dilemma. Jacob I loved, Esau I hated. What's the dilemma? Well it's certain, the actual dilemma here is not Esau I hated. Esau's a hateable guy. He is hateworthy. He's a rebel sinner who hates God, just like his brother Jacob. That's the dilemma. The dilemma here is not Esau hated. That's no problem at all. That makes total sense that Esau hated. What should catch us up and just grip our hearts is why did God love Jacob? There is not a single redeeming trait in that guy. He's a liar, he's a mama's boy, he's effeminate, he's a deceiver. There is not one thing that's likable about that guy whatsoever. And God says I love him? What kind of a God are we dealing with if he loves that guy? So I'd want to, on those kinds of questions, I'd want to answer it, but I also want to go deeper and say, what's the assumptions that make us ask the kinds of questions that we ask, rather than the contrary question? But to the question, I would say no harm is done because it is actually us willing, and the default setting after the fall in our hearts is sinful. So God does not have to intervene and put sinful thoughts or sinful desires in a creature. That's the factory setting. Right, God is being passive when he allows evil to carry on. He is intervening when he grabs hold of a sinner. But the evil that we see is essentially God remaining passive. It's not like we are neutral and then God actively puts good desires in Jacob's hearts and evil desires in Esau's heart. They both show up dead on arrival. God is leaving one alone and he is actively working his grace into the other. if that makes sense. So I would also want to emphasize that. God is not the author of evil, God's not guilty of evil, and he does not plant evil in people's hearts. Yes, he decrees that evil goes on, that's by his decision, that is true. But God's act of work is in regenerating and not in damning. Maybe this should be carried on because we're at 1021, so we will carry on next week with that Ezekiel passage. Again, I thought this would be easy, but I prefer discussion that's meaningful to just checking stuff off a list. So we will pick up next week. Why don't we quickly close in prayer and then we can carry on. Father God, thank you for your word. Thank you for not leaving us in the dark. Thank you for revealing your mind to us and your plan of salvation. I pray that we would all be obedient disciples, obedient servants, that we would submit ourselves to the text of your word, that we would not elevate our own ideas, our own philosophy, but rather that we would submit in every way to what your word says and be willing to work out consistently the applications of all that. Pray that you'd be with us now as we have a time of fellowship, prepare our hearts for worship as well. Pray this all in the strong name of Jesus, and amen.