Alright, we've been, last time we started studying the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and we've been working our way through the order of salvation. We started with doctrine of election and eternity past and then we moved on from there to calling both the effectual call, the external call, outward call, general call, whatever you want to call it. and then after that we looked at regeneration and then from there we went from conversion or faith and repentance and we talked about justification then adoption and then we talked about I think after that point we did filling of the spirit, or baptism of the spirit, filling of the spirit, then sanctification, and then now we are on the perseverance of the saints. And so last time we started this And we started with point number one was that you must persevere. And we looked at all those passages that say it's those who persevere to the end who are saved, that this is a necessary condition that this is not negotiable. Some of those if passages, Colossians 121, that He has now reconciled you in the flesh if you continue in the faith firmly, steadfast, or as Jesus says, if you continue in my word, you are truly disciples of mine. So that's, I think, so vital, especially in an age of So much of the evangelical church does not believe in lordship salvation or just a true understanding of conversion. And so it's very important that we emphasize that you must persevere. That if somebody doesn't persevere, then they're not saved. Because it's just as if somebody doesn't have faith in the Lord Jesus, then they're demonstrating they're not saved. And it is a product of true saving faith and true regeneration and the Spirit's work. But then secondly, it's not like God leaves us all to ourself, God saves us and then it's up to us to keep our salvation. We looked at, the second point was, you will most assuredly persevere. And then from there we started to look at just the different aspects from scripture. I just kind of tried to, in my mind, at least systematize all these key verses on the certainty of our salvation. So we looked at the promise of God that our that we will most assuredly persevere because of the promise of God. God is faithful to His promises. The power of God, God is the one who keeps us. He is the one who keeps us in His hands. John 10, He is greater than all. 1 Peter 1, that we are kept by the power of God. And then we looked at letter C, the plan of salvation. for somebody to be lost, ultimately they'd have to thwart both the choosing of God, the dying of Jesus on the cross, and the application of the work of the Holy Spirit in a person's heart. So we see the three persons of the Trinity working together, and you'd have to ultimately undo and thwart the purposes of God for somebody who's justified to then be unjustified. And so with that we looked at John 6 and then Romans 8, we looked at the Romans 8.30, what's sometimes called the golden chain, the unbreakable chain, those who are Those whom he predestined, he also called. Those whom he called, he justified. Those whom he justified, he also glorified." Highlighting that the same people who are predestined are the same people who are glorified. The same people who are justified are the same people who are glorified. There is no person who is at one point justified, pardoned of their sins, who is not going to eventually be glorified. It's impossible. And then I believe that was about where we left off. Does that sound about right? Okay, good. Thank you for the nod. The clear nod. So, letter D is the pleading or intercession of Jesus. This is another string of verses. And by the way, under each of these headings, we could list a host of line up a host of soldiers to bring forth their arguments, but these are just some select few. This is from Hebrews 10.25. Bev, can you read that one for us? Hebrews 7.25, did I say 10.25? The synapses aren't firing on all cylinders. Okay, so this is in the context of The author of Hebrews arguing for the new covenant, a better covenant with a new priesthood, a better priesthood, and it says, therefore, he, who does the he refer to? Jesus. Yeah, that's a Sunday school answer for little kids. The answer is always Jesus. And what does it say he is able to do? Yeah, he is able to save for how long? Forever, or some of the translations may say to the uttermost, or some may say completely. He is able to save entirely, completely. And what is the, does he save everybody? What does the passage say? Those who draw near to God through him. Those who draw near to God through him. So, once again, it's the temple kind of language. Drawing near to God, but through him, through this high priest. And why is he able to do this? Because he lives forever. OK, there's two lines of thought. One said, I think, Chris, you said, because he intercedes, so he's pleading, he's interceding on behalf of his people, and then he also lives to do that. I think we all know what intercedes means, but what... do we know what... Sure. Yeah, it's a good question. Well, there's a couple of different, let's think of some of the different passages. that speak of his interceding. Does anybody remember some of the other passages? 1 John 2, 1 and 2, it says, I have written these things so that you may not sin, but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. So that's highlighting him being an advocate. And that would seem to highlight something of his, if I could use this term, his judicial intercession, like a lawyer. We have another passage, Romans 8, that's in the middle of that section where Paul is also talking about our security as believers. where it speaks of, let's look at that one, I don't know the exact wording of that as well. Romans chapter 8, that's with the spirits interceding. I think it's in verse 33, 34. Let's start in verse 33. It says, who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies, who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is he who died, yes, rather was raised, who is at the right hand of the Father, who also intercedes for us. So, in verse 34, 34 and 35, what kind of language do we see here again? Judicial language. A charge. God justifies, a judicial term. Opposite of justification, condemnation. So the judge, God, the Father, He chose us. the sun also intercedes for us, so we have judicial language. So this would seem to be a kind of judicial intercession where any time we sin, that It's like our sin is intercepted by Jesus and Jesus says that sin can't be, they can't be punished for that. They can't go to hell for that because I paid for that sin. That would be part of it, it would seem. But then there would also seem to be another aspect of his interceding, which actually we see in Luke 22. So we'll just segue to Luke 22, that section in verse 32. Let's backtrack in this section. We'll start in verse 31, so Bruce if you could read 31 and 32. I'm not sure exactly what we would call that kind of intercession, but what does he say is going to happen to Peter? Satan has asked to sift you like wheat. What does it mean to be sifted like wheat? Separating the wheat from the chaff. In other words, just to pluck you away and separate you from the rest of God's people. It could be. I mean, he's called the accuser. You know, we see indications of that in the Old and the New Testament. Yeah, I think so too, or even whether it's actually Satan or whether it's his demons, you know, I think most of us, you know, probably not at the level to get the attention of the chief, the general, but at the same time, you know, so, and then one other passage before, Like we see in John 17, Jesus praying specific prayers for his disciples. So, that gives us a little window into the reality of his interceding for us. Does the original Greek say actually demanding? They're saying demanding. That's pretty powerful. Well, I mean, the marginal reading, at least in the New American stance, is obtained by asking, but, I mean, it doesn't, it wouldn't surprise us that Satan would make demands before God and say... It's a three-year-old that demands something from his parents. That seems stronger. It kind of rhymes with the joke story of Joe going to God and God saying, I need you to do anything to take my life. Wow. In relation to his sin of denying him? Yeah, in fact that's what it goes on if you keep reading. Is that why Satan is demanding to separate him? In other words, does Satan have some type of knowledge about what is going to take place? It seems like he's saying that he has the main thing and it's possible that he has been doing this with Peter, but I always connected The reason why he was demanding to separate him was because of that gross sin of denying him, and I just didn't know. Yeah, I mean, the denial obviously takes place in the future because Jesus says, you know, when you have, you know, once you have turned against strength and the brothers and then Peter goes on to say, you know, I'm ready to die. So he will deny him. He hasn't denied him yet. But this is obvious. Satan doesn't know the future, but he has his plans. He has his purposes, and he's an extremely intelligent person who's lived for thousands of years, and he knows the human heart. He knows human ways, so he could probably smell Peter's pride and knew this would be easy. This is low-hanging fruit here. I think it's definitely connected with the denial. But I think for our purposes, what we do see is that as weak as Peter was in those moments, and as frail as his faith was, Jesus was interceding so that he did not entirely capitulate. And this is no different than what he does for Emory. Yeah, I don't think we necessarily need to isolate it. We for sure see in Romans 8 the Holy Spirit interceding in this kind of way. If you do a study of Romans 8, The Spirit's interceding is connected with God causing all things to work together for good. And so the Spirit prays the will of the Father to make sure we persevere to the end. But here we have a window into Jesus doing this kind of interceding and activity. But for sure I think we could say this is a regular ministry of the Holy Spirit. if we wanted to change the letter D to the pleading interceding of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Like I said, with each of these points you could just kind of lay forth lots of passages. So this is important because if my ultimate salvation, getting to glory, although I am responsible to persevere, Ultimately if I were left to myself if we were left to ourselves, we would not persevere We need this intercession and so and then therefore in and based on the testimony of scripture If there are some people who are truly regenerated who do not persevere then Jesus himself and the Holy Spirit himself Would be taking the blame for it would be saying They were, Jesus was a bad defense attorney. He couldn't get them off. Somehow his priestly work was inadequate. And that's just not, that's not a route that we should take. I mean, when you look at the two alternatives of, you know, because in our experience, as I mentioned last time, in our experience we see people who seem to believe and then they go to unbelief. You know, and so, When we look at the scriptures and how to explain that, we ought not to explain that as somebody who truly was regenerated, who didn't persevere, because the scripture doesn't allow for that category of thinking. Any questions on that or comments? Letter E, the nature of grace. Romans 11, 5, and 6. What do you have that's next? Doesn't matter. Let's go with the P of Spiral. P of Spirit. Oh, thank you. That's funny. Anyways, well, we kind of covered the pleading of the Spirit. I alluded to Romans 8.26, so if you just want to put under the pleading of the Spirit, Romans 8.26. So, next one, the nature of grace. Um, Romans 11, you know what, don't turn to Romans 11, 5 and 6, turn to Galatians 3, 2 and 3. Ava, can you read that one for us? Galatians 3, 2 and 3 I would like to learn just one thing. Did you read the Galatians 3, 2 and 3? Did you read the Galatians 3, 2 and 3? Did you read the Galatians 3, 2 and 3? Did you read the Galatians 3, 2 and 3? Did you read the Galatians 3, 2 and 3? Did you read the Galatians 3, 2 and 3? Did you read the Galatians 3, 2 and 3? Did you read the Galatians 3, 2 and 3? Did you read the Galatians 3, 2 and 3? Did you read the Galatians 3, 2 and 3? Did you read the Galatians 3, 2 and 3? Did you read the Galatians 3, 2 and 3? Did you read the Galatians 3, 2 and 3? Did you read the Galatians 3, 2 and 3? Did you read the Galatians 3, 2 and 3? Did Through faith, and what else? By the Spirit. I take by the Spirit almost synonymous with grace. The Spirit is the agent of those beginning works of grace in the heart. And what is the argument then of verse 3? Okay, so what do you think he means by the flesh here? Yeah, I think so works the law human effort by your manpower So if you if you've begun the Christian life by the Spirit by his grace in faith, which is the one virtue that highlights His grace, because faith is merely the empty hand that receives His grace. So, you got down and you're thinking that, oh, you're justified by grace, but now you've slipped into the thinking that you're going to be perfected, or this is going to be completed, not by the Spirit through faith, but what? by the flesh, by your own human effort. And so what's the implied answer? Are you saying I'm foolish? Absolutely not. It says you're foolish. You're stupid for thinking that. You hear the tone in his voice, reading those two verses. Yeah. Yep, and so this is the nature of grace, so if you take the position that a person can lose their salvation, it really is on dangerous ground, because even if they're willing to say, okay, we're justified by grace, we believe in imputed righteousness, and I'm thankful that most Arminians do, But then if it's somehow up to the person to keep their status of justification, then ultimately it's something that they're doing, and that thwarts the nature of grace that we see in the scriptures. Go ahead, Paula. I have heard Arminians say, God is a gentleman. He doesn't force himself on anyone. On one hand, you look at the first part of that, and he is gentle, caring, loving and compassionate. But that comes through with great force at times. There's discipline, there's discipline. I mean, even saving grace, think about the powers, the two forces there, you know, that He had to change my life. I couldn't have. There's a nugget of truth in that God is a gentleman in the sense that God doesn't coerce faith in us, it's not like God puts a gun to our head, there's no external compulsion, and we too as Christians and evangelizing, we're not like Muslims who proselytize through the sword. But nonetheless, God does it in such a way that He changes us from the inside so that our desire becomes the desire that we're responsible for. And if He doesn't do that, then none of us is going to desire Him in that way. Okay, any questions on that one? I think the idea is completing the job, so to speak. Finishing it. Sanctification but also to the final goal of glorification. Okay, um, letter F or in yours, uh, letter H. H, yeah, wait. No, I hadn't. Put somewhere in there the nature of try and love. I'm sorry. Before the H, before the P of scripture, which I'll just give it to you, it's going to be the paradigm of scripture. put the nature of triune love. Romans 5, 6-10 Jeff, if you could read that one for us. For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one who will hardly die for a righteous man, though perhaps for the good man someone might appear, he was to die. But God demonstrates His own love towards us, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Okay, so let's pause and think through this. How is man, or how are we, described? There's three different words he uses. One in verse six, or two in verse six. Helpless. What else? Ungodly. And how about in verse eight? Sinners. And then in verse ten, enemies. So, helpless. Helpless, ungodly, sinners, and enemies. It's not stroking our self-esteem, is it? So this is what we are, and Paul labored that point in chapter 3. And then in verse 8, how does God demonstrate His love? So He loves us when? While we were sinners. So this highlights that the nature of God's love is not rooted in what? Yeah, what we do. Something in us. Now, sometimes you hear the term unconditional love, and the truth in that is that God's love is not based upon conditions. I've stopped using that term only because it only tells us one aspect of His love, because His love is better than unconditional, because it's not based upon something that's in us, but it doesn't leave us as us. His love goes beyond that and begins to change us. But that's Romans chapter 6. So the nature of His love is not based upon something in us. And then notice what is Paul's argument then in verse 9. What's the logic of verse 9? His love was demonstrated when we weren't in us as lovable. Okay. His love was demonstrated when we weren't lovable. Mm-hmm. Yeah, so much more than having notice notice it keep keep in mind the Verse 8 the the very important word is he loved us Wow Wow, we're yet sinners and then verse 9 Having now been justified our status is now justified pardon and then notice the the temporal language here we shall be saved from the wrath of God through him, the future judgment, the future wrath. So, because of his love that was towards us when we were unlovable, now we're justified. That guarantees that we will be saved from the future wrath, from the future judgment. And then verse 10, For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." So, when we are reconciled, we are enemies. And so, if God chose to love us while we were enemies, sinners, then how can we doubt that he's going to keep us? Now that we're justified. Now that we're reconciled. There's a much more, it seems like a lot of language to me, but there's that saying, I mean it was really great you were reconciled by the death, but it was greater yet that you would be saved by his life. Is it strong in contrast from that was great that would happen, but what's going to happen is really risky. Well, it's not the first time we see much more. Where else do we see much more in this passage? Well, right in 9. Yeah, in 9, much more than. So, the idea is he's moving logically through salvation. This was a great event here, but look at this one now. Yeah, it's not so, I don't think it's necessarily so much, much more that this is better. Are we waiting to stop here? Does that make any sense? No, I think he's moving through the logic. If God set his love upon you while you were a sinner and died for you, and now you're justified, much more you're going to be saved from his wrath. Confidence. And so, would it... It's an amazing truth, like this is an amazing truth. Yeah, yeah, so it's highlighting the logic that if he did this in the past, then how can we doubt that he's going to do this in the future? My human brain says chocolate chip cookies are good, but blueberry cheesecake is much more delicious. So it's much more precise. Yeah, it would be more like this line of thinking if we used cookies. If mama makes me cookies for my enjoyment, then would I doubt that she's going to give me dinner tomorrow? but mommy gives me a cookie when I've been a bad boy, and when I clean my room, so I not believe that she would give me candy. Yeah, something to that effect. Yeah, just that this guarantees the future aspect of God's saving grace. It's always messed me up when I'm doing this thing, because we, and my wonderful son has been so good, so he needs a dad for his main things. So thank you very much, Mr. Linguistics. And more connotates, in my mind at least, quantity. Yeah, sometimes it can mean quantity, sometimes it can mean the logic, and that's where we just use the context to look at the meaning. I was going to say before that, because in verse 6 it says, he is talking about hope, not disappointing. So it may, like, you know, much more... Yeah, yeah, no, that's a good observation, that this is in the context of him talking about a hope that's certain, that won't disappoint, and so then he lays forth these arguments that highlight, if God did this while you were nasty, now you're reconciled, then why would you doubt that he's going to continue in that same line of grace? Good. Okay, and then also Romans 8, 35 to 39. Dad, if you could read that one for us. Okay, who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword. As it is written, for your sake we are being killed all the day long. We are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered. No, in all these things we are no more than conquerors to him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God, through Christ Jesus our Lord. 36, that Paul throws out that somebody might say might separate a person from the love of Christ. Tribulation, persecution, famine, being without food, He mentions nakedness, being without clothes, peril, and sword, being without safety, without security. So these are things that somebody might lay forth as, well, you know, somebody will follow the Lord, but if this happens to them, in fact, we see something of that with That Old Testament figure, Job, who was mentioned before, Satan said, well, he just serves you because you put a hedge around him. Take this away, he'll turn away from you. What? I don't understand the comment. Oh, take your cell phone away. Yeah, in fact, what does he say in verse 36? He quotes from a psalm here, which the indication is what? Welcome to the Christian life. Welcome to the family. Yeah, he quotes from Psalm. It includes nakedness, famine, sword. But notice the beauty then in verse 37. He's talking about the elect in this context. How do the elect respond to these things in verse 37? He says, but in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer. How? through him who loved us. Now, Paul actually invents a word here. As far as we know, it's the only place this word ever occurs in the Greek language, inside the New Testament, outside the New Testament. Words mean things. It's the word nikao, which means to be a conqueror, or it's where I think Nike gets their name, Nike. victory, conquer, and then he adds the prefix hupere on the front of it, which means super or above conquering, and that's why it comes over in new translations in different ways. Some say more than conquer, some say overwhelmingly conquer. Why do you think Paul would say in these things we are super conquerors? Okay, so it's he makes it clear this is through him we're not conquerors in and of ourself we're not super conquerors and I have to pick this up, I'm 36 and I've never had this thought before. We were being looked at all day long, thank you for joining the club. We were considered as sheep to be swine. So to be considered, there has to be a considerer. Who is that referencing that did the considering? We thought about it and this was the plan for you. Someone has to be the considered hermit. I think we'd probably have to go back to that psalm to see, you know, to kind of have, but I think in general we could probably safely say it'd be the enemies of from the get-go to flutter up. Yeah, I think that's a safe application at least. Yeah, you said it can't be done. I've got it. You don't consider it unfluttering. Well, let me think. It's just unattractive. Yeah, yeah. Okay, so he says super crisp. So super, that just means that we would never fall to I think it highlights that. I like Piper's thought on this. He says we're not just conquerors, but we're super conquerors because these things that are mentioned, the peril, the nakedness, famine, sword, are the very things that Satan uses to separate us from the love of Christ. but they're the very things that God uses to keep us in the love of Christ. It's like in those sci-fi movies when they're trying to zap somebody with electricity, but instead it makes them more powerful. And the enemy tries to come against God's people with, here, take this, and it makes us more stronger in the sense of, because it makes us more dependent upon the Lord, because it weans us off of depending upon these things, or finding our security and happiness in, you know, in these things, because all these things can no doubt are for sure temptations for Christians to make much more of them than we ought to. Hey, you know, I don't want to be without food, be without clothing, be without safety. Never in the sense of... Denying Christ finally? Yeah, in terms of person. I would see that Christians would stumble and sin under those circumstances, but never fully and finally deny Christ. I like that from MacArthur. A lot of the argument of an Arminian is that God will never take his love away, but we can walk away. He said, what reason would somebody walk away? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, no, that's good. And then he's not done yet in verse 38. Does anybody know what a merism is? A merism? It's a figure of speech where you speak of extremes. Like when the scriptures talk about heaven and earth. It's talking about heaven and earth and everything in between. And so, they're like bookends, all-inclusive, you know, it's like from A to Z. That's what a merism is, and Scripture uses it quite a bit. And so, what are some of the merisms that we see here in verse 38 and 39? He mentions height and depth. What else? Life and death. Present and future. Yeah, I think he's probably, angels, he's probably referring to elect angels, principalities, probably referring to demons, whether you're a holy angel or whether you're a demon. I wouldn't die for that, but it would seem to fit the context of these merisms. Yeah, things present, things to come, things in the future. He's using this all-inclusive language. And then what's Paul's kind of catch pan category there in verse 39? Nor any other created thing. Okay, there's two categories in this world. There's creator. And then there's created thing. Nor any other created thing can separate you from the one creator who said that he loves you. So, this pretty much, I mean, so once again, the argument, well, you know, but a person can still walk away from the Lord, well, is that person a created thing? And once again, obviously we have to be careful with that because the first part of the lesson, you know, you must persevere. And so if somebody says, well, I'm going to defy the Lord and they turn away fully and finally away from the Lord, then it's a good indication that they're not a believer. Okay, any questions on that? Comments? Jim? He qualifies it a lot, you know, things like that, the love of God, standing in Christ Jesus, our Lord in us, not in us. He does not have to be separated by us. He qualifies it over and over. Yeah, and it's not a general amorphous kind of love as well. That's not for everybody. If you're not in Christ, then you don't have this love. It only comes to those who are united to Christ. Good. Okay. Now, in our experience, we talked about this before, but I'll just reiterate. In our experience, from our perspective, Does it look like people go from being believers to unbelievers, from followers of Christ to not following Christ, to being a repenting sinner to an unrepentant sinner? Yeah, in our experience, that's what it looks like. So, when we ask the question, What paradigm, and this is what the next point is, the paradigm of Scripture, what category does the Scripture give us to help us to understand and explain this? Does the Scripture give us a paradigm that explains that when these people, that the people who go from being seemingly believer to unbeliever, that they go from being regenerate to degenerate, justified to condemn, reconciled back to enemies, Or does it give us another category which these people who we think they outwardly look like they're a believer but aren't truly a believer. And I think it's obviously the latter category that the paradigm that the scripture gives us is that persons who make a profession look like they're a believer and then turn back fully and finally that they haven't truly been saved. Squirrel says if you have it you can never lose it and if you lose it you never had it Was there question no, okay, okay? Let's look at several different passages that help us to see this paradigm. The first example we'll look at is with Judas. Look at John 6, 70-71. Jim, I'll have you read this. is an easier example just because we see Jesus says later on it would have been better if he had never been born. He turned away from the Lord fully and finally. We could even look at the difference between him and Peter, who Peter on the one hand falls in a very similar way, repents, gets back up, and we see the intercession of Christ with that. So if we were to ask the question, you know, what about Judas? Did he go from being regenerate to degenerate? Did he go from being justified to condemned? And Jim's going to read the Gospel of John, chapter 6, verse 70 and 71. Jesus answered them, that I myself cannot choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil. Now he meant Judas, the son of Simon, as a carrier, for he, one of the twelve, is going to be a traitor." Okay, so this is fairly early on in Jesus' ministry. This is at a point which many, in verse 66, many were turning away from him. And in verse 67 he asks a question, do you guys want to lead me to? He talks to the twelve and Peter says, Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God. And then Jesus reminds them, remember I'm the one who chose you. It's by grace. What does he say about Judas? He calls him the devil. Yeah, he calls him the devil, which seems to set... Now, John, remember, is writing... John's comment here in verse 71 is his interpretive comment years later. Now, I could imagine, you know, they're sitting there and Jesus says, I've chosen you twelve, but one of you is the devil. What? And it probably just kind of, maybe it went one ear and out the other. But evidently, John later on, as the Holy Spirit reminds him of these words of Jesus, says, Oh, that's what Jesus was talking about. And that's what he says in verse 71. Now he meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray him. So Judas, as an example, did not go from being saved to unsaved, justified to condemned, he never was. But outwardly, he looked just like the rest of the disciples. I mean, even to the point of what would appear that doing miracles, although there's no specific example of Judas doing a miracle, but you see passages, he sent out the twelve and gave them authority to drive out demons and to do miracles, and they did it. It makes you think of the verse where Jesus says, many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did I not prophesy in your name and cast out demons and do many mighty deeds? And certainly, at least we can say from Scripture, there was one guy we know from the New Testament who did those things and yet wasn't truly saved. So, at least with Judas we see here, it becomes clear that Judas never was truly saved. 1 Timothy 1.18-20 Another example, this is Mr. Hymenaeus. Bev, can you read that one? This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith in a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, who by it handed over to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. Okay, so what is Timothy exhorted to do here in verse 18? Fight the good fight of faith, wage the good warfare, and then he elaborates on that, keeping faith in a good conscience. And then he reminds Timothy of some who are strewn along the shore. How does he describe them? He says they've made a shipwreck. Who are the examples he gives who's made shipwreck? What do you think he means by shipwrecked and why the imagery of shipwrecked? It looked like they were on their way. Yeah, they're on their way to the destination, but ship crashes and sinks. And what does it say Paul did to them? Yeah, he delivered them or handed them over to Satan. That's huge because Paul doesn't have the supernatural ability to say I'm handing you over to Satan. There's one other time that Paul uses this phrase which is in the church discipline because they say they're part of the community, and when they display behavior that isn't becoming of a Christian and it's questioned, and if they don't repent, then they are put outside of the community, which means Yep, there's only one other time that Paul used this phrase, it's in 1 Corinthians 5. What's that? I'm shaking the dust off my feet. No, this is, if you turn, keep your finger, well, yeah, keep your finger here. Well, you can keep your finger, you can take it out. 1 Corinthians 5, just real quick. Just to show you that this phrase is used one other time, and it's a judicial term to speak of excommunication or putting somebody out of the church. In 1 Corinthians 5, this is a situation, a guy was having this incestuous relationship with his stepmother. They were boastful about it, and then he says, over in verse 4 and 5, "...in the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that he may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Now, if you go back to the previous verses in verse 2, "...you have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one, this person who is in this unrepentant sexual perversion, that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in the body, present in the spirit, have already judged him who has committed this as though I were present." that he needs to be delivered over to Satan. There are two realms in this world. You have the church, the kingdom of Christ, where Christ rules over his people, and then you have the world where the god of this age rules, where the prince of the power of the air is at work. And so to deliver someone over to Satan is to put them out of the realm of the church and to put them in the realm of Satan. And notice in 1 Corinthians 5 here, what's the goal in verse 5? That he may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Does anybody remember what the goal was in 1 Timothy 1.20? So that they may be taught not to blaspheme. So the aim with this is restoration so that they would repent and come back to the Lord and can be brought back into the fold. But for our purposes, here's Hymenaeus and Alexander who made shipwreck. They've been put under church discipline, so they've been put out of the church so that they would be taught not to blaspheme. And then, interestingly enough, we see at least one of these guys comes up again, because I guess if we only saw that, we might think, hmm, I wonder if Hymenaeus was a believer. I wonder if, you know, maybe, you know, was he somebody who was a believer who then became an unbeliever? We'll turn to 2 Timothy, chapter 2. to Timothy 2.16. And remember once again, same author of this letter is Paul, same recipient Timothy. And 2.16 to 19, Bruce can you read that for us? But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upset in the faith of some, but God's firm foundation stands bearing this seal. The Lord knows those who are His, and let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity. Okay, so in verse 16, what happened to Hymenaeus? Or verse 16 to 18? Okay, they're spreading false doctrine. How does Paul used some vivid language to speak of it. What does he call it in verse 17? Gain green. And what specifically was this false teaching in verse 18? That the resurrection had already taken place. Could be that It could have been included with that, that Christ has already come, but whatever it was, whatever the nature of it was, it was definitely that the resurrection has taken place, which seems to be, Paul writes to another church that seems to be influenced by this teaching, as I may remember. Possibly the Thessalonians well somebody had said that the day of the Lord there was letters being passed around the day of the Lord has already come I was thinking more specifically of first Corinthians 15 where some were denying that that that there's the resurrection of believers and then Paul says to do so you'd have to deny the resurrection of Christ but anyways the point being is in verse 18 that Hymenaeus is mentioned once again here along with Philetus. Now, I don't know if Philetus is Alexander's last name or if Philetus is a different person, but I think it's pretty safe to conclude that Hymenaeus is probably the same guy that he mentions in 1 Timothy. So we have a little bit more insight as to how he made shipwreck of his faith. He'd gone astray from the truth, verse 18, and then notice Paul gives this explanation here in verse 19. What paradigm does Paul give? What clarification does he give in verse 19? Well, yeah, that those who name the name of the Lord will not dwell in iniquities. Okay, he mentioned, there's two things that he's mentioning here, right? In verse 19. The first, he says, the firm foundation of God stands having this seal. There's two things on the seal. From God's perspective, what? He knows who are His. You see, this is, I mean, this is... This often can be the rattling nature of seeing somebody, especially if it would appear Hymenaeus maybe even had been in a teaching position. All of a sudden he's abandoning the truth of Christianity. That rattles people. I mean, wow. Here's this person I trusted. What's going on? Did he become unregenerate? What happened? From God's perspective, He knows who are His. But the difficulty from our perspective, what is all we can go by according to verse 19? Yeah, so all we can go by is outward appearance, but God has omniscient knowledge. And so the paradigm, once again, is that somebody can appear to be a believer and not truly be a believer, but the Lord knows who are His. The Lord knows. He can see. But all we can do, all the church can do is go, are they living a repentant life? Are they following the Lord as the Lord would lay out in His Word? I haven't had Calvin's commentary up here, and one of the comments he made is that this really stresses the importance for some doctrines. And if you look at what's going on, they didn't necessarily deny the central gospel, but some things that are very important, obviously so important that they were excommunicated for it. Is that true? Yeah, it would appear from first something. And as I say this, it sounds like I'm doubling it, and I don't mean to. It isn't just the gospel that is necessary to grow and become a mature person. You're absolutely right. I was just talking with Chris. Chris was doing essays for this counseling certification. One of the essays he had to do was asking the question of relating the infallibility of Scripture to the authority of Scripture. If you remember way back when we started this, when we were on the doctrine of inerrancy, In the 70s, there was a guy who came along and said, there was a couple guys that wrote a book that was basically saying that, oh, we believe the scriptures are infallible, but we don't believe the scriptures are inerrant. And so they would say, well, we believe the scriptures speak truthfully on matters of what you're supposed to believe and how you're supposed to live, on matters of faith and morals. And that historically has been what infallibility has taught, which is what they're saying. But when it comes to matters of science, when it comes to matters of history, you know, the Bible could be accurate, may not be true in certain areas. Well, one of the guys who wrote that book, Denying the Doctrine of Inerrancy, which is not the Gospel, his name was Rogers, Mr. Rogers. And the interesting thing, back then in the 70s he was teaching at Fuller Seminary, and he was still, although denying obviously a very important doctrine, was still considered to be in the evangelical camp, if you will. He wasn't denying the gospel. Well, a couple of years ago, he was actually in the area and he was advocating that homosexuality, a consensual homosexual relationship between two men is not sin. All that to say, and we were just talking about how the Christian faith is like a finely expensive put-together rug. You start pulling out certain key threads and it just quickly will unravel. And actually Paul does this in 1 Corinthians 15. Remember when that great section on highlighting the resurrection of Christ, Those people weren't directly denying the resurrection, the bodily resurrection of Christ, but they were denying the bodily resurrection of believers. And he's saying, if you pull that thread out, then you're going to have to pull this thread out. And so better put both those threads back in because it's going to unravel. Sinclair Ferguson talks about good fences and bad fences. There's certain doctrines that get closer and closer to the gospel. There's certain ones that are far out, like think of a security system around a diamond. If there's this several million dollar diamond, you have the The security system that's immediately around, this glass encasement. Then you have the room that it's in. There's security walls there. Then you have the outer perimeters of the building. The further you get out, or the further you get in, the more serious the breach in the security. And so, you know, as Christians, you know, it becomes difficult. I mean, sometimes making decisions is that, look, this is close to the gospel. Paul wrote Galatians about cutting the foreskin off of Gentile converts. Now, some might say, Paul, that's such a silly issue. Why are you all huffy and puffy about Gentile converts cutting their foreskins. What's the big deal? Well, what's the big deal? Because Paul's saying, you add this, then this touches on the gospel. So, yeah, I agree with you, but we need to be careful that we connect the dots in the Christian faith, that the truths are tied to one another, and the Christian faith is a unit. And once you start pulling out key doctrines, then others will go with it. That's where apologetics become vital. Because, yeah, systematic. Yeah, absolutely. I didn't mean to leave that out. But I think it's so important to know what you believe, because philosophy, that worldly empty chatter, like the New American Standard says, it will lead to ungodliness, if you're not careful and you don't have your guards up. And then one little untruth becomes great, just like in the Rodgers case. But it's interesting, both your comments, you said apologetics, you said systematic theology, but even there I think they're tied together because When we defend the Christian faith, we don't want to defend... Well, let me just defend the bodily resurrection over here. We have a special intruder. Hold that thought. We don't want to just... Well, let me just defend the bodily resurrection of Christ. Let me just defend this little piece of Christianity. I don't believe it's helpful to do what's called piecemeal apologetics. Well, let me just argue for inerrancy over here with this unbeliever. No, we want to say, no, this is the Christian faith. Either you take it or leave it. Because what happens is, okay, let me assume there's this neutral ground. Let me argue you over to the existence of God. And then once I got you there, argue you over to the scripture. And now they're still thinking on the level, I'm the authority here, my reason is the authority. This has been convincing, God exists, now I'm convinced that he must reveal himself. He revealed himself in the scriptures. Now, hey, wait a second, he talks about hell over here. I don't like that. I'm not going to believe that. Wait a second, he talks about the deity and humanity of Christ over here. How can I understand? That doesn't make sense, that's contradictory. You haven't actually won them to the Christian faith. That's why I think it's better to argue for the whole of the Christian faith rather than piecemeal trying to bring somebody along. But anyways, that's another subject. she said, because if you don't, if you're not careful to know these, which this book with a thousand plus pages in it is our faith. This on a whole is our faith. John Murray, he says, the scripture itself therefore leads us to the conclusion that it is possible to have a very uplifting, ennobling, reforming, and exhilarating experience of the power and the truth of the gospel, to come into such close contact with the supernatural forces which are operative in God's kingdom of grace, that these forces produce effects in us which to Human observation are hardly distinguishable from those produced by God's regenerating and sanctifying grace, and yet not be partakers of Christ and heirs of eternal life. A doctrine of perseverance that fails to take account of such a possibility and of its actuality in certain cases is a distorted one and ministers to a laxity which is quite contrary to the interests of perseverance. Indeed, it is not the doctrine of perseverance at all. And so he's just highlighting the reality that we, in our understanding of this, we have to give an account that some people can outwardly look like a believer and go very far in the Christian faith and not truly be a believer. But, as Paul says, the firm foundation of the Lord stands. He knows who are His. Well, just to start with that, yes, I couldn't help but think on the Judas theory that Jesus chose well, with one being the devil. And we all know that wasn't a ghost. He made a mistake. He validates the sovereignty of God, the sovereignty of Jesus. So that what we have amongst us, these people who have fallen to this, they appear to be, you know, on the right track people, but then you see a major ghost. God in His sovereignty used that person. It may appear like he trashed a lot of people or misled a lot of people or something, but it's the same appearance as with Judas. Jesus choked him knowingly. He choked him. It calms my nerves. With the unequivocal knowing God is sovereign, I don't know why he raised up a Jimmy Swagger who is meant to have sexual affairs and fall. We don't know that stuff. We can use it. And we speak to it. Yeah, and I mean the history of the church, I mean some... I mean, you look at God used Pelagius, God used Arius, God used all these false teachers throughout church history. God used the feminist movement of the 20th century to force Christians to look at their Bibles and say, what does the Bible actually say about biblical manhood and womanhood? Now, we don't revel in the lies and the deception, these are against Christ, these are wicked, Hey, God is God and he uses evil for his good purposes. And there's others that relate better than Paul and I, but in the prosperity doctrine, we have teachers who name it and claim it, you're a king's kid. But he's using that to bring awareness to us that that's not what it's all about folks. That's not why I have you here on this program. And he has to raise people up to show us and make us go, wow, boy, I'm off track on that one. Yeah, he works. So it's just the sovereignty of God in that way. Yep, definitely. Okay, first Sean, 219. I can't remember who we left off. Is it Ava's turn? I think 1 John was written probably in the aftermath of a church split, a heresy that infiltrated the church. What heresy seems to affect the church in 1 John? Yeah, I think it was Gnosticism, or at least a seed form of it. Most people would say that Gnosticism probably wasn't a full-blown, cohesive system until the second century, but it definitely would appear that this was a seed form or incipient Gnosticism. And evidently there were some people who were even teaching in church and started to teach these lies. They would say that Jesus only appeared to have a human body. He didn't have a real physical body. And John says, if you deny Jesus Christ came in the flesh, you're anti-Christ. He mentions these, and what did they do in verse 19? They left. They went out from us. And what does John conclude about this? They were not really of us. They were not really the same as us. Why does he say that? Or if they had been of us, they would have remained with us, but they went out so that it would be shown or manifest that they are not all of us. Here's these people who departed from the faith, who turned away from the Lord, started teaching false doctrine, and John doesn't say, oh, they were ones of us, but now they're not ones of us. No, they went out from us, and that demonstrated that they weren't of us. Any questions on that? Go to the end of the end of the watch. Not in one camp, but in another, because there's a thousand groups out there that said we're the right ones. And we're maybe good because you're the wrong ones. And there's other witnesses in every group, and this group, and that group, and a hundred and one other groups, that, that, that, that fractured, break off. If you should have come to the Mennonite Church, it would seem like, well, you folks have an organ, thinking, that's wrong, that's wrong, we're splitting. And it just goes on and on and on, to where I've had people that I've been witnessing to say, oh yeah, yaddy, yaddy, yaddy, you think you're the only one here, right? And it's just, wait a minute, let's just be with God for a minute. And it all comes down to, they all, if they slice the dice to effort in the third chapter, they build their whole belief system around that. When you're teaching, man, it's so beautiful and wonderful, and you've got inspired because, like, let's take all the scriptures. Yeah, yeah, and that's on the one hand the in Luther foresaw this problem that the challenge of you know that was the objection was you can't you you can't break off from a the Roman Catholic Church or else it will lead to splinter after splinter after splinter. And I have to agree with Luther, the alternative of the splinters is better than one system saying, we have declared we are infallible and infallibly know the truth to say this is the truth. And yet at the same time, I do think As much as there's, you know, multitudes of different denominations and things like that, and some go dangerous into areas of, you know, we are... Any time you see, you know, a church that calls themselves the Church of Christ, you need to kind of, like, say, what do you mean by that? Because do you mean... Yeah, because are you saying in that that you are the only ones? And yet, at the same time, it's not that difficult, at least historically, to look big picture as far as what does historic Christianity look like. I mean, even the Protestant reformers, they said, when they were thought to be inventing something new, they would go back to the early church writers and say, hey, I want you guys to see we're not inventing something new. This is what Christians have historically believed. If you go back before the medieval period. And so I think, you know, we do have enough access to church history to see that in general, there are certain things that Christians have historically believed. There's certain things peripherally that we, you know, Christians have always disagreed, but in general, it's not that difficult to see. infinite wisdom is there's the macro, which is huge, the world of the Holy One, but there's a micro that is virtually undisputable, salvation is through Christ, and Christ alone. So when you see one divert from salvation through Christ and Christ alone, You use it immediately, right? Right. But there are some bad brewers. In the Mennonite Church, we used to wash feet. It held its place. It was good. But there are many who said, oh, no, no, no, no, you can't do that anymore. It's like fine, knock yourself out. It doesn't disrupt the micro parts of it. Yep, yeah, you know, and group splinter, you know, cold water baptism, fresh water baptism, you know, I mean, you can just go on and on. How do you deal with, like Billy Rayl, the years he preached fire and earth, and now he says there's other ways to get to heaven besides going through Christ? How do you figure that one? I mean, has he won the elect or not? Do you understand that he has to come to God in this time? The firm foundation of the Lord stands. The Lord knows who are His. Yeah, you can get a YouTube video. You can see he was on the Hour of Power where he talks about the wideness of God's mercy. And yet, you know, he's been instrumental in the salvation of many. I mean, I had a friend in college who was saved through his preaching, watching on TV. I mean, historically he has had that bent towards ecumenical thinking and all that. Yeah, I mean, a lot of that, you know, I mean, I just know we need to hold the line and say that's wrong, that's dead wrong, even if that makes us unpopular. You know, we need to be careful about making specific judgments upon you know, the genuineness of somebody, whether they're truly saved or not, you know, I don't know, you know, but I know what he was saying was very unorthodox and unchristian, and was wrong, and is very dangerous. We have to defend our faith no matter what we discern it from. Because, like we just read about, Satan is a syphilis-like being. We're in a battle constantly and we have to be on our toes. Yep, we do. Okay, Hebrews 3, 14. And we don't fight that battle alone. And Christians, sisters and brothers, too, be able to uphold truths when someone is weak in an area, to help them along, to show them through God's Word, you know, what is truth. If they have been in a weakened state for whatever reason, temptation, illness, you know, grief, whatever, it's self-consuming, and we need to help them along with this. Hebrews 3.14. Jim, can you read that for us? So we have to come partaking with Christ. If we hold fast, we gain our assurance firm until the end. Okay, so the author speaks of partaking of Christ as something that happens when? Past, present, or future? In the past, we have become. It's actually a perfect tense in the Greek. We have become partakers of Christ, and it's conditioned upon what? Holding fast, how long? To the end. Holding fast the beginning of our assurance, firm until the end. When is the end? It's in the future. It's the end of our lives, right? So, he's saying, this is truly taking place in the past, if this takes place in the future. So, If this doesn't take place in the future, in other words, if somebody doesn't hold firm to the end, then what? What's the conclusion? The past has not taken place. So, if somebody doesn't persevere to the end, it's because they haven't become a partaker of Christ in the past. Does that make sense? And so this is the paradigm that Scripture gives us over and over, that a person who outwardly seems to be following the Lord and turns away, it's because they never had the reality of it in their hearts, if they turn away fully and finally. Okay, 2 Peter 2, 20-22. Grudem, in the Systematic Theology, he goes through Hebrews 6 and some other key passages, and we've gone through that in the past, and so I trust that you can read those on your own. So I figured we'd look at some that he doesn't talk about as much. Paula, can you read 2 Peter 2, 20-22? 4. If after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last days have become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, a dog returns to its own vomit, and a sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire. So he's referring to people here who appear to even have been teachers in the church. In verse 20, what happened to them? Yeah, it says they escaped the defilements of the world by knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I mean, if we stop there, we'd say that sounds like salvation. That sounds like conversion. And then what happens at the end of verse 20? They get trapped back into what they were in. Yeah, so the them. What do you think the them refers to? The truths that weren't I think probably the defilements of the world that we see earlier on in the verse, and are overcome, so this is not being merely, you know, only entangled in the sin, but overcome so that they're caught in it, they're wallowing in it, they're lying down in it. I worry about this with Matthew. Yeah, and you know, it's one of those things that we get fearful we see a verse like this. This is scary. What does he say about this situation at the end of verse 20? Yeah, the last state. What's the last state? What's that? Being overcome. The last state is worse than what? Where were that in the first place? So they're in the defilements of the world, they're back in the defilements of the world, but now the last state is worse than the first, and going back to what you were saying earlier, Jeff, as far as words mean things in comparatives much more, here worse, the last state, and I take this to be qualitatively worse, this is worse. Why is it worse according to verse 21? What happened in between those two states? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, in between being in the defilements of the world, there was this escaping, and then with this comes knowledge, and then they turn away from it. It'd have been better had they not known it, because now they're more accountable. other horrifying scriptures are when God says he turned them over, he let them go into a reprobate line. What could possibly be more horrifying than that? It should make a daily five alarm alert. Where might I be being duped? Where might I be falling? Brother, sister, tell me. I don't want to fall into this game. We don't have to live in fear. We have to live in awareness that one of our isms are bent, maybe that little insignificant quote that starts you to get down a path. And I went down a path that totally entraps me. It's like, I don't want to go there anymore. You folks help me, and make sure I don't blow it here. Yep, it definitely is. Now, if we stop there, we still might scratch our head and say, wow, were these people, I mean, it says they had knowledge of the Lord. Did they truly know the Lord? Now, how does Peter explain this in verse 22? A true proverb. But a dog returns to its own vomit. And a sow, even after she's been washed, or he, returns to wallowing in their mire. So how does this illustration shed light on what's going on here? They were never saved in the first place. They never had to put a dress on. Yeah, you can put a dress on a pig, but eventually it's going to run back to the mud. They never truly had to change nature. They were still dogs, still pigs. You can sit the dog at the chair and put his plate at the table. You can even put a bib around his neck, but he's a dog. It's interesting, and I'm going to leave... I think most of the passages that are, you know, the kind of the go-to passages that maybe an Arminian would point to that say, oh, this passage says you lose your salvation. Or that we struggle with, boy, how do I understand that one? It kind of looks like you lose your salvation from this verse. I think if you look at it closely, context, what comes before, after, look at what it's saying, you'll come to see that there's usually something in the context that'll help you to see this wasn't somebody who was truly saved. Outwardly, they looked like they were saved, but they weren't truly saved. Okay, any questions on that or comments? I thought about, let's save John 15 for another week maybe, unless you want to look at it. Is there another passage that maybe you guys are thinking about that, say, boy, I'm not sure how to explain this one. I mean, it looks like this is somebody who's not saved. That's in the reading, though. Okay, since two people said it. Hebrews 6. We looked at this in the past, too. But, oh well, we'll go through it again. It's okay. Yeah, yeah, so we'll tie it all together somehow. Hebrews 6. Let's read. Let's start in verse 4. Jeff, I'll have you read verse 4 to 6. And Dad, if you could read 7 to 9. For in case of those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is possible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucified to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. Yes. So for the land that has drunk the grain that that often falls on and produces a crop useful for those who say it is cultivated, received a blessing from God. But it bears thorns and thistles. It is worthless and near being cursed. And it ended in it. And it's endless to be burned. Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel assured of better things, things that belong to salvation. Okay, so, first of all, okay, he mentions in verse, how does he describe these people in verse 4 and 5? Okay, so they're enlightened, Okay. Tasted the heavenly gift. What else? I think I know what I'm asking you. What were that gifts? What did they taste? They tasted... I don't know if it was... What did you mean by they tasted the heavenly gift? It could be talking about communion. That's one possibility. Or it could be if he's talking in a spiritual sense of they had some kind of of tasting of the heavenly gift in the sense of salvation. They were around other people. They had, in the language of 2 Peter, they escaped the defilements of the world. There was a kind of a breach with the world. Let's do some spiral research and see which are some of the main forms that this comes under. tasting is comparative to eat. Would you rather taste a piece of cake, or would you rather eat the cake? So they've tasted these things. They've encountered them at a certain level. They haven't fully ingested them. You often see a lot of people that come to salvation, and they come into the congregation, and the appeal is the love and unity that you see around you, and what God is actually doing. So they tasted that, and they seen it, but they actually believed. They tasted it, but they didn't actually take it. I like that. Okay, so this description, enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, been made sharers or partakers of the Holy Spirit, tasted the good word of God, and what else? Powers of the age to come. I take this to mean that they saw real miracles. powers of the age to come, which would seem to be also stated in Chapter 2. So it's quite a description. Some of you have already made your conclusion about the verse. We've talked about this already. But, I mean, if we just saw this by itself, you know, even with the language of taste and not eat, man, that sounds like somebody's truly saved. But then what happens in verse 6? They fall away. And if they fall away, what? It is impossible to renew them again to repentance. Now, let's just stop here. If these people were truly saved and they fell away so that they're now not saved, what is the author of Hebrews saying? They can't be saved again. I only know one person who believes that, and I'm not going to say who they are. And I don't think they believe it anymore. I've never met, and before that I've never met somebody who actually believed it. Why does even an Armenian, even a robust, hard core Armenian, now I, even a hard core Armenian doesn't believe that a person can be saved, unsaved, and then it's impossible for them to get saved again. Why don't they believe that? Because their view of man's freedom. Because you have to still have the ability to repent. So their view of freedom won't allow them to take that position. Even though I think that would be, if you're going to say that this, speaking of somebody losing their salvation, you would have to say, well that means they can't come back to the Lord, but they don't believe that. So anyways, okay, so let's hold the jury out here and say, okay, you know, this description here, it seems like it's saying they're saved, they fall away, it's impossible for them to be renewed again to repentance, but are they really saved? Now notice verse 7, 4, this is connected. He gives an illustration here. For the ground that drinks the rain which falls upon it and it brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is tilled receives a blessing from God. If it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed. It ends up being burnt. What's he saying here in verse 7 and 8? What's the illustration? An illustration we see all throughout the scripture. By their fruit, you shall know them. If they produce thorns, what are they? A weed. If they produce fruit, then they're alive, there's life. So, and then notice, In verse 9, I mentioned this before, that often if you look in the context, there's some tip-off. Verse 9, But beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way. In other words, we're convinced of better things, better things than what? Better things than turning away, better things than being lost, things that accompany salvation. So the assumption is that as nice as all these things are, they don't necessarily demonstrate salvation. Yeah, and that's actually the author of Hebrews, that's the illustration he uses of those who come close but don't enter into God's rest in chapter 3 and 4. Okay, so you get that one all settled. So then, here's the objection A. So, and by the way, this is one of at least five different warning passages in the book of Hebrews. Hebrews sprinkles these warning passages. If you turn away from the Lord, you may be going beyond the point of no return. Some sharp warnings that if you turn away, there's judgment. Now, so why, if what we're saying that those whom God saves will persevere to the end, why give these warning passages? If believers are secure and will persevere, then why does God give these warning passages? It doesn't make sense. That's the objection. It doesn't make sense for God to give these warning passages that if you turn away, you're going to hell, if there's nobody who's going to turn away. Okay, so number one, God does not work in a vacuum. He uses means. One of the means that he uses to keep believers following him are warning passages. Passages like this that, as Jeff mentioned earlier, put a lump in your throat and say, ah, I don't want to go down that route. You know, in the same way that as you're driving along and you see detour signs, you know, bridge out ahead, you don't want to go down there. You don't want to plow through that. So God uses these as means for believers to persevere. What else? What's that? Self-examination as well. The writers of the New Testament do not assume that everybody in the audiences to whom they're writing to are necessarily true believers. Paul says to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 6, do not be deceived. Neither fornicator, nor idolater, nor adulterer, and he goes down the list, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you. In other words, don't be deceived into thinking this. And then in 2 Corinthians 13.5, examine yourself to see whether you're in the faith. Just like when I'm preaching on a Sunday morning, I don't assume everybody out there is truly regenerate. I don't know everybody's, of course we do membership, we examine people, so the ones who we've examined as members, we've asked them questions and tried to discern, you know, is this a true believer, is this not, and to the best of the knowledge of the leadership of the church, we can say that this is, as far as we can tell, a sound profession and this is a believer. So these warning passages serve as well for those who outwardly look like believers, for them to be warned to make sure that they're a believer. Yeah, it can be helpful to turn against self-righteousness, that he who thinks he stands takes heed lest he fall, that we don't want to go down this path, that we are dependent upon the Lord to keep us. I mean, you read verses like this in Hebrews 6 and 2 Peter, you know, you say, Lord, keep me. I need you. It's also a healthy fear. Yeah, a healthy fear. A healthy fear. Okay, letter B, second objection. This doctrine cuts off human responsibility, leads to antinomianism. I put these under the same category. How are you going to respond to this? You might grant them that if they look at it atomistically through the world as it's shown around a few times. That's where, again, having sound doctrine and understanding that we are Christ and He truly is and we know about Him. So John 14, 15, if you love me, you will obey my commandments. And so if we think that we don't need to obey His commandments and we can do what we want, then maybe we shouldn't really do it. Yeah, this is a scary argument because Who deals with this argument in the scriptures? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? When you find yourself arguing, laying forth the same arguments that the apostles deal with and refute, that's not a good position to be in. When Paul lays out the doctrine of justification, and argues against the position that this is going to lead to licentiousness, he makes it clear that they died to sin. So that God gives us the grace not only to pardon us, but to cause us to persevere, So this doesn't cut off human responsibility, because we're still obligated to persevere, even though God gives us the grace to persevere. John Owen's quote here, I enjoyed it, he says, as well, we argue that it is unnecessary for us to breathe because God gives us breath. I mean, because God gives us breath, we don't say, well, I don't have to breathe. You know, I mean, there's passages that say God is the one in him. We live and move and have our being, that he's the one who gives us breath. Or Hezekiah. Remember, Hezekiah is the king that God said initially he got sick and thought he was going to die. He cried out to the Lord. God said, you're going to have 15 more years. So could Hezekiah then say, well let me go jump off a bridge and try this, or I just won't eat, I guess I don't have to eat because I'm going to live for the next 15 years. No, he still, because God enabled him to live for the next 15 years doesn't mean that he doesn't use the means to continue to live for the next 15 years. So he continues on, or that Hezekiah need no longer to eat and to drink because God promised that he should live another 15 years. Grace does not annul our responsibility, but it fits us to discharge it. It relieves from no duties. We still have the responsibility to persevere, but it equips us for the performance of that. So, it doesn't cut off our responsibility, but it enables us to fulfill. And then, one more thing. If we took the Arminian position, that I'm justified, and now it's up to me to keep justification through what I do, then what will be the primary motivation for obedience? Okay, what I get, so there can be a self-righteousness there, but it would seem to me that the motivation for obedience would be what the older writers would call a slavish fear, a slave master kind of fear, rather than God saves you, justifies you, totally forgiven, eternally in the hands of the Lord, now obey me. What's the motivation going to be from that? Love. Which, according to the scriptures, is the sum of all Christian responsibility and duty. What saddens me when I hear some Arminians, the very, very close and dear friends we have, they almost flirt with, well, I'm going to receive heaven because I did this, this, and this, and it's almost a, not I deserve it, but it flirts with it, and it's like, I cringe when I hear it. I know what I deserve. I mean, I know what Joe Chang deserves, and that would be amazing. the vibration. I will not be there. No, you're right. And it is. It's dangerous. It's uncomfortable. And I know that the heart of a true Christian, even Arminian, is, God, you saved me. I don't deserve. But when you see something that flirts with that, it gets me nervous. It would be no different than I, for anyone who has gone along with it. Yeah, it's dangerous. Any other questions or comments? Sorry for keeping you after. It was a work system. It was like a work system. And they couldn't do it. They failed at that work system because they couldn't obey one command about the tree of life. Wasn't that a work system? Well, in the sense where all of humanity, just as Adam and Eve, we're responsible to obey God and we never live up to that standard. But there was no such thing as redemption until the sin. Didn't they have to It was called the covenant of words. And yes, it was based on their obedience. That's why it sets up the need for grace. Let's apologize for keeping you over time. But you asked for Hebrews 6. All right, let's pray. Lord God, we thank you and praise you that although many of these passages put a lump in our throat and you used to keep us on the path, we also know that that we desperately need your spirit, your intercession, your power to enable us to persevere to the end. Lord, if we could lose our salvation, we would a million times over, but you hold us, you keep us, close to you, and Lord, we thank you for that. And I pray that this might be motivation for us to use the means that you give us to persevere, to use the Word of God in our lives, the body of Christ. But ultimately, Lord, our hope rests in you and your promises that you will never leave us nor forsake us, that there's nothing that can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, and we thank you for that in Jesus' name. Amen.