Gooding, David: Q & A

Now let me say a genuine thank you for coming and putting these questions to me. That shows me that you take seriously my few remarks in these four seminars, and that you cooperate with me genuinely in the sense that we work together to try and help one another to understand what God has written for us in his word. Let me also just remind you, or point out if you didn't receive a copy of the notes, what I said in the preamble of those notes. That I was aware that the topics we should deal with in the four seminars were topics over which godly men and women have disagreed over many centuries. That we must learn to respect each other, for God himself has blessed abundantly men who held quite opposite opinions in these matters. And he blessed John Wesley abundantly and George Whitfield abundantly, and particularly here in the United States. And he blessed Spurgeon, and he blessed Billy Graham. I also pointed out very sincerely that I did not suppose that in these four brief seminars I would solve these problems. You'll see. That would have been conceit on my part, would it not? I also pointed out that I didn't pretend to offer you in these seminars a complete and fully worked out system of theology. What I was simply doing was to call attention to certain scriptures that seem to me to have very important bearing on this general topic. And important because they pertain to the honor and character of God. That our wisdom, therefore, that whatever system we may hold, is constantly to come back to Holy Scripture as written, and test, and if need be, modify our system according to Scripture. Still less do I suppose that I'm going to be able to answer all your questions in a few seconds devoted to each one. That would be to insult your question. And as my very brief look in this last five minutes at your questions show me, some of your questions would take an half an hour to debate, even superficially. You must therefore understand that if I attempt to give a brief answer to them, I do it within the limits of the great constraints that are now laid upon me. If I appear to be unfair to your question, pray of your Christian charity that you put it down to my lack of time. You may also put it down to my sheer ignorance. For the extent of my ignorance, it would be impossible to exaggerate, and in that spirit, let us proceed. Now, I've tried to arrange the, uh, first series of questions in their biblical order so you can follow along fairly easily, and, um, we're going to take some of these, first of all, from John's Gospel, John chapter one and verse thirteen. In the light of John one thirteen, does this verse make us conclude that the will of man is not exercised in the salvation process? John one thirteen says that to read it properly, we ought to read verse twelve, that as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name, which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. No, that does not imply that the will of man is nowhere involved in the salvation process. What verse thirteen does is to describe for us this process of the new birth. That is a process that we cannot accomplish by our own will. You can't will to perform upon yourself what is here called the new birth. The new birth is only some- is something that only God can do. So it doesn't, it isn't produced by the will of man. On the other hand, when God offers you Christ, the terms are as many as receive him. And only to those that receive him does God perform this great act of regeneration. Now, whether you receive Christ or you refuse him will involve your will. The reason why some Jews were not born again of God was, as the Savior put it, you will not come to me so that you may have life. Thank you. Uh, John chapter ten and verse twenty six. Now, this was a passage discussed at some length, uh, by our brother Gooding. If Dr. Gooding's interpretation of this passage were true, Jesus should have said, you are not of my sheep because you do not believe. What he did say, however, is you do not believe because you are not of my sheep, which is quite the opposite. Well, I have to confess I'm a trifle surprised by the question of the first bit of it, for I believe with you that what, um, Christ said was you believe not because you are not of my sheep. I, I do believe that, and I accept the order of it. The reason why they didn't believe was that they were not Christ's sheep. Christ's sheep hear his voice, and they believe and trust the Savior. The reason why these people at this point didn't believe, because they were not yet Christ's sheep. You'll see, so they had no confidence in him. But, uh, he shows them at the end how they may come to believe. That is what I was arguing, because as I see it, it's what the Lord Jesus said, and thus become, uh, his sheep. Could you explain how to understand John twelve verses thirty seven to forty one? John 12, verse 30 fo- John 12, verse thirty uh, says, but though he, that is Christ, had done so many signs before them, yet they believed not on him. That the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke, Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? That prophecy was Isaiah's astonished remark and question, that in spite of the many signs, the people wouldn't believe. Verse thirty nine says something more serious than even if ever possible. For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again, he has blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart, lest they should see with their eyes and perceive with their heart and turn and I should heal them. They couldn't believe because God had hardened their heart. We must, if we are to understand that, observe where that comes in the gospel by John. Similar remarks come in the other gospels. It is there also important that we observe where it was said. It is not said at the beginning of the gospel. It is not said before Christ did his signs. It is said after Christ had done much preaching, after he had done many signs. But by that stage, many of the people, in spite of the preaching, in spite of the signs, still rejected Christ, and then God stepped in and hardened their heart. Of that, the Lord Jesus warned the people in Matthew's comparable passage in his chapter twelve, when in spite of the signs that the Lord had done, the Pharisees said that he was doing those signs by the power of the devil, Christ replied by warning them solemnly that if they persisted thus in rejecting the evidence of his sign and called white black and thus sinned against the Holy Spirit, if thus they persisted, that sin against the Holy Spirit is a sin that shall neither be forgiven in this age nor in the age to come. John's passage, therefore, is to be understood in a similar context. It comes not at the beginning of our Lord's ministry, but towards its end, when those who had had the gospel preached but knowingly had sinned against the Holy Spirit would find that their hearts were hardened. From then on, they could not believe. Does Acts chapter two and verse forty seven suggest that there were some people who should, and therefore others who shouldn't be saved? Is there a better translation of this verse? Well, in modern English, there would. The verse says simply, uh, those he added to the church, or added to them day by day, those that were being saved. It's a present participle in Greek, and the Greek present participle can convey all kinds of meanings. But here the most probable one is, uh, of a continuous process. As the word was being preached, so folks were being saved. three thousand on the day of Pentecost, a few days after the number had risen to five thousand. The Lord added to them those that were being saved from day to day. Does not Acts thirteen and verse forty teach that those believe who were appointed to eternal life. Granted there is no eternal decree to arbitrarily damn humans, is there not a decree to appoint some to eternal life? I hesitate to use the word decree. It is a very rare word in the New Testament, and as far as I can remember, it is not used in connection with man's salvation. I know what you mean, however. Does the term those that were appointed to eternal life believe mean that they were thus appointed by God's, uh, pre-choice, pre-determination, if you like? The matter will turn on two things. One, the context is contrasting the Jews of the synagogue, who, having heard the gospel, rejected it furiously. And Paul and company shook the out the dust off their shoes and said, seeing you judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we turn to the Gentiles. Here were Jews making their own decision, coming to their own judgment, regarding themselves as unworthy of eternal life, and they wouldn't have it. That was how they judged the situation. They were Jews. In contrast to that, many Gentiles believed, not all the Gentiles, but those that were. And here you will, to take it seriously, have to consider the possible translations of that Greek word. That Greek word is in military context used in middle and passive in this kind of sense, that a detachment of troops could form themselves up into, say, battle formation or line of march. And so it would be used like that, eh, of a squad of troops taking that particular formation. We could therefore quite rightly take it that those that were lined up for. Lined up how? Well, I myself, uh, quite believe that when it comes to the work of salvation, God always takes the initiative. It is not that humans come to God saying, please consider saving me, and God replies, I hadn't thought of doing any such thing, but I'll consider your application. God always takes the initiative. And what is more, as any practical evangelist would tell you, as they go to this place and that, they will find people that, by God's gracious Holy Spirit, have been worked upon, and their conscience has been aroused. Maybe they haven't got to the point of complete illumination, but they're starting to think, and God in his mercy brings a preacher to them, and these folks have been prepared. And when they hear the gospel, they believe. That doesn't mean that nobody else in the town is ever going to get saved. Some are not just ready yet, so to speak. I take it that what Paul is saying is that these, those among the Gentiles who were in line for, they either had lined themselves up for, or God's gracious spirit, or both had been working in them, and now when they finally heard the gospel, they believed. Dr. Gooding rejects the doctrine of immediate imputation in Romans five twelve. Now, remember that, uh, those of you attending the seminars, that we ran out of time before Dr. Gooding spent some time in Romans chapter five, which obviously is a very important passage relative to one's view of, um, the effects that Adam's sin had on the human race, uh, whether it in- involves, uh, the judgment or simply the damage that sin does to the human race. And, uh, the questioner asks, Dr. Gooding rejects the doctrine of immediate imputation in Romans five twelve, all sinned. What is his view of this disputed phrase? Did Adam's sin have an effect on the race? If so, what? And are we born under judgment? Romans five seventeen. The question that has vexed Christian people for centuries is what is meant by the term in chapter five of Romans, verse twelve. Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin. And so death passed unto all men, for that all. Now here comes the point of disagreement. Sorry to have to vex you with Greek grammar at this late hour of night. It shouldn't be done, really. Indigestible stuff upon which to go to bed. But, um, the Greek word is a verb. It is in what we call the eris, or in some languages the past definite, or whatever you call it here. Eh, but the Greek past definite tense, or eris tense, has a wider possible field of meaning than the English past definite tense. So there are occasions when the Greek uses the past definite, and in English we have to use the past definite. My Aunt Sophia came last night. Greek would use an eris, and uh, English would use an eristol. Now Greek can sometimes use an eris when in situations where, in order to translate it properly into English, you must not use an aorist, you must use a perfect. Now, both, uh, view points of view on Romans five and twelve admit this matter of Greek grammar. There is no dispute upon this. In Romans three twenty three, it says, for all... Now, what should it say? Uh, all something or other, and come short of the glory of God. The intervening verb is the verb to sin. It is in the eris tense in Greek. Would you have it translated by a past definite in English? For there is no difference, all sinned and come short of the glory of God. The King James translators said, no, here is a case where the Greek past definite should be translated by a perfect. For all have sinned. I agree with them. Don't always agree with the King James translators, you see. Little impertinence on my part, but uh, uh, uh, uh, you see. But all agree in Romans three twenty three, And both sides of the, uh, argument in Romans five twelve admit that you could either translate it as an aorist, for all sin, or as a perfect, for all have sinned. The authorized version at Romans five twelve translated it once again as a perfect, for all have sinned. They who take the contrary view say that no, here it were better to translate it all sinned. What is the difference? Well, if you translate it all have sinned, it would mean that death passed upon all men because all individually and personally have sinned. Some say, well, what about little babies? They haven't sinned, have they? Not personally, but they die, don't they? And therefore, on that ground, and some others as well, they hold it should be translated, death passed upon all men for that all sinned. And if you say, what do you mean, all sinned? When did they sin? The answer comes back, they sinned in Adam. Augustine held that view, though he mistranslated the Greek, not understanding it and working from the Latin, which was a wrong translation anyway. But he held the view it meant that all sinned in Adam. And of course, many hold that view still. Some go so far as to say as follows, that not only did Adam's disobedience ruin him and all the race that came from him, so that the race of men and women since him are born with a fallen nature, sinners by nature, even before they'd done any particular sin. Some, as I say, go further than that. I would agree with that bit. The effect of Adam's sin upon us, to ruin us so that we are born sinners by nature long before we have actually done any personal sin. That's the effect. But as I say, some go further and they say, no, it means more than that. It means that because we were in Adam, when Adam sinned, we sinned. And therefore, Adam was guilty of disobeying God. We too were guilty of disobeying God. We sinned when Adam sinned. In a slightly different way, they explain that the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to all his posterity. That is what I find very difficult to believe. That God would impute the guilt, not the eff- uh, not just allow the effect of Adam's sin to ruin us, but he would blame us for Adam's sinning and impute the guilt of it to us. I find it impossible, actually, to believe that it means that we sinned in Adam, that everybody sinned in Adam, because a subsequent verse talks about people, verse fourteen it is, who died even though they had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. Now come. If everybody sinned in Adam, and when he sinned, they sinned, and his sin was a sin of disobedience, and they sinned Adam's sin, how could scripture subsequently talk of people who did not sin after the similitude of Adam's transgression? If they sinned in Adam, they didn't merely do a sin similar to his, they did exactly the precise sin. So that phrase makes me think that the translation sinned, that is, sinned in Adam, cannot be what Paul intended. I bring considerations of common justice to bear upon the matter, and the illustration I, it's only analogy, it doesn't prove anything. Please, analogies may help us to see what the question is. In Singapore, if a woman is caught pushing drugs, meddling in drugs, and is convicted, she suffers the mandatory sentence of being hung. Suppose a woman is thus caught and convicted of peddling drugs, and she has a newborn baby, two weeks old, and the authorities condemn her to death, justly according to their laws. Would they also be just to take the baby and say, baby, because you were in your mother when she peddled drugs, we must execute you too. You sinned when your mother sinned. I don't think not even the Singaporeans would do that. Yes, the child could well have been ruined by what her mother did. Be born suffering the withdrawal symptoms as a result of the drugs that the mother took penetrating the child's bloodstream. Born defective, when it grew up, it could possibly engage in drugs itself, having a tendency to that area. And when it engaged in drugs itself, then it would be rightly condemned. But how it would be just to con- to condemn a child, a baby, to be hung along with its mother because it was in her mother when she broke the law, that I fail to see. There is a theological diff- difficulty too. The later verse says, as through the one man's disobedience, the many were constituted sinners, that is the effect of his sin upon them. Even so, through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous. If it is true that when Adam disobeyed, we have to admit that we also disobeyed, then of course we had a part in rendering ourselves sinners. What would that do to the other half of the equation? So by the obedience of the one shall many be made righteous. Are we going to say we had a part in that as well? And I can say, well, bless my blessed Lord, you obeyed. And so, yes, I constituted righteous because what you did, but Lord, do pray remember that, you know, I also help because I'm in you, you see. That would be very questionable theology, wouldn't it? On those and other grounds, and with due respect to much more godly men and perhaps better scholar, certainly better scholars than I, and certainly more godly men who take the opposite view. These I put before you are some of my considerations, and to sum up, damaged by A- Aaron's sin, but not guilty of Adam's sin. One final thing. Some argue here, that's a very common argument, that's why I detain you to mention it. Doesn't the scripture say that because Levi was in the loins of Adam when Ad- uh, was in the loins of Abraham when Abraham met Melchizedek, therefore when Abraham paid tithes, Levi paid tithes. Well, it does say that indeed. We can't compare that with this passage in Romans five for the simple thing that they're talking about two complete different things. Hebrews is talking about the status of Levi. If the head of the race showed himself inferior in status to Melchizedek by doing what an inferior needed to do, that is pay tithes to Melchizedek. If the very head and fount of the race had that lowly status, then none of his descendants could have a bigger status. It's not attributing to Levi either the credit for what Abram did, nor the blame for it. It's simply a matter of their status. So for that, I conclude. I'm determined to answer all other questions much more quickly. If you would like a, a larger treatment of this section of Romans, there is a series of tapes by Dr. Gooding on the book of Romans, which, uh, goes into this section quite extensively. Now, this is a reference to Exodus seven one to five, but is actually with connection to Romans chapter nine and the hardening of Pharaoh. Why did you not mention that God had said that he would harden Pharaoh's heart prior to Moses meeting him? Exodus seven one to 5. In reading Exodus, as I pointed out in the notes, and you probably haven't seen them, hence your question. In reading Exodus, you'll notice that God told Moses long before anything happened that God would eventually harden Pharaoh's heart. The question is, when did God actually harden his heart? Now, if you read the old King James Version, it will give you the impression that God hardened his heart earlier than, in fact, God did. And it's an inadequate, not to say mistaken, translation. Read other translations and they will, you'll find they're different. The point at which God himself stepped in, and it explicitly says it in scripture that God hardened his heart, is to be found, eh, when, uh, God explains it to Moses in chapter uh nine. you'll see. Uh, and it is not said explicitly that God hardened his heart before that occasion. So the first, uh, several occurrences are prophecy rather than history. God announced to Moses, because God foresees all things, that eventually he would harden Pharaoh's heart. After that, you'll read several, uh, two different phrases. Pharaoh hardened his heart and didn't let the people go, or Pharaoh's heart was hardened. By whom, it doesn't say. The first time you'll get it in the actual fact that God hardened his heart, you'll see, is only later on when Pharaoh had rejected God's persistent offer of, uh, evidence, and so forth and so on. Thank you. Now we have a, a cluster of questions here, uh, relative to those who may not have heard the gospel, or in what sense people have sufficient light to be saved. Uh, one is relative to John one nine, which speaks of, this is the light that lighteneth every man that comes into the world. In what sense has the light come to every man? Ah. John chapter one tells us of the Word that was with God already in the beginning and was God. It adds that all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. Further to explain that, it says, in him was life, and that life was the light of men. What does it mean, in him was life? It doesn't mean simply that he was alive. We are alive, but we're not a source of life. This verse here, in him was life, is explaining and elaborating on the fact that all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. And if you observe the vast variety of the created universe and all the kinds of life that are there, giraffes and centipedes, angels and men and orangutangs and things. And you say, where did he get the life from to make all these things? Well, he didn't get it from anywhere. He is the source of life. In him was life. And permit the translation that the Greek allows here. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. What life? The life we've just been talking about. If you want to know the meaning of the created world around you, you must trace it back to its source. Life is one of those things, you know. It is like light. If you were walking along, along a dark road in the middle of the country, and suddenly through the hedge a beam of light appeared across the road, and your friend said to you, where does that come from, that light? And you said, don't be silly, it doesn't come from anywhere. He would ring for a psychiatrist. Light doesn't come out of nowhere, just to have a source. My similar argument, the universe teeming with life is a light to mankind, demanding that man seek the source of this life. That evidence is open to all mankind, and Romans one says that that fact that the creation around offers us evidence about certain things about God is not an accident. God has arranged it so, revealing himself, his Godhead, any rate, his Godhood and power through the things that are seen, in order that his creatures may be without excuse if, knowing God, they reject that knowledge and go off into idolatry. In what sense does the light lighten every man? Well, first of all, in that sense. And that light who in creation gave evidence to all mankind eventually came into our world. That's what the later verse says. So all men have evidence. They have light. They have the light of conscience. Romans chapter two argues that. Now let me point you to what Romans three says in great precision. God passed over the sins done aforetime. It means the sins that men and women did who lived before Christ was born into our world. Jews, for instance, and others who sinned and did what they were told in repentance and bought a sacrifice. They were forgiven, so says Leviticus. But their sacrifices didn't pay for their forgiveness. So their sins were not paid for, passed over, until Christ came and died and paid the price of the forgiveness that God had given those early people, and so made it apparent that God was just in passing over the sins that had been done and which he had forgiven even before Christ came into the world. He was just in doing so because now, when Christ came, Christ paid the penalty and paid for that forgiveness that God had given in times past. Now, the people who lived in those times past, even the Israelites, let alone the Gentiles, hadn't heard of Jesus. Nobody knew that the, the Savior was going to be called Jesus anyway, until the angel informed Joseph of the matter. So not knowing about Jesus, yet in repentance and faith and believing what God had revealed to them, they were forgiven. Now, at this time that Jesus has come and offered his sacrifice, God is seen to be just in justifying him who believes in... Ah. Not just like Abram. Abram believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. But God is now just in justifying him that believes in Jesus. Notice the human name. You couldn't possibly have believed in Jesus until Jesus had been born and named. But at this present time, those who believe in Jesus are justified. What then of those that still have never heard of Jesus? Now here I'm bound to upset some missionary friends of mine, and I beg their forgiveness. Beg them to try and believe I'm not an apostate, and I am for missionary work. I hold that God will never condemn anybody for not believing what they never heard, for not seeing what they couldn't see. Old Testament folks, and many folks still today, have evidence. They will be judged according to the light they have, not the light they don't have. Said our Lord himself, and I elaborated this in the seminars, if I had not come and spoken to them and done miracles in front of their very eyes that no one else had ever done, they would not have sinned. They would not have been blamed for not believing what they had never been told and never had seen. But of these particular people, he says, now they have seen, of course, that alters the case completely. Well, then perhaps a subsequent question. Can it be today that there are those who believe in God but have not been blessed with the light of the gospel and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus and are thus safe, if not saved? That is a very neat way of putting it. I might wish, if I had the time, to correct a comma or two in that sentence, but that's a de- decent way of putting it. Thank you very much for the suggestion. God having foreknowledge of who will be saved, assuming that God does not determine who will be saved, does he waste time trying to convert the lost? No, of course not. God never wastes time. I know what you mean. When God tries to convert the lost, as you put it, is that a waste of time because it doesn't succeed? No, it isn't a waste of time. For God is determined that when the final judgment comes, he shall be seen to be just. Paul describes his own ministry under God in two Corinthians chapter two. We are a savor of Christ to God in those that are being saved and in those that are being lost. The fact that God has preached the gospel to men, if they reject it, is not a waste of time, because when God consigns them at the mouth to eternal perdition, it will be seen it is not God's fault that they perish. God sincerely preached the gospel to them. No hidden agendas in the heart of God. He meant what he said. He stretched forth his arms to them. He was being sincere. He was not outwardly acting a show as if he wanted them to be saved, but in his heart didn't. So when they stand before God's judgment throne and are condemned, God will be in the clear. It will not be God's fault that they perish. Whereas if God had not driven them to come and given them light whereby they might be saved, you could have said it was God's fault, but they weren't. So then, um, although the evidence that has been given to men is not altogether even or equal, uh, everyone has sufficient evidence so that God can, uh, as we read here, the Lord Jesus can come and judge those who know not God. Oh, amen, my boy. Um, it is an interesting thing to me that our blessed Lord talked of this matter of evidence himself, because, as you remember, he it is that is going to be the judge at the final judgment. He talked to the people of Capernaum about this matter. When the judgment happens, when the men of Capernaum are brought before the judge, namely Christ himself, then witnesses will be called according to Christ. The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with the men of this generation. And in that context, the verb stand up is a semi-technical term. It's a term you would use to describe the goings on in a law court, when the man, a man would stand accused, and the counsel for prosecution would stand up and deliver the accusation, and counsel for defense would stand up, you'll see. And then witnesses would be called, and they would stand up and say their bit. In the final judgment, the men of Nineveh shall stand up, whatever for, are brought before the judge, namely Christ himself. Then witnesses will be called according to Christ. The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with the men of this generation. And in that context, the verb stand up is a semi-technical term. It's a term you would use to describe the goings on in a law court, when the man, a man would stand accused, and the counsel for prosecution would stand up and deliver the accusation, and counsel for defense would stand up, you'll see. And then witnesses would be called, and they would stand up and say their bit. In the final judgment, the men of Nineveh shall stand up. Whatever for? Well, because they will be called upon as witnesses. To establish what? Well, before the men of Capernaum are finally condemned, the question will be raised. Did they have enough evidence to secure their faith if they had been willing to believe? Well, here comes witness number one, men of Nineveh. Now, you repented, you men of Nineveh. On what evidence? Well, they had the pa- the, the preaching of Jonah. He wasn't as spectacularly good prophet, was Jonah. Had to be dug out of the belly of a whale to, to, to give his evidence at all to the men of the Ninevites, but he did eventually go. And they repented even on that slight evidence of a curious miracle of being sicked up by a whale and things like that. And they repented. I tell you that a greater than Jonah is here. And if the men of Nineveh repented on the grounds of such comparatively small evidence, that shows that the men of Nineveh, who had the Son of God right on their doorstep and heard him preach a multitude of times, had enough evidence that, had they accepted it, they could have been saved. That question of how much evidence you have, how much evidence did you have, will, according to the authority of him who is to be the final judge, will be an issue in the courtroom of that final judgment. And the judge will make sure they had enough evidence upon which they could have been saved. And only when it is shown that they rejected that evidence will they be condemned. Thank you. What does Paul mean in Ephesians one four that we were chosen in him before the foundation of the world? And also the question concerning first Peter one two that we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God. I believe, my dear fellow believers, I believe in God's election, in spite of all appearances to the contrary that I may have given in the seminar. I do believe. As I said earlier, God always takes the initiative. My salvation was not a scheme I thought up and proposed to God and said, would he possibly consider saving me? I'm saved because God took the initiative, and he chose. Yeah? He didn't choose according to my good works. He had his only o- other reasons for choosing what type of people. He chose as the babes of this world, and not many might. Um... When a young man proposes to a girl, it is commonly thought that he takes the initiative. Some hold it otherwise, of course. But the theory is that the gentleman proposes to the lady. He chooses her. That doesn't mean that she has no choice. She has to choose him as well, and she can say no. God chooses, therefore. As to your particular passage in Ephesians four, it is saying not God chose us to be in Christ, but God chose us in Christ. In choosing Christ, God chose everybody who would be in Christ. How you get into Christ is a thing that many a scripture will tell you. But yes, on your one Peter, God e- elects according to the foreknowledge of God. Yes, quite so. We must be careful before we make the deduction that God's choice means that he passes other people by. For, as it is often pointed out, Christ himself is the chosen one of God. That does not imply that he passed by others. God really wants us saved, and when we get saved, we discover, yes, it's God's choice, free choice. That doesn't, isn't to be held to mean that God doesn't want some people to be saved. That wouldn't be true. He wishes all men to be saved, is what Holy Scripture says. In the light of the question on foreknowledge, is there any good reason, textually or otherwise, to believe that foreknown means foreloved. Not really at all, no. All right. That's helped us with our schedule. Um, does not second Thessalonians two thirteen teach that God chose the Thessalonians for salvation? Admittedly, they were to exercise faith, but God chose them beforehand. If you follow the manuscripts that the King James follows, you will read the verse that we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brothers, because beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation and sanctification of the spirit and in belief of the truth, whereunto he called you through our gospel to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. The context is this. Paul has just issued the solemn statement that when the man of sin arises with all his deceivable and lying wonders, God also will intervene, and he shall send some people a strong delusion. God will do it, so that they believe the lie that they might be condemned. Why so? Because they receive not the love of the truth. If you won't have the truth, well, then you're siding with the lie, aren't you, by definition? If you persist in that, God will then harden you so that you believe the lie. In contrast to that, Paul talks to the Thessalonians. You imagine these comparatively young converts, and Paul has been telling them of the sad and sorry things that will happen at the end of this age, and that, uh, when the man of sin comes, God will, um, send some people a strong delusion that they believe the lie, and they're saying to themselves, what, what, what could happen to us? No, says Paul, right from the very beginning. God chose you to salvation. Yes, that's what the scheme was, inherent in the gospel by which you were called. The gospel that you heard from the beginning wasn't, now look here, believe this gospel, and you can be forgiven. What's more, you can be justified for now, but watch, do watch how you behave, because if you don't behave too well, you might, uh, be deceived by the man of sin, and God will send you a strong delusion, and you will be damned in spite of your initial belief. Well, that wouldn't be a gospel, would it? Some people still manage to believe that kind of thing still. No, says Paul, you may, as he puts it in the first epistle, put on the helmet on your head when you think about these things, to guard your thinking, the helmet of the certain hope of coming salvation. You are to know that right from the very beginning, from the very moment that God, uh, saved you, the scheme was to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ when he comes again, that whether we wake or sleep, we shall live together with him. That is God's scheme. He invented it. He called you to it by our gospel. God has not appointed you to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ. And the reason I go and preach the gospel is so that the elect may happen on that salvation that is with eternal glory. You need have no fears, therefore, about the future. That's how I understand the verse. It reminds us not to be too quick to jump to the conclusion, uh, when we read a verse that we understand, uh, just exactly what aspect of salvation is being dealt with. In a similar way, when we read, uh, you have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and we immediately assume that that has to do with salvation, when a similar verse says, have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil. Amen. So, uh, it- it's good for us to examine carefully what aspect of salvation Yeah. is being dealt with. If I had the time, I would give you, uh, a beautiful little illustration from the Old Testament, but I haven't got the time, so I can't. But if I'd had the time, this is what I would have said. Joshua and the armies of God arrived in the vicinity of Jericho, commissioned by God to execute the judgments of God on that evil civilization in Canaan. The spies came to recognize what the psychological position was of the people within Jericho, and eventually landed up in the house of this harlot. She had heard what God did to the Egyptians, and as she looked over from her window in the walls of Jericho and saw the armies of God advancing, and now they had, oh dear, they'd crossed Jordan. Well, now they were about to cross Jordan. She could see they were going to cross Jordan. These were the armies of God. That meant the destruction of Jericho. And she sought salvation from a living God. Give me a token, a sincere token, that when you come, you'll save me alive and let me live and all my family. They said, we will. But she'd had a lot of men in that house, you know, from time to time. And while they were with her, they whispered sweet nothings in her ears. And then when halfway through the night she let them out of the door, that's the last she ever saw of them. She wanted to know how she could be utterly sure that they would keep their word and that the armies of God would not destroy her and her family. Swear an oath, she said. They swore an oath to her, poor pagan woman, by the name of God. And here was a woman now that learned where security lies in the oath and the word of God. Tie the scarlet thread in your window, they said, as they got down towards the ground and jumped out of the basket, um, and when the armies come, you'll be safe. Now you imagine Rahab looking out of the window. Here were the coming armies going to execute the lot of God. Mm-hmm. But now she had come to believe in God. The armies that came to execute the wrath of God would not execute the wrath of God on her. She had turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God and to wait for Joshua to come, her deliverer from the coming war. Isn't that so? Joshua is very careful to explain that no drop of wrath ever fell on Rahab. Hm. But that was meant to illustrate something, uh, uh, uh, I hope it has. Well, I wish we had had time for that because it really would have been helpful. Now there's a reference to Revelation seventeen eight which speaks about, um, uh, they shall wonder whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. Mm. And, uh, the question is what view Brother Gooding would give of this, and how how he could help us understand it. Hmm. I think Brother Gooding would be wise to say he didn't know. Uh, having said that, he could possibly add that other theologians seem to be in comparable difficulty. I will not tell you why, all the reasons why. My solution, pro tem, is to look back to how the thing, the phrase is used in scripture. Comes in the book of Exodus after the worship of the golden calf, where God, uh, threatens to destroy Israel, and Moses pleads for Israel and says, oh God, save them, and if not, then blot me out of your book. What book? Well, the book of life, that is. In other words, Moses was saying, if you physically destroy the nation, physically destroy me. And God says, no, him that has sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. So the names are already in the book. But when they sinned, God said, I will blot them out, I shan't blot you out. Before he blots the name out. And gives them opportunity to hear and to believe. There comes a point, and the scriptures we have considered bear it out, that when a man or woman refuse to believe and repent in spite of God's pleading, then God intervenes. And for them, in the words of Hebrews, there is nothing but the fi- uh, uh, expectation of the fiery judgment. Their name is blotted out of the book. They have no longer opportunity to repent. You may probably disagree with that. I merely put it into the pool of your thinking. So are you suggesting then that this phrase, whose names were ro- not written in the book, are actually names that have been blotted out? Yes. Okay. Some of us need clarification, I'm sorry. No, no, no, yes, yes. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Don't take it off yet, brother. Uh, you mentioned the influence of Greek thought on the theology of God's election. I think technically it was, uh, the influence of Greek thought on, on the idea of God himself. Yes. Mm. Uh, could you explain? I think, I think they're asking, uh, in what sense Greek philosophy perhaps has influenced the Christian thinking about God. When Christians, when, when people began to get converted to Christianity, people that had been sizably intellectual, there weren't many such around in the early days, but in the time of the third century, for instance, there were people converted who were sizably intellectual. They had, of course, been, if they were Greeks, educated in the current Greek philosophies of the day. When they tried to engage in preaching and in apologetics towards their fellow citizens who were likewise intellectuals, they very frequently used the categories of Greek thought and of Greek philosophy in order to, they express their, uh, uh, belief and their, uh, to explain their belief in the Christian gospel. Now that happened, notoriously so, in the attempts of the Church Fathers to explain how Jesus could be both man and God simultaneously. And if you look at the explanations they give and the terms they use, they are the terms borrowed from Aristotelian philosophy and such like things. They were the only categories of thought open to them if you wanted to be philosophical at the time. Now, some of the Greek philosophers were fatalist people, like the Stoics, for instance. Stoicism commended itself to many, a Roman particularly, as being a manly faith. They couldn't accept Epicureanism, which among other things made the whole universe, and man included, depend upon chance. Stoics were more fatalist. It is not to be surprising, therefore, that, uh, medieval schoolmen, and then even the reformers, whose education was first in classical philosophies and classical languages, and then in theology, took some of their concepts of God over from Greek philosophy. And some of the fatalism that has lie- laid behind extreme forms of Calvinism, owe a tremendous lot, in my humble estimation, to the influence of the fatalism of Greek philosophy on men who, like Calvin, first were students of Greek philosophy before they became believers and then theologians. If you want a clear example of that kind of thing, you could take the question whether it is possible for God to suffer. It has been comparatively recently, within my lifetime, that theologians at last, at large, Christian theologians, have been willing to admit that God the Father can suffer. They held steadfastly over many centuries that God was impassible, meaning God can't suffer. They argued, therefore, that God experiences no emotion because motion implies change, and God is utterly unchangeable. He is, they said, you see, supreme perfection. And if God could change, if he changed for the better, he wasn't perfect to start with. If he changed for the worse, he was no longer perfect. And since you ca- emotion implies a change in you, from being calm to being emotional, God cannot suffer emotion. And that went through down the centuries to recent times in Christian theology, that God cannot suffer. And you would be told it would be wrong to say that at Calvary the Father suffered anything. Only Jesus, because he was human, could suffer. How Christian theologians could ever have thought that was true when they had the whole of the Old Testament saying the very opposite, I don't know. You listen to God speaking in the Old Testament, I'm angry with the sinners every day. I'm weary of you, Israel. I'm pressed under you like a agricultural wagon is pressed under a load of lo- a load of sheaves. In all their afflictions, he was afflicted. The God of the Old Testament is no Aristotelian God of Greek philosophy. He happens to be the true God. You don't suppose, do you, looking back on this act, that when God the Father saw his Son hanging on Calvary, God sat upon his throne unmoved, do you? But so had Greek philosophy influenced Christian theologians. For many centuries, they held that God was utterly impassable. We now see, of course, that he's wrong. We need, if we have studied a great deal of, of Greek philosophy, we want to make sure that the God we worship is not described in terms of Greek philosophy, that the God we serve is, excuse the term, a Christian God. If you want to know what God is like, God is like Jesus Christ, his son. Uh, we're, we're going to stop and change tapes momentarily. Not that, uh, we're having equal portions to this. We actually have two questions left, and uh, so they're just tacking on a little bit. They're using what bits of tape they have left, and uh, we will then ask two final questions. One, uh, because it takes the whole sweep of the messages and gives Dr. Gooding an opportunity to express what I, I would consider to be the, the grand purpose of all of this, of God's salvation. And um, then a second question that deals with a practical issue relative to, uh, unity among the people of God on the subject. And so the first question is, using glory as God's purpose in the salvation of man, would God not receive more glory by choosing and saving through his prerogative, as opposed to sinful man deciding on his own initiative to believe the gospel message. Yes. Otherwise, I could answer it if you like, brother. Well, let me just say again, I do not believe that man takes the initiative in his salvation. If God hadn't taken the initiative, there would be no salvation to have anyway. It was God's idea to save men. It was God's idea to offer men eternal life. God thought it up that we should, if we, if we consented, we should become children of God and not just creatures of God. That is all God's doing. What is more, as the Savior put it, the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which is lost. We were lost. God took the initiative, sending his son to seek us. And in the matter of faith, I believe with you, as I said this afternoon, I say it again, faith is the gift of God in this sense, not that faith is a kind of a commodity that God happens to pour into you. We have the faculty of believing. God pointed out, if you accept the testimony of men, and you do, don't you? Unregenerate men accept the testimony of men, well, they jolly well ought to accept the testimony of God then, because his is far more trustworthy. What does it mean, uh, that God takes the initiative and gives us the faith? He gives us faith, not as some commodity, by talking to us, showing himself, and thus evoking our faith. We're not asked to believe in a vacuum. God comes and offers himself to us, speaks to us, shows us his action, records endless chunks of big history to show how God has acted in the past. Records for us the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, which he did deliberately now, so that Saul's conversion might be an example to you. Listen, says God, I saved him. Well, I saved you as well. I, I, I saved him so that he should be an example. He's the very chief of sinners, and I saved him to be an example and an assurance to you that if I saved him, I certainly would save you. God takes the initiative. You'll see. This afternoon, greatly daring and with awful rashness, I dared to say and questioned, uh, some anonymous ladies present, whatever made you believe that man you married? Where did you get the faith from to trust him enough to say I will to his proposal? And the answer I thought that came back was, not well, I was getting desperate and I decided any old man would do. In fact, I didn't wait for him, I proposed to him. No, no, the answer I thought came back was, well, I watched him and I observed him. When he first made the proposal, I had a bit of doubt, seemed a bit flashy, but then I watched him and I saw how kind he was to little children and how considerate to other folks, how patient he was. And, you know, as I watched him, well, things began to happen in my heart, and I found I could trust him. Well, you had to make the decision, didn't you, dear lady? He wasn't literally irresistible. You could have said no. You got the faith by listening, watching, studying his character. That called out the faith. And faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God or the word of Christ. That is how faith is provoked within us. God takes the initiative. He shows us his light. But the God who gave us eyes to see with so that we can see the light also gave us eyelids, gave us the ability, or not permission, gave us the ability that when he shows us his light, we can, if we insist, close our eyes against the light. We are free to say yes. God has given us the awful honor of being able to say no. For God wants love, and love that is forced is not love. Now, in conclusion, we're sorry we didn't get to all of your questions, but in conclusion, a practical question on unity in our assemblies. The questioner speaks about those who hold differing views on many of these topics, and, uh, I think a fairly simple answer to the question, can both groups dwell together in unity? Well, they can if they're behaving like good Christians. And I recur to what I said at the beginning. God's people have been divided on these matters, largely through accepting this or that system of theology. Somebody asked me early on in the seminars why I didn't, uh, come out and say that it was Calvinism I didn't agree with. Well, one, because there are many grades of Calvinism, and some good Christians hold views that are common with Calvinists who wouldn't like to be called Calvinists because they don't share everything. And some Calvinists think me an Arminian, you know, and they think by putting a label on me that defines exactly what I believe. When I find the label they put on me doesn't describe me fairly at all. In the end, we're better without labels, aren't we? You mustn't say I am of Paul, must you? Or I am of Apollos. And you certainly mustn't say I am of Calvin, or I am of Arminius. We're all believers, Christians. We must love each other, mustn't we? God bless Whitfield. God bless Wesley. Mighty men of God that God used for the conversion of thousands. We must learn to respect each other. We must be very careful before we call a fellow believer an apostate. We may be moved to speak strongly that some doctrines seem to us to border on blasphemy this side or the other. But we must observe that our dear brethren who hold sometimes wrong doctrines, they don't intend thereby to blaspheme the Lord nor to dishonor him. They sincerely believe that what they believe does honor him. We need to help each other. In my little experience, the disruptions arise when people become convinced, say, of their Calvinism or the opposite, and then they push it and push it and push it and push it until that disrupts the harmony in the church. And then it becomes, in a practical way, very difficult for the church to proceed. Because if the elders say, now look, we've heard what you say, a substantial body of us with equal zeal and wishing to please the Lord believe that you are not correct in that. So we've heard what you say. Now be, have enough grace, not constantly to push the thing. We can live to harmony, in harmony. When people are not prepared thus to do that, then it can disrupt, and in my experience has disrupted seriously the work of God in more than one mission field. It may be, therefore, that you will feel like Paul felt about Barnabas, that when it comes to being a team on the mission field, then because Barnabas held rather different views about the suitability of John Mark to be a missionary in Paul's team, that Paul said, well, we think we better go our own ways, dear Barnabas, my boy. The world's a big place. You go with what you feel in methods, and I'll go in what I feel in methods, and we shall love each other in the Lord. You may feel, with the views I have, uh, talked about and shown to be mine, that you couldn't very well get up with me as a close partner and preach the gospel because I might tell unconverted men that Christ died for their sins, and you don't think that's true. So you couldn't work in close collaboration with me in an evangelistic team on the mission field. All right, my brother, I understand it if that's how you feel. I hope you won't cast me out of the church, will you? I hope you will find it in your heart to believe that I hold these views for the time being as sincerely and in the fear of God as you hold your views. What I would exhort you to do, and you probably do it already, is in meekness to try and instruct me further. I shall come back at you and do the same, and then together, and I hope in Christian grace, harmony, and tolerance, respecting each other, we may all admit that there are things that we don't yet know, and we may move on carefully to discover yet more and more of where the full truth of God lies. That is all I think I ought to say, except to add, I am amazed with your patience. I can't think of any conference in England there has ever happened. Well, I can think of things worse happening in Eastern Europe, but then they have an insatiable appetite for the word of God. But, uh, you are to be praised for your congratulations, and to congratulate on your patience, uh, in helping us all to think about these things seriously. As we leave, let us pray God to lead us yet further into his truth. Well, Dr. Gooding, we can't thank you enough for the, um, the help along the road, both in the area of truth and of grace, and I trust the Lord will encourage our hearts as we head off, uh, to consider these matters, and in the end that there might be worship for God and praise for his name as a result of this study in the gospel, the glorious gospel of the blessed God. Perhaps, uh, Brother Gooding, we could, uh, ask you to close in prayer. Now we come to thee, Father, the God of all truth. We praise thee for revealing thyself to us in Jesus Christ, thy son. We praise thee that by thy grace we have come to believe that he is the word, the truth, and the life. And we come to thee through him. Freely, Lord, we admit that we do not understand things yet as we should understand them in all the fullness of thy glorious truth. But together tonight we lay hold upon the promise of the Savior. You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Help us, therefore, to love thee with all our hearts, but also with all our minds, and like our fellow believers of Berea in the ancient world, to study the scriptures daily to see if these things be so. Beyond that all, we pray again, that thou wilt not wait until we have decided in our thinking and arguments which way this detail lies all best, but reveal to us thy heart, our blessed Father, through Jesus Christ thy word, and thy written word as it stands written, that we might know thee ever increasingly with intimacy and affection, our Father through Jesus Christ our Lord, that we may be filled progressively into all the fullness of God, which things we ask thee now by the encouragement of Jesus Christ our Lord, thy son, and in that name that thou hast promised to hear, we do so giving these hands. Amen.