of even believing in Christ. Why would God appeal to the will of man over and over again in Scripture? Let me just give you some examples. Romans 3.11 is sometimes brought forth as an example for those who teach Calvinists that man can't exercise his faith. And I want you to understand about this passage, maybe you've wondered this too. How does this fit with our responsibility to believe? Romans 3.11 says, There is none who understands, there is none who seeks after God. And I understand what that passage is saying is that no man naturally seeks after God. And that apart from drawing, no one would even seek God. In fact, that has to be the understanding because The normal term for seek here is actually a heightened form of the word, ek zetom. Normally the word zeteo is to seek, but ek with the preposition intensifies it. And no man seeks out God in an intensified way unless God is obviously working in their life. So this passage is not teaching total inability to believe. In fact, if that was the interpretation of Romans 3.11, how would you square that with these other passages like Deuteronomy 4.29? But from there you will seek the Lord your God and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul. And this is addressed to the nation of Israel. And obviously within the nation of Israel, they were not all 100% regenerate, right? So there were some non-elect in terms of eternal life in that group. and yet they were implored to seek God with all their heart. 1 Chronicles 22.19, Now set your heart and soul to seek the Lord your God. Isaiah 55.6-7, Seek the Lord while He may be found. Call upon Him while He is near, etc. Does that sound like you have no ability from God's vantage point? Jeremiah 29.12-13, Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you, and you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." It goes way beyond total inability. Amos 5.4, Seek Me and live. 5.6, Seek the Lord and live. Zephaniah 2.3, Seek the Lord, all you humble of the earth. Matthew 6.33, But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and these things shall be added unto you. John 4.23, The Lord Jesus told the woman at the well that the Father is seeking such to worship Him. The Father is seeking. Now He calls upon us to seek Him as well. Do you see the biblical balance there? Alright, now I'm going to go to the next PowerPoint here. This is really neat to have this screen here. It's the first time I've ever used something quite like this. I know during the Bible conference, I didn't know what to do with this thing, but it's really great to have this ability. So let's move on tonight from total depravity to the next four points. And we're going to move more quickly through these four again, because if you can show the Calvinist, the first point on total depravity, the whole system crashes after that. It's a systems failure. But also, the next point is key because Calvinists, again, are really big on this idea of sovereignty. They believe, really, that their system of theology is the only one that upholds and magnifies the sovereignty of God and the grace of God. Because God does it all. Man doesn't do anything. Therefore, they say God gets all the credit. But again, that is a distorted and imbalanced view of both sovereignty and grace. And in this point we want to consider now, unconditional election, the ewe and the tulip, we see that really what this is is sovereignty run amok. Calvinists desire to protect the sovereignty of God so much that they say man cannot exercise his volition when it comes to faith in Christ. God has to do all of that. because He controls everything. In fact, they teach that God has ordained everything through a single divine decree. God has foreordained everything through a single divine decree. Everything has been planned by God already, including what your choices are going to be. And that's part of God's decree, acting like a king over the universe, He decreed what you would think and do, and that's the way it's going to be. That's their understanding of sovereignty. Now, this leads to some serious problems we'll see in a moment, but I just want to show you what this is teaching or point is based on on your handout. For example, the Westminster Confession, a definite classical Calvinistic source, says this regarding this decree, that the decree of God is His eternal purpose according to the counsel of His will, whereby for His own glory He hath foreordained whatever comes to pass. Notice the singular decree of God, this overarching decree. It's His eternal purpose according to the counsel of His will. whereby for his own glory he is foreordained whatever comes to pass. A. A. Hodge, I think the brother of Charles Hodge, another famous Calvinist, says in his book Outlines of Theology, he says, God having from eternity absolutely decreed whatever whatsoever comes to pass, he also continually controls and directs the actions of all his creatures, thus preserved, So that while he never violates the law of their several natures, he yet infallibly causes all actions and events, singular and universal, to occur according to the eternal and immutable plan embraced in his decree. And you see from this that classic Calvinism has taught there is one singular decree of God. It's overarching, it's universal, and it's eternal. And this decree was apparently a decision by God, acting as king, in which he predetermined everything that would ever happen. And then he brought it into effect by his singular will and volition. So you can see how their view of sovereignty is such that God is a very controlling God, who literally causes everything. And that's going to be the next point. on your handout there. They teach that God is so sovereign in this universal, overarching decree that you know what? He actually foreordained sin and saw to it that it would come to pass. Remember what it says here? That He continually controls and directs the actions of His creatures to bring His plan to pass. And that must mean that he is in control of sin. And we know that sin is under his control. It doesn't escape him in his sovereignty, his power, his knowledge, his omnipresence and such. But they go one step farther than that and they say that God actually moves to bring about certain acts, all acts in fact. And that would naturally mean sin. That's why Lewis Burkoth says that God causes everything. That's his understanding of sovereignty. There is no absolute principle of self-activity in the creature, that's us, to which God simply joins his activity. In every instance, the impulse to action and movement proceeds from God. He goes on to say, so he enables and prompts his rational creatures as second causes to function and that not merely by endowing them with energy in a general way, but by energizing them to certain specific acts. So the specific acts and impulses you have to act come from who? God, because it's part of his singular divine decree. Here's another one from Burkoff. The divine concurses, funny word, energizes man and determines him efficaciously to the specific act. In other words, God energizes you to act in a specific way and you're just acted upon. Something he predetermined. He efficaciously, in other words, he made it happen. And you are just the recipient. R.C. Spruill says in his book, Our Sovereign God, or in that book, he says, What we mean by the sovereign or efficacious will of God is that determination by which God sovereignly will something to come to pass, which therefore, indeed, does come to pass through the sheer efficacy, force or power of that will. Well, what will? The will of God. God's predetermination of everything. Here's J.I. Packer. He says, To mainstream Calvinism, predestination of persons means the foreordaining of both their doings, including their response to the gospel and their consequent destinies. So your response to the gospel or lack thereof is directly related to whether God chose you or did not choose you for heaven. Amazing. You know what this really reduces to when you stop and think of it? We often have that triangle where we show the ten attributes of God. And you can enumerate the attributes of God in various ways. There's nothing magical about the word ten or inspired about ten. But really, the Calvinist comes up with a new attribute of God, if you will, an eleventh attribute to put on our triangle here. They go beyond sovereignty to teach the omni-causality of God. He causes everything. That's their definition. In fact, this leads to some serious problems, and maybe you're already anticipating them in your thinking. One of these problems is illustrated very well by Norman Geisler, who rejects this five-point system of Calvinism. He's a little bit Calvinist, he says, but he rejects this big package of Calvinism, the consistent view. And so he says, bringing home an illustration to personalize this problem, he says, a well-known conference speaker was explaining how he was unable to come to grips with the tragic death of his son. Leaning on his strong Calvinistic background, he gradually came to the conclusion, God killed my son. He triumphantly informed us, by the way, he's at this conference, He triumphantly informed us that then and only then did I get peace about the matter. A sovereign God killed his son, and therein he found ground for a great spiritual victory, he assured us. I thought to myself, I wonder what he would say if his daughter had been raped. Would he not be able to come to grips with the matter until he concluded victoriously that God raped my daughter? God forbid, Keisler says. Some views do not need to be refuted. They simply need to be stated. Very well put. One Calvinist, Edwin Palmer, writes in his popular little booklet, The Five Points of Calvinism, to emphasize the sovereignty of God even more, it is necessary to point out that everything is foreordained by God. And then he goes on to say, it is even biblical to say that God has foreordained sin. Gordon Clark, another philosopher and Calvinist, says, I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do so. A little later on the page, he goes on to say, in Ephesians 1.11, Paul tells us that God works all things, not some things only, after the counsel of his own will. You see where this theology leads? It's horrifying. That's why R.C. Spruill's son, R.C. Spruill Jr., says this. By the way, I think he's following the same theology of his father, but he's not quite as careful as his father. And so he speaks freely about where the same theology leads. His dad would have been a little wiser and not said what he says here. Here's what Jr. says. Every Bible-believing Christian must conclude, at least, that God, in some sense, desired that man would fall into sin. He goes on to say, God wills all things that come to pass. It is His power to stop whatever might come to pass. It is within His omniscience to imagine every possible turn of events and to choose that chain of events which most pleases Him. Now, we would agree with that to an extent. He goes on to say, but wait a minute. Isn't it possible for God to do evil? He can't sin. I am not accusing God of sinning. I am suggesting that He created sin. Whoa. This is really horrifying stuff. Houston, we've got a problem here, don't we? Milwaukee, Duluth, Minneapolis, we have a problem. You see where a system of theology will take you? if you follow the system instead of Scripture. To say that God is sovereign does not mean that He causes everything. In fact, we'll see in a moment, as we look at the balance of Scripture, that He permits some things, many things, including sin, but He directly causes and imposes His direct will on some things. In fact, many things in that respect too, but not when it comes to sin or the exercise of our volition and faith, etc. And so this is a distorted view of God's sovereignty. Now, another thing you need to understand regarding the Calvinist view of sovereignty is that sometimes they claim that people are free. They recognize that we have to admit free will in some sense. So sometimes they will say, well, people are free. but free only to choose only their greatest desire. You are free to choose, but you really only choose your greatest desire. And God is the one who happened to have put that desire within you. And so they try to come up with what they say is a balanced perspective. On the one hand, there is the teaching of sheer determinism, which is fatalism. And I believe that that's where consistent Calvinism ends with its universal singular decree, God causing everything. But some Calvinists who say, well, no, we're more moderate than that. They want to get away from sheer determinism or fatalism. Yet they don't want to embrace what is sometimes called libertarianism, where man's will is completely free without bounds. So they say, we believe in something more nice and moderate. It's called compatibilism. Sometimes you will hear that phrase. Compatibilism. Where they say, yes, man really does have a will. And God is still sovereign and causes everything. And the two are compatible. They teach that man has free will, but he only chooses the greatest of all his desires. And since God creates the greatest of all these desires in man's heart, God can grant man a choice and yet he can control the outcome so that his will is always done. I know some of this is heady stuff, but just try to concentrate now for the next half hour or so on this because this is a very important point. Jonathan Edwards was one who tried to promote as a Puritan Calvinist this idea of compatibilism. So he even wrote a book called The Freedom of the Will. And yet you read it, and you don't really feel very free. God is giving you desires, and even your greatest desire, but you can only really choose your greatest desire. In fact, Bruce Ware teaches this view in his book, God's Greater Glory. He says, compatibilist freedom insists that regardless of what struggles we go through in making our choices or deciding what action to perform in the end, we choose an act. We do so from when we choose an act. We do so only or from prevailing desires which explain exactly why this choice and not another is made. This obviously means, however, that when we choose all things being just what they are, we must choose as we do. Wait a minute. We must choose as we do. That's a contradiction. You really don't have freedom if God gives you one choice. John Feinberg, in his book No One Else Like Him, says, so an act is free, though causally determined, if it is what the agent wanted to do. You're the agent acted upon. You do what you want to do because God gave you one desire, in essence, your greatest desire. So it was determined and yet you're free. I don't think this is consistent at all. In fact, there's several problems with this view. Kind of reminds me of this poor cow here. He's got one choice really, left or right, right? But there's only one destination for the poor guy. It's been predetermined. You know, thinking of you choosing your greatest desire, is that biblical? Do you always choose your greatest desire? What about Paul in Romans 7? The good that I don't want to do, I do. And the evil that I don't want to do, I do. In fact, I remember in this church years ago, when I was a college student, I had a friend, a female friend, who was a believer, part of this church. She was dating a gal, a guy, I should say. It's getting late. And this particular fellow was not really interested in pursuing the will of God in his life, and yet they got engaged. And it became evident over time that she should not marry this guy, and yet in her heart she wanted to. And you know what she chose to do? She chose to act contrary to her greatest desire, to go against her emotion and everything telling her. In fact, the wedding was planned. She broke it off because she took a step of faith to do the right thing, even though her heart was telling her to do this, the wrong thing. You know what? Just as a side note, God greatly honored that choice. And she has lived a blessed life in the Lord. And he's blessed her in many ways as a result of that choice. So it is not true that just because you have a desire, the greatest desire, you will always act upon it. and that really you can only choose your greatest desire. You know what that does in essence? It kind of makes God like a communist government in a way. You know who this guy is, right? Fidel Castro. And you know what this picture is? He's casting his vote in the Cuban election. Isn't it amazing how he gets elected every single time? How is that? Well, people have a choice, don't they? But the outcome is predetermined. There can only be one result. It's like I saw this official communist voting ballot. Governor, one choice, Bob. Attorney General, one choice, Larry Smith. Party affiliation, choose for the communists every time. That's how some people view God. And that's really what this Calvinist compatibilism reduces to. It's thoroughly unbiblical. Now, what is the biblical balance regarding God's sovereignty? Well, the biblical balance regarding God's sovereignty is that on the one hand, he is sovereign and everything is under his control. Nothing escapes. His ability to continue to implement his plan where everything is headed for his glory. And yet under his control, he permits the exercise of man's volition and will. And he is able to keep everything steered along and allow man to exercise his will and intelligent creatures, even angels, to exercise their will in fulfillment of God's plan, because he's always a zillion steps ahead of them. His creatures are finite. He's infinite. both in knowledge and in power, and by the way, also in presence. So if one demon says, well, I want to do this on planet Earth, God says, well, you know, you want to move from this destination, Duluth, Minnesota, to Washington, D.C., I already beat you there. I've been both places at once. You know, that's why I've always said that Satan and the demons must be the most frustrated, bitter individuals in the universe. Can you imagine getting thwarted time and time and time again? God always outsmarts you. He's always stronger than you. He even beats you to the location. That would get irritating if you're sinning. And that's how God exercises His sovereignty. But it doesn't mean that He makes everything happen in a direct sense. He has everything under His control. In fact, even when a A leaf falls in the woods or a sparrow eats some food off the ground. Is God sovereign over that? Some people say, well, according to your view, the Calvinists would object that according to our view, God is really not sovereign and therefore some things must happen by chance. Do we believe that some things happen by chance? No, there is no such thing as chance. When God sees it all, And he even incorporates the little sparrow and the seed and the leaf and the woods into his bigger plan. He sees it all. He knows it all. And he has the ability to incorporate our choices into his bigger plan. There's no place for chance, as we use that term. And so the biblical balance is that God is not the cause of sin or evil. In fact, look at Genesis chapter 1 with me. Or actually, don't turn there. I'll just quote it. You remember at the end of the creation week, what did God conclude about all that He had created? Behold, it is very good. Then God saw everything that He had made and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. He did not create evil or sin. In fact, we're told in James 1, verses 13 and 14 that God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone. Let no one say when he is tempted, I'm tempted by God, for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed." The scriptures put the responsibility and even the fault back on man, not God. In terms of biblical balance, we see also from Scripture that though God made intelligent creatures sinless, He also made us with the capacity to choose good or evil. Wasn't that true in the passage with Adam in the garden in Genesis 2, 16 and 17? Of all the trees of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree which is in the middle of the garden you may not eat. For in the day that you eat thereof, you will surely die. He gave Adam a choice. By the way, if everything was dictated to mankind right from the beginning, why would God even give Adam a choice? Choose between these two? It doesn't make any sense. Even after the fall, man is given a choice. In passages like Deuteronomy 30.15, 30.19. How about Joshua 24.15? Joshua beseeches the nation of Israel. Certainly not all elect. And he says to them, choose you this day whom you will serve, whether it's the Lord Jehovah or these other gods. You see, if you say that God causes everything, including the free will choices of every intelligent creature, then that must include the choice to sin and the choice for evil. And therefore you make God liable rather than man. And that is the ultimate problem with Calvinism. But in terms of biblical balance, we see that God permitted sin in the universe because He desired a relationship with His intelligent creatures that was based on choice, not coercion. Choice, not coercion. We see that over and over again in Scripture. Like in Colossians 3, 22 and 23, where we are told, Whatever we do, do it heartily as unto the Lord and not as unto men. But notice that term, heartily. God is looking for a heart response. Our choice in the matter. Not because we have to, but because we want to. Pastors are exhorted in 1 Peter 5 too, to willingly serve as shepherds and not lord it over the flock. But to willingly do that. And so God created his original creation, mankind, with the capacity to choose. But with that capacity to choose came the capacity to sin. But in order for God to have a genuine relationship with his creatures, he had to give him that choice. And he ran the risk, so to speak, of his creatures choosing against him. By the way, that's how he also allowed for his great attribute of grace to come in by even allowing for sin. And thus his plan for the Savior was in place. So the character of God came out in spite of sin. He had to allow for the free will choices of his creatures. Turn with me to another passage, Job chapter 1. I want to show you something very important here. When it comes to the biblical balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, we also see that though God does not determine that people must sin, He permits it. Does God have a permissive will? He sure does. What about those passages in Matthew 19, 7 and 8 that speak of divorce? In that context, Jesus says there that Moses didn't command you to divorce your wives, but because of your sin and your stubbornness, He permitted you to do this. God permits certain things without causing them. In fact, He even incorporates man's choices into the fulfillment of his righteous purposes. We see this with Job. Most righteous man on the face of the earth at that time. So Satan targets him and Satan goes to heaven. There's a meeting there. Satan shows up last, comes in dragging his feet, so to speak. And verse 11, God says to him, well, let's back up to verse 9. It says, So Satan answered the Lord and said, Does Job fear God for nothing? Have you not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But now stretch out your hand, he is saying to God, and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse you to your face. Verse 12, And the Lord said to Satan, Behold, all that he has is in your power. Only do not lay a hand on his person, i.e., To persecute him to the point of death, God retained in his sovereignty the parameters or boundaries to which Satan could go. And yet, who was it who could act and carry out the evil? It wasn't God. And that's why even in passages in the Old Testament that sometimes can be confusing, and I've even seen some extreme Calvinists use these passages to support their view of omnicausality. There are some passages where it says that an evil spirit went out from the presence of the Lord and caused, you know, such a person to act in such a way. Saul, for example, is a great example. 1 Samuel 16, 14, other passages. It kind of sounds like God might be the cause of evil in those passages. And yet when you understand Job here, what really happened, you can understand how these other passages in the Old Testament should be interpreted. That an evil spirit was in the presence of the Lord. God is sovereign even over them. And God allowed them to go out to fulfill their desire because God also had other purposes in allowing demonic affliction. What about Paul? The thorn in the flesh. God allowed that. It was for Paul's good. And yet the evil itself did not come from God. And so we see when it comes to biblical balance that God incorporates the free will choices of His creatures even to sin. That's why in Genesis 50-20, regarding Joseph, though his brothers meant their persecution towards him for evil, God meant it for good. So God allowed it. Romans 8.28 and many other passages. But along the way, God will even allow the hardening of a person's heart based on their choices. And thus, in that sense, indirectly, He causes that. But not apart from their choice. That's how we explain Pharaoh, for example. How in some passages it says, God hardened his heart. In other passages, Pharaoh hardened his own heart. In some passages it says both. God and Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh's heart. By the way, it all starts off in Exodus with Pharaoh hardening his own heart towards God. And then after that you see God saying, okay, now here's another choice I put before you. When he chooses evil again, it hardens Pharaoh's heart even further. God knew Pharaoh would choose that. He set that up in his plan. So God drew him along to cause further hardening so that God's glory and character would be contrasted all the more. So he's not responsible for sin or evil. He always gives his intelligent creatures that choice. In terms of biblical balance, Calvinism also teaches, going beyond the subject of sovereignty now to knowledge, that even God's foreknowledge is causative, making foreknowledge practically synonymous with foreordination. When you see the word foreknowledge in Scripture, Does that mean God foreordains or causes? Or does it mean He has prior knowledge? Just as the etymology of the word would indicate. Well, here's what some Calvinists teach. Augustus Strong says in his Systematic Theology, Logically, though not chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge. When I say I know what I will do, it is evident that I have predetermined already and that my knowledge does not precede determination, but follows it and is based upon it. You see, they have the divine decree of God first, and then they have the knowledge of God afterwards. God knows how everything is going to play out in the universe because he set it up that way and he planned it that way. By the way, doesn't that lead to a problem with the attributes of God? leads to acting first and knowing second. And yet, I think biblically, the order is the other way around. God always knows what he's going to do. And then he acts. That's another issue. There's another quote from Schreiner and Bruce Ware in their book, Still Sovereign. They say in the preface, Foreknowledge is, and this is how they define it, the term refers to God's foreordination of future events and includes the idea of God's covenantal commitment. Again, foreknowledge equals foreordination or prior determination. But biblically, how are these terms used? Let me give you one more quote here. S. M. Bowe says in the same book, according to Calvinism, the term for foreknow, and the Greek word is prognosko, in the New Testament means to elect, to determine, or to indicate an intimate relationship. Now can you see why they have to come up with such a definition and not let foreknowledge simply mean prior knowledge? Because if foreknowledge means for ordination, it fits with their idea of cutting man's will out completely and man's responsibility. But for knowledge, of course, means God can foresee what his intelligent, responsible creatures will choose. And thus man is responsible in the end. But how is this term used biblically? Let's just do a little survey several uses of prognosco in the New Testament, look at Acts chapter two. Here on the day of Pentecost, Peter is preaching to the generation that was responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. And here he's speaking to the Jews, not the Romans. In verse 22 it says, Verse 23, him being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, by lawless hands have crucified and put to death. And then it goes on. Did you notice in verse 23 where it says, him being delivered by the determined purpose, that speaks of God's will, his boule, the Greek word, and foreknowledge of God. And Calvinists will say that these two are use synonymously here, that this is a Granville Sharp construction. And so therefore the predetermined purpose of God and the foreknowledge of God are one and the same thing. You know, that is a misunderstanding of the Granville Sharp construction for one. It doesn't always mean that the two things that are linked are one and the same thing. For example, pastor-teacher refer to the same person, but is it true that in Ephesians 4, verse 11, a pastor and a teacher are one and the same gift necessarily? No. Because you can have women who are gifted to be teachers, but they're not pastors and teachers. But it is true that all pastors are also gifted to be teachers. The gift is really from the Lord. But here it can clearly be understood that God had a predetermined purpose and he also knew how man would act. And that's why even in the passage, this generation is held responsible for the crucifixion. And they are called upon to repent, change their mind about who Christ really is. And so God, foreknowing, What the negative exercise of their volition would be in choosing to crucify their Messiah, he incorporated that into his plan so that his son would be offered up as a sacrifice yet at their hands. And then he could appeal to them to repent and believe and then show his grace even in that great invitation. and offering them salvation, the very ones who had Christ crucified. Imagine that. And of course, in the spiritual sense, we all are responsible for that as our sins put them on the cross. So here's one use of the term prognosco or foreknowledge that could clearly just simply mean to know beforehand. Turn to Acts chapter 26. I'll show you another very clear example of this definition of prior knowledge. and the use of prognosco. In Acts 26, Paul is recounting his testimony before King Agrippa. And he says, verse 2, I think myself happy, King Agrippa, because today I shall answer for myself before you concerning all of the things which I am accused of by the Jews. especially because you are expert in all customs and questions which have to do with the Jews. Therefore, I beg that you hear me patiently. Verse four, my manner of life from my youth, which was spent from the beginning among my own nation at Jerusalem, all the Jews know. Verse five, they knew me from the first if they were willing to testify that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee. And then he goes on. You know in verse 5 there where it says, they knew me from the first? That is the Greek word progenosko. They knew me beforehand. They knew before. And here it's very clear. What did they know about Paul? Did they foreordain Paul? Not in any sense. But they had prior knowledge of Paul. And in particular, they knew something about Him. We're going to see in other passages in Scripture that God's foreknowledge simply means that He knows something about the individual, you and lost people, whether we will believe or not. We could look at other passages, but I think we're short on time tonight. You could write down 2 Peter 3.17. 1 Peter 1-2, which says that we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God. That is a very important one. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God. Our election by God is in accordance or keeping with what God foreknew. The question is what did He foreknow? Clearly He foreknew something about us. In Romans 8, we have sometimes what is called the golden chain. And you know that it contains foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. And all whom God foreknew, He predestined, He called, He justified, and He glorified. And these chains are unbreakable. And yet in this chain, we see that even here foreknowledge precedes it all, includes even preceding predestination. In 1 Peter 1, 2, we saw that foreknowledge preceded election. In fact, the foreknowledge was the basis for the election. Here we see that foreknowledge precedes even predestination. And then if you look at Ephesians chapter 1, verses 4 and 5, there you see that election precedes predestination. So both election and predestination biblically come after foreknowledge as you compare these parallel passages. Foreknowledge precedes it all. Good question. If foreknowledge meant to foreordain, wouldn't it be very redundant for God to say that you are elect, forechosen according to the foreordination of God? God predestined you based on his foreordination. There's some redundancy there, isn't there? That's why I don't think this is biblical at all. So you must understand that Calvinists redefine foreknowledge to mean foreordination rather than simple prior knowledge. And the divinely revealed order is foreknowledge first. Now let me clarify something here. This is an important point. about God's omniscience. When we say that God foreknew first before He elected or chose based on what He saw in terms of our faith or choice to believe in Him, are we saying that God at some point in eternity passed before He chose us? There was some point in which He didn't know what He was going to do? In fact, has God ever been without some kind of knowledge. No. Biblically, omniscience means that he's always known all that there ever is to know. Including every free will choice of his creatures and what he would do in conjunction with those choices. So, it was not possible for God not to have ever known what you would choose. He's always known what you would choose. Simultaneously, He has always known what He would do regarding the sending of His Son to be the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world. And so our choices in God's plan were eternally simultaneous, always known to God. And thus, it was impossible for God to not have factored in your choice to believe in Jesus Christ. Our will was incorporated into his divine will because he's always known what you would choose. That did not mean he made it happen in an unconditional sense. But he always knew. And so election to individual salvation must be conditioned on our response to the gospel. In fact, we could reduce it very simply to this. God chose to save those whom he knew would choose to trust his son. Or put it all in the present tense, God chooses to save those who choose to trust His Son. It's just that simple. It fits with this illustration here. You've probably heard of the door analogy. That from the human standpoint, God is reaching out to a lost world. And no one here can see who's chosen and who isn't. We don't have some sign on our head that says elect. And so we preach the gospel to everyone and invite everyone. That's God's call. And yet those who are chosen are only those who receive the invitation of whosoever will. And this illustration here combines two passages, Revelation 22, 17, whosoever will may come and Ephesians 1, 4, chosen in him before the foundation of the world. But once you go through the door of salvation, Jesus Christ, you take that step of faith. It's as though you can turn around and look above the archway and see written, chosen in Him, the foundation of the world. And that's the biblical balance. I like what D.L. Moody said years ago. He said regarding this whole subject, it's very simple. Who are the ones who are elect? Well, the elect are the whosoever wills and the non-elect are the whosoever wants. There you have it. That's true. Now, does the Bible teach an unconditional election? It does in some ways. What about the nation of Israel? They were chosen as a nation unconditionally. That's what Romans 9-11 is really all about. By the way, Romans 9-11 is not dealing with unconditional election to eternal life. The Gospel is dealing with Israel's election to a place of national service in God's plan. And I'll tell you, historically, those who are non-dispensationalists have missed the boat on that point. When you look at Romans 9-11 non-dispensationally, it's no wonder you get confused about the doctrine of salvation. Because you think Israel and the church are one and the same. And you don't make that distinction. And see, this is a passage just for God's unconditional election of Israel as a nation. You take it as church truth regarding the doctrine of salvation. And that's why I think even historically, Calvinists have gotten into trouble because many of them, again, have been non-dispensationalists, especially at the beginning of their movement. And they have held to covenant theology. As you see, one theology affects another. So is election to salvation conditional or unconditional? I think it's clearly conditional for several reasons. You can summarize these any way you want, but I don't have them on the PowerPoint here. But first of all, it has to be conditional because just as God had prior knowledge of man's sin problem and determined to send his son accordingly, as the Lamb of God would take away the sin of the world, So, in his omniscience, God must have foreknown who would believe and elected them accordingly. In other words, he always knew that man would sin. He devised a plan to send his son to be the Savior. And therefore, he must have known, just as he foresaw our sin problem, he must have foreknown those who would believe in his son as the Lamb of God. Second reason why election to eternal life must be unconditional. I mean, conditional, it's getting late again, is that God consistently offers salvation to all based upon the condition of faith without ever distinguishing that the offer is only for the elect. Why is it that in all these passages where it says, you know, to come to him, whosoever wills, etc. There's never a qualification about, well, this will only happen if you're one of the elect and unconditionally elected that. You don't see that anywhere in the many passages where people are beckoned to come to Christ. Another reason why the election must be conditional is because God consistently treats the unregenerate as though they're volitionally capable of choosing His will. We saw that already with the many seeking passages in Scripture. So he treats us as volitionally capable of choosing as well. And he does so without first saying that we have to be regenerated by him and given the gift of faith. Anywhere in scripture. Another reason that we are conditionally elected is because God consistently holds man exclusively responsible. for his own eternal condemnation, due to his own willful unbelief and rejection of Christ, and not due to any supposed unwillingness on the part of God. You find that over and over again in Scripture, that the liability is man's, not God's. can never be held in contempt by man. Because man can't shake his fist at God one day and say, well, you never chose me unconditionally. It's your fault. God makes it possible for all men to hear the Gospel and be saved if they're positive towards His truth. Just like Cornelius. Here's a fifth reason. That it must be conditional because it's consistent with His just and loving character as revealed in Scripture. In addition to His expressly revealed desire to save all mankind. For God to have unconditionally chosen to salvation only the minority of mankind, while choosing not to unconditionally elect the rest of humanity. That would be a contradiction of God's character, wouldn't it? And so that leads to some serious, serious problems. So what does all this lead to? If you were to follow the Calvinist party line on this whole election, foreknowledge, doctrine, what it would lead to is a flat out contradiction of certain passages of Scripture where God says He desires that all men be saved, like 2 Peter 3.9. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness but as longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. By the way, in the context of 2 Peter 3.9, What is the context? Both before verse 9, it's speaking of universal judgment, and after verse 9, when it speaks of the world being burned up by fire, it's speaking of universal judgment. It is not saying he desires only that the elect should not perish, but come to There we go. Got a green light again. Thank you. So some Calvinists who are more moderate will say, well, God doesn't really assign people to go to hell. He just doesn't provide what they need, the gift of faith to go to heaven. So he just kind of leaves them on their own. And they think they kind of soften their image of God that way. Whereas some who are consistent Calvinists, I think, the moderate Calvinists will call them hyper-Calvinists, they actually say God reprobates or assigns people to hell, like John Calvin himself did. Here's a quote from C. Samuel Storms. On this point, he says, if people are to repent, they must be equipped by God to do so. They must be granted repentance as a gift. Ultimately, it rests with God in His sovereign good pleasure to give or to withhold that which leads to the knowledge of the truth. To give or to withhold that which leads to the knowledge of the truth. Now, interestingly, he's quoting in part from 1 Timothy 2.4, where it says that God desires all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. If that's true, why would he withhold what people need to believe? Unless he wants them to go to hell. See, it's kind of like this whole matter of choosing in a positive or negative way. It's kind of like when you were a kid and you were playing football in the neighborhood and you got together a bunch of guys and you all know who the two best players were. They usually were the captains. And so they'd separate the other guys who weren't quite as good. And you'd all line up, and the two guys would stand there, and they'd say, no, no, I want Jim, and I want John, and I want Bob, and I want Steve, and the teams would line up. And the worst player usually was last, right? And by virtue of not selecting Tom last, that was a choice, wasn't it? A choice not to choose for me to be on the team was a choice for me to be left on the other guy's team. So it's just sort of a semantic word game they play. And that's why when you look at some Calvinists like Storms here, they put it kind of bluntly that it's God's good pleasure. Like even Calvin, who said, since the disposition of all things is in the hands of God and he can give life or death at his pleasure, he dispenses and ordains by his judgment that some from their mother's womb are destined irrevocably to eternal death in order to glorify his name in their perdition. He's saying that God is glorified by consigning some people to hell. In fact, since the way is broad that leads to destruction, he apparently has decided that the majority should go to hell. And that glorifies him. This leads to a very distorted view of God. And that's why I think it's really appropriate when Dave Hunt titled his book a few years back, What Love Is This?, when he critiqued Calvinism, He hit the nail on the head. Because again, if the Calvinist God says that he's capable of unconditionally electing all, and he loves mankind, and his will is to save them, as these various passages say, then why wouldn't he do so? Apparently he doesn't love all, and it's really not his will to do so. And that's even what Calvin clearly says here. Now, let's move on quickly to these last remaining three points. I'm going to move quickly through these. When it comes to the L in the tulip, of course, it stands for limited atonement. Strict five point Calvinists also believe that Christ died only for the sins of the elect. And if there's one point in the tulip that many Calvinists seem to hedge on, it's this one right here. But why do some Calvinists, in fact, many Calvinists hold to this view? Well, again, it's not something taught in scripture, but their system necessitates it. Why would God send his son to be the lamb to take away the sin of the world if he knew that he had already planned for the majority to be lost and the minority to be saved? Therefore, logically, he should have only come and died for the elect, the few. And that is, in fact, what they teach. And yet, Scripture testifies that Christ's death paid for the sins of the world. John 1.29. Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. In 2 Corinthians 5.19, several passages testify to this truth. In fact, 1 John 2.2, let's go there. says that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. This is one of the best passages, I think, to set forth the truth that the atonement or redemption that Christ provided is unlimited. Available to all. But not applied to all. only to those who believe. In 1 John 2, starting in verse 1, it says, My little children, these things I write to you so that you may not sin. Clearly, he's speaking to children of God. And if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins. As you think of the person of Christ, You should think of the Lamb, the cross, and Jesus Christ as a person are one and the same. He's Christ crucified. He is our propitiation. In Him is redemption. He himself is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. That's very clear. I don't know how you can really get around that. So the Scripture testifies that He died not only for the sins of the world, but the whole world. He died for all or every man. 1 Timothy 2.6 says, 1 Timothy 4.10 says, that He is the Savior of all mankind, especially of those that believe. 4.10 says. And Hebrews 2.9 says that He tasted death for every man. By the way, in the context of Hebrews 2, every, that same word is used just prior to verse 9 to speak of all of mankind. So it's very selective reasoning on the part of the Calvinists by the time they come to verse 9 to say it's only the elect. And in fact, 2 Peter 2.1 says that he died even for false teachers who deny him. Now does this doctrine really matter? Sure it does. When you preach the gospel again, can you say in all honesty to anyone you approach with the gospel that Christ died for you? Only if you hold to unlimited atonement. Can you do that? Okay. Let's move on to the next point in the TULIP. Any questions on limited atonement? Robert? I just lost it. Hold on. First blank is world. The second blank is whole world. And not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world, John says in 1 John 2. Scripture couldn't be any clearer. You really do have to have a man-made system of theology you're imposing on the Scriptures to get around what these passages are teaching. So the system has to go if we're going to keep to Scripture. Let's move on to the fourth point in the tulip, that of irresistible grace. Calvinism teaches that those whom God has unconditionally elected, he will also draw to himself in an irresistible fashion by causing them to believe the gospel. R.C. Sproul, in his book, Whosoever Will, says the word draw in John 644 and 1232 is a more forceful concept than to woo, He goes on to say that it means to compel by irresistible superiority. And so really, when they look at these pre-salvation passages describing that work of God in drawing, convicting, etc., they interpret that to mean that God is essentially dragging people to Christ. He makes them come effectually and irresistibly to himself. Now, what is the biblical balance here? Well, we know again, as we saw earlier, that no one can come to Christ unless he's drawn by the Father. John 6, 44. Unless Christ draws him. John 12, 32. Unless the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness and of judgment. By the way, why would you bother convicting the whole world of sin, righteousness, and of judgment unless you wanted to show man his needs so he could be saved? But all these things are done by God to show man his need without actually making man believe. I'd like to use this analogy with some people to illustrate this again. Imagine that you as an unbeliever are like a chicken on a farm. And the farmer is God, and the barn is heaven. And you as an obstinate chicken like to walk around outside the barn. You like your freedom, right? But the farmer wants to get you in that barn. How is he going to do it? Well, if he tried to chase you around, he'd get all tired out. And you know how chickens can do that. Farmers are frustrated. But, in this case, you have a very wise god or farmer, so he wants to appeal to your volition as a chicken, and he decides, I know that if that chicken's hungry, I can bring him into the barn. If you're spiritually hungry and you want to know God, here's what's going to happen. I can take a bucket of corn, and I can drop one seed right there, ten feet away from that chicken, and that chicken knows, oh, there's food right there. And if he's hungry, he'll come over and get it. He'll respond to my initiating work. And if he eats that one, I can back up 10 more feet and drop another one. And I'm making my way towards the barn until I get to the door of the barn. Let's say this very threshold right here. And he's standing right there. And I drop that piece of corn inside the barn. It's his choice now to come in. I have just wooed him in. But I've appealed to his appetite, spiritually speaking. And I think when it comes to divine sovereignty and man's responsibility, that's exactly how God works. To draw people to himself. Not in a coercive fashion, but in terms of wooing. And we could take the time, we don't have time tonight, to look more involved at the Scripture and how it uses that term for calling. And I think you will see that when it applies to human beings and God working in them, He doesn't use it in the sense of dragging them. He uses it in the sense of wooing. The Scripture teaches that not all who are called are also chosen. In fact, that's what Matthew 22.14 says. Many are called, but few are chosen. because the drawing and invitation of God can be resisted. Acts 7.51, Stephen is exhorting the Jews of the crucifixion generation. And he says, you always resist the Holy Spirit just as your fathers did. Very interesting. The Spirit of God can be resisted. Look at Matthew 23 with me. This is an important passage when it comes to irresistible grace. By the way, the Calvinists will say that God has a general call and then he has an effectual call. And I think they make that distinction, not because the Bible speaks of two different calls in that way, but again, their theology necessitates that. But here in Matthew 23, we see that God wants, again, all Jerusalem to be saved, and yet they would not. In Matthew 23, verse 37, Jesus says, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her, how often I wanted to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." We see in verse 37 that Jesus Christ is speaking here and He says, I wanted to gather your children together. And the term for want there is the general term for will, fellow. And then at the end of the passage He says, but you were not willing. Again, fellow is used there. So what is the reason why they were not gathered together? It was their will, not God's. Clearly they had resisted and rejected the invitation of God. And Jesus Christ wasn't going to make them believe in Himself. Now I do think that God has an invitation to all mankind. In Matthew 11.28, again, Jesus said, All you who labor and are heavy laden, come unto me. That's everyone. Acts 17.30, God now commands all men everywhere to repent. That's an invitation and a command, isn't it? But all men everywhere. That's universal. Now when it comes to this word calling, Look at too many passages of scripture because of time. I want to get to the pea and the tulip. But this is a term that's used over and over again in the New Testament that believers are referred to those referred to as those who are called. And why is that? I think it's because God wants us to understand that though we do have to exercise our volition and belief, we should never forget the fact that he was the one who reached out to us and invited us. You're the call. It's like being invited to a banquet for, let's say, the richest person here in the city of Duluth. let's say a mansion here in Duluth. What is the wealthiest, fanciest mansion here? Is it the Glensheen? Let's say the Glensheen family owns it. Let's just say they're very wealthy and you get invited. None of us here know the family, but we were invited and we came. And so here we are rubbing elbows with all these big wigs And you're inside this big banquet hall with the big glass chandelier and everybody's decked out in their nice clothes. Do you say to the people standing next to you, you know, I'm here because I'm so great. No, you're saying, I'm here. I can't believe I got invited. I was called. I was a called one because of the generosity and graciousness of the host. And that's what it will be like in heaven. we'll look back and say, I am just so amazed that God had a plan of salvation and invited me. And yeah, I responded, but he gets the credit. He's the host. I think that's how we should look at the word called. You are called of God. What a privilege. Because again, could God and His justice have just judged everybody and sent us to hell? He sure could have. But he didn't. He's a God of love and grace as well. Let's go on to the fifth point in the tulip, that of perseverance of the saints. I won't spend too much time on this because you've already gone over much of this with Lordship Salvation. But Calvinism also teaches that all whom God unconditionally elects, regenerates, and causes to believe will also necessarily persevere in faith and good works until the end of their lives. That is what Calvinism has always taught, going back to John Calvin, going back to the Council of Dort, Synod of Dort, the Westminster Confession, taught that in the mid-1600s. Calvinists today often speak of that. Now this is something interesting that you may not hear Calvinists speak much of, that not only do they believe that you will persevere in your faith and good works, You also persevere by means of prayer, the threatenings of the Word. That's the term they use. That God has certain warnings and threatenings for you to persevere, to hang in there, so you better abide by those. And also through the use of the sacraments. And thus they speak of means of grace. And I don't have many of these quotes for you today. I could get them for you. But it is astonishing to read men like John Calvin, and even some who followed him for the next couple hundred years, to speak of using the Lord's Supper and baptism as means of saving grace. That if you will apply those things in faith, those are the means God will use for your salvation. We heard tonight a quote from John Piper. He says, I believe God uses means, one of which is prayer. And that's why I pray more often than any other prayer. Lord, keep me saved. How is that not salvation by faith plus works? And of course, this whole doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is very different from the doctrine of eternal security that requires only one step of faith. in Jesus Christ in order to be guaranteed of eternal life and kept saved thereafter by the Shepherd. The Bible teaches the perseverance of the Savior, not the saints. And it teaches the preservation of the saints by Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd. In fact, there are many passages of Scripture the talk about the kind of faith that saves. In this sense, as we saw in John 3, all God is asking of us and inquiring of us is a look of faith. Wasn't that true in John 3? That if the Israelites would look to the serpent raised up on that pole, that brass serpent, they would be healed. And Jesus Christ is saying, if you will look to me lifted up on the cross, you will be saved. You will get eternal life. Now did the Israelites have to keep looking at the brass serpent and never let it out of their view? To stay healed? That would be absurd, wouldn't it? And yet, that's what some Calvinists do with John 3.16 and the requirement to believe in Christ. Or likewise, John 4 where Jesus likens the water of life and drinking it to believing in Him. And He says to the woman at the well, If you only knew the gift of God and who it is that says this to you. And so she believes later in the passage and she gets eternal life. But question, did she have to drink and keep drinking? Keep on drinking? No. That wasn't the requirement. The whole idea was one drink. and you'll be satisfied and you'll never thirst or hunger again. The same is true in John 6 with the bread of life in that passage. So scripture does not require an ongoing faith to stay saved. In fact, it very definitely in several passages speaks of the possibility of our faith not enduring to the very end. Luke 8.13, 1 Timothy 1.19, 1 Timothy 5.8, You can have your faith overthrown. Faith can be destroyed. Faith can be shipwrecked. By the way, you can't shipwreck a faith that never existed in the first place. And shipwrecking faith speaks of total destruction. When you see a ship wrecked on the rocks of some beach somewhere, it's not going to sail again. And that can happen to faith through false teaching, through sin, through various things. So the Bible warns against that. So, besides being contrary to what Scripture actually teaches about the duration of saving faith, the doctrine of perseverance also contradicts the fact that salvation is solely by grace. Let me demonstrate this for you through the use of some quotes. I want to play a game with you here. Pastor Roxer used this about a month ago. I don't know if he's hearing this, but actually I came up with this about 10 years ago when I wrote some articles on, must faith endure for salvation to be sure? So he stole it from me. Let's just be clear about that. And maybe you remember who quoted some of these things, and so it kind of lost its punch. But let's try it again here tonight. Try to guess if these quotes come from a Catholic, an Arminian, or a Calvinist. Here's the first one. We cannot earn our salvation through good works, but our faith in Christ puts us in a special grace-filled relationship with God so that our obedience and love Combined with our faith, we'll be rewarded with eternal life. Roman Catholic. This is their track, their most popular track. Kind of the equivalent of Campus Crusades, Four Spiritual Laws. Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth. Here's another one. The kingdom is only for those who agonize to enter. Many who approach the gate turn away upon finding out the cost. Lest someone object that this is salvation of human effort, remember it is only the enablement of divine grace that empowers a person to pass through the gate. God will not declare a person righteous without also making him righteous. Roman Catholic, Arminian, Calvinist. Calvinist, John MacArthur. By the way, that sounds very much like the Roman Catholic doctrine, though, of infused righteousness. That God never justifies somebody without making them sanctified as well. So he imputes and infuses righteousness both. As a Roman Catholic, former Catholic, I'm horrified by these comments. They smack of Catholicism. There is no cleansing from sin and no salvation without a continual walking in God's light. Catholic? Arminian? Calvinist? Who knows? Arminian. Guy Doody. How do you like that name? In his book, If You Continue. Arminian. Here's another one. Endurance in faith is a condition for future salvation. Only those who endure in faith will be saved for eternity. It's a condition for future salvation. Roman Catholic. Arminian. Calvinist. Don't care anymore. R.C. Spruill. Calvinist. Here's another one. The scriptures repeatedly exhort us to persevere, to hang in there. There's only those who endure to the end who will be saved. Sounds like R.C. Spruill's quote, right? Calvinist. Arminian? Catholic? Roman Catholic? Joseph Kindle? What must I do to be saved? I think you can see from this that really, in the end, there's no difference. Even classic Calvinism says you've got to use the means of grace, which are the sacraments. Huh? It's astonishing to me that evangelical so-called Calvinists today like Piper and MacArthur are leaving out historically that other means of grace that their predecessors clung to, the sacraments. Because they know it would hearken of Catholicism. And that would be very bothersome to many people. And yet their theology is just the same. That's why when it's all said and done and the shells get moved around and you guess which one the ball is under, it doesn't matter. If not Catholic, Arminian, or Roman Catholic, or Calvinist, I've come up with the term Roman-Calminian to describe the whole thing. You know, the tragedy of all this is that what's at stake here ultimately with the perseverance of the saints, the character of God being affected, and people's salvation really is at stake. People are robbed of the assurance of salvation. to look inward. They're told to look at their life for enough fruit, enough endurance, and so forth, instead of the object of their faith, which is Jesus Christ and His finished work. You know, it's really sad that John Calvin, we're told by Norman Dowdy in the book, The Death of Christ, that on Calvin's deathbed, he spoke of a will, or he had a will made up shortly before he died, and in it he expressed I testify also and profess that I humbly seek from God that He may so will me to be washed and purified by the great Redeemer's blood, shed for the sins of the human race, that it may be permitted me to stand before His tribunal under the covert of the Redeemer Himself." That's from Calvin's will drafted right before he died. He knew he was dying. But think about these words for a minute. I testify also and profess that I humbly seek from God that he may so will me to be washed and purified by the great Redeemer's blood, shed for the sins of the human race, that it may be permitted me to stand before his tribunal under the covert of the Redeemer himself." He wasn't even sure that this would be true of him at the end of his life. What a tragedy. No wonder so many Puritans on their deathbed cried out for mercy from God because they didn't know. How different from what the Scriptures promise us. That if we believe on the name of the Son of God, we may know we have eternal life. 1 John 5. Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine. Oh, what a foretaste of glory divine. Heir of salvation. Purchase of God. Born of His Spirit and washed in His blood. Calvin couldn't have sung that song. That's a tragedy. And I think that's where ultimately all of this takes us is back to the Gospel again. And that's why I just want to underscore in closing tonight, the main point that I started with, that when you talk to practically a person who's Calvinist and you run into them at a coffee shop or wherever, don't make the issue the doctrine of omnicausality or something like that. How do you define foreknowledge? There will be a time to get into that down the road. But focus on the Gospel. That's really what they need. In fact, if they can see the clarity of the Gospel, a lot of these things will take care of themselves down the line too. Because they'll come to understand better the character of God and the character of the true Gospel of grace. So, any questions tonight? No? Okay. Why don't we close with a word of prayer and just thank the Lord. for what we have in Him. Heavenly Father, we do thank You not only for the truth and the clarity of Your Word in contrast to this human system of theology again, but we also thank You that through Your Spirit's work, through Your Son's drawing and Your drawing, You have made our eyes open to the truth. You brought us to that point where we could see. And Father, yet we know that You do require our volition and yet You draw You initiate, you work, and you're gracious, and yet you never violate your own character. Father, we just pray we would be wise and discerning, that we would keep our eyes fixed on Christ, the object of our faith, and not have our assurance robbed. And may we, Father, just never tire or grow dull, and not appreciate our Savior and who we have in Him so that we could ever hold forth Him as you are holding Him up for the world to believe. So Father, I just pray for these Gibbs students to that end, my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, and we thank you and praise you again for your great grace offered to sinners like us. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.