we're starting not just a whole new chapter, chapter 10, on effectual calling, we're really starting a new section of the confession overall. We're not going to do chapter 9. If you remember, I said we kind of tackled that along with the chapters on the decrees, I think. Whatever talks about election and predestination, we did that. We did free will with those chapters. So we're jumping into chapter 10 and really into a whole new section of the confession. If you have your confession of faith, if you guys have your confessions of faith, okay, open up to the table of contents, the table of contents, and you'll see it says chapter 10, effectual calling, chapter 11, justification. We have adoption, sanctification, saving faith, repentance, good works, perseverance, and assurance. Those chapters are all dealing with our salvation in Christ, or what we call more specifically the doctrine of soteriology. Christ is our soter, He's our Savior. If you've ever wondered why Christians have the fish symbol, right? Maybe you know that in Greek it means ikthus, ikthus. The study of fish is ikthuology, okay? That's the Greek word for fish. But Christians were not obsessed with fish per se, but it was an acronym for Jesu, Jesu Christas, or Jesu Christu, no, Jesu Christas, which means Son of God, Soter. So the ikthus, the S in that, the acronym is Soter. So it means Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior. So it's kind of like the most basic confession of faith that they had. They're confessing He's the Son of God and Savior. And so Soteriology is the doctrine of our salvation. And so, these things pretty much all the way to chapter 17 deal with either our salvation or the fruits of it somehow. Well, before we dive into effectual calling into that chapter, I want us to discuss what we might call frameworks. for approaching the doctrine of soteriology in general, for approaching this whole new section. There are different lenses which we might look through as we approach them. And we want to use, there's particularly two, and we want to use both of them. We don't want to use one and exclude the other, which tends to happen today in some ways. We'll look at that. These two frameworks are what we call on the one hand either the doctrine of the ordo salutis or the order of salvation. Okay, that's what it means. That's one way of looking at these doctrines is the order of how we are saved, okay? The other way which we look at this is through the doctrine of union with Christ. And in that way we're not necessarily analyzing these as different steps in an order, but as all benefits of the covenant of grace which are found in Christ. None of these things, you can have none of these things apart from Christ. And so these are two complementary ways that we want to keep in mind as we approach the doctrine of salvation. Well, let's look into this. First, let's discuss the ordo salutis. The ordo salutis. Who can give me an example of an ordo salutis? So, I mean the logical steps, or I mean the steps, not necessarily a verse. Factual calling, justification, sanctification, glorification. Okay, yeah. Did he miss anything? Election or adoption, what else? Regeneration, okay. Perseverance. Yeah, that's typically what we tend to think of when we talk about it. Put simply, the order of salvation is a way of ordering the acts of God and our responses in salvation in a logical manner in which tries to express the relationship between each step. Why does one go before or after? That's kind of what we're trying to understand. Or should any of them go logically before one or the other? This has also been called the golden chain of redemption in which each link in this chain is a different step of our redemption. There are lots of passages which talk about things like this or at least intimate the idea that one step logically precedes another, okay? For example, Romans 8.30, Paul says, and those whom God predestined, He also called. And those whom He called, He also justified. And those whom He also justified, He also glorified." Now, there is a logical progression there. On the one hand, you have predestination in eternity past, and then glorification, which is in the future, right? And you have this relationship between being called and justified. And so, there are places in Scripture in which we see this kind of order of salvation. Now, we need to make some very careful distinctions here. First, some of the steps in the Ordo are temporal, okay? They happen in time, they precede other steps. Can you think of something like that? Or which there's a temporal difference between the steps? Justification and glorification, right? We are justified now, and I'd add we are as justified as we'll ever be, but we are not yet glorified, okay? There's a difference in time. We have to wait till we're glorified, okay? And so there are differences in time. Other steps, however, are not temporal, but logical in order. They're logical. In these steps, as far as time is concerned, they occur simultaneously. Simultaneously, you have both. There's not one millisecond in which one step happens before the other one. They happen at the same exact time. And yet, there's a logical ordering between the two. One of them takes precedence over the other one. It's seen to be the cause of the other one, even though they both occur at the same time. Let me give you an example. consider effectual calling, okay? For right now, we'll treat that as regeneration. We'll say it's a little bit different from that, but we'll say regeneration, okay? Does that occur, are you regenerated before you're justified? Not in time, how? Regeneration creates faith, which justifies. So is there a millisecond, however so small, in which we are regenerated but we're not yet justified? No. The moment we're regenerated, we're regenerated with faith, right? And when you have faith, you have justification. And so there's not a temporal distinction. There was never a moment in which someone has been born again of God, but not yet justified. They occur simultaneously, and yet we would all see the very logical order of saying, you must be born again in order to see the kingdom of God, right? The moment you're born again, you see the kingdom of God, but there's a logical precedence that takes place. Let me give you an example of this kind of ordering. We do, this is not just like scholasticism, okay? This is not just Aristotelian logic. This is just logic in many ways. We use this all the time. We order things logically. Let me ask you this. When a man gets married, is he no longer a bachelor? Yeah. When a man gets married, he is no longer a bachelor, right? That makes sense. And of course, I'm using the term bachelor to mean an unmarried person, not like you're dating, so you're not a bachelor, okay? We mean you're actually married, okay? That's what it truly means. Now, is that a temporal order? The moment that he got married, was he at all for a split second married while still a bachelor? Now, the moment he was married legally, right, whenever it's that second in time when the ministers are now pronounced the man and wife, right, boom, it happened then in the eyes of the Lord, he ceased there simultaneously to be a bachelor. Now, if I were to ask you, okay, if I were to say, why is he no longer a bachelor, what would you tell me? We got married, right? That's a logical order. It's not a temporal order, but it's a logical order. Now, if I were to ask you, why did he get married? Would you say, well, he's no longer a bachelor? No, not really, right? We conceive of no longer being a bachelor as an effect of being married, right? We don't really think of it the other way around. It's true that once he stopped being a bachelor, it was because he was also married, but we see the marriage as affecting the one rather than the other. Does that make sense? I think we do that all the time without really thinking about it. And what we're doing is making a logical distinction rather than a temporal distinction. But they do exist, and they do exist in Scripture, okay? So, that's something to remember because sometimes people who are unequated, people who critique the ordo salutis and who are really not familiar with how it's been taught, they go, well, first of all, these are not temporal distinctions. And you go, yeah, I know, but no one's ever taught that, okay? So just think about that, that's clear. This will also become important when we consider the relationship between justification and the fruit of justification, okay? We'll see that good works, sanctification flow from justification, okay? We see this logical order in other places, John 1.12, but to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God. Right? Faith logically precedes adoption there. To those who believe, He gave the right. They occurred simultaneously, but there's a logical distinction. Romans 3.28, for we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Faith in some sense logically precedes justification, right? You have to have faith in order to be justified. If you don't, you can't be justified, right? There's a logical precedence that takes place there. So that's one of the distinctions. We're talking about logical. ordering sometimes, sometimes temporal, but sometimes logical. Next, it should be noted that while some steps are finished and accomplished, some are ongoing and continue to go on. Can you guys give me an example of a finished and accomplished one? A couple of them, there's a couple of them. Okay, so are you saying adoption is ongoing? Oh, okay, yeah. Right, we continue to be, right? So yeah, even if it's a one-time thing, that doesn't mean that we don't, it continues on, but only as it's continuing on in the blessings that have already been accomplished, right? I am justified now, and I continue to live in the fruits of justification, But I am not becoming justified. I am not becoming more justified than I already was. It's finished. And yet, in sanctification, we are being more and more confirmed to the image of Christ, okay? These two things start simultaneously, really, right? The moment you are justified, in that moment, you begin to become sanctified, right? They start at the same point in time and yet one is finished and accomplished and one is ongoing. Let's see here. Okay. So, when we're speaking of an order of salvation, okay? I don't know what I put there. Okay, anyway, that's the general idea of the order of salvation. Now, some people reject the Ordo Salutis as an idea or a framework, either outright or they just really diminish it and kind of Like, yeah, that's not really where it's at. Like, yeah, that's kind of a...I know that's how people used to think of salvation, but, you know, I prefer to focus on union with Christ, okay? Now, why do they do this? Why are they dissatisfied with the order, or why are they so focused on union with Christ? I suppose there are several reasons that are given. Some will say that the Ordo Salutis is too mechanical of an understanding of salvation. It can't really express the dynamic nature of our salvation, which that's not really true. First of all, that's a caricature of the Ordo, that it's making it into this precise, it's an over-rationalizing of salvation. And they're saying, you can't rationalize these truths. These are just Dynamic, right? This happens all the time in theology. Like, you see it in covenant theology when someone will say, like, the idea of a covenantal bond is too small to...that's my voice of this irritating person in my mind. It's not dynamic enough to contain the relationship that happens in covenant, right? It's too legal. This legal language, it's not dynamic enough. Well, it's both, right? Think of marriage. Marriage is legal, but it's also a dynamic love relationship, but both exist at the same time, right? So some will say it's too mechanical, and you go, well, no, no, it's not, because that's a caricature of the ordo. Others will say it's scholastic in nature and therefore should be rejected. What does that mean, scholastic? Scholasticism was a type, a methodology, For doing theology, but other things as well. Other disciplines in the academy were done via what's called scholasticism. This is done in theology specifically in systematic terms. When you're thinking of systematic theology, and that goes along with scholastic theology, it's very systematic and logically ordered, okay? And so some people will throw it under the bus and say, well, that's scholasticism. Now, why would they do that? There was a thesis, I think, in the 20th century in people who did histories of the Reformation. And sometimes it's called Calvin versus the Calvinists. You ever heard of this? Calvin versus the Calvinists. Or you'll hear of Luther versus the Lutherans, okay? And what they'll often do is they'll look at Calvin's theology, which his theology was by no means the standard of theology, he was just one man, right? seen as an authoritative figure, but just one man. And this is how the hypothesis goes. I guess it's a way of trying to understand maybe the direction in which the Reformed tradition went as kind of going the way of the Dodo in like the Netherlands or in places like that, okay? This is how the thesis goes. They'll say that the theology of Calvin was fresh, it was biblically, you know, expositional and brilliant, and it really caught the attention of a lot of people. It was pioneering, not that he was making things up, but he just brought fresh thought to theology, okay? After that, though, Reformed theology was picked up by the scholastics and done with the scholastic method who were too rationalistic, too rigid, too dependent on metaphysics and Aristotelian logic, and they became preoccupied with esoteric and absurd doctrinal squabbles. And so the heart of the Reformation was kind of squelched, and they'll often be like, scholasticism caused this. The problem with that is it's just not historically true. While Luther and Calvin, you will read in their writings, they rail against the scholastics. They're railing against Roman Catholic scholastics in the great like French universities of their day or Roman Catholic Italian universities of their day. That's who they're going after, not scholasticism per se. In fact, many of Calvin's peers were involved in what would become scholastic theology. Calvin himself being a central figure in establishing the Geneva Academy, right? The theology that they were doing would be considered scholastic in many ways. There's a good book on this called Introduction to Reform Scholasticism by William Van Asselt. And he touches on this, listen to what he says. Scholastically oriented theologians placed great emphasis on systematic and orderly argumentation and aimed at clear definition of the terms they used. With great care, they explained in their theses the terms they used and noted also the various different meanings that a single term could have. But Reformed scholastics did not limit themselves to one aspect of theology, but saw each part in relation to the whole. Answers to one question could not conflict with those of another. What was argued in connection with the doctrine of God could not conflict with what was posited for the doctrine of providence. Scholastic theology was practiced in close connection with other disciplines such as philology, exegesis, philosophy, and so forth. Positions taken in this context were exhaustively defended. It did not suffice simply to reproduce the view of another. Room was given for counter-arguments and objections. This was an explicit or implicit recognition that different methods could be followed to explain theological points of doctrine. Scholastic theology was neither doctrinal, Dressage, which, I mean, dressage is like, if you've ever seen a horse doing fancy prancing, that's dressage, okay? If you've ever been to a Mexican rodeo, they don't ride bulls and get hurt like crazy Americans do. They do like, ooh, look at my horse, okay? That's dressage. So, he's saying, scholasticism wasn't done just to be theological dressage, like, look at me and what I can do with my theological terms and that, nor was it a heresy witch hunt, but aimed at analyzing one's own position as well as those of others, and at clarifying the implications of any given viewpoint. So if you want a good example of a scholastic theologian, Francis Turretin. That's scholasticism, that's Reformed scholasticism. If you read him, he'll tell you why, he'll give you the position. And it's actually kind of done, like when he said it's very much thoroughly defended, he'll say something like, did Christ take his flesh from heaven or did he get it from his mother Mary? And he'll say, The former we deny against the Anabaptists, the latter we affirm. And so it's very much this method of doing theology in which you present it, but you also logically defend it and think through it. Another good example of this is Wilhelmus O'Brockle. Wilhelmus O'Brockle. He's particularly interesting too because he doesn't fit the mold of the thesis that once you move away from Calvin and then you get to scholastic theology a hundred years later and then it's cold and distant. You don't have that at all with Wilhelmus O'Brockle because After, he does like what Turretin does, but after he does that, he'll go, now let's meditate on these truths. And it's interesting because you could speak of the height of scholastic reform theology as the period in which Abrako lived, but it's also the period of what's called the Nadere Reformatie, which is the second, the nearer reformation, which was very much like Dutch Puritanism. So, you have, yes, this heady theology, but it's also coupled at that time in Reformed theology with a heart knowledge as well. So, that thesis has very much been debunked. You can read stuff by Richard Muller on it. Could the scholastics be esoteric at times, even Reformed? Yeah, I'm sure they could. But as far as using it as a way of just negating someone's position, well, that's just scholastic, right? We don't have to listen to it. It's just not historical, okay? All that to say, sometimes people will call the Ordo Salutis just scholastic theology. There are other reasons given for rejecting the idea of the Ordo Salutis. In my mind, the big one is an overemphasis on union with Christ. Now, hear me out. You might be like, how can you overemphasize the doctrine of union with Christ? You can't. Okay? And it's happening in our own day. Now, is union with Christ an incredibly important doctrine? Absolutely. Right? These steps in the Ordo Salutis are all found in Christ. They all occur and take place within Him. None of them happen outside of Him. Okay? But the doctrine of union with Christ can be overemphasized. When I was doing my my undergrad, getting my bachelor's degree. I feel like that's, at least when I realize, that there's like theological fads at times. At least among my peers, our students, at that time it was seen like, dude, union with Christ. Like we need to reevaluate all doctrines in light of union with Christ. And that has been happening to some degree. And like, dude, union is where it's really at. You wanna talk about the order of salute? It's okay, that's kind of outdated. But like, let's talk about union with Christ. That's really where it's at, okay? Now, why? Why? I'm not totally sure. In some cases, there are people who want to downplay the forensic aspect of salvation. Who knows what I mean by the forensic aspect of salvation? What's that? Yeah, the legal aspect of like we are justified as forensic justification. I have the title of justified and declared righteous, although I am simultaneously a sinner, okay? That's what we talk about, forensic justification. There are people who are kind of bucking against that, which to me is problematic. Let's see how they do that. They would describe it this way, and kind of what we've talked about. They'll say, you know, describing justification as forensic with legal terminology, that's just not dynamic enough to capture the relationship of what happens in justification between God and us. Somebody who did this very famously was N.T. Wright. And he said with his very persuasive British accent, he goes, you know, righteousness is not a gas that can pass from one side of the courtroom to the other. And all the New Perspective guys are like, that is a really persuasive argument. And you go, no one has ever argued that righteousness is a gas that passes from one side of the courtroom to the other. What he's saying is that whole idea of forensic righteousness, that's just kind of silly, right? That's why he rejects the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Well, that's part of a larger trend, new perspective on Paul is, of rejecting forensic side of salvation. And they tend to, when they do that, they make an overemphasis on union, union with Christ. Now, it's an important doctrine, okay? But they tend to run to union as though, well, I reject the forensic side because of union with Christ, as there's no problem between the two. We'll get to that in a little bit. We'll show that. Where am I? Okay, as far as the first framework for the doctrine of salvation, that's the Ordo Salutis, okay? Now, I do want to talk a little bit about the next framework, the complementary one, of union with Christ. We've said there's an overemphasis, but how should we rightly think of union with Christ in our soteriology? Who can give me a definition of union with Christ? I'm gonna put you on the spot. What? Jeremy, you couldn't give me? Okay, anyone, can someone help Jeremy? A lot of people need to help Jeremy, guys. What is union with Christ? Come on. our relationship to him? You mean like in the incarnation? Not necessarily. That's an important part, it's related. But Christ was incarnate before we were united to him. So what took place when we were united to Christ? What? So all the aspects of our salvation are tied to union in Christ. But that doesn't tell me what union with Christ is. Union with Christ is being united to Christ. Excellent. No, that's connected to it. Well, the reason why I ask you that is because it's kind of a mysterious thing to describe. Imagine trying to describe, like, a color to a blind person who's never seen before. Like, what is red? You're like, well, it's kind of this warmish, like heat, you know? You're like, I have no idea. We describe things by just saying it in another way. So say, what is union with Christ? Well, it's we're connected to Him spiritually. What does that mean? Well, you're We're united via the Spirit in covenant and fellowship. We tend to describe it that way because it's a mystical thing. We know it's true because it's so huge and it's all over the place, and yet it is somewhat of a mystical thing to describe. Let me give you a brief definition that I found helpful. Oh, I forgot to put the definition there. Well, basically, it's something of our spiritual union. We are united with Christ in some way, right, in which we weren't before. And through that union, which I would say is also affected by the Spirit, we are in Christ. We receive all the blessings that are in Him. It's organic in a sense, okay? I don't know how else to describe it. We could look at that another time. I forgot to put my definition like a dope, which I apologize for. The reason why union with Christ is so vital for our understanding as we approach soteriology is because all of our salvation is found in the person of Jesus Christ, and we partake of those things through our union with Him. Just think with me for a moment of the different steps in the ordo salutis, okay? Let's start with election. Now, typically, election, because it's done in eternity past, is not... In systematic theologies, it tends to be put with the decrees of God, as apart from soteriology, but let's just think about election. How is that connected to union with Christ? Okay, God chose the church. Would you say maybe to be united to Christ beforehand? Right? Let's think of election here. Ephesians 1, 3 through 5, blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. Now, we're not united to Christ before the foundation of the world, but we were predestined to be united to Christ, okay? Think about effectual calling or regeneration. How is that related to union with Christ? Ephesians 2, 4 through 5. But God being rich in mercy because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ. There's a sense in which the new life which we have is Christ's resurrection life that is imparted to us by our union with Him. We were made alive together with Christ, okay? How about justification? How is union important for that? You guys, come on. Imputation, right? Imputation. Listen to Philippians 3, 8 through 9. For His sake, for Christ's sake, I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish in order that I may gain Christ and be found in Him. not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law." Now, that verse is very interesting because it shows just how compatible the forensic side of justification is with looking at justification from union with Christ, right? We have this righteousness, which is not our own, okay? It's forensic. We are still simultaneously justified and sinners at the same time, right? And yet that righteousness is in Christ, and it comes through the law. So the ordo salutis and union with Christ are not opposed, they're just two vantage points from which we see salvation, okay? How about adoption, a doctrine of adoption? What does that have to do with union? All right, you guys aren't getting pizza. Okay, yeah. Jesus is the son, right? The term I would use is heir, and in him we are heirs as well. Galatians 3, 27 through 29, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male or female, for all are one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise." So from that, we also see part of the connection with union, right, being in Christ. I forgot what I was going to say with that. But because we are in Him, we are heirs with Him as well, and therefore we are children. We are adopted with Him as well. We could keep going on with all kinds of examples, right? But you get an understanding of how important union with Christ is for understanding salvation. John Owen wrote that our union with Christ is, quote, the cause of all other graces that we are made partakers of. They are all communicated to us by virtue of our union with Christ. Hence is our adoption, our justification, our sanctification, our fruitfulness, our perseverance, our resurrection, our glory. All those things, when we talk, as we go through these steps, these different chapters in the Ordo Salutis, we are not to think of those as abstract benefits that are found apart from the man, Jesus Christ. They are found in Him, and that's why He is our Savior. Well, those are the two frameworks, complementary frameworks for looking at salvation. We could have named others. Some people would say covenant too. But those are the two big ones we're gonna look at. Let's turn and look now at the doctrine of effectual calling with the few minutes we have. We're just gonna take a look. If you have your confession, open up to chapter 10, paragraph one. Chapter 10, paragraph one. It says, those whom God hath predestined unto life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time effectually to call by His Word and Spirit out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ, enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh, renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ, yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace." Okay, there's a lot to unpack there, and we are not going to get through hardly much of that at all today. What do we mean by effectual calling? I know we just gave a definition, but why effectual and why call? What do you guys think? Have you ever thought about that? It has a definite effect, right? It's not ineffective, okay. Why call? Have you ever thought about that? Why not effectual zapping? What's the song? Thine eye diffuse a quickening ray, right? What am I talking about? Amazing, and can it be, right? That's talking about effectual calling. Thine eye diffuse a quickening ray. Why not call it effectual quickening? Why call? Well, I think it's interesting and also important that it's described in the term call. I don't think that's unimportant. Yeah, I think that's related to it very much. But we'll get into it. we'll look at a little bit more of this idea. And I think it will actually help us understand effectual calling. Now, according to the paragraph, paragraph one, who is the one doing the calling? What? God, right? God is calling. This is why sometimes people will speak of effectual calling and regeneration as two slightly different things. Effectual calling is what God does, and regeneration is the effect of that call within us. Sometimes they're used interchangeably, but if you hear a distinction, that's why. But if we think about it as a call, effectual calling, it's from the perspective of God, okay? I find it interesting that the word call is used. What is calling implied? If you call your children, what do you call them with? Okay, their name, what? Your voice? When we call people, do we just go like, what do we use our voice to produce when we call? Words, speech, right? I think that's actually important. In effectual calling, God is speaking and He's speaking His Word. I think that actually communicates something about what effectual calling is. Think about God's speech or his word in the Bible, okay? Not just the scriptures yet. We're not thinking about just the Bible. But think about how God's word or his speech is used or how it's described in the word of God. How is his word, how does it function? How is it described as functioning in the Bible? He created the world with his speech, right? And his power, you said? Okay. Anything else? It's powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, divides asunder. Great King James language there. Yeah, turn with me real quick to Psalm 33, verse six. Psalm 33, verse six. By the word of the Lord, the heavens were made. and by the breath of His mouth all their host." So it's used in creation, right? Turn with me to Isaiah 55, 10 through 11. Isaiah 55, 10 through 11. For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth. It shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose and shall succeed in the thing which I sent it. So, when God speaks, right, when He gives His Word, as you said, Jason, it accomplishes or it creates, or like you said, Dennis, it's not just a speaking, but it's a powerful speaking like a proclamation. It brings into effect or into existence that which it speaks, right? Let there be light, and there was light. So this speaks of the authority of God's Word. What He speaks will come to pass. It will not return to Him empty, okay? It also speaks to His power. Turn with me to Jeremiah 23, 29. Jeremiah 23, 29. says, is not my word like fire, declares the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock into pieces, right? What I would say is that doesn't, it describes the power of the Lord, but it also describes the irresistible power of the Lord. It's a fire, it's a hammer that breaks rocks, right? That which is spoken comes to pass. It cannot resist. Just as a rock is helpless before a mighty hammer, so also whatever God proclaims from His mouth will come about. That's very important. Yeah, yeah, that's connected to that. And actually, we're just about to jump into that right now, okay? Now, the term, the word to call, is not always used in the ways we've just described, is that irresistible power of God which comes about. Can you think of an example in which it's not described in effectual terms? Exactly. Many are called, but few are chosen, right? The calling there, then, is the proclamation of the gospel, but sometimes it falls on...in fact, in the majority of the case, it falls on deaf ears. It's not an effectual calling, okay? there are clear passages in Scripture which describe it as effectual, describe the calling as being the same thing as conversion, okay? It's not just this generic preaching of the gospel. This is important because this is a huge difference between the Reformed between the biblical and the Arminian, which conceives of regeneration as something in which we participate in, right? God throws us the lifesaver and we grab onto it, right? I mean, hey man, he did the 99, you just did the 1%, but you would still say, he totally saved you, bro. Yeah, like 99%. Because of their concept of provenient grace, That's not the kind of calling that we're speaking of with effectual calling. And there are examples of this in Scripture, okay? Romans 8.30, Romans 8.30, okay? Also, I should say this, calling sometimes and often refers to basically, I think it's synonymous with election at times. Like you could say, we were called before all, something like that. I think at times it's used like that. But Romans 8.30, and those whom he predestined, he also called. And those whom he called, he also justified. And those whom he justified, he also glorified. Now there's a distinction there between predestination, election, and calling. So the calling there does not refer to what we would call election generally. It's done before that, right? Furthermore, glorification is looking in the future. It hasn't yet come. And so calling and justification we would say are probably what we're going to see now in our own conversion. We were predestined in eternity past, we will be glorified, but now in our salvation, we seek calling and justification. I don't think you can make a case that those who are called here is referred to as those who hear the gospel. Right? It's very much an emphasis on this unfailing chain between each of these steps. And I would say the calling there is the effectual kind of calling, so much so that all who are called are the justified. Right? It's all the same. Those who are predestined are called. It can't be referring to a generic call, it's a special calling, which I would say is effectual calling in regeneration. Or turn with me to 2 Thessalonians chapter 2. I've got to wrap this up here soon. 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, verses 13 through 14. 2 Thessalonians 2, 13 through 14. But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this He called you through our gospel so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." Now, what's interesting there is Paul said it was through their gospel, through Paul's proclamation, okay? And yet in that, God called them. That's referring to conversion. When they were called, they heard the preaching of the Word, and as they heard it, it was through Paul's preaching that God called them. Okay? So there are times when calling cannot be referred to as simply a generic call in the sense that many are called, but few are chosen. There's times when it doesn't refer to election, but it refers to the moment of conversion and salvation, okay? And the fact that God calls it a calling in light of what we know of how he uses his word, his speech elsewhere, that it is this irresistible, powerful thing. I think that sets us up in a good place to understand effectual calling even more as we go to look into it and compare it with Arminianism. Any questions before we end? Really not. It's really not. If anything, we would say quickening is the effect of the call. That which God calls is like, be quickened, and quickening happens. It's the same as regeneration. Regeneration is the effect of the call within us. But see, we could have just spoken this generically as regeneration, but when we speak of it as effectual calling, it puts God in the driver's seat, right? He called, and therefore we believed. It's not just this generic thing that He works in us, it's done really with Him as leading the way. Is that helpful? Okay, any other questions? Okay, you guys are dismissed. Thank you very much. We will get into that more next week. It should be a lot of fun.