You are depraved. Totally, even. That was firmly established on last week's show. On the show, firmly was established, but I like to say so. This is the Faith Debate on News Radio 930 WFMD. I'm Troy Skinner. Find me online at wfmd.com. You can go to the Faith Debate page on the station's website and see what's coming up on the show or connect with past shows or learn more about this show's history or how to reach me. But the best way to really reach out to me, all my contact information and everything else is at my church's website, Household of Faith in Christ. Joined this week by Josiah Bonjwani. He has written a book that came out like a year or so ago, I want to say? No, earlier this year? Five months ago. Well, as we're recording, so it's coming up on a year as this airs. Because we're in the summertime, but this is going to air in the autumn. So the head covering, and we did a series of shows on that topic just like a month or so, a month or two ago. I can't remember exactly, but recently. And helping me with the dating was Daniel Razvi. You just heard his voice. He and his father Imran Razvi, they pastor a church called the Church that Meets at Imran's House, and you can find them online at conqueredbylove.org. And it reminds me, if somebody wants to find you or your book online, Josiah, there's a website for that, right? What was that? I should have mentioned it last week. Difficult to find because you have to spell my last name, but it's my name Josiah bone Juhani calm And I think you gave us a little trick last time Daniel. I think he just Google Josiah and head covering Josiah head covering You'll find his book because there's only like one Josiah that's written a book on head coverings apparently something like that So it doesn't be Google by the way it could be any search engine Yes, Google has become like Kleenex right it's just the generic term for but I'm not necessarily a fan of Although to be honest these days All of the search engines seem suspect, if you ask me. Even the so-called conservative ones. So we were talking primarily about total depravity and issues related to total depravity last week, and original sin is closely aligned and connected with total depravity, so we spent a lot of time talking on that. And we're going to try to talk about unconditional election, or sometimes called unmerited favor. In case you're wondering what these labels, why we use these. The history of that was given last week by Daniel Razvi. I'll just say there's been a big debate raging in the church for hundreds of years. It centers around freedom of the will, and one way of thinking about this, I'm not sure if this will be appreciated by the people in the room or not, but one way of thinking about this is, which is more prominent in your theology, the freedom of the human will or the freedom of God's will? Because that's kind of what the debate centers around. who makes the choice, whose decision places somebody in heaven or hell, who's ultimately in control. That's kind of what the argument boils down to when you get down to the brass tacks. But it's fun to talk about these things in the meantime anyway. Well, yeah, well, I mean because the Arminians I think they may but but in fairness did the the the next logical point would be well Wouldn't you want God's will to be sovereign? That's why the the doctrines of grace are all about the sovereignty of God, right? And a lot of Arminians are inconsistent come Calvinist probably are too but a consistent Arminian is going to actually be fine with how I frame that saying yes and God created things in such a way that he made mankind is the pinnacle of his creation to have that kind of freedom of will so he his sovereign will was to give men a will that would eat trump even his in the no no uh... no presidential election no reference there for trump even his will on these matters that he's decided to refrain from exercising his will that way so i think that even our many and could agree and maybe helpful for me to give just a quick forty five second sketch um... I was, without knowing what the labels were, you learn over time what all these theological, semantical phrases and terms are supposed to mean, but if you went back even 20 years, 30 years ago for sure, 30 years ago I would have been an Arminian. And I would have argued to the death with somebody that was articulating Calvinist doctrine, the doctrines of grace, that sort of thing. I didn't know what they were called, but when I heard them, I would have argued against them. And probably around 20 years ago, I began to enter an odyssey of trying to think through those questions and those issues. And I still was probably Armenian in my thinking 20 years ago, but began to become a wobbly Armenian. And then five years after that, I was kind of, I don't know, I'm going to flip a coin. I just don't know what to think anymore. They're both right. They're both wrong. Who's to say? And then five years after that, I was like, yeah, I think I'm probably leaning more in the reformed direction on this. And then as recently as five years ago is probably where I'd say, you know what? I think I've gotten to the place where, through my study and this odyssey that I've been on, I'm now firmly on the reformed side. And here we are today, in 2024, after this 20-30 year exploration. And I think I've completely flipped poles, where 30 years ago, I would have staunchly argued for and tried to defend what I now know is the Arminian position, and now I would pretty consistently staunchly fight for and defend for what I think are the reformed doctrines teach. So I've gone through this odyssey over a long period of time. So if you're hearing my voice and you're listening to this and you disagree with me, hey, 30 years ago I agreed with you. And I think it can go both ways. I think somebody could probably be staunchly reformed in their theology, and then 30 years later not be so reformed, be more Arminian. I think that can happen. Actually, I know people who have surrendered one for the other. It goes in both directions. And this is going to sound pejorative, but I'll end with this, and then you guys can react and say what you have to say about these issues. Again, I don't mean it to sound pejorative. It's just been my personal case study. the more I've studied the scripture, the more I've examined the teachings of these doctrines and read the writings of people on the various sides of the issues, the more energy I've devoted to the questions, the more convinced I've become that the Reformed doctrines of grace are the biblical lens through which we should understand the scripture. That's what I've found to be true in my life. And again, I don't say that, so the more you study the scripture, You'll agree with me. That's not, it's precisely what I'm saying, but that is, that has been my experience. So all three of you at various points during the last two minutes as I've been talking, have leaned in and then back, back up and then lean back in. So who has something they want to say either in response to last week's show, talking about total depravity and original sin, or wants to get us talking about unconditional election and or unmerited favor it's called, uh, this week or respond to something I just said. I want to start cause I've been itching to say something for since last show. I think we talked about the original sin, whether it's there or not there, or what's going on there. I think one way to put it is a relationship. God's all relationship. The two greatest commandments, love the Lord your God and love your neighbor. They're both relationships. So I think when Adam sinned, he was no longer in a perfect relationship with God. And when babies are born, they're born in not in a relationship with God. They're born in a relationship with their parents. And That can be equated to sin if you're not in a relationship with God. And so God has to reach out. Yes, sin is what separates you from God. But what is sin? It's not having a relationship with God, right? Not trusting God completely for everything. So a newborn baby is trusting their parents for everything, right? A baby in the womb is hoping that the mother protects it instead of killing it. It does not have that relationship. So once sin was entered into this world, and Adam was kicked out of Eden, and he had to come here and scrabble for a living, he did not have that perfect relationship with God. And so children, babies are born without that relationship with God, and that's really, you can call it sin, original sin, you can call it whatever you want, but I think that's really where it comes down to is they don't, the babies are born without that relationship with God. And so do they go to hell? Well, that's God's decision. And I don't know the mind of God, I can guess on that, he's a just and loving God, so there may be a way that he has that the babies that have not ever had an opportunity to have that relationship may have a relationship, I don't know. But they don't have that relationship. So how does God create that relationship? And with a baby, that's only God knows. And what we do is we come and look at it from a humanistic point of view as saying, well, that's not fair. You know, I want to whine about it because I am in control and I want to make those decisions and I want to do this and I want to make those choices. And I just don't think God would do that. I won't worship a God that would put babies in hell. I won't worship a God that would accept Hitler after he killed all the Jews and all the other people, and if Hitler just at the last minute said, God forgive me, I repent of my sins, and God would accept it. I've had a friend that said, that's why I cannot become a Christian, because I cannot accept a God that would forgive like that. So, it's a relationship. And I think that's where people get it wrong, and desire saying you don't really believe in original sin, but you know what? They don't have a relationship. That's what it comes down to. Yeah, they certainly don't have a positive relationship, right? They might have a negative relationship. They're enemies of God. He that is not for us is against us, so I think they can't be neutral. Yeah, you're either a friend or an enemy. I mean, you make your decision as soon as you have the abilities to do so. I would argue maybe a baby in the womb doesn't have the abilities to choose God or Satan at that point. So once they do... So that's the age of accountability argument, which we kind of barely mentioned last time. And it might be related to the unconditional election thing, or the unmerited favor. And the reason some of these... There was an acronym that was created years ago when all this debating started, like four or five hundred years ago, and TULIP was the acronym, and so every letter stood for something. T was total depravity, and U, unconditional election. That's where we are now. But the total depravity, as we talked about last week, was totally misunderstood, and people were arguing over semantics and not understanding each other. They weren't arguing over the theology, they were arguing over misunderstandings. And so people, to try to get away from those misunderstandings, said, well, let's not call it total depravity, let's call it radical depravity. Does that help? In some cases it can, in other cases they just continue their semantic arguments. There's no perfect language for this. Unconditional election, people didn't like what that was. what they thought that was saying, so to try to get around the misunderstandings there, he said, okay, it's unmerited favor, meaning there's nothing that the person does to merit favor from God. God grants favor upon whom he will grant favor, right? Who will have mercy upon whom he will have, and he will not have mercy upon whom he will not have mercy. God, it's up to God to decide, and it's not conditioned on anything. And there are a number of, you know, texts and verses and stuff that would point to that, and we don't have to go down that road now unless you would want us to. So anyway, those are some of the linguistic games that are part of this. It looks like Daniel's wheels were turning quite a bit there as I was talking. I'm not sure if you wanted to say something in response, or trying to read a body language. No, I mean, unconditional action, to me, it really boils down to the most basic. As Christians, we don't believe in works-based salvation. You don't have to do anything to become saved. Now, a lot of the Calvinists or the more hardcore Reformed people would say, well, if you have to choose and accept Christ, then that is doing something, and that's still working for your salvation. I don't know. I would make a distinction between accepting God's grace and agreeing or assenting to it, Whether or not you would have a choice in the matter, and I'm sure that'll be an irresistible race, we'll discuss that, but I think that's a different thing than workspace, where you have to do something. That's what sets Christianity apart from all the other religions. Every other religion, even cults of Christianity, they call themselves Christians, that are not actually saved, What they all have in common is to get to whatever the end goal is, whether it's nirvana or heaven or higher place or total bliss or whatever you want to call it, Valhalla, you have to do something in order to get there. You have to do something. And Christianity says you don't need to do anything. In fact, anything that you possibly could do, going back to total depravity, is meaningless in the eyes of God unless He's the one that saves you, and He does the doing. And that's the finer point. It's not so much that you don't have to, it's that the Reformed Calvinist argument would be that you can't. Right. Nothing you can do could ever get you to Heaven. And you need to repent, and repentance is brought about by faith. and the New Testament makes it clear that faith is a gift of God and so that's not something we work up and muster from within ourselves within our own will which again from last week's show the Calvinists would argue you can't muster it up from your own will because your own will is sullied by sin and so you need God to grant you the gift of faith and if he didn't do that then you would never come to Christ and so eternity in glory with the Savior is conditioned upon faith that's rooted in repentance, a turning from sin onto obedience. But even that comes from God. And so, yeah, I would agree with Dan. I think you were saying faith and repentance, that's not a work. And so I'm agreeing 100%. It's not a work. Well, do you mind if I throw in a dictionary definition actually from Wikipedia? Um, so take it for what it's worth, but we know it's got to be accurate, right? But this is a definition I found there. God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself, not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, his choice is unconditionally grounded in his mercy alone. And that's the general Calvinist view. So maybe you guys are differing. I mean, most of the Calvinists I've heard would hold to this, that even faith is a work in itself. Um, and I, I, I see it as a work. It's something that we do. And so, I think it's something you have. And so that's one of the reasons I don't actually believe in this point at all. I'm not sure, maybe I missed a nuance there. I don't, I didn't find myself disagreeing with what you read. So what is it? I just mentioned that I don't think that faith is a work. It doesn't count as works-based salvation. Believing in God is not works-based. Now, there are, what Josiah's saying, and I agree with him, Calvinists would disagree. They'd say, no, faith itself would be a work. So even faith is a condition. And if you put faith on it, that's a condition. Now it's a conditional election. And we're speaking about unconditional election, meaning there's no conditions to it. I'm trying to think of Calvinists or Reformed theologians that I know that make that argument. Maybe, again, it might be semantics. The closest I can get in my head is those who would, and I would probably count myself in agreement with them, saying that making the decision for Christ, that's common language in today's church, right? You make a decision for Christ, choose Christ, choose today to make Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior. You need to make a decision. Call on the name of the Lord and be saved. You know, that kind of a thing. And you making the decision, the Reformed theologians say, you aren't capable of making that decision. You can't because you're mired in sin. You need God to give you, by the power of His Holy Spirit, the gift of faith, and because God gives you that faith, you then, quote-unquote, make a decision, if you will, but you make the decision after God's made the decision already. So your decision is response to His decision. It's not that his decision is a response to your decision. It's not like you choose God, and then he therefore accepts. It's he chooses you, and you therefore accept. And that's why a lot of Calvinists will tongue-in-cheek say, well, I mean, our minions are still saved. I mean, you don't have to know how you got saved in order to be saved. So you have a wrong understanding of how you got saved, but you still are saved. So that's what they would say about it. So I'm still, even with the help of Daniel, I'm just that dense. I'm still not understanding the point that you, Josiah, were trying to make by reading that Wikipedia definition. What was the crux of it? Because I'm missing it. So the crux I was trying to get at is, speaking of the point called unconditional election, which is supposed to mean that there are no conditions to election, that God just chooses randomly or arbitrarily certain people that he's predestined for eternity to be saved and certain other people to go to hell. I wouldn't say randomly, but I would agree with arbitrarily. I would agree with that. I have hold a very different opinion that God in his wisdom chooses those whom he foreknows will respond to him with faith and with repentance and forsaking all and following Jesus. He chooses those people to be saved and not just arbitrarily. So the idea that he looks down through the corridors of time and sees those that would respond. So that's kind of like an open Theism kind of an argument which by the way I This is the pastoral had only coming on I know that consistent Armenians end up having to entertain those ideas But if you go too far down that path you begin to embrace another gospel. Open theism is very, very dangerous for the Christian. We'll have a separate show on that maybe, I don't have any details on that, but just for what it's worth, open theism sounds attractive on the surface, but the deeper you dig, the more unbiblical it becomes, and if you're going to embrace it, you're arguing against Scripture is pretty fundamental this okay. I'm not familiar with the term open theism however I am familiar with many passages from scripture such as in first Peter he speaks about Let me see if I can get this quoted here word perfect I Well, I'm not going to have it word-perfect, but basically, God says we are his elect according to his foreknowledge. So I take that as, okay, foreknowledge of what? Whom he did foreknow, he did also predestine. Yeah, it's very important for us to understand the biblical language on this and not our contemporary Webster's. Oh, I have the Webster now, I'm sorry. 1 Peter 1-2. elect according to the foreknowledge of God. And so what foreknowledge is he talking about specifically? Yeah, but in that same chapter, it says a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. That's Christ, right? And they stumble, those who are lost, because they are disobedient to the word. And why are they disobedient to the word? You could parenthetically ask as the reader. And to this stumbling, they were also appointed. So they stumble because God appointed them to stumble. So even their stumbling is foreordained. by God, in that same chapter that you're quoting. And this is where, to me, it's hard to understand what an infinite God who sits outside of time, how that even works, how a non-linear time, how that would actually work, because we are entirely linear people, right? We think of one thing after another after another. But is there really a difference between for knowledge and predestination at all. Because think about this, if you are God, and you know everything that is possibly going to happen, you also know the consequences of every action you might possibly ever take, that if you move one thing this way, then that causes this, and that causes that, and you already know ahead of time, as God, all the different things that are going to happen. And therefore, you decide to create Adam, and you decide to create this, and act in this way, you know the consequences of that will be that X, Y, and Z happens in the future, and those people become saved. So, just the fact of you starting everything, and this is, I know it makes me sound like a deism, I'm not making a deism argument where God just winds up the clock and lets it go. God certainly acts throughout history, but my point is, He acts knowing what the consequences are going to be because he doesn't know everything and so would not would not that be the same as Starting deciding I will do this because that's going to happen also I knew that was going to happen and therefore I did it I guess I think the challenge with that is the starting point is what's different so if God certainly knows his own mind and And He's a God who's both inside and outside of time, and He existed outside of time before He created time and space and history as we know it and all that sort of thing. And so when He makes the creation, He knows exactly the beginning from the end. He knows everything in between. He knows exactly how it's going to play out. That's how the prophetic passages of the Bible actually come to pass, because God knows what's going to happen. He foreordained all of that to happen. So he knows his own mind, and so he makes the creation with all of those things in his own mind in mind. That's one thing. But if there's some sort of cosmic card dealer out there who's given, who's dealt a hand to God, and now he's got to look at his hand and then determine from this hand, by looking through the quarters of time, oh, this jack in combination with that ten and that, ooh, I got a straight running here. I can manipulate the cards I've been given to then orchestrate so things will work out. I can look down the quarters. That makes the card dealer more prominent than God Himself. God is God and the card dealer, if you will. So I think it's, I don't think it's a salvation question, unless it goes too far and you're completely rejecting the hand of God, that could be an issue. But I think that we can disagree and still have uh... uh... have salvation as as believers checking the clock you're a quick These are some key verses. I wasn't necessarily going to do them. These are a few key verses. In Ephesians chapter 1, He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. So, I guess Josiah would say that He chose us by looking down the corridors of time before the foundation of the world, and then set the things in motion, I think is what you're saying. Centering it on the foreknowledge thing, that reminds me of what I wanted to say before. When the Bible talks about knowing, or knowledge, in that way, if you look at the root words there, in the original language particularly, Adam knew Eve, and she conceived and bore a child. Right? Know has to do with relation. It's not about intellectual, it's about relation. It's relational language. It's to know someone is to intimately be connected with them in relationship, to have a love connection with them. So to say that God foreknew is to say that God loved these people before he even made them. In his own mind, he loved them before the creation of the foundation of the world. That's a more accurate theological way to understand the language that's being used there, by the way. We're going to run out of time. I've got like two minutes. I would point you to some key passages if you're interested at home and you want to study along. Romans chapter 9 is a big chapter on this question. The book of Ephesians throughout, particularly chapter 1, is going to be helpful as you try to study through these things. And I mentioned Romans chapter 9. You probably should read Romans 7, 8, and 9 kind of together, maybe all the way up through chapter 11. But 9 particularly, but 8 and 9 maybe at least. read those and start to try to wrestle with God's Word and come to your own conclusions on some of these things. We've got about two minutes left before we have to call this one a show, so I want to give somebody else the final word if somebody feels like they're getting shortchanged and they want to say something before this show ends. Who wants to say something? Well, I'll just throw out Acts 2.38 where Peter is asked, you know, what shall we do? The people are asking, what shall we do to be saved? And he says, repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. So there's some conditions given there. But how does somebody come to repent? That's the question. Yes. Right? That's really where the crux is. Repentance is a choice that we make. I wouldn't say God gives us the gift of repentance. It's something He expects us to do for ourselves. And that's why Peter says to them when they ask, what shall we do? He's like, this is what you shall do. Repent. Does God not move the heart to make it repent? I mean, He definitely is working in a persuasive means through the Holy Spirit to change our hearts because by ourselves, we cannot because we will not obey Him. I don't think I can repent without God moving my heart to show me that I need to repent. And I think it's important. But there's a divine harmony between us acting and God moving at the same time. It's not like it's all God. It's a combination, right? By the way, we're going to have to draw this to a close, and one other key passage. I don't know, this is like maybe the centerpiece, actually, of the argument. I don't know what I was thinking. I got a little distracted in my own thoughts. You've got to read John chapter 6. You've got to read John chapter 6. If you read no other part of the Bible, I would say John chapter 6 and secondarily Romans chapter 9. That's where I think you've got to go to start to wrestle with these sorts of questions seriously. Anyway, we've had a good debate. We might pick up on some of these stray thoughts and talk about these topics that we've talked about this week and last week again next week, but we're going to try to also move on to limited atonement next week as well. They're all interrelated, so we're not really shifting gears too much. Anyway, Josiah, Bon Joanni, Imran Razvi, Daniel Razvi, I'm Troy Skinner, you are you. Thanks for listening. You can find us online at WFMD.com. You can connect with me at HouseholdOfFaithInChrist.com. Until next week, 167 and a half hours from now, God bless.