This is the Faith Debate on News Radio 930 WFMD. Good morning. Thanks for spending part of your Sunday with us here on your favorite radio station, as we established last week. I'm Troy Skinner. You can find us online at WFMD.com and HouseholdOfFaithInChrist.com. On the panel, as we continue down our kind of twisty, windy, inconsistent road of tackling TULIP, the doctrines of grace, the tenets of of the five points of Calvinism as opposed to Arminianism, all that sort of stuff we've been talking about. We're going to try to wrap that up as best as we can on this week's show. Here to help us do that is Imran Razvi, Daniel Razvi, and Josiah Bon Jovani. By the way, the name Josiah Bon Jovani might ring a little bit of a familiar bell because he was on the show as a guest a couple months ago. He wrote a book called The Head Covering And I encourage you to, you can Google that or go to your favorite search engine and put in the head covering, Josiah, and you'll be able to get a quick hit and find that. And of course the Razzbys, they've been on pretty regularly now for the last several years on the Faith Debate, so hopefully their voices and their names resonate with you. I'm not sure. We started talking about a limited atonement with some more focus last week. We never really got to irresistible grace, and what was planned for this week was perseverance of the saints. So our goal, as best as we can, is to at least spend some time touching in a meaningful way on irresistible grace, sometimes called effectual calling, and the perseverance or preservation of the saints, which is also sometimes called eternal security, by the way. I'll start off. Irresistible grace. I think if God ordains it, wants it, it's irresistible, but he allows us a choice to resist it and refuse and go to hell. Um, so in that sense, that's the one point that I think I see both that that man can walk away. I think, uh, Saul did do that. He was chosen by God. He was anointed by God and he chose not to obey him and not to repent and left and walked away from God. So, In God's, as Josiah said, in God's mercy, He allows us the free will to walk away. I think there's some to that, but I think if God wanted specifically, Josiah, you're going to heaven, I don't care about your feelings, then that grace is irresistible, you wouldn't have a choice. And I think God's capable of that, and I think He's done that many, many times, but I think in some cases He does say, hey, I've knocked on the door, this is what it is, and you know what? You want to go to hell? That's your choice. You're going to hell. I'm telling you, this is a way to get saved. I'm reaching my hand out to you. You're drowning in this ocean. If you don't want to take my hand, I'll let you drown, but I'm giving you my hand. And some people will just grab by the, by the back of the neck and pull them out of the water, whether it was kicking and screaming. And that's kind of like me. I feel like I'd be pulled me out when I wasn't really even looking. I wasn't searching. I wasn't doing that stuff. So, That can be a little bit one or the other. So that's the irresistible grace. Limited atonement, not everybody's gonna be saved. We agree on that. But how the definition is fleshed out, that's where we differ a little bit. And then perseverance of saints, same thing with Saul. Once saved, always saved, right? That's the perseverance of saints. Once you've got your salvation, you're never gonna be not saved. And then we're gonna go into another show later where they have all these supposed evangelicals that are becoming Catholics. Are they now being unsaved? What's going on? So we'll talk about this some other time. But that's really the core of the factors of TULIP. And I think the whole idea of that is trying to help people understand what God intends, what he does. And man can take it a little bit too far. We take everything too far. That's just who we are. So let's go back to the core beliefs. And I think core beliefs were pretty much the same. It's just how far do you take it? And so that's kind of what I was I want to piggyback on that. This is we were saying off the air before we started this this segment. Is that that's also where I didn't Daniel where I would Disagree with the overall doctrines of grace is I do believe that God while his grace is certainly powerful enough to be irresistible he intentionally Gives you a small piece of it so that it can be resisted if you if you so choose And he does not force you to become saved I do believe the salvation process cannot start until God opens your heart But I also believe he does that for everybody at some point in their life because all nobody has excuse we're all Condemned we have condemned ourselves and so at a certain point most people are exposed to that truth And then reject it and then they will go to hell so that that will be where where I would More more disagree, and now I sound most like an Arminian than I would that I would ever sound And then on perseverance of the saints though. I do believe once you are saved now. There's no going back and You're a child of God. You're in this camp. He that is not against us is for us. And now you cannot lose that. It's not possible to lose your salvation because if we could lose our salvation, we would. And I think the ability to lose your salvation would be works-based salvation, meaning you have to do things to keep it. And if you didn't have to do anything to get it, why do you have to do things to keep it? So obviously the question, I'm sure if you disagree with me, Josiah, the question you're probably going to raise is, well, what do you do with these people that look, appear, make all appearances to have been saved and now are not? And there's two ways to read that. The two easy answers are, well, I don't know what's in their heart either. They weren't saved in the first place They're just putting up a good act or they still are saved, and they're just going through a temporary Fallen phase where they they're they're trying to block out God's Conscience that he's given them and someday hopefully they'll see the light again So but it's really hard to prove one way the other which which of those is true or whether they actually have lost their salvation so then we have to go back to scripture and see what that has to say and then I you haven't spoken yet decide so you can talk about Troy has been Itching to say something it looks like as well well I'll just throw in that I maybe take it a step further than both of you towards the Armenian camp again Or the opposite of the Calvinistic point of view so I would think I believe That it is possible in all cases to resist God's grace that there is nobody I do appreciate what you said earlier but I believe that there There is resisting and there's I mean here's a few verses that just kind of illustrate that it's we're able to resist and Acts 751 you stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears you do always resist the Holy Spirit as your fathers did so do you John 540 you will not come to me that you may have life and I could go on Isaiah 63 10 Genesis 6 3 but I won't read all these verses, but I do believe it's possible to resist God's grace and As in regards to perseverance of the saints, I definitely do not believe that we necessarily have to continue being saved after being saved. I believe that God still allows us to have free will even after we're saved. And so we can make the choice to walk away from God. I don't think there's any exterior force like Satan, people around us. Any exterior force, life or death, I'm trying to remember how Paul puts it. Anything in all creation? There's nothing in creation that can separate us from God except ourselves. Because that's the one thing he doesn't mention. None of those other things can separate us from God, but if we walk away from God, He's still giving us the free will to do that. I mean, that's an interesting argument from silence. Actually, it's not from silence. I could quote, I have ten verses here, I'll just quote one of them. That particular passage, you said that Paul lists all these things, but he doesn't mention ourselves, and so that's an argument from silence. And the point of what Paul's making there is he's trying to make it clear that, because we're talking about our definition of terms, what foreknowledge means and all that sort of thing. can mean different things. It can mean all, meaning every individual particular thing. It can mean a particular subset. It can mean all kinds. So all doesn't necessarily mean all. Every possible thing in existence would be all. Folks, I could say that when you say that, I'm trying to think of a good example of this. But anyway, the point is, because all can be understood different ways, Paul's making an argument there, saying that all of these things can't keep us. And you might go, what do you mean by all? And he lists like just about every possible, he lists like a half a dozen different things there to make it clear. In this case, I'm saying all. There is nothing that can thwart this reality. So, anyway, you said you have other verses, though, so what other verses do you have? Well, let me just throw a few of the hard ones out right off the bat. But in regard to perseverance of the saints, or once saved, always saved, as it's more commonly called, Hebrews 6, 4 through 6, I believe, totally destroys that belief system. It says, For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, who have tasted of the heavenly gift, who were made partakers of the Holy Spirit." So these are people who had the Holy Spirit, were enlightened, and had tasted of God. "...and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away." So there's a possibility of them falling away. "...to renew them again to repentance, seeing they crucify unto themselves again the Son of God afresh." That's one verse that shows that it is possible to lose your salvation, and there's many others. Yeah, that particular verse, you're stretching it beyond the bounds of what it must mean. Okay. And so if we use Scripture to interpret Scripture, how would you understand that particular verse you just read in light of 1 John 2, verse 19, it says that, "...they went out from us, but they were not really of us. For if they were of us, they would have remained with us. But they went out, so that it would be manifest that they all are not of us." So how would you, how would you harmonize or understand the verse you just read in light of what John writes in his first epistle? Well, I feel like they're talking about two completely different topics. Adam Clark in his commentary, there's no, no one knows exactly who John is speaking of in that passage, but he He gives a suggestion that possibly speaking of false teachers. And these false teachers used to be in the churches, but they were excommunicated or kicked out. And so, you know, they went out from us that it was manifest to the congregations that these people were not actually true believers. So that could very well just be speaking about a very specific group of people such as false teachers. But they were identified as part of the visible church. People would look at them and say, there's a Christian. But then they left. So, and John's saying, no, they were never Christians. And the fact that they left shows that they were never Christians. Because it doesn't say that they were never teachers. It says they were never of us. Is his, is the, are you, would you be arguing that the first epistle of John was written only to teachers in the church or it was written to the church or congregation? No, but that specific verse you read could refer to any number of things and false teachers is one definite possibility. So it doesn't necessarily have to mean It doesn't have to be interpreted in a Calvinistic sense. Okay, but who's us? He uses the word us three times, four times, I'm counting them, five times. In this one verse, he uses the word us five times, so who's us? He could very well be referring to the Council of Apostles or, you know, like church leaders and such, you know, they're not of us. Or he could just be referring to Christians in general, it doesn't really matter, either way. So if he's writing to other apostles and leaders in the church, how do you make sense of the opening to the letter? First John opens with John talking about how he saw and touched and heard Jesus Christ. And I write this so that you can have this fellowship that I had. You can have the fellowship of the apostles, all of those who witnessed Christ. He's talking about... Who became church leaders later. So he's talking to the leaders to persuade them of what they already knew. Is that how you would understand the opening to the letter? Not necessarily, just speaking to Christians, but referring when he says us to perhaps himself and his fellow apostles. You didn't use the word, but what you're hinting at earlier, Daniel, was prevenient grace, basically. Prevenient? Yeah, prevenient grace. That's a very fancy theological term. The idea is that God takes these people who are dead in their sins and opens their heart enough to give them the freedom to choose. So they were dead, but he gives them this little window of opportunity, if you will, a prevenient grace. I find challenges with that view, because I cannot find a scriptural argument for that. I think you can make some sort of a logical argument if your presuppositions are more Arminian, but I'm hard-pressed myself to find, because I've leaned in that direction once upon a time, and I was challenged, and I tried to defend what I was trying to say, and I wasn't able to and it's tied to some of the other things we're talking about uh... if somebody believes that christ uh... it those he redeemed was a particular group of people uh... so at the cross he has a particular group of people in mind that ties intimately with the uh... irresistible grace uh... because if he died for them they are going to receive the call positively and accept Him, because He died for them. He had them in view. Otherwise, if He died for Imran's great-great-grandmother, and she's now great-great-grandmother, I'm sure she's long deceased, and as far as we know she wasn't saved, but if He intended, if He died on the cross for her, then for her He failed. if he intended for her to die at some point in her life, she would have accepted Christ as her Lord and Savior, would have responded positively, right? I think his death on the cross paid the price for all humanity, but it does require a response. I mean, it requires that humans also desire to be with God. You know, God is making a way for that relationship to be repaired, but we still have to agree that we want it repaired. Okay. I'm missing the connection of what I said, but that's fine. For those who don't know, we record a whole series of shows at one time, and we're now like in hour two, two and a half of talking about this, and I'm getting a little muddle-minded, so I'm sure what Daniel just said was exactly on point and totally connected to what I was talking about, but I wasn't hearing it, but I'm sure that's on me and on Daniel. Well, you're talking about Jesus having in mind a certain group of people when he died on the cross. I think he had in mind that he was saving the world. But the world doesn't always want him or accept him, so those that do will be saved from that. And on the same point, I mean, it comes to mind, I don't remember the exact passage, but you guys know it better than me, is that, you know, Jesus says, those whom the Father gave me, I have not lost one. Right. That's from John chapter 6. Right. I have not lost one. Except Judas, which he says also. But that's why people say, well, this is about the apostles, yeah, but then why would, yeah, it wouldn't, it doesn't fit. So he, Judas was not given to him. He was never saved. Okay, because he didn't lose the one. Because it says, except for one, the son of perdition, meaning he was not a child of God, he was a child of the devil. Right, so that the scriptures would be fulfilled. So that the scriptures would be fulfilled, which then he says a few verses later, I have not lost one of who you gave me. So that will be why, I mean, there's that and the hard passage you brought up in Hebrews, hard for your perspective, which is that nothing, well, no, you would say... What was the Hebrew passage again? The Hebrew passage is that it's impossible if you fall away to come back again. I think that's what the... That was bringing out the point that if you shall fall away, so it's actually implying that Christians can fall away So I wasn't trying to go into the theological nuances That's also going back into you know revelations when said the air or wherever was it? If this guy that could be deceived if it were possible It's not possible. So if you know if so, I think it's a stretch and same thing when you were talking with Troy about Who's us? I think you're stretching it. I think you're you're trying because you have a hard Arminian viewpoint You're stretching that definition of us to be it could be this could be that could be this could be that But I think if you actually go back to the Bible What does the Bible say and and really test it with the Bible? Your argument doesn't hold water there because it can't be just the leaders. Otherwise, this gospel is not not for us It's just for leaders My point is it can't be a verse that's used to prove either side. It's just there's so many possible interpretations of that verse, you can't say this proves Calvinism because it could just as well be. And I will agree, by the way. I don't know we can take any single verse and prove anything. I think the point I've not done a very good job of articulating is if we take the whole of Scripture you know, all of the books of the Bible, all 66 books of the Bible, and we look at it in its totality, and you take this passage, and that passage, and this verse, and that verse, and this author, and that author, and this context, and that context, and you look at the whole tapestry of it, that the, yeah, you could take away, you say, well, that verse doesn't have to mean that. Okay, but if you combine that verse, it doesn't have to mean that, with these other four dozen verses that are nuanced versions of that, and when you pull them together, they have one big meta-narrative that fit together, then you start to get to a point where they kind of sort of must mean that. So it's not that the whole doctrine rests and falls on one verse, but the totality of the verses make a compelling, consistent case from scripture has been my experience anyway. And you were referencing Hebrews that same book in chapter twelve it refers to Jesus as the author and perfect or the faith. So he's the author of the faith we're not the author of our faith he's the author of our faith and that's why it's a gift from him. So it's, it's even within that same book, we, we find reasons. Imran was already finding some issues. We find more reasons to understand Hebrews differently there. But in what sense is the author of our faith there again, it's like a verse that can't prove one way or the other, because what does author mean? Could just refer to the Christian religion. How do you understand the author of the Christian? How do you understand author? I see him as the originator of the Christian religion, but it says author and finisher. So then if the author means originator, he was the beginning and the end of our faith. He is our faith. Our faith is in Christ. I don't know... But I don't think it refers to that type of faith that's within us that causes us to believe in Him. It's just faith in general, like a... Our religion is Christ, because Christ and the Resurrection, that's the defining characteristic of Christianity. I would say, you know, just on a logical note, and this is something that Vody Bokum said very, very well, I thought, if you could lose your salvation, you would. And Vody says, he thinks you have to be extremely arrogant to think that I'm saved and now there's a possibility that I could mess this thing up, but I hadn't. Like, if you have to say, look, I could mess this up and potentially lose my salvation, but I haven't yet. So you're not only, now you're ascribing to yourself something that is so much more than a human could ever possibly do, because if, our nature is such that if there was a way to leave the fold of God, we would, and so that's why I don't really hold, but again, that's in the moral of God. Argument on logic as choice talking I would say our nature is altered after we become Christians the Holy Spirit enters our spirits And he transforms our life, and that's why we're called a new creation I agree, and that's that's why we can't lose our salvation as a new creation It's much easier to retain salvation, and so we're not necessarily like we were before where we would just try to walk away from God So why do I get sin? I? mean see there's still free will if we if we if If it were true that we could not lose our salvation, then it would also make sense that we'd never sin again as Christians, because God would control every aspect. So I'll use a biblical argument and try to make your point for you for a minute. Troy, what do you have to say about the parable of the sower and the seed that falls and springs up eagerly, receiving the word, grows big and strong, and then all of a sudden has no root so it disappears? But it has all this fruit, apparently, or not fruit as far as next generation see, but it really appears that it's growing, and it does eagerly receive the word it says. I think this is the phrase that's used. They eagerly received it. So they liked it, they loved it, they wanted more of it, and then they died out. So how would you equate that to losing or not losing your salvation? Well, I call to mind 1 John chapter 2, and then to put even a larger point on that, These are not phrases that are original to me, but there are those that talk about, there's the church that we see, and there's the church that God sees. So the church that we see is often referred to as the visible church. It's what we can see with our eyes. And then there's the church that we can't see, because we don't have the eyes of God, we don't have His omniscience. So the church that only God can see is invisible to us. And so that's called the invisible church. It's not invisible to God, but it's invisible to us. And so to a point that was made earlier in our series of shows on this topic, we can't know ourselves with precision who is saved and who is not. Only God knows with precision who is saved and who is not. So those that eagerly gobble that up and they want more of it, or whatever that phrase was that you used, Daniel. They love it, they want it, they want more of it, or whatever you said. They had an enthusiastic response, but we're not saved by enthusiasm. We're saved by God. We're not even saved by raising your hand when somebody says close your eyes and raise your hand if you want to accept Jesus We're not saved by that. We're not saved by walking an aisle. We're not saved by anything like that We're saved by the sovereign will and choice of God would be the Reformed argument And so those people that raised up enthusiastically actually you mentioned the very first show we did on this cycle of shows Charles Finney that was one of the weaknesses of Finney's approach was it was high on enthusiasm and And he had a lot of manipulative tactics in his preaching. He put benches there for people to come and sit in anxiety, the anxious bench it was called, and they were so overwrought with their sin. And he orchestrated things. Today we do that with music, mostly, and fog machines. Back then we did, and with lighting, back then Finney did it differently, and he got this exuberant response from people, and it was said that, oh, Finney saved thousands and thousands and thousands of people. But what was the legacy of that? If you go back to that part of upstate New York, the generations that followed, those people were so hardened to the Gospel because they felt like they were saved, and it was referred to as the burned-out district. So that's connected to that parable. It was also burned out before him when Jonathan Edwards had come through several generations before. He was a Calvinist and had preached a very opposite version of the gospel. Got burned out. Revival again under Charles Finney. I actually personally look at Charles Finney as a great hero, but just had to throw that in. Yeah, no, and most Arminians actually would. I find, I'm not questioning Charles Finney's place in heaven. As far as I'm concerned, he probably is in heaven. Only God can know for sure. And there were some good things there. On the whole, I think he was far more dangerous than helpful for what it's worth. But we've mentioned it a billion times, and I think this is a key verse, and I'll just read it. This is from John chapter six. This is picking up in verse 37. And all the Father gives me will come to me. And the one who comes to me, I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me. Now this is the will of Him who sent me, that of all that He has given me, I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I myself will raise Him up on the last day. no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and i will raise him up on the last day it is written in the prophets and they show all be taught by god everyone who has heard and learn from the father comes to me not that anyone has seen the father except the one who was from god he has seen the father truly truly or verily verily depending on your translation i say to you he who believes has eternal life as a key passage connected all things we've been talking about over the last of five shows we've got like maybe a minute or so left. So if anybody has a short, quick point or rejoinder or something they want to say, otherwise I'm going to begin to take us down the homestretch and as some people like to say, land the plane. Well, I wanted to go on a different topic for a second, just a little second. You know, in this day of cancel culture and things like that, people get upset. We upset a lot of people. We say a lot of things that people don't like. So if you're out there and you're hearing some of the things and you enjoy it and you like what we're saying, even if you're not, you don't agree with what we're saying, but you like the fact that we're saying it and bringing it up, Then reach out to us. Give a positive comment. Reach out to the radio station and say, hey, I like what they're doing because very quickly we could be taken off the air because we've ticked off too many people. Just be aware of that. Fair enough. Appreciate that. Yep. Send your complaints to me. Anyway, that was Imran Razvi closing us out. We'll also hear from Josiah Bonjwani. Daniel Razvi on the show too. I'm Troy Skinner. Find us online at wfmd.com and householdoffaithinchrist.com. Till next week, 167 and a half hours from right about now. God bless.