2 Thessalonians 2:13: Response to Paul Washer's Calvinism

Okay, I want to uh, to dive into a particular passage of scripture that's often used as a proof text for Calvinism: uh, Second Thessalonians 2:13 and following.

Um, many of you who listen to the podcast regularly know that I've covered all of these verses at one time or another, but one of the critiques is that sometimes those passages are covered in the middle of a long, um, you know, podcast and so may not be as accessible or searchable and able to find. And so I wanted to produce some of these video casts as well to cover the text where you can read them on the screen for those that are watching by YouTube and um, and also those who are downloading the podcast can get a a podcast that specifically addressing a particular um, proof text of Calvinism. And so today's proof text that we're going to look at is 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which um, says this: it says, "But we but we must always thank God for you, Brothers, loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification by the spirit and through belief in the truth."

Now let's just stop right there and understand historically what the context is. Again, we always want to talk about historical context first. It's a part, the first step of hermeneutics, is understand who's Paul's audience, um, what is he addressing? We know Paul is an apostle to the Gentiles, and most of the churches that he has started are predominantly Gentile churches. And that we know from other writings that he often uses the pronouns "we" and "Us" in reference to we the apostles or we the Jewish Apostles bring to you the Gentile Believers. Our Gospel, this is our, you received Our Gospel, um, and uh, the mystery that's just being made known for the very first time, as we read in Ephesians chapter 3. Uh, matter of fact, let's look at that. I know we've looked at another another broadcast, but in context of this passage, um, I want you to see the context that Paul is addressing these different churches like the church in Ephesus, the church in Thessalonica. What is he addressing as a predominantly Gentile audience? Gentile Believers? What's the mystery that's just now being made known through people like Paul and and Peter who had the the the dream with the white sheet that was let down with Cornelius, and he's being made known for the very first time that the gospel is for yes, even the Barbarian immoral uh, Gentiles. And that's that's kind of the big fight of their day. Their big fight is not Calvinism versus Arminianism; their big fight is Jew versus Gentile. Does God love the Gentile barbarians? Has a god chosen them? Does God really love them? And Paul gives us a clear indication that, look with me in Ephesians chapter 3, it says, "For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus, on behalf of you Gentiles—you have heard, haven't you, about the administration of God's grace that he has given to me for you." So notice that he the the the Apostle to the Gentiles has been given a special Grace, an Administration if you will. God has called him for the special purpose of bringing the gospel to not only the Jew first but now to the Gentile, as we saw um, in Acts chap CH 28 when he takes the gospel to the Gentiles. The Gentiles have become calloused or become hardened; otherwise, the text says they might see, hear, turn and believe. So he takes the message to the Gentiles because quote, "they will listen," verse 28 of Acts 28. And so there's a shift that takes place when The Messengers who are called by God to take the The Wedding Banquet um, invitation first to the Jew, their own people, and they persecute them and they reject them, and so then they take it to the highways and the byways to the good and the bad alike. That's what Paul's doing. And so Paul is now known to be the the the Apostle to the Gentiles, and so he's taking this message now to the Gentile barbarians, people that were just assumed by that culture of Jews that they were just rejected by God. And even the Judaizers, the ones who were accepting the Gentiles, they were trying to say, "Well, we'll accept them, but they've got to be circumcised first. They've got to become like us first." It's it's Jesus plus all these works then um, our God will accept them. And Paul, especially in Galatians, is just debunking that whole concept and trying to help them to understand the true gospel of grace. And so this is a a particular Grace, not a salvific Grace so to speak, that this is talking about where Paul is being saved, but that he's set apart for an administration of God's grace that he gave me for you—me the Jewish Apostle for you the Gentile believer. Uh, "the mystery was made known to me by Revelation, as I have now briefly written about above. By reading this you will able to understand, understand." Notice that terminology there: "By reading this you are able to understand." So how are they able to understand? By reading this. Now what are they reading? Are they just reading random words from just some, you know, Podunk person? No, they're reading the inspired word of God brought by the Holy Spirit. And so by reading the inspired word of God you are able to understand the Insight. You couldn't understand the Insight of the deep things of God, as 1 Corinthians chapter 2 um, in that context talks about that. There's again 1 Corinthians chapter 2 is kind of a parallel to this in a lot of ways because it talks about the the the Mysteries that have been hidden for Generations that God hid from the wise and learned of that day; otherwise they would have crucified the Lord Of Glory, as verses 7 and 8 of of 1 Corinthians chapter 2 says. And so what he's saying here is that how can you understand the Deep things in the mind of God? How did how could you possibly understand the mystery that's been hidden for Generation? Well, you have to know it through spiritual discernment. And what is that spiritual discernment? In other words, what is the means God has chosen to spiritually discern to make these things known to people? Well, through Apostles, that's how. So by reading this you will be able to understand my insight about the mystery of the Messiah. This was not made known to people in other Generations; it is is now revealed to His Holy Apostles and Prophets by the spirit. Now notice who it revealed to: by the spirit. Notice it doesn't say it's revealed to individual elect people throughout all of history; it's revealed to specially chosen um, graced Apostles so that they may write it in the scriptures for us to be able to discern it, to understand things that were hidden in a mystery in the mind of God, the Deep things of God, as verse 10 of 1 Corinthians chapter 2 talks about. That's what we can't understand; that's what the natural man can't understand. We can't understand the Deep things of God, the Mysteries hidden in the mind of God, unless God chooses to reveal them, and he has. And how has he done so? By a holy spirit inspiration through the apostles. And so that's what this is talking about the Gentiles. Notice it says there in verse six: "The Gentiles are co-s members of the same body and partners of the promise in Christ Jesus Through The Gospel." That statement right there rocked the first century. Let me say it again: "The Gentiles are co-heir members of the same body, partners of the promise in Christ Jesus Through The Gospel." So you got to you've got to capture how huge of a statement that is in the first century where the the elect of God, I.E the Jew who was born to Abraham, they thought, "I, we are elect; we're owed God's Grace. We're owed we we're the ones who carry the Oracles of God and been entrusted with the words of God, not the Barbarian immoral Gentiles who are horri horrible horrible people. No, not them. God doesn't love them; God doesn't want them." And Paul is stepping into that world and saying, "It has been God's plan from the beginning to bring in the Gentiles, to graft them in, to bless all the families of the earth as he promised to Abraham in um, in uh, Exodus chap uh, 12:3." Um, that that's what he's trying to help us to understand is that he's made a promise that he would be bringing this truth to all nations, and that's what Gentiles means: All Nations outside of Israel, all other nations. So this Grace was given to me, verse eight, um, let's well verse seven first: "I was made a servant of this gospel by the gift of God's grace." Again, it's not a salvific Grace; it's talking about there, and this is sometimes where I think Calvinists will take the the special Grace that's being called calling the servants, and they will use it and apply it to God's Grace in calling the elect in general, salvific in their sociology. You'll see this in John 15:16 when it says, "You did not choose me, but I chose you," and and a Calvinist will apply that to their soteriology. You see this and and and even in the Old Testament where God uses persuasive means to make sure the messenger takes the message to Nineveh, I.E Jonah. Now he uses yes, persuasive means to to make sure that the message is delivered to the people he wants it to be delivered to, but that doesn't prove that he has somehow pre-selected who will and who will not listen to that messenger. And I think that's where Calvinists make the mistake; they take passages which are talking about this special gift of God's grace to call out his servants, um, the election to service, or the predestination. God has predetermined that he will call out certain people from his nation of Israel to ensure that his promise is fulfilled through them, and he will use persuasive means like a big fish or a blinding light like he does with Paul or showing the nail-scarred hands like he does with Thomas. In other words, he'll ensure that his promise will be fulfilled in bringing the message to All Nations, even when the messenger isn't cooperating by his own free will. God has persuasive means to make sure that his messenger delivers the message. And so he was made a servant of this gospel by the gift of God's grace that was given to me by the working of his power. And so there isn't a sense of effectual being compelled to go and preach because that's the promise God made, and by golly, God makes a promise, he's going to keep it, even if the servant's not so willing to follow the the the command of the Father. God has a way in which making he wants to make sure his message is delivered, and he he can ensure that through persuasive means. But using an th those illustrations to somehow prove sociologically, as the Calvinist I think wrongly does, that God also has selected certain individuals in the audience that he's going to irresistibly inwardly cause to believe that message, that's simply never established in the text. And so verse uh, 9 says, "And to shed light for all about the administration of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things." In other words, I'm going to help all to understand this mystery; he's been selected, Paul the Apostle has been selected to help all people understand the mystery that's been hidden for Generations. This is so God's multifaceted wisdom may now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in heaven. So what's the means God makes known these Mysteries and makes his wisdom brought to the world? Through the church. So it's through Holy Spirit-filled individuals bringing gospel Revelation which is Holy Spirit-wrought Revelation. So everything that the gospel accomplishes, even if it's spoken through little old me, is given credit back to God for his accomplishment because he's the one who's inspired these words; he's the one who's compelled The Messengers. "How will they believe in one whom they have not heard? And how will they hear unless it is sent?" Now those are canots as well. They cannot hear unless someone is sent; they cannot believe in one whom they have not heard. Those are canots, and they're real canots, but the implication from that passage is is that if God does indeed send a messenger, an inspired messenger mind you, that brings a clear revelation of God's word, then they would be able to hear and thus believe that message, and they're held responsible to that message because they are actually able to respond to that Holy Spirit-wrought truth brought by God through the means that he has chosen to do so. This is according to his eternal purpose accomplished in the Messiah Jesus our Lord. "In him we have boldness and confident access through faith in him." Of course, the theme "in him," as we see through Ephesians, and we go over Ephesians in another uh, discourse as well where we go through Ephesians 1 especially to talk about the theme of being "in him" and how significant that is that he's talking about the faithful in Christ Jesus, those who have put faith in Christ, and it's through that faith that we receive the blessings of being made holy and blameless, of being adopted—something that's a future hope that we all await for. We know God is predestined for whosoever is in him to become holy and blameless, sanctified, to become adopted, part of our glorification, being taken up to be in Residence with him. We're adopted when we take up residence with him. That's all a part of understanding ing even the passage yes, over in 2 Thessalonians. Let's go back there and you'll see what I mean. Okay, see in verse 13 it says, "But we"—the pronoun "we" would be in reference to we the apostles or the the Jewish people, the the Jewish Apostles—"we must always thank God for you, Brothers, loved by the Lord." Now why would he say that? Why would he want to emphasize the fact that they're loved by the Lord? Well, everybody around them saying they're not loved by the Lord. God hasn't chosen you; you're Barbarian, dirty, rotten Gentiles, uncircumcised; you're horrible people that have been rejected by our God. That's what they're hearing from the Jews of their day. And so the Apostle to the Gentiles would say, "We must thank God for you, the Gentile people generally speaking, Brothers, loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation." This is the mystery being made known: that from the beginning God has included the Gentile, that God has engrafted the Gentile. This has been a part of his plan from the beginning, as he promised Abraham that through you all the nations, all the families of the earth will be blessed. And so God is being thanked here not because he has chosen certain individual people to the neglect of all the other individual people that he's going to somehow effectually save by making them effectually respond in faith. That's not the context; that's not what Paul's trying to say. He's simply saying, "I thank God that he has chosen you, the Gentile people, that he has loved you, and that from the beginning it's been his plan to um, bring Salvation." But by what means? By what means does he bring Salvation? Does it say anything here about the effectual work of regeneration so as to bring about salvation? Because the power of God under salvation for the Calvinist is really regeneration, but is that what it says here? Notice it says no: "through sanctification by the spirit and through belief in his truth." So it's again just like Ephesians said: it is through faith that we enter in him to receive the benefits of being atoned in Christ, of being made alive in him. So we're Made Alive through faith by placing our trust in him. It's just like John 20:31 says that these things have been written um, so that you may believe and that by believing you may have life in his name. So what's the order there? "By believing you may have life in his name." So it's through belief in truth that you are Made Alive, um, as we learned in uh, Ephesians chapter 1:13 and following. It's when you believe that you're marked in him; that's when the guarantee the Holy Spirit indwells dwells when within us is when we hear the gospel truth according to the verse, and when you believe you're marked in him. "Now he called you," in verse 14, "through our gospel." Now notice the pronoun there: "Our Gospel." Again, it's the "we" and the "our." Who is he referring to when he says "are" here? And he says "we" again: the Apostle, the Jewish Apostle brings them the gospel so that you the Gentile people might obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now keep in mind in in a in a collectivist society they think Jew, Gentile; they think about nationalities; they don't necessarily think like the individualized Westerner typically thinks and assume that everything is about the individual person. We have a tendency as Westerners to think "my," "I," "me," and everything's about we the individual versus we the group of people. So when I say "we," um, most of you don't hear that as saying "we the Gentile people," um, just simply because we don't live in a collective Society like that; we don't tend to think that way. Um, there's a a great um, quote by James Leo Garrett that summarizes this. I I want to read it to you. He writes, "From Augustine of Hippo to the 20th century, Western Christianity has tended to interpret the doctrine of election from the perspective of and with regard to individual human beings. During those same centuries the doctrine has been far less emphasized and seldom ever controversial in E Eastern or Orthodoxy. Is it possible that Augustine and later Calvin, with the help of many others, contributed to a hyper-individualization of this doctrine that was hardly warranted by Romans 9 through 11, Ephesians 1, 1 Peter 2, etc.? Is it not true that the major emphasis in both Testaments falls upon an elect people—Israel in the Old Testament and The Disciples of the New Testament?" The point he's making that I hope that you're catching here is that the the collectivist society of the first century would have been a lot more like the cultures that we find in eastern Orthodoxy, which are more collectivist thinking, corporate thinking. So when they hear the word "we," they don't necessarily hyper-individualize it like the Westerner tends to do, and therefore they would come away with a different understanding, a different interpretation of the text. So when you read verse 13 with that perspective in mind, you're hearing the "we," the Gentile Jewish Apostle, thank God for you, the Gentiles, Brothers, loved by the Lord, even though they're being told they're not loved by the Lord by a a huge group of people there who are known to be the elect of God, um, because from the beginning—in other words, this is nothing new—God has promised this to Abraham from the very beginning. God has chosen you for salvation, not just salvation by some unconditional purpose or means or some irresistible working; it doesn't say that, but through the sanctification of the spirit, through belief in the truth. And so the the means are well established by which these Gentile people would be saved, and that is through faith in Christ. "He called you um, through our gospel," so he called you, the Gentile people, through our gospel so that you might obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now before now we even go on to verse 15, it says, "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold to the Traditions you were taught either by our message or by our letter." Again, "our" is being used there to refer to the apostles um, as as Jewish people writing to this Gentile, predominantly Gentile audience. And so, "may our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal encouragement and good hope and grace, encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good work and word."

Now when we talk about historical context, I I took you through the historical context of the first century and taking you through the the the mystery of the Gospel that's just now being revealed and that God has promised to engraft and bring in the Gentile people. We went through the historical context and understand the intent of the author, but there's also the immediate textual context. And sometimes when we get in discussions with other people, they want to talk about context, and they, "Oh, that just means like the verses immediately before and immediately after." Well, no, it means the setting first and foremost, the bird's-eye view, and then more the tabletop view. And yes, the the literary historical context is important, but then also the immediate context is important. And when you back up, I think you capture more of the immediate context, even going back up to um, let's just start there in verse 5: "Don't you remember that when I was still with you I told you about this, and you know what currently restrains him so that he will be revealed in this his time? For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but now restraining, now restraining will do so until he is out of the way, and then the Lawless one will be revealed. The Lord Jesus will destroy him and with the breath of his mouth and will bring him to nothing—nothing with the brightness of his coming. The coming of the Lawless one is based on Satan's working and all kinds of false Miracles and signs and wonders." And so there's a little bit of eschatology here and maybe even some um, prophecy of last times as some estimate um, that he could be talking about, but nevertheless, I I don't think you um, it changes what we've already talked about with regard to how he's applying this text. Now some may say, "Well, all of this has nothing to do with us because it's talking about eschatological hope," but again, what it meant then can't mean something different today. So we're trying to ask ourselves not only what what it means for us and how we apply it to us, but we have to apply the truth, and the only way you know the truth is to understand it rightly in its context. And so, "with every unrighteous deception among those who are perishing." Now notice this passage: "They perish because…" Now just stop right there and pretend like you can't see the rest of it. "They perish because they weren't chosen before the foundation of the world; they perish because Christ chose not to atone for them but only for other people; they they perish because God for his own Sovereign purpose and reason chose to reject them before the foundation of the world; they perish because um, Adam's sin was imputed to them without any control whatsoever on their part or any say on their part whatsoever; they have no responsibility into the condition they were born in, and they are born guilty under Adam, and that's why they perish." Is that what Paul says? Paul never concludes any that ultimately Calvinism has to conclude about why people ultimately perish, which is because they were born under the guilt of Adam and they could not have done otherwise, and God chose not to provide atonement for them; he didn't love them salvifically; he didn't want them to come. That's why they perish according to Calvinism. But according to Paul, why do they perish? "They perish because they did not accept human responsibility; they did not accept the love of the truth in order to be saved," implying very strongly, mind you, that they could have accepted and loved the truth so as to be saved; they did not do so; they chose not to do so, which is parallel with so many other passages of scripture like Matthew 23:37, which talks about how he has longed to gather the children under his wings but they were unwilling, and um, um, that uh, so many other passages, the you know, obviously the the big ones that are often discussed, you know, Second Peter 3:9, that God desires um, none to perish but all to come to repentance, that he takes no pleasure in the death of the perishing of anyone but to repent and live, as Ezekiel 18 says, um, 1 Timothy chapter 2:4, and and others passages that clearly talk about God's love and desire for um, all people. And and so they perish not because God doesn't love them; they perish not because God didn't provide atonement for them; they perish not because they were rejected and are used as a um, a display of God's justice and Power; they perish because they refuse to accept the truth so as to be saved. "For this reason…" Now notice that right there is this unconditional no. "For this reason," there's a reason here. So you can't say, as Calvinists wrongly interpret Romans 9 to mean that God, before Esau did anything good or bad, chose him for reprobation, chose him for being deluded, because that's the way a Calvinist will apply and teach Romans 9, which we of course get a better, I think a better, more accurate context for in that Jacob was chosen to be the lineage through which the blessing would be fulfilled, that he was chosen for the service; he was chosen to be the mouthpiece and the carrier of…

The promise. Whereas Esau wasn't—it wasn't talking about Esau being chosen for damnation before he did anything good or bad—that he was rejected by God for being saved before he did anything good or bad—that that that's absolutely um, foreign to the scriptures. This, for this reason—so there's a condition here—for this reason because they refuse to love the truth so as to be saved, for this reason God sent them a strong delusion so that they will believe what is false. This is judicial hardening, as we talk about in numerous, numerous podcasts and and and videocasts on sociology 101. Matter of fact, this is one of the strongest points that we make with regard to why does Jesus speak in parables? Why does he even need to speak in parables if they're born dead, like the Calvinist describes—dead, spiritually incapable of morally coming and believing and and trusting in Christ? Why would you put a blindfold on on a corpse? It doesn't make any sense. The reason he's blinding the Jews of this day, those who have become callous, is so as to accomplish Redemption through their unbelief and through their acts of rebellion. So the Jews are the ones who cry out, "Crucify him," thus bringing about God's promise and purposes of engrafting the Gentiles, which is what Romans 9-11 is really all about. And so he sends them a strong delusion, not unconditionally like the Calvinist would have to interpret that, but he does it for a reason. He does it because they have refused to love the truth so as to be saved; they have refused God's word and have grown callous to it, and for that reason God sends them a delusion—not in order to demonstrate his Justice, not to make himself look good in front of the entire world—he does it because they have chosen, of their own free volition, um, libertarian free—they could have done otherwise. God has given them that strong delusion; he has sent them a spirit of stupor, as Romans chapter 11 says, he has hardened them.

Now, when I try to establish that context in my debate with James White, he says it has nothing to do with Romans 9, over and over and over again. How could God sending a strong delusion to Israel and blinding them in their Rebellion have nothing to do with Romans 9 and how we understand the human ability and responsibility within the role of Salvation? It has everything to do with it, understanding that Israel, because of their own Rebellion, because of their own free choices, is now being sent a strong delusion so that they will believe what is false. God can do that in Paul's day, and he can do it um, in some future eschatological way as well. So however we want to interpret this, and this is one of the the the ways I would debunk someone who would bring the charge that, "Hey, this has nothing to do with us today," well, of course it has something to do with us today. Hebrews warns us, "Don't allow your heart to grow hardened like Israel's after you hear the voice of God," and and and he even warns us in chapter 11 of Romans that—to—he warns the Gentile people, he says, "Hey, if if God was willing to cut off his own people, the Jews who he loved, if he's willing to cut them off for their unbelief and their hardened callousness, then don't don't get cocky because he might do the same to you." So in other words, he's warning that can happen to you—you too could receive a strong delusion and be given over or cut off in your unbelief if you continually choose freely—libertarian freely—to reject him again and again and again, and eventually your ears grow waxed over, your eyes grow shut and blinded to the the truth. You're not born in that condition; yes, you're born in a sinful condition in need of a savior, but you're not born in a hardened condition incapable of responding to the clear revelation of God. It's only if you refuse the clear revelation of God over and over and over again that you can grow calloused and hardened to the truth of God. So he sends them a strong delusion, not unconditionally—something he decided before the world began—he did this because they, according to the text, they did not accept the love of the truth; they did not accept the truth in order to be saved, and so for that reason God sends them a strong delusion—for that reason, as Romans 1 talks about, if they trade the truth for lies, he will eventually give them over because their minds have become defiled. Noti—it didn't say they're born like that; it says they become that way because, as we well know from experience, that a a a child, though may be open to hearing the gospel as a 12-year-old, as a 25-year-old he may not be, or especially as a 50 or 60-year-old who's become set in his religious ways and his beliefs, he's not willing to listen to the to to the truth of the go because he's grown callous and hardened to this, and so for that reason God may send them a strong delusion; he may give them over, and so that all will be condemned—those who did not believe the truth but enjoyed unrighteousness. So who will be condemned? Those who God didn't choose before the foundation of the world? Those who God rejected to show off his Justice and to demonstrate his power? No, those who did not believe the truth—that strongly implies that there are those who can and do believe the truth—and so it's in that context that he moves down to talking about, "But we must always thank God for you, Brothers, loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God CHS you for salvation." Well, who's "you" in comparison to the people up here who refuse to believe, who who refuse to accept the love of the truth in order to be saved? Those are the people he's contrasting "you" with—"you," the Gentile people who are receiving the gospel—el—who are accepting it, who aren't being cut off in their unbelief and cut off in their callous hardness, but you, the Gentile people, are believing this. Now you see this contrast as we just referenced to earlier in Acts when Paul is confronted with this in real time. Look what he he shows us in this passage out of Acts 28—um, it is showing us um, in real time and like in in an actual situation where Paul is is is confronted by people—people who are refusing to believe in him—and you would think from the at least the Calvinistic worldview, you would think that they're refusing to believe in him because they haven't been chosen to believe in him—that God doesn't love them salvifically—that God hasn't provided atonement for them—Christ didn't die for them—and that would be the reason that they are are are unable to accept the truth—they they were born under Adam and therefore in this fallen condition incapable of willingly coming when called, even by God, according to the Calvinist—but that's not the conclusion that Paul draws in his actual situation where he's confronted with people who are responding negatively to his message.

Let's look at the context here. It says, "After uh, a reigning a day with them, many came to him at his lodging, and from dawn to dusk he expounded and witnessed about the kingdom of God; he tried to persuade them concerning Jesus from both the law of Moses and the prophets." You want to talk about a long invitation, Calvinist—get onto Traditionalists for having long invitations—Paul had a much longer invitation than I guarantee you Charles Finney or any other um, person who believes in Free Will has ever had throughout the history of the church, because from morning until evening he's expounding and witnessing and trying to persuade them about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some were persuaded by what he said, but others did not believe. Now the Calvinist would have to read that and say, "Some were irresistibly or effectually regenerated and therefore believed, while others, because of God's choice in eternity past, were passed over—that were not loved, were not accepted—that God really didn't want them to come because he wanted to demonstrate his Justice through them." That's again behind the scenes of what this passage would be saying from a Calvinistic worldview. So, disagreeing among themselves, they begin to leave after Paul made one statement: "The Holy Spirit correctly spoke through the proph—prophet Isaiah toward your ancestors." Now this um, is parallel and very similar to Stephen when he's being stoned and he says in in in Acts 7:51 that, "You're just like your fathers before you—you continually resist the Holy Spirit, you continually resist the truth, and therefore your hearts are growing hardened," which is exactly what he goes on to quote. He says, "Go to these people and say, 'You will listen and listen and never understand; you will look and look yet never perceive.'" Now stop right there—is that because God doesn't want them to? Is that because God doesn't really love them? God hasn't really chosen them? Again and again and again throughout scripture we see that he does love them—that he expresses his love and his desire for them. Is God duplicitous? Is God double-minded? Is God not trustworthy in his Expressions to them—that really behind the scenes he doesn't really love the Jew and he holds out his hands to them all day long as as Romans 10:21 says—says—is he not really expressing a true genuine desire, a sincere desire for them to be saved because he doesn't really want them to listen, or is this expressing a true rebuke of free people who had the ability to listen and to understand but chose to continually Rebel? You have to decide that for yourself. As an exegesis of the Scripture, it says, "For their—the hearts of these people have grown callous." Notice it does not say, "For the hearts of these people were born in a completely callous condition due to the imputed guilt of Adam from The Fall." Never says that. Not only does it not say it here, it never says it anywhere throughout the scriptures. That is a systematic read into the texts that is never established biblically. Over and over and over again I can read to you dozens of passages that talk about a heart becoming defiled, about eyes becoming blind, about ears becoming calloused, about a a conscience becoming seared. I can read dozens and dozens and dozens of warnings of not allowing that to happen to your heart and to your ears and to your eyes and to your conscience, but I cannot find in all of the scriptures one passage that teaches explicitly that mankind is born incapable of responding to God's gracious and loving appeal to all of mankind to come to repentance from their fallen condition, and they can't respond because they're fallen—because that's ultimately what Calvinists have to say—that mankind, because of their fallen condition, can't respond to God's appeal to be reconciled from that very fallen condition—never established in the pages of scripture. Their ears are hard of hearing and they have shut their eyes. Who shut their eyes? Adam shut their eyes when he chose to sin. Adam must have irresistibly shut all of their eyes, so let's blame Adam for that now. Satan did it—Satan must have shut their eyes—Satan did it, and it's imputed to them for their eyes to be born shut and they can't do anything about it—that's what it means to me. No, the responsibility is continually put back onto them, the individual. They are the ones who shut their eyes. Don't give them an excuse and say they're born incapable of doing otherwise; you're giving them the perfect excuse that Paul removed from them in Romans chapter 1. They have shut their eyes; they could have not traded the truth in for lies; they weren't forced to trade the truth in for lies; they weren't unconditionally chosen to that where their nature had to trade the truth in for lies—that was their choice. They could have acknowledged God as God; they could have done as Cornelius did, as Lydia did, and feared the Lord and trembled before his word—that was their responsibility. They chose to shut their eyes, and what could they have done otherwise? This is the most explicit uh, didactic preaching of Paul telling us exactly what mankind could have done prior to becoming callous, otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their heart and be converted, and I would heal them. So this is not a false conversion; this is not a theoretical conversion; this is an actual healing—"I would heal them, and they might have seen with their eyes, they might have heard with their ears, they might have understood with their heart, and they might have been converted"—if what? If they had not grown callous—that's—and they grew callous because they have shut their eyes; they have done this—that's their own doing—and he's speaking generally again about the Jewish people of this day who are not being persuaded by his um, 12 to 15-hour invitation trying to persuade them to come to Christ, in and probably just as I am playing in the background, just just to annoy the Calvinist—sorry, had to throw that in there—I love you, you know, I love you. Okay. Therefore, let it be known to you that this save work of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen. Do you see the contrast here? "Go to these people over here, the Jewish people who've grown callous and hardened, and tell them this—rebuke them for their closing of their eyes, rebuke them for their callous hearts, rebuke them for their seared conscience, rebuke them for ignoring the voice of the Lord over and over and over again," but contrast that with the Gentile people over here who will listen. Now is that saying the Gentile people are innocent? They deserve salvation and that God owes them something? No, not saying that. We're not contrasting innocent people versus guilty people; both are equally guilty, both equally deserve condemnation—one has grown callous in their self-righteousness, and one is willing to listen, even though they're immoral and they're sinful, they're willing to listen because their hearts have not yet grown callous to the truth of God's word—yet they could, if they don't heed the warning of the Apostles and who who warned them, saying, "If you continue to reject the words of God like the the mass numbers of Jewish people around you, you too could be cut off; you too could uh, have a spirit of stupor sent to you in order for God to accomplish a purpose through you if you continue in the in the example of the Gentile people uh, or the Jewish people of the old—of Old"—and so there there's there's still, you know, applicability to us, and we're not trying to say this is not applicable to us. We must understand the context in order to apply the truth of what's being said in this context. Now with that in mind, it it makes much more sense in Thessalonians for Paul to contrast the Jewish Apostle bringing his gospel—our Gospel—to you, the Gentile people who will listen to it, who who we thank God that he has chosen you—um, now this is important for us to understand—there's some people who say, "Well, you know, there's a veil over the eyes, and that's why there's some people who can't believe and see that they can't—they can't accept the Gospel because there's a veil over their eyes"—and that's—that's a veil that's um, according to the Calvinist, I guess would be imputed um, from birth because of the fall of Adam—because everything ultimately, you know, is a result of the fall of Adam—though we, by the way, we never see that in the Genesis account—we never see this through this text where it says this um, there's one passage out of Romans chapter 5 that that could be taken one of two ways that they hinge this entire imputation of guilt and inability on, and it's just simply—it's just never taught in scripture in my estimation, and and I'm willing to debate that—I'm willing to debate that with um, any reputable uh, Calvinist apologist because I think that's the weakest Achilles heel of Calvinism is this concept of total inability within the TULIP system, and all of that is resting—all the whole Calvinistic system is resting upon this concept that mankind is born ultimately and essentially callous and hardened so that they're unable to see, hear, understand in turn, and I think this passage debunks that as well as uh, about four or five others that we've gone over on the podcast.

With that said, at 40 minutes and my goal was 35 and I I went over my goal, darn it, but um, I wanted to get a a a somewhat of a quick overview of how we take um uh, the the second Thessalonians chapter 2:13 in its context and understand that the "us" and the "you" is important for us to understand the context of what Paul would be discussing is not—"God has chosen you—some individuals—he's chosen John and Peter and and and Luke and you you you you you, and then he's he's rejected you know, Josh and and Jacob and um, you know, you know what I'm saying"—that's kind of the way the Calvinist must think—he's he's thinking of this, and it's just simply not—I I don't think the biblical approach—and so um, you know, I've already gone over my my goal of keeping this short anyway, so in order to to let you hear um, how would a Calvinist deal with the the passage out of Thessalonians—am I representing them rightly um, in in how they take um, 2 Thessalonians chapter 2? Well, one of the leading Calvinists and and a very respectable man—and matter of fact, much of the messages that he preaches, including the one that I'm going to play a clip from here um, I agree with and I I think are are are great sermons and and a lot of of what he says—you have to know he's a Calvinist to even know what he means by what he's saying—and so this is Paul Washer um, in his sermon on—excuse me—on I've said second Thessalonians earlier um, but um, this is this is one on first Thessalonians—I think I mixed up my my first and seconds—so uh, edit that in your mind if you go back and listen to it. All right, so uh, here is a a clip from Paul Washer. Okay, I got to put on this—say—I think I see what I did here—I pulled up um, there's two—there's two passages—one of course 1 Thessalonians 2:13, which is what Paul Washer is preaching on here, and then 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is is kind of a parallel passage—they're very similar um, because one of them in in verse 13 of chap—of 1 Thessalonians is—"We also thank God continually because when you receive the word of God um, that which you heard from us you accepted it not as the word of God um, not not as the word of man but actually it is as the word of God"—and so there's a parallel there that again Paul is thanking God that these Gentile people have received the word not just as from men but as as from God—and and uh, you'll see how Paul is applying this here in this text um, because the same application that he's making in 1 Thessalonians would be the same application he's obviously making in second Thessalonians—and so um, when I originally found this I I just missed that he was talking about two different texts because it it actually applies the semantic sense or the the way exegetically he interprets um, 1 Thessalonians 2:13 would be parallel to that of of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as well—so listen to his conclusion that he draws with regard to to this text and I think you'll hear what I'm talking about—"They received it as the word of God." Now let's go back to looking at Paul for just a moment. He says, "First of all that he gives thanks to God"—I think this is very important—"notice he doesn't thank the Thessalonians for their response—that's very important—notice also he doesn't take credit for their response, but whom does he thank? He thanks God. Why? Anytime anyone receives the word of God, is it is a result of the work of God? Do you see that we are are entirely destitute without him? We need him. So if the word is going to be received into our hearts, it must be a word of God, but we—it must be a work of God, but we must not use that as an excuse for being passive. If you read the word and it doesn't seem to be entering into your heart, you should cry out to God that he would do a greater work in you, and if we're preaching and we do not feel like the word of God is entering—ing into people's hearts, what must we do? Not take away from our time of study, but take away from our time of all other busy activities and hit our knees and pray, because if people are to receive the word of God, it is a work of God, and again I admonish you, do not take this truth as an excuse for you being passive. Well, if something's going to happen in my life, God's going to do it. No, you cry out to God, 'Lord, I'm reading this Bible but nothing seems to be entering in.' Cry out to God. Okay, but what—who would cause them to cry out to God? Paul again—if if Calvinism is taken consistently—again, I'm not trying to misrepresent—I'm drawing the logical implications of the system's claims—which is—if if someone's going to cry out to God, they're going to cry out to God because they've already been regenerated—they're not going to cry out to God for God to give them more desire and more Revelation and all the kinds of things you're saying to cry out for unless they've been regenerated um, unless they've got a new heart—and so they're going to irresistibly want to do that because God has graced them with the effectual desire to do exactly what you're um, pleading for your audience to do—and the reason that a Calvinist like Paul Washer has to warn his crowd not to be passive is because that's the natural implication of their systematic—is that it would lead to passivity—it would lead to the concept of understanding that we're not really responsible for this—and so he—Calvinists have to continually warn their hearers not to become passive because that's the natural tendency of the audience of Calvinists—you you have to warn against the natural implications of your systematic and try to warn people, "Hey, you don't don't don't act like you're not really responsible—you have to act like you're really responsible, even though technically we don't believe you're actually able to respond—that God will effectually or irresistibly cause that to happen in some way"—and so that I think that needs to be brought to bear as well. Now notice he also says the the quote he says here is that, "If anyone's going to receive the word of God, it's a result of the work of God," and I would actually agree with that statement—no one's going to receive—I mean, "How will they believe in one whom they have not heard?" Well, and "How will they hear without someone being sent?" And it's the work of God to send—it's the work of God to inspire authors—it's the work of God to make his Revelation known—and so, "How will they believe in one whom they have not heard?" They cannot—they won't—but having done that—having brought the word—can they hear and can they respond? Of course they can; they're responsible to—and so um, I I would agree with the statement that yes, it is because of a work of God that we can uh, that that we can receive the word of God—how that—in other words um, you know, "faith comes by hearing—hearing what the word of God"—he has to bring Revelation for us to hear it—what we—where we disagree is that Paul—Paul Washer here is assuming that that work is effectual or irresistible—in other words, it's an irresistible work of God to cause someone to receive the word of God, and again that's just not implied in the text or taught in any passage of of scripture in our estimation. Now we can debate and argue that point, but so so we would just simply say in the way we would combat Paul Washer's defense here and his argument is simply to say, "Yes, it is um, the result of the work of God that man may receive the word of God, because God after all—all is the one who brings his word—that's why it's his word—but we're not—but we we don't we don't give the excuse back to lost humanity and unbelievers of saying that God hasn't granted them the the capacity or the moral ability to receive that word," which is exactly what Calvinism ultimately does—it's saying that the reason unbelievers remain in their unbelief is because God has not revealed to…

them what they need to know and what they need to hear in order to believe. He has not sufficiently brought that word in a way that they could believe it, because of the natural condition that they're born in, under God's decree, mind you. And so that, again, this is just not an established biblical concept of human, um, you know, Free Will and understanding that mankind is born with a responsibility—meaning, able to respond to the words of God.

Um, now, when a Calvinist says "responsible," I've argued this before many times, what they mean really is culpable or guilty, justly held um, culpable or justly punishable, even though they can't respond. That's what a Calvinist means by responsible. So even though they're born unable to positively respond, they're held justly punishable for their their lack of positive response. And that's not what we mean by responsible. We mean responsible actually means like the connotation of the word—able to respond, response-able, able to respond to God.

Paul Washer's Calvinism ultimately is trying to say that they will receive the word of God as a result of the effectual or irresistible work of God. And again, the text never says that. The text never gives clear indication of that. The text says that when we turn to the Lord, he will remove the veil—not the other way around. And so the the veil which covers some people and blinds some people to the truth of God's word can be removed when one humbles themselves and turns to the Lord for clarity and understanding.

So hopefully this gives you a little bit of clarity and understanding from our perspective that yes, we can affirm with Paul Washer that yes, we we cannot receive the word of God without the work of God. We just don't assume, as Calvinists wrongly do, that that work of God is effectual or irresistible, thus ultimately removing the responsibility of man in the process of responding to that word. Hopefully this has been helpful to you. Blessings to you. We'll see you next time.