Today we return and there's a good question about our quiz. It'll be a true and false quiz on all the readings and saved by grace with a special concern for the items that are highlighted in class. As you'll see in a moment, my treatment of these subjects is to emphasize certain to highlight the readings. So that's what I meant. The quiz won't be limited to those, but it'll be chiefly those 25 true and false questions covering the whole range of readings. And I don't know the exact percentage of the things that are right from what we talk about in class, but certainly most, I don't know if it's 20 out of 25 or what, but so you do need to read it all and study it all, but especially the matters that we'll talk about in class. I've got a note here to talk about the Holy Spirit. Since Christian theology coheres, I've the spirit of trying to form a perfect theology. We're not given enough information. We can't do it. We're going to have some gaps. And the Bible itself tells us some things are mysteries. And other things we'll never understand. So that's the case. On the other hand, the Christian faith does fit together. It coheres. And in that regard, it's encouraging to say that at this point, we could do a whole section on the Holy Spirit as the prime worker in applying salvation to us. But since we can't repeat full topics in our classes, the topic of the Holy Spirit is especially addressed as the first topic in the course, spirit, church, and last things. But there is a definite overlap between the content in that course, for example. Here are the notes, the ministries of the Holy Spirit. Number one, the Holy Spirit applies salvation. That's the application of salvation, what we're talking about now. He unites us to Christ. He regenerates us. This is just extra information showing you how the course is dovetail. He converts us. Conversion is theological shorthand for repentance and faith. So the Holy Spirit applies salvation. The first thing I say under the ministries of the Holy Spirit, the most important ministry of the Holy Spirit is to apply salvation to the people of God. He joins us to Christ. He regenerates us, gives us new life. He converts us. He assures us of our adoption. He applies justification to us. He sanctifies us and he preserves us. So we could study the exact same topics we're going to study tonight for the most part. Under the head of the ministries of the Holy Spirit, we don't duplicate. So we'll go to calling. And ironically, calling is not one that I just listed. I don't know if there's any one place where it says the Holy Spirit calls us. It's rather the Father, but the Holy Spirit is certainly the chief supplier of salvation.
For calling, I will begin, as I will, from now on, and use notes. So for calling, it's, who can we say by grace, 68 to 92? Everybody find it in the notes? Good. Just keep bringing those. You're going to use those time after time now. I thought I'd give them to you rather than have you write your hand off. You can just make a few notes. Definition of gospel call. There's a distinction made between effectual call and gospel call. I understand I need to even demonstrate that that distinction is biblical, but I need to jump in somewhere, and this is where we jump in. So it's not neat and tidy. But on 68 through 70, he says the gospel call, first of all, to understand the concept gospel call, effectual call, the traditional terminology has been external internal call. But Hukama is right. That's not the best terminology. For one thing, the internal call, external call, was the gospel falling on people's ears, and some believe, and some don't. And some don't believe at one time, but they believe another time. Hukama is right. External internal isn't quite right because the internal call, that's the Lord working in the heart, and the gospel not only falling on the ears, but God giving ears to hear, and eyes to see, and bringing about a change of heart. So the gospel takes, if you will. The internal call was really external internal, because the internal was not apart from the external. You with me? So the older distinction was really merely external from external internal, but that whole business is kind of confusing. I do regard it as a point of improvement to talk like this. Gospel call and effective or effectual call, get it? The gospel call is the summons of the gospel to whosoever will. The effectual call is the mysterious inner working of God, so that some are effectively, some who hear the gospel call, many who hear the gospel call, respond to it. The gospel call involves facts, invitation, and promise. For those who use acronyms in their study, fit. I had one the other day that just spelled something outrageous. I forget what it was, but it was so funny. It's a presentation of the facts of the gospel, and invitation to come to Christ, and the promise of the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. This is what the gospel call is. The facts are basic, but there's a need for more than the facts. We need to invite people to trust Christ. The gospel call to wax poetic invites all.
It really does. There's no doubt in my mind, biblically, when we read in the book of Acts, that God has commanded people everywhere to repent. And when he told the apostles in a great commission to take the gospel to all the nations, that there is not only the intention of God to take the gospel call to everyone, but that this is a well-ment offer of the gospel. You say, who would ever say the gospel call is not a well-ment offer? Answer hyper Calvinists. And here we get into some history with the Protestant reformed church, breaking with the Christian reformed church because it wasn't considered to be reformed enough. And one of the issues was that God does not sincerely offer the gospel to the reprobate. To make a long story short, I agree with Hukama that the gospel offer is well-intentioned, not only on the part of the less than omniscient preacher or witness, but on the part of Almighty God himself. How can we put together God's sovereignty and salvation and this whosoever will offer? Well, maybe we can't perfectly put it together, but it sounds like a subset of this business of trying to put together divine sovereignty and irresponsibility that runs across Christian theology. I agree completely with Hukama that there are simple solutions on two sides that are both rationalistic. Francis Schaeffer distinguishes between being rational in our beliefs and rationalism. That's a good distinction. Of course, we use our minds. We use our minds under God's word, but we certainly think. The person that says they don't think they just get the straight scoop from the Holy Spirit and have no human contamination in their theology are forgetting that they are human and that they are thinking and that they're not the Holy Spirit. That is, if you avoid all the human contamination, you've got your own, all right? And I've read some of that stuff and I wouldn't blame it on the Holy Spirit, frankly. In any case, rationalism is exalting our minds above the Scripture or going beyond the Scripture. Hukama cautions that we avoid rationalism in this matter and others in two directions. And they are Armenianism and hyper-Calvinism. Both have some significant areas of truth. Armenianism correctly begins with an emphasis on the responsibility of human beings and it affirms what we do matters. It matters whether we accept Christ or not. It matters whether we pray or not as God's people. It matters whether we witness or not. From there, it goes further and espouses a doctrine of the freedom of the human will. The term itself maybe wouldn't be so bad, but the notion is understood as absolute power to contrary, which means that the creature can ultimately frustrate the creator's will. This seems to Hukama and others, and I agree, to be a less than accurate presentation of the Bible's teaching of on God's sovereignty. So Armenianism begins with biblical data and lots of it that affirms human responsibility even freedom. It then seems to be qualifies the biblical data concerning God's sovereign affairs in the world especially in salvation to make it fit that understanding of human freedom. Understand what it's being said? That's where the rationalism comes in. Not in the acceptance of many passages at face value. That's a good thing, but even going beyond that and then qualifying many other passages that affirm the sovereignty of God in salvation. So election is defined as God ratifying human decision and on and on it goes. And yes, the free offer of the gospel is affirmed. With that, I agree with Armenianism, of course, but from that is concluded that God has not chosen people for salvation over against others and that there's not a efficacious work of the Holy Spirit in opening some hearts and not others and so forth. That seems to me to be rationalistic because it flies in the face of passages that teach the very thing. Hyper-Calvinism reverses the process. It begins with sovereignty of God passages and there are plenty of those. And it correctly affirms God's absolute sovereign sway in human affairs. But it becomes hyper when it feels threatened with affirming alongside of sovereignty genuine human responsibility. So human freedom is squelched. And among other things, the well-man offer of the gospel is denied. You can't do that. There are many biblical passages that affirm the well-intentioned offer of the gospel. I believe to avoid rationalism, we must hold these two things in tension. God is truly an absolutely sovereign. Human beings are genuinely free in the sense of at least being responsible and answerable to God and what they do does matter along the lines of what we call philosophical compatibilism. For a chapter length treatment of this, that's very helpful. The A. Carson's book How Long O Lord, I forget the chapter number, but the title is The Mystery of Providence in short compass, 2025 pages. It bombard you with biblical passages that teach both things, sometimes in the same breath. Luke 22, 22, the son of man must go as it has been decreed. And that is God's sovereignty over the cross of Christ and the life of Christ. But woe to that man in the next breath, Luke says, same verse. But woe to that man through whom he is betrayed, speaking of Judas, that is human responsibility, even culpability. How can God be in control? And human beings be culpable? Well, I'm not altogether sure, but I'm sure that those things are true. For a book length treatment, if you're ready to be academically challenged, to find sovereignty and human responsibility by the same author, it is not an easy read, but it is a outstanding book. In any case, without using the word compatibleism, that is exactly what Hukama affirms. He rejects incompatibleism along two lines. Hypercalvinism and Arminism both hold incompatible, absolute divine sovereignty, and genuine human responsibility. Each one cancels out a different element. But they are alike in starting with a large amount of the biblical data, affirming it, and then reaching conclusions that cancel out, or at least greatly modify, another large portion of the biblical data. Questions or comments? Talking about the doctrine of calling, it's one of the aspects of the application of salvation. We're distinguishing between gospel call from effectual call. Traditional terminology would call this external call as the gospel falling on the ears. Some believe some of the traditional terminology would call this internal call. If you're going to use that terminology, it would be better to call it an external slash internal call because at least ordinarily, anything else would be extremely extraordinary. God calls inwardly as he calls outwardly. Definition page 86. Briefly, the effectual call, a little bit down from the middle of 86, is the gospel call made effective to salvation in the hearts and lives of God's people. The gospel call was described in the previous chapter, but unless God supernaturally changes the heart of the hear, he or she will not respond in faith. This changing of the heart occurs in effectual calling. A more complete definition of effectual calling, therefore, might be that sovereign action of God through his holy spirit. See, the Holy Spirit does get some credit here. Whereby, he enables the hear of the gospel call to respond to his summons with repentance, faith, and obedience. This is based upon a study of other matters, including the plight of human beings. And in fact, it assumes their inability to make any motions toward God in salvation. But we can, we ought to check our teachings based upon God's word. Question, does the Bible teach an effectual call? Answer, syllabus pages 142-143. I answer in the affirmative, and I've got two passages that lead me to affirm at least a special call. Romans 8, 29, and 30 is the first. So we've done some defining and distinguishing of these things. And now it's a fair question to ask. We are not just merely to assume our theology, are we? Show me from the scriptures that there is this inward, mysterious, effective call. Well, it's a very good question. Romans 8, 29, and 30, verse 28 said. And we know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 4 verses 29 and 30, in some sense, explain verse 28. They show, it seems to me, how in all things God works for the good of his people, preceding context, even in present sufferings, because he has worked overall for their good in planning their salvation and in saving them from beginning to end. For those God for new, he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his son that he might be the first born among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called. There it is. Those he called, he also justified, those he justified, he also glorified. When we study the doctrine of election in our last course, spirit, church, and last things, we evaluate this passage and say, there are five active verbs. For new, predestined, called, justified, glorified. There's the same subject for each of the five active verbs. It is, God, God, for new, predestined, called, justified, glorified. There's the same object, the little grammar lesson here. There's the same direct object for each of the five verbs. It is the people of God. It is the saints. God, for new, his people. He predestined, called, justified, and glorified. His people. This has great ramifications. For example, it makes difficult to claim that foreknowledge is God's knowing beforehand. People's response, that may be the case. I don't think it's the case. Well, he does know beforehand, but that that's the basis of his predestination. Because the object of forenew is the same as all the other verbs. Because people, it is not information. In any case, one more thing to see is that there is a literary device. The technical name is climax, whereby these things, how can I say it? When there's another member in the chain, it links back into the preceding and then goes forward. That is, the five are linked together like this. This God, for new, he also predestined. Those he predestined goes back with me. He also called. Those he called, so it's like it forms links in a chain. In fact, the Puritans called it the golden chain. Those he called, he also justified. Those he justified, he also glorified. It is an emphatic way of showing that it's the same people who come in the front end who come out the back end. You with me? John Wesley tried to deny that, but it will not work. This is an example passage in the chief scholarly grammar of the New Testament for that very thing. Climax. I'm referring to Bloss, De Bruner, and Funk's big Greek grammar. So in any case, this calling is not the mere gospel call, unless you say everybody who receives the gospel call gets justified, and everyone who receives the gospel call and is justified is glorified. It is not the case. The Bible presents people hearing the gospel, but rejecting it and dying in their sins. Understand? So at the very least, this call is a special call. It is not universal. I don't know whether I could prove or not that it's effective from this passage. I think it's implied in God doing all these things for His people. As a matter of fact, it's like saying in five different ways, God saved His people. Oh, there are different nuances to the salvation, but they're each active and God calls His people. But I won't put press that. I'll just say this is surely not a general or universal calling, but it's a subset of that. It is a special call. Romans 9 and verse 24 helps us to see the same thing this time in a similar context. It's as if Paul took two of the elements out of the chain, predestination, and calling, and well, he linked them in verse 30, didn't he? He links them here again in Romans 9 with the Potter image. God is the Potter. We have no right to talk back to him. We are what is formed. We have no right to talk back to our maker. Does not the Potter, Romans 9, 21, have the right to make out of the same lump of clay, some pottery for noble uses and some for common use? Some would say, well, this is just theory. It is just hypothesis. Yes, God has that right, but he hasn't done that in the affairs of human beings. Well, I'm sorry, but that's wrong. He did, verse 22 says, what if God choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath prepared for destruction? No, you say it's merely a rhetorical question, it's merely a question. It's not saying God did it, it's saying what if God did it? Well, look at verse 23. What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, who we've prepared in advance for glory, you say, that's the same thing. It's a question, it's asking for information, or maybe it's just giving hypothesis. What if God did it? It doesn't say he did it. Well, it is a question in form, but it is what we call a rhetorical question, a common teaching device of Paul. It is not a question, a true question. He's not soliciting an answer, and he's not merely talking about possibilities or hypothesis. I know it because of verse 24. Even us, he says, that is, he identifies first-century human beings as vessels of mercy. We're not really interested in the vessels of wrath right now. That belongs to the doctrine of election and the topic of double predestination. But for now, we're interested in verse 23, which in light of the Potter imagery teaches positive predestination, that God shows many human beings for glory, it calls them vessels of mercy. The fact that this is not merely hypothetical, or that's not merely Jews and Gentiles, vessels of wrath and mercy respectively, is plainly taught in verse 24 when he says, even us. We call it dramatically an apositive. It is a noun, actually a pronoun, that further describes a previously given noun. In this case, objects of his mercy, even us. How do we know those people God has chosen consistently in the Bible? It's this way, even us, whom he also called. It's when people believe, spoken in terms of human responsibility. It is when we believe the gospel that we know God has chosen us. In terms of divine sovereignty, it's when God calls us. When he effectively summons us to faith, that we know he has chosen us because we might not know it right then, but we're reading the Bible and we learn the only reason we did believe was because his grace preceded, and in fact, he granted us grace before eternal ages, as Paul says in 2 Timothy 1 and verse 9, but we won't turn there. What I'm trying to say is in Romans 9, calling is the proof of election. It's election being brought to bear in time and space, and furthermore, there are as a partitive construction again. Vessels of mercy, even us, whom we also called, not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles. We've got two big circles here, a circle of Jews, a circle of Gentiles, subsets within those circles indicated by the preposition from, or those who have been called. Doesn't deny that there could be more elect within the circle who have not yet been called. We're not denying that, but it does affirm that many or some of the first century Jews and Gentiles have been called and are, in fact, the people of God. In that way, calling is the proof in time and space of election. This is not the general gospel call. It is a special call, even an effectual call of those people whom the divine potter prepared in advance for glory. It goes something like this, since God is God, His plans come to pass. In this case, His plan to claim a people for Himself is effectuated, it's actuated in history, because when these people hear the gospel, God effectively summons them to Himself. He gives them a heart of flesh. He gives them ears to hear. He gives them the ability to believe the gospel. A very fair question should be raised at this point. What is the relation of the gospel call and the effectual call? How do we put these things together? How do we put together gospel call and effectual call? Hukamah has thought this through, and he says it well on pages 88 and 89. These two callings, 88 second paragraph from the bottom, are not the same. Not all those who are summoned by the gospel call respond to it in repentance and faith. There are many are called, but few are chosen, Matthew 22, 14. On the other hand, all those who have been called effectually do turn to God in faith and repentance. It is important to keep these two types of calling together, he says, in the next paragraph. There are two aspects or sides of one calling. Ordinarily we form theologians always leave a little bit of out for God if He wants to do something special. God calls effectually where the word is being preached or taught. If God wants to call, we save retarded persons or infants who don't have the ability, God can do it. But ordinarily God calls effectually where the word is being preached or taught. The powerful working in the spirit then unites itself with the presentation of the word by the preacher or the teacher. How does the spirit then work? One by one, opening the heart and thus enabling the hearer to respond, Acts 16. The Lord opened Lydia's heart that she might respond to Paul's teaching by enlightening the mind so that the hearer can understand the gospel message, 1 Corinthians 2 and so forth. By bestowing spiritual life so the hearer can turn to God in faith. I wouldn't insist on any order or exactly those elements. One could say he's actually bringing together elements of other aspects of the application of salvation, but this much I would agree with plainly. One could say therefore that the word which is heard in the gospel call is made effective in the effectual call, and the quote from Herman Bovingt is worthy of study. He also healthfully addresses problems that arise, 89 through 91. This doctrine takes away every incentive for evangelism and missions. For if only those who are affectionately called can respond, why should we preach to people? Why don't we wait for God to bring his effectual call in his own way? Well, he does, and that way is through us sharing the gospel. The preaching and teaching of the gospel are the divinely ordained means whereby people are brought to faith. I'm not interested in the speculation as to could God have done it differently, I guess he could have if he wanted to, but he didn't want to, let's not speculate. We witness because God has told us to witness, and as in other spheres God uses means to bring about his ends. The way of saying this that is, God is God, it is his job to elect, it is his job to die in the cross and rise again, and is his job to perform open heart surgery on sinners. We don't do any of that business. Now we read in the word that God has done that, especially the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that God keeps doing it, the Spirit, in opening up hearts. We can't do that, and we don't know who the people of God are. As Spurgeon said, we can't go around and pull out shirt tails and find the word E on the back of the shirts of the elect, it doesn't work that way, we don't know who they are. God knows who his people are, and in fact, instead of crimping our evangelism, we ought to be made more bold because this gives confidence that God will bring His own disalvation through the preaching and teaching of His Word. We work under God. We have no more ability to save another person than we do to create life, but God has a lot of ability, and God is in the business of saving people, and He will use us. We'll let us prayerfully, win somely, tactfully, and graciously love sinners, and give the gospel call. Believing in God's sovereignty and salvation can't take the sting out of it. We don't have to try to get so many scalps, we really can't. We do need to be involved in God's command, and God regularly uses means. We accept this in other areas of our lives. If I asked you where your confidence was for your family's ultimate welfare, I have no doubt if you're a Christian, you would say it is in the Lord God. It is not in your ability to work, know your skills, know your experience, know your high-paying job if you have one, and you could be unemployed tomorrow, or you could pass away tonight, and it's not in your disability insurance. Now, somehow, your confidence is in God to provide for your family, and yet you work hard every day. Following the apostolic dictum in 2 Thessalonians 3, if they don't work, neither let them eat. Their super-spirituality will be revealed to them by their gastric juices, and they will get busy quickly. So we find it perfectly compatible with these two things. Sovereignty in meeting our family's needs, and our working hard to meet those needs. Our ultimate trust is not in our hands, or heads, but in God. Likewise, if I asked you where is your trust for your own individual health and welfare and out of your family, your own health, your physical health, you would say, God, if you're a believer in Christ, and that's the right place to put it, but if I asked you, did you eat recently, or do you plan to sleep tonight, and you ever exercise and take care of yourself, do you walk out in front of trains and test God, empty God? You would say yes, yes, yes, no to those questions, because you find it perfectly compatible for God to be your sustainer, and for you, and for God to use means, you are taking care of yourself, not walking in front of trains and so forth. You find that goes together well, then why can't we equally see in the spiritual realm? Why can't we accept the fact? The Savior, we're His instruments. He uses means. He even uses a second objection, bottom of 89, does not the doctrine of effect, of effectual calling, put into the hands of unbelievers, a tool whereby they can excuse themselves for not accepting the gospel. By way, if we apply, we may say the Bible clearly teaches that a person who rejects the gospel call has only Himself or herself to blame. I applaud Hukamah's compatibilism. If you ask the question, who is to blame for rejecting the gospel, the Bible is plain. Believe me, I know I'm the Hellmeister, I study those judgment passages, people are judged for what they have done consistently, or they're hints within the judgment passages of grace. But by and large, judgment is based upon thoughts, words, and deeds. That's what justice is. The wicked get to justice they desire, and they get damned for that because of that justice, because of their sins. The Bible consistently blames sinners for their sin and for their rejection of the gospel. It never gives them an out. Never in the judgment passages of somebody shake his fist against God and say, God, you didn't give me a chance. You didn't choose me, or your son didn't die for me, or even this. I never heard about your son, you're not fair, God. There's none of those kind of protests because judgment is based upon what people have done. The people are shown what they did. They're judged for what they did. They have no recourse. There's not a peep of protest. The last judgment is all about justice, sinners get justice. The final objection is that this doctrine violates the paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. To the contrary, it exactly upholds the paradox, although it does matter how you sketch these things out. But if you have a biblical doctrine of robust biblical doctrine of God's sovereignty, and a biblical doctrine of human sin that involves the fact that we cannot rescue ourselves, that indeed either God effectively calls us or we would be forever lost. So from the greater biblical systematic perspective, this effectual calling is a testimony to the grace of God in rescuing sinners. Comment or questions. I know it goes quickly. It is a function of the number of doctrines we need to cover. Yes, it's a good question. We certainly know, from within the scriptures, some people believe right away, others are much slower to believe. But if you would ask me about the effectual call, I would say it's the time, when, as a matter of fact, we could put on a chart our own actual coming to faith. We could describe it and, in fact, we should, and that very point of salvation is the time in which we are, well, it's when we believe, I'll try to put together some of these doctrines that we're talking about as we move along. It's when we're initially sanctified, justification is by means of faith. So when we believe we're justified, adoption is by means of faith. But when we believe we're adopted, regeneration is at the same time. Now, people disagree as to cause an effect, which is the cause of the other, but it's when we give, we're given new life that we believe. It is when we're a factual call, we're a factual call that we believe is what I'm saying is, if this is a timeline, and this is our lives, and here is when we really actually believe the gospel in one point in time, we could take that point and we could believe we could blow it up into a circle, that's what I do, we could blow it up into a circle, and within that circle we could put, well, so far, we've put calling. So at one point in time, God does all these things for us. He initially sanctifies us, He calls us, He regenerates us, we believe, we repent, set as an aside of sovereignty, God converts us. We are justified, we are adopted, we even then begin to persevere and also progressive sanctification begins. But my answer would be, God deals with us in His providence sometimes, the first time we hear the gospel, we believe others, for years and years and years I knew a man who was converted as an adult, then his brother came to the Lord and these two brothers prayed for another brother for 40 years, they had two unsafe brothers in fact, 40 years later, near the end of his life, their third brother believed, what a joyous time, the last time I had heard and this man was in his 80s, the fourth brother still had not believed, they weren't giving up on him, but he still had not believed in Christ. I would say the third brother was effectively called when he believed, when God, I would say, he believed because he was effectively called. It looks to me like calling initial sanctification and regeneration are three different pictures that portray God as making the first move. I'm going to insist the dot is a dot and all at once these things happen. But we can talk about cause and effect relations as in flipping the switch and putting the light so on in the room, if anybody's an electrician and there's a nanosecond of difference, forget that please right now, for our purposes it's simultaneous but the flipping of the switch is the cause of the illumination, God flips the switch, the turning of the key, unless you assume your automobile starts up tonight, all right, the turning of the key starts the engine. We distinguish between events that are for all intents and purposes simultaneous and one being the cause of another. We turn the faucet on and hopefully the liquid flows. If I pronounce the word W-A-T-E-R, I betray my background from southern New Jersey, water, water. Anyway, that stuff comes out of there when you turn it. That's the cause of the other happening, understand? All happens at once. I despair of trying to put these three in an order of cause and effect, initial sanctification. Calling and regeneration, I can't do it. The older reformed theologians, I try to put these things in a neat order, one through eight or whatever, depending on how you count them. The more recent theologians have said, that's all wet, we can't do any of that. Well, I think the truth is in between. I have a, well, a three-tier order but within the tiers, I can't tell you whether faith or repentance, whether one causes the other, I can't tell you whether justification or adoption one causes the other, as they're both by means of faith. And I can't tell you there's an order between calling sanctification and regeneration. But there are three different pictures to show this, that God makes the first move. He turns the key, he turns on the faucet, he flips the switch, the pictures are this. We were spiritually dead, regeneration means God gave us life. We didn't have ears to hear by nature. If we went our own way, we would end up in death. We were spiritually death, but God gave us ears to hear. He effectively summoned us to Himself, and the third one is sanctification. We were spiritual lepers. We were unclean and God by His Spirit mightily set us apart unto Himself and constituted us as His saints, as His holy ones. The question comes, does God override our wills and this effectual calling? Do we come kicking and screaming? Every time I say this, I chuckle because one student said He did come kicking and screaming. Larry Slater said, when he heard me say that people don't, he said, well, maybe most of them don't, but I did. God kept putting strong Christians in my face wherever I went. I find He said, Lord, I give up, I believe. But for the most part, we don't. What happens is the Holy Spirit works in our lives and we freely believe the gospel. We want to believe the gospel. I would say as a consequence of the Spirit's simultaneous work, although He may have been working on us for years, but then He works effectively and we believe the same moment, but He gets to glory. He gets to creditance because of His work, we believe, and then we were like this. I was a fool for so long. It is the most reasonable thing to believe in Jesus. Why was I a too legged donkey for all those years? It was so stupid. It makes so much sense. Jesus is so precious. All of that is the result of the work of the Spirit in our lives. Let us to use the King James English, takeeth a breaketh and come back in ten minutes or so.