Well, it's good to be with you for this hour. If you were with us yesterday, you know that we went over Confronting Calvinism, Part One, and we saw the need to confront Calvinism, that it is a major influence in Christianity. It has been, in fact, for centuries. It has been a source of much division and contention among believers. And we also saw that This system of Calvinism is really more of a philosophy than it is an exegetically based theology. It started with some basic assumptions and from there a system developed and really the scriptures were used to support that system rather than vice versa. It was not biblically derived. We also saw that Calvinism along the way distorts many biblical passages to support its system and justify it. And really it ends up leading to a distorted view of the character of God. I think that's probably the most serious problem with Calvinism, as well as the fact then that it also distorts the gospel of the saving grace of God, as we'll see even more this morning. But for purposes of review, Let's just go over the tulip again, which is a summary of the points of Calvinism. Could somebody cut the lights back there? It's going to be hard to see some of these overheads. Remember that not all Calvinists adhere to every point of the tulip. In fact, some adhere to more points than the tulip, but the tulip in essence expresses traditional Calvinism as it was framed at the Senate of Dort in 1618 to 1619, which was a reaction to the problems put to the Calvinists by the Remonstrants, who were essentially the Armenians. And so that's why they derived five main points, because they were responding to the five points. Now, of course, these men in Holland did not put it together with the English acronym TULIP. That's obviously been done after DORT by those who speak English who were Calvinists. But this was put together by Calvinists themselves. And so this is not a mischaracterization of what Calvinists actually teach. But we went over yesterday the first point in the tulip, total depravity, and we saw that to the Calvinists, total depravity in essence means total inability to believe that man's will has been so affected by the fall into sin that He no longer has the capacity to choose in a positive sense to believe in Jesus Christ. He can only choose to do what is negative and what is wrong in God's sight unless he is first regenerated and then made able to believe. And thus they teach regeneration precedes faith, which is contrary to the biblical order of things. And that leads to The teaching as well that faith itself must be a gift from God, a saving faith that is. And unless God gives you as a gift, a saving faith, because you're one of His unconditionally elect from eternity past, if that's not true of you, you really have no chance of ever, ever being saved. God has chosen not to give that to the non-elect. And so it really is a matter, they say, of God's will. It all boils down to that. And it effectively limits man's will to the point of being irrelevant. And so that's total depravity. And then today we're going to look at the next four points in the tulip, the ULIP, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. And I won't get into each of those points right now. We'll develop them as we go along. But hopefully this morning what we'll do is cover the four points and leave time for questions at the end. We didn't have any time left over yesterday and I apologize for that. We had a lot of ground to cover and we still do today. So let's continue to look at the next main point here in the tulip, unconditional election. What we need to understand here, first of all, is that Calvinists have a strong desire to protect not only the grace of God, they say, and that's why they say man can have no part in salvation, even believing on his own. God has to give the gift of faith, they say, to the lost sinner. The problem, as we saw yesterday with that, is that according to Romans, chapters 3 and 4 and other passages, faith itself is not meritorious. If it relies or depends on the work of another to do for you what you can't do for yourself, where's the merit in that for the sinner? All the credit goes to the object of faith, Jesus Christ, who does all the saving. And so they have a misunderstanding of faith. But on the other hand, Calvinists also not only seek to uphold the grace of God and they go to an imbalance there, but they also seek to protect and uphold the sovereignty of God. And that's why they say, again, man can't even believe because that would be you doing something and God would be reacting to you and thus he wouldn't be sovereign, they say. And so I think with Calvinism, we have once again an imbalance in the area of sovereignty. In fact, their system basically is sovereignty run amok. And so the first thing I want you to see, though, on your handout here under point A is some imbalances regarding Calvinism on God's sovereignty. And they teach that God has foreordained everything. through a single divine decree." He's foreordained everything through a single divine decree. Now, let's just stop right here before I give you some quotes by Calvinists and clarify one point. In stating what they believe on this point, they will hear you say, in essence, as you restate their point and you object to it, they will think you're saying that God is not in control of everything, or doesn't have everything under his control and he's not completely sovereign. We're not saying that. He is completely sovereign. It's just that he does not exercise his sovereignty through a single, eternal, exhaustive decree. We're going to skip the attributes of God there and go right to the Westminster Confession. Westminster Confession came along, I believe, in the mid-1600s, so this was after the Senate of Dort, and it's viewed as a classical expression of the beliefs of most Calvinists. And Westminster says this, the decree of God is His eternal purpose according to the counsel of His will, whereby for His own glory He hath foreordained whatever comes to pass. And so, of course, that includes the foreordaining even of sin, as we're going to see this morning. A. A. Hodge. A Calvinist says this, God having from eternity absolutely decreed whatsoever comes to pass, he goes on to say, he also continually controls and directs the actions of all his creatures thus preserved, so that while he never violates the law of their several natures, he yet infallibly causes all actions and events, singular and universal, to occur according to the eternal and immutable plan embraced in His decree. And again, they say that God as King, in essence, as a King would issue a law or a decree. God made a decree at the very beginning, whenever the beginning was, before the earth was created and anything else. And He set up this plan. And whatever He planned is what is going to come to pass. might sound like a great idea. The problem is when you go to Scripture and you look for a passage that speaks of this singular, overarching, universal, eternal, exhaustive decree, it's just absent from the Word of God. If you do a word study on decree and the words associated with it, counsel, plan, etc., you simply can't find that. I've looked for years, looking at all the verses the Calvinists used to support this idea. It's just not there. You find God as a king in time, exercising his will and issuing decrees regarding various things, but not in an overall exhaustive universal fashion. Another thing we need to understand about the Calvinist position is that God's sovereignty means that he causes everything. We saw that from Hodge. And we'll see it again here. Birkhoff says this, So he enables and prompts his rational creatures as second causes to function, and that not merely by endowing them with energy in a general way, but by energizing them to certain specific acts. So for example, I'm going to drink from this cup of water right here. God energized me in such a way that he caused me to do that very act. He didn't merely give me the general ability and capacity as a creature made in the image of God with intellect, emotion, and will, to make this choice on my own, he determined my action." That's what they're saying here. Burkoff goes on to say in one other place, the divine concursus energizes man and determines him efficaciously to the specific act. It's a fancy way of reiterating what I just said earlier. Sproul says the same thing. R.C. Spruill says, what we mean by the sovereign or efficacious will of God is that determination by which God sovereignly wills something to come to pass, which therefore, indeed, does come to pass through the sheer efficacy, force, and power of that will. In other words, it's what God wills is definitely going to happen, and He will make it happen in and through you. J.I. Packer, another very famous Calvinist, says this, To mainstream Calvinism, predestination of persons means the foreordaining of both their doings, including their response to the gospel, and their consequent destinies. Well, there you have it. God determines who he wants to be saved, and he will make them believe by making them willing to believe in Jesus Christ. Of course, first by regenerating them. And if you're not one of those unconditionally elect, you have absolutely zero chance in eternity of ever being saved. Now, what this reduces to, in essence, this doctrine of Calvinism, unconditional election and sovereignty run amok, it reduces to this, in essence, that God is not merely Omniscient, he knows all things. Omnipotent, he has all power. And omnipresent, he's everywhere at the same time. It reduces to omni-causality. You could add that as another one of their attributes that they have for God. In fact, when you carry that idea to its logical end, we run into some serious problems. In fact, listen to what Norman Geisler has to say about this imbalanced view of sovereignty. He says, a well-known conference speaker was explaining how he was unable to come to grips with the tragic death of his son. Leaning on his strong Calvinistic background, he gradually came to the conclusion, God killed my son. He triumphantly informed us, that is those of those who are at this conference along with Geisler, he triumphantly informed us that then and only then did I get peace about the matter. A sovereign God killed my son and therein he found ground for a great spiritual victory, he assured us. Geisler goes on to say, I thought to myself, I wonder what he would say if his daughter had been raped. Would he not be able to come to grips with the matter until he came victoriously to the conclusion, God raped my daughter? Wow. Geisler says, some views do not need to be refuted. They simply need to be stated. And I say that because in some of these quotations I'm providing here from Calvinists, you might think that they're so extreme that maybe Tom is misrepresenting them. I assure you, I'm not. You can look them up in their context if you want. But some of these statements are so radical that on the face of them, they're just simply wrong. For example, Edwin Palmer states the Calvinist position and he says, It is even biblical to say that God has foreordained sin. Now keep in mind that is not the same as I'm going to teach here that God foreknew sin and he agreed to permit it in his universe. Remember that the Calvinist teaches that foreordination is causal. God causes everything through the single decree. This is an amazing statement by another very prolific writer amongst Calvinists, Gordon Clark. He says, I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do so. And then he goes on to support that a few sentences later. In Ephesians 1.11, Paul tells us that God works all things, not some things only, after the counsel of His own will. And by the way, does God work all things after the counsel of His will? Yeah, He does work all things. But in what way does He work all things? by causing all things to happen? Think about this for a minute. If God does that, then isn't God responsible for sin? Because the all things that Clark is thinking of, that Ephesians 1.11 embraces, is everything in the universe. And that must mean that God works sin and rebellion even against Himself. We have a big problem, don't we? I don't think that's what working all things means. I think that it means God works in and through the believer like in Philippians 2.12 and 13 with our sanctification. He works in you to do that which is pleasing to Him. But you also have to work out your sanctification, don't you? So both wills are in play. And I think that's really all Ephesians 1.11 is saying as well. But this is an amazing quotation. Here's another one by R.C. Spruill, Jr. R.C. Spruill, Sr.' 's son, who also happens to be a Calvinist, a Presbyterian pastor, if I remember correctly. He says, Every Bible-believing Christian must conclude at least that God in some sense desired that man would fall into sin. God wills all things that come to pass. It is in His power to stop whatever might come to pass. It is within His omniscience to imagine every possible turn of events and to choose that chain of events which most pleases Him. But wait a minute. Isn't it impossible for God to do evil? He can't sin. I am not accusing God of sinning. I am suggesting that He created sin. Whoa, Houston, we have a problem. You see where this leads to, don't you? That if God causes all things, then obviously he has to cause even sin. And I believe R.C. Spruill, Jr. is willing to state the logical implications of Calvinism and is not as cautious as his own father is. And sometimes sons, they're impetuous and they run off. He's running off at the mouth here. And I'm sure father and son had a talk after this book was published. And dad pulled him aside and said, now, Junior, be careful. He's going to give Calvinism a black eye. But that is what it teaches. And how can you fault him for that? You can see that Calvinism's view of sovereignty, in essence, goes to an extreme with God's characteristic of sovereignty, and it also trivializes the will of man in the process. Here's a third point you need to understand about the Calvinist view of sovereignty. That people are free to choose, they say. In spite of all those quotes you just heard, some will come along and say, well, there is a sense in which man is free. to choose, but to choose only their greatest desire. You can choose from anything, but you always end up choosing your greatest desire, they say. And, not coincidentally, God is the one who puts within you that very desire. So, you choose the desire that God puts within you, and thus you end up doing God's will. You could state it this way. They say that man has free will in a sense, but he only chooses the greatest of all his desires. And since God creates the greatest of all these desires in man's heart, God can grant man a choice in a legitimate sense, and yet control the very outcome so that his will always gets done. Do you see the logic there? It gets kind of philosophical, doesn't it? But, you know, there's a problem with that. You see, on the one hand, the Calvinist wants to avoid the radical conclusion that their doctrine is fatalism, on the one hand. And they say, well, we're not libertarian on the other extreme. We're somewhere in the middle. We're technically compatibilist, they say. Many are now using that phrase. And you might think compatibilism, because it sounds softer than fatalism, is more of an immediate position. It's not. It still leans heavily towards fatalism in this respect. This is what compatibilists teach. For example, Bruce Ware says this, Compatibilist freedom insists that regardless of what struggles we go through in making our choices or deciding what action to perform, in the end, when we choose an act, we do so from prevailing desires, which explain exactly why this choice and not another is made. I'm going to take another drink. What were the prevailing desires that made me do that? Those were from God. God was, in essence, directing me specifically to drink from this cup right here and not this other one over here. But he goes on. This obviously means, however, that when we choose, all things being just what they are, we must choose as we do. Stop and think about that phrase. We must choose as we do. Isn't that a contradiction? Putting it more succinctly, this is a quote from his tome on the subject of God's attributes. John Feinberg says this, from No One Else Like Him, So an act is free, though causally determined, if it is what the agent wanted to do. It's free and yet determined. Doesn't seem consistent to me at all. Now, is it true that we always choose the greatest of our desires? I would say no. In fact, I remember years ago when I was a member of this church, I had a friend. She was a young gal. We went to UMD together, and she was looking at getting married. Very interested in a certain fellow who had started coming to church even here at Duluth Bible, and they eventually got engaged. She loved him very much, but she could see as time went on that he just wasn't serious about serving Jesus Christ. And more and more in her heart, she became convicted by that realization that, I can't marry him. This was a very painful and difficult decision. She broke it off with him after the wedding was set. It was very difficult. And in her heart, she wanted to marry this guy. She chose against her desire because she knew what was right in the sight of God. Her decision to honor God above a future husband was not based on a greater desire. It was based on simple faith. It had nothing to do with emotion. She chose by faith to do what was right. And you know what? Just as a little side note, God honored that. She ended up getting married later to a man who does want to serve the Lord. And so it all worked out. But really what Calvinism reduces to is the illusion of free choice. You're stuck. It kind of reminds me of voting in communist countries. Do you know that communist countries and even dictatorships, like I remember Saddam Hussein in Iraq before he was kicked out of Iraq, deposed. I remember he had elections. But every year, guess who won? Saddam Hussein. And the same is true in Communist Cuba. Here is a publicity photo of Fidel Castro voting. You know, you can see the camera crews back there. This is an exciting moment. The tension is building this election cycle. Who's going to win? Here's the deciding vote by our leader himself. And guess what? Mein Führer gets in again. Kind of reminds me of this communist voting ballot. Who's going to be governor this year? You have one choice, Bob. Who will be attorney general this year? Oh, Larry Smith. And of course, vote for the party line. And then at the bottom it says, this ballot has been pre-completed for your convenience and to avoid a Palm Beach scenario. That's the essence right there. of Calvinism's view of sovereignty and its imbalances. But what is the biblical balance? Is God truly sovereign? Does He have all things under His control? Yes, He does. But does He, in a deterministic sense, cause every willful decision of His intelligent, rational creatures? I do not believe so. Now, that is not to say that there are some things that happen by chance, You know, a leaf falls in the woods and that's just chance or luck. We don't believe in that. In fact, if you have a God who is everywhere present, omnipresent, who knows all things, omniscient, who has all power to do anything He wants, He's omnipotent, how can anything ever happen by sheer chance? He is aware of what's going on and it is within his control as king to directly cause certain things or to act indirectly through a permissive will to obtain the outcome that he wants. And we're going to get into the area of foreknowledge in just a moment here and how all that relates. But here's some biblical balance regarding the true position on sovereignty that the Bible puts forth. We see in the Bible that God has chosen to give His intelligent, rational creatures a volition and an ability to make choices for which they will be responsible. And that sin and evil did not originate with God, but in fact with Satan and with man's choices, especially the fall of Adam. And God did not therefore cause sin or evil. Stop and think of the very beginning when God created man. Genesis 1.31, Then God saw everything that he had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Everything God made was what? Very good. He did not create sin. And in James 1.13 and 14, we're reminded that the source of sin is not God. Let no one say when he's tempted, I'm tempted by God, for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed." Where does God lay the blame? At man's own feet, not with God. We also see in Scripture that though God made intelligent creatures sinless, He made us sinless, at least with Adam originally, and even the angels originally. He made man with the capacity to choose good or evil. In fact, a little later on in chapter 2 of Genesis, verses 16 and 17, doesn't He say to Adam, I'm putting you in this garden to tend it and keep it, and you may choose to eat freely of all the trees of the garden except for one. And He gave him a test and a choice. You may choose to freely eat. He gave man free will to act. Why even give man a choice at the very beginning though? if everything's been causally determined by God. That's a problem, isn't it? In fact, as you read on, even after the fall of Adam into sin, does God appeal to man based on the assumption that man has a capable will of responding in a positive way? He sure does. You have many passages where God implores His audience to seek Him where he says, in fact, to choose him. This summer we taught through the book of Joshua in Milwaukee. And Joshua 24, 15 was one of our memory verses. And you might recall what it says where Joshua says to the Israelites, choose you this day whom you will serve. Why say that to the nation of Israel? They were not all regenerated, I assure you. It was a nation of saved and unsaved alike. and yet they had the capacity to choose. And God does that over and over again in Scripture. In fact, turn with me to 1 Peter 5, if you have your Bibles. I just want to show you a couple more examples of this. This one hits home for me personally because it's addressed to pastors. In 1 Peter 5, he says to his fellow elders, Verse 2, "...shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion, but willingly, not for dishonest gain, but eagerly..." And then he goes on. Man has a will that God will hold him responsible for exercising. Turn with me to Colossians 3. In Colossians 3, we have an appeal from God for how we are to do good works. Doing good works is not an end in itself. How we do them is what is very important and what constitutes them as truly a good work in God's sight. Colossians 3, verse 22, Bound servants obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eye service, not just when he's looking. as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing God." God is looking for a heart response in all our good deeds. Verse 23, "...and whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not to men." Why even bother, from a Calvinistic perspective, appealing to the heart response of a man if God has causally determined even your response to do the specific act. In fact, as you stop and think of it, doesn't consistent Calvinism lend itself to legalism? Very easily. Remember the story of the prodigal son? How after the younger brother came back from the pig pen of the world and the father threw a party for him and celebrated, The elder brother was bent out of shape and he was outside grumbling and complaining. The father went out to grab him and say, what's going on with you? Come on in here. He says, well, you don't understand. I've always done you well. I never went off in the world. The father says, I love you too, but why are you acting this way? Well, because he had done what he did because he had to. That was legalism. Calvinism does lend itself to legalism. You know, God desires a relationship with His intelligent creatures that is based on choice and not coercion. That is what we see throughout the Scriptures. Isn't it true that God could have created a world without any sin whatsoever? He could have. But what would He have been required to do to achieve that end? He'd have to take away all free will, wouldn't he? He'd have to take away the real possibility that his creatures could choose the opposite of his righteous, desired will, namely, for them to sin. But then, would they respond to him willingly, from the heart, heartily, eagerly? No, they wouldn't. Would that be real love? No, it wouldn't. How many of you would like to marry a gal or a guy? You know, if you're a guy here and you're thinking of getting married to some gal, how would you like to approach her and say, you know, I want a loving relationship with you, but there's only one choice you're ever going to have in our married relationship, to always do what I want you to do. Now love me. What kind of meaningful relationship are you going to have with your spouse? You won't. Turn with me to the book of Job for a minute. Job chapter 1. Here's another key passage on this subject of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The book of Job, as I used to call it when I was unsaved in my Roman Catholic days, just reading the Bible for the first time. This is an interesting book, Job. I wonder what that's about. Here we see that God does have a permissive will. That though God does not determine that people must sin, He does permit sin. And He even will incorporate man's free will choices to sin into His larger plan so that He can, in His sovereignty, even utilize those choices for a greater end or purpose. He is that sovereign. In Job 1, you know the story of Job. how he was the most righteous man on the face of the earth at the time, and so Satan had set his sights on Job and wanted to test him and get him to blaspheme and deny God. Now, Job sinned in his trial of affliction, that's true, but he never denied God or disowned Him. But in Job 1, let's pick it up in verse 11, Satan has been called to heaven, along with all the other angels. So, Satan answered the Lord and said, Does Job fear God for nothing? Have you not made a hedge around him, around his household, around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But now stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse you to your face. And the Lord said to Satan, Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not lay a hand on his person. So, Satan went out from the presence of the Lord." We see here that Satan is accountable to God. God allows Satan to go ahead and sin by trying to tempt Job to sin and even afflict him. But God is in control. He's sovereign. He sets the parameters for Satan to exercise Satan's own will. And God knows the outcome. He knows how Job is going to choose. He has foreknowledge. And so He allows this for Job's refining and spiritual growth, but ultimately so that God would be given greater glory. And it all worked out that way. You know, I've often said that Satan must be the most frustrated individual in the entire universe. You talk about believers who get bitter because they don't get their way and they're not trusting in the Lord and yielding and finding spiritual rest. This is Satan. It's been going on for millennia. Every time he wants to do something and he thinks he's got something in his grasp, God's already beat him to the punch. God is a zillion steps ahead of him. But here we see a good example of permissive will. God permitted Satan to test Job. We see this as well with Joseph in Genesis 50-20. He says to his brothers, you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good. Or in Acts 2.23, where the nation of unbelieving Jews was the very vehicle or instrument by which Jesus Christ was put to death, but in the process fulfilling God's plan for Christ to be the sacrificial Lamb of God and taking away the sin of the world. Something we also need to address is the subject of foreknowledge. Calvinism also teaches that God's foreknowledge is causative And it effectively reduces foreknowledge to making it synonymous with foreordination. Remember, according to Calvinism, the decree comes first. And this is what Augustus Strong says. Logically, though not chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge. When I say I know what I will do, it is evident that I have predetermined already. and that my knowledge does not precede determination, but follows it and is based upon it." You know, the problem with equating foreknowledge with foreordination is that you end up having God act not out of His character. You have to start with the character or attributes of God. God is who He is before He ever acted. and formed a decree. And so Calvinism reverses those two. Here's another quote by Schreiner and Ware. They say foreknowledge, this term, refers to God's foreordination of future events and includes the idea of God's covenantal commitment. There's another quote on foreknowledge. And so to them, foreknowledge means prior determination. Now, we don't have time to look at all these verses I've put on your handout. that relate to foreknowledge, but in essence there are seven uses in the New Testament of either the verb form or the noun form of foreknowledge, to foreknow or foreknowledge itself, prognosco or prognosis. And what you will find in each context is that it simply means to know beforehand. In none of these contexts does it mean to determine beforehand. We're a little short on time, so I'm going to skip over some of these verses, but let's look at Romans 8. Is it warm in here? Can we crack a door or something to get some air flowing through here? Romans 8 is a passage many believers know well. And we'll pick it up in verse 28, and just read 28-30. It says, And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. And then he's going to set forth here the golden chain five unbreakable things, foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. Sometimes believers have asked the question in verse 28, if this is what God has in store for believers, why doesn't he describe believers as believers per se, those who have faith in verse 28, and not as those who love God? Why does Paul choose to phrase it this way? And I think it goes back to the original creator-creature distinction and plan, that God wanted a relationship with His creatures based on their choice of Him. That's true love. And He's also going to show the biblical balance here that He also chose them. It's a mutual exercising of the wills here. Because He goes on, verse 29, For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom he predestined, these he also called, and whom he called, these he also justified, and whom he justified, these he also glorified. Now, if foreknowledge is the same as foreordination, the causing of all things, solely based on the will of God, this seems to be somewhat redundant with the idea of predestining. You have these two concepts overlapping. But one thing that we do see in Scripture as you compare the various passages on foreordination, predestination, election, and even foreknowledge, and you put them all together, for example, 1 Peter 1, verses 1 and 2 say that we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God. If foreknowledge equates to foreordination, then what that's really reducing to is we are elect according to the foreordination of God. Again, you have some redundancy and overlap there. But you put these all together and you see the logical order biblically. God's order is first foreknowledge, then election and choice, and then even predestination. And technically there is a distinction between election and predestination. Election is to choose. predestination is always to a predetermined result or outcome. And in Romans 8.29, the predetermined outcome or result was conformity to the image of Jesus Christ. And I think that God, in eternity past, foreknew even what our choices would be to believe. And He certainly had to have incorporated that into His plan and will. In fact, was it even possible for God, being omniscient and knowing all things, not to have known what our choice would be to believe in Christ or not? No, it was definitely something that He knew. And I think He factored that into His plan. Now, it's true, there's no passage in Scripture that says explicitly that God elects on the basis of foreknown or foreseen faith. That's true. But you know what? There's also no passage in the Bible that says the opposite either. So when Calvinists present that to you, that's how you can respond. I think all of this, in essence, boils down to this simple maxim you should understand, and maybe you want to write down. that God chooses to save those who choose to trust His Son. So that even your faith in Jesus Christ is based on God's prior initial choice. He set up the plan whereby all who were willing to believe in Him, He would save. So that God's will was primary and initial, but it did not exclude man's will. And maybe you've seen this overhead before. Election and man's will is basically like this door. We could picture a door here or there. In this life here, you don't know who the elect are. Only God knows who they are. But all men have the responsibility to believe and exercise their will. Revelation 22, 17, whosoever will may come. And so if you are willing to go through that door by faith, It's as though in eternity you can turn around and look on the backside of that archway and it says written over it, chosen in him from the foundation of the world. Maybe you've heard the quote by D.L. Moody. He said this whole thing is rather simple. The elect are the whosoever wills and the non-elect are the whosoever wants. Moody had a great way of simplifying things for the average Joe. We're really short on time, so I'm just going to make a few points here. Let me emphasize this as well. That if God foreknew that man would sin and choose to exercise his will negatively, and He chose in response, per se, or knowing that man would sin, He also chose simultaneously, let's say, predetermined that his son would be the Lamb of God and die for the sins of the human race, so that God set up a plan that factored in both man's negative will and God's will, and Calvinists will admit to that, then why can't they also admit that God incorporated man's positive volitional choices as well? only seems reasonable. And I'm going to skip over several of the reasons I had here for why the Bible does not teach unconditional election. Let's go on to another point. The Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election also logically leads to the position of double predestination. Double predestination. That is, that God predetermines some people are going to hell. We saw a quote from Calvin himself here. Here's Calvin. Since the disposition of all things is in the hands of God and He can give life or death at His pleasure, He dispenses and ordains by His judgment that some from their mother's womb are destined irrevocably to eternal death in order to glorify His name in their perdition. There's double predestination. And when you stop and think about it, isn't it true that a choice not to unconditionally elect some is still a choice to bypass them and not save them and to let them stay destined for hell? That was every bit as much a choice on the part of God as just ignoring them. It's kind of like, you know, how many of you ever played a backyard game of pickup football, you know, with 10 other kids from the neighborhood and the two best kids are almost always the captains, right? And so the two captains are called out, and they get to pick from all the leftovers, which I was usually part of. And they'd go down the line. They'd say, I want Joel. Yeah, you're on my team. Come on over here. I want Jim over here. You're on my team. And Steve, you're on this team. And invariably, there was one kid left at the end that neither captain wanted. He got passed over multiple times. Wasn't that a choice not to pick him? It sure was. And this whole idea of the unconditional election really is in conflict with God's stated will in 2 Peter 3.9 that He's not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. And by the way, it's a universal context. The verses before speak of the universal flood. The verses after speak of a universal judgment. He's not willing that any, elect or non-elect, should perish. And 1 Timothy 2.4 is explicit that God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. But again, if God has willed and determined beforehand that some are going to heaven and some are going to hell, how does that fit with these statements? We have a contradiction. Now let's move on to limited atonement. And some of these I'm just going to have to skip over for time's sake and treat very briefly. Let me just say that this is the one point in the tulip that many Calvinists will bail out on and say I'm in essence a four-point Calvinist or whatever. It's a logical conclusion to keep this as part of Calvinism. I wouldn't even say it's necessary to have it as a point of Calvinism. The many consistent and extreme Calvinists are definitely full five-point Calvinists and they believe in limited atonement. And that is that they believe Christ died only for the sins of the elect. Only for the sins of the elect. And why do they conclude this? Well, again, if God foreknew who His elect were going to be, and He chose them apart from their will, why waste the precious blood of His Son Jesus Christ on those who would never end up getting saved? So, they believe in particular redemption. Definite atonement, they say. Or they say this, If Jesus Christ died for the sins of the entire world, then that leads to the doctrine of universalism. That therefore, that necessitates that every man must get saved. And what they fail to understand is this distinction between God making something available versus God applying it. The blood of Jesus Christ is death made available salvation to all mankind, but mankind still must exercise a choice to appropriate the work of Jesus Christ. And they confuse those two ideas, or they reject it. On the contrary, the scriptures teach that Christ's death did pay for the sins of the world. John 1.29, 3.16, etc. As you study The epistle of 1 John, you'll see that he even died for the whole world, it says there. Other passages say he died for all or every man. And in 2 Peter 2.1, he died even for false teachers who deny him. By the way, is this doctrine of limited atonement very important? It sure is. because it calls into question God's sincere offer and invitation that comes through the preaching of the Gospel. Again, why would God issue a call to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature if He knew that the majority of His creatures were not elected by Him? Why would He call on men to believe in Him? That is a false offer, I believe. And again, it calls into question the integrity of God. Here's the fourth point in the tulip. Irresistible grace. Calvinism teaches here that those whom God has unconditionally elected, He will also draw to Himself in an irresistible fashion by causing them to believe the Gospel. Again, quoting R.C. Sproul, he says, the word draw in John 6.44 and 12.32 is more forceful It's a more forceful concept than to woo to himself. He goes on to say that it means to compel by irresistible superiority. Let's look at a couple of passages here. Turn with me to John 6. Is it too cold in here now? You can shut it. I know you're all the frozen chosen up here. John 6.44, here's a passage that teaches the necessity of God's drawing if one is to come to faith in Christ. It says, no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. By the way, you come to Christ by believing in him, he says earlier in this chapter. But no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them and I will raise them up to the last day." Is this passage teaching an effectual call or an irresistible call? I don't believe so. I believe what it's teaching is the necessity of drawing, not the irresistibility of God's drawing act. There's nothing here about the drawing process being irresistible or even selective. that particular people are given an effectual call versus a general call here. Likewise, turn to chapter 12. We see another usage of the term draw. This time the Son is doing the drawing work. And here the context is Jesus Christ being a week away from His crucifixion. rejected by the nation very shortly in terms of crucifixion. And it says, verse 31, Now is the judgment of this world. Now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to myself. And of course, you see the word peoples is italicized. He simply says, I will draw all to myself. And the Calvinist says, yeah, he'll draw all the elect to himself. But again, what is the context? The context is, He's speaking to those in the immediate context who were in disbelief or rejection of Him at the moment they heard this. And Jesus is saying, in spite of your rejection of Me, I am going to draw all to Myself. What it's teaching is that no one can come to even the point of faith in Christ unless God does that pre-salvation work of enlightening, convicting, drawing, which we saw yesterday. And all of that is because God is a gracious God. and he takes the initiative. But it is not going so far as to teach irresistible grace. I liken it to this whole process of drawing to a farmer and chickens. Imagine we are chickens before we're saved. God wants to get us into the barn. Chickens can be hard to round up. So how does a wise farmer woo his chickens into the barn? He can do it forcibly if he wants to exercise himself that way, but that's going to be frustrating. But if heaven is the barn, what he can do is he can drop little pieces of corn along the way, and for the hungry chickens, they will take that piece of corn, and he'll drop another one six feet further, and that chicken will come and get it, and he'll keep dropping them until they cross the threshold, the entrance to the barn, He puts one right inside the barn, and the chicken takes it, and he's in the barn. And the farmer has accomplished his work of drawing, not irresistibly, not through coercion, but appealing to the will of the chicken, if the chicken really has one. You get the idea. Scripturally, it says in Matthew 22, 14, that many are called, but few are chosen. And I think Scripture teaches that not all who are called are also chosen. There is such a thing as a general call to the whole world to believe the Gospel. But again, only those who believe are truly the chosen of God. Chosen in Him from the foundation of the world. Because the drawing and initiative of God can be resisted. You can look at various passages there for time's sake. But is God's invitation only for the elect? Why would God command, in Acts 17.30, He now commands all men everywhere to repent? Why would He command people to do that if they were incapable of doing that and He wasn't going to give them the ability to even believe or repent? That's again an insincere call. Let's go on to our last point in the Tulip, Perseverance of the Saints. Calvinism teaches that all whom God unconditionally elects, regenerates and causes to believe, will necessarily persevere in faith and good works until the end of their lives. If at any point along the way in your Christian life you cease believing completely in Jesus Christ, you didn't have genuine saving faith to begin with. If you don't persevere to the very end of your Christian life, even if you pick up your faith later on and then deny it again, you never believed truly all along the way. You were not truly regenerated. Remember they teach saving faith is a gift from God, and since all God's gifts are perfect, he will see to it that your faith continues to the very end, and that it will be fruitful. If it is not fruitful in good works, you will not reach glory. It's also very interesting if you were to take the time, not necessarily recommending it, but if you did, To read the writings of Dort and the Westminster Confession and various Calvinists, you will see them speak of using the means of grace as a God-given aid to persevering to the end. In fact, they say that it's necessary to use the means of grace. Well, what in the world are the means of grace? Prayer, they say. Hearing and reading the Word. And guess what else? I found this shocking as a former Catholic. Partaking of the sacraments are a means of God's sustaining and persevering grace. And you need to use those. Now, you don't hear too many Calvinists saying that today. But Calvin himself spoke of baptismal regeneration. And some Calvinists subsequently did as well. You will also see that in the writings of Dort and such, that they speak not only of faith, but faith and obedience as the requirement to receive eternal life. And thus you can see where modern day lordship salvation comes in. Now, is the perseverance of the saints the same thing as the doctrine of eternal security? Not at all. Not at all. The covenant says you're secure, but only as you persevere to the very end. Now, will you persevere to the very end? You don't know that. So, you can't have 100% assurance in your Christian life that you're truly saved. Now, you're secure, but only God knows that. The Arminian, on the other hand, will say, I know I'm definitely saved today. I don't know about tomorrow, but I know definitely I am today. They don't have security, they say, but they have assurance. That's a little confusing. Well, what does the Bible teach? The Bible teaches you can have both security and assurance. Because you know that the Savior, Jesus Christ, is the one who perseveres in faithfulness to keep you to the very end, even if you are unfaithful. 2 Timothy 2.13. If you don't believe. Because we're saved by grace. And so, being contrary to what Scripture actually teaches about the duration of saving faith, the doctrine of perseverance also contradicts the fact that salvation is solely by grace. I wanted to save a little time today, not only for questions, but to go over some quotes with you. And I want to play a little game with you here at the end to show you the importance of this last point in the tulip. We're going to play a guessing game here. I'm going to give you a quote by either a Calvinist, an Arminian, or a Roman Catholic about this whole idea of faith and salvation and perseverance. And I want you to guess if it's coming from a Catholic author, Calvinist author, or Arminian author. Okay? You ready for the game? Here's the first quote. We cannot earn our salvation through good works, but... Don't you love that but? There's always a but. You know you're getting set up, right? But our faith in Christ puts us in a special grace-filled relationship with God so that our obedience and love combined with our faith will be rewarded with eternal life." They put grace in there. They know they need that. So it's grace plus works plus faith gets you eternal life. Now, how many of you would say that's from a Calvinist? Any Calvinist takers? An Arminian? Roman Catholic? You guys are pretty evenly divided. It's from a Roman Catholic tract. Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth. It's kind of like the Catholic version of the Four Spiritual Laws. A very popular tract out there among Calvinists. Here's the next example. The kingdom is, and I had to shorten the quote, the kingdom is only for those who agonize to enter. Many who approach the gate turn away upon finding out the cost, lest someone object that this is salvation of human effort. Remember, it is only the enablement of divine grace that empowers the person..." That sounds like that grace-filled relationship, doesn't it? "...that empowers the person to pass through the gate." This author goes on to say, "...God will not declare a person righteous without also making him righteous." Kind of sounds pretty Catholic, doesn't it? How many of you would say Arminian? Well, you guys aren't very favorable towards Arminian today. Calvinist? Roman Catholic? Okay, we've got one Roman Catholic. Sounds very Catholic. Sounds like the previous quote, doesn't it? Almost exactly like the previous quote. John MacArthur, very popular Calvinist of our day. There is no cleansing from sin and no salvation without a continual walking in God's light. Endurance in faith is a condition for future salvation. Only those who endure in faith will be saved for eternity. Calvinist? Arminian? Catholic? It's up for grabs, isn't it? R.C. Spruill. Grace unknown. I think that's all of it. No, there's one more. The Scriptures repeatedly exhort us to persevere, to hang in there. It is only the one who endures to the end who will be saved. Sounds like Spruill, right? So this has got to be something besides Calvinist, right? How many of you say Arminian? How many of you say Catholic? How many of you say Calvinist? You guys are equally divided. You're getting the point. Roman Catholic, Joseph Kindle, what must I do to be saved? You get the point. Ultimately, in the end, what's the difference? That's why I've said before, you can take all these distinctions and reduce it to, just give them all one label. Roman-Calminians. You have to believe. Yeah, that's true. Because like that previous quote by the Catholics said, you need faith, but if it's true faith, it'll be faith in a grace-filled relationship of love and good works and that kind of thing. So they wouldn't say, yes, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you'll be saved. They'll say, if you really believe, you'll have good works. Sounds just like the Calvinists, the Lordshipper. What about 1 Corinthians 3? The carnal believer? Or which passage in the chapter with the rewards burning up or? I'm not sure. Well, I'll tell you what the Catholic will do with 1 Corinthians 3.15. They'll view that as purgatory in some sense. The fires there, the burning up in purgatory. The Lordship person with 1 Corinthians 3 will deny that there even is such a person as the carnal believer. Believers at points can be carnal, but not consistently carnal. They'll make it a matter of degrees and it becomes very subjective. if you have a pattern in your life. And to me, what is a pattern? It's putting two steps together. I'm not walking by faith in this decision today to not drink from this cup, and I guess I'm not making another decision to walk by faith here. Well, I have a pattern, don't I? Two steps of lack of faith during my day to walk in the flesh. It's a pattern. So, it's very subjective. And that leads me to the final point here. that the tragedy of all of this is that there's such subjectivity as to whether or not you can even be saved if you are one of the elect or you're saved. We saw yesterday that 1 John 5.13 and other passages, it's clear God wants you to know that you have eternal life. It breaks his heart that people don't know that because they're looking for assurance in all these dead ends that he hasn't provided to man. Those are diversions. Do you know that the Puritans themselves lacked assurance, many of them, because they were Calvinistic? They, many times in their deathbeds, were crying out to God to have mercy on their souls because they weren't sure they were going to persevere to their last breath. How tragic for you to spend your whole life seeking to serve the Lord and come to that conclusion. Here's a final quote I want to give you from John Calvin himself. This was written shortly before he died. He was writing his will and he included this in his will. It's from Norman Dowdy's book, The Death of Christ. Calvin said, I testify also and profess that I humbly seek from God that he may so will me to be washed and purified by the great Redeemer's blood, shed for the sins of the human race, that it may be permitted me to stand before his tribunal under the covert of the Redeemer himself. He was still seeking from God to be washed. Future tense. To be purified. Future tense. He wasn't sure at the very end. That is really tragic. That is very different from the song that saints have sung for a couple of centuries now. Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine. Oh, what a foretaste of glory divine. Heir of salvation. Purchase of God. born of the Spirit, washed past tense in His blood. You see, when you understand what the Bible teaches, you can know for certain that you're truly one of the elect because you've believed. And so, I trust that point is pretty clear. We skipped over a lot for time's sake, but we do have a few minutes to address any questions people might have. George? How do you respond to someone who uses Hebrews 4-6? you know, in a discussion about eternal security and salvation. Hebrews 6, 4-6 is often a passage used, ironically, not just by Arminians, but by Calvinists to teach this doctrine of perseverance. And there's two views on this. Some say that the description of the people in verses 4-6 are merely those of People who are professors of faith in Jesus Christ, they don't actually possess faith in Jesus Christ. They come short of true saving faith. And that is often the Calvinist perspective, but I've even heard some non-Calvinists hold that view. I happen to believe that each one of these descriptions in verses four through six, you can find either in the book of Hebrews itself or in other passages in the New Testament, that these are descriptions of believers, genuine believers. And I would say that what they're not going on to, that if a person does not persevere and go on, it could be that it's because they're turning back to Judaism, Remember, that's the context of Hebrews, to implore these Jewish Christians who had left Judaism for faith in Jesus Christ were truly saved to continue in the faith because they had something better than what the defunct system of Judaism had before. But they were being pressured and persecuted, in fact, to turn back. And he's saying that some of them have not gone on to maturity, the end of chapter five, They weren't growing as they should. Now, you'd never say that to a non-believer, one who professes and doesn't possess. And so I think what he's saying here is that they may fall away. Verse 6, a person who's truly believed may fall away. But if they do, it could be that they don't have a chance to repent and continue growing in the faith because either one, They receive maximum divine discipline. Some view verse six as indicating that God may prematurely call them home. The sin unto death, in other words. But they're still saved, going to heaven. Or it could be that their hearts are hard and they're just not going to repent. But one thing for sure I know verse 6 is saying is, it's not teaching this, that if a person turns away from Christ, they lose their salvation. Typically, the Arminian will say with verse 6 that if you turn away from Jesus Christ, you can come back in faith to Jesus Christ at any point down the road too. But the problem with using verse 6 that way is it says you can only fall away once. Because if it's truly impossible to renew them to salvation, is how they understand it, then they can't ever get saved again. And that's the last thing most Arminians want to believe. So it's a hard passage, but again, I think you just got to keep in mind the idea there is mostly going on in maturity. If God will permit that, he may not because of their apostasy. Mike? That's a great, great question. Yeah, many churches are embracing Calvinism more and more. In fact, I'll tell you how it often happens. The pastor goes to a conference. put on by Calvinists. We learned about some of these conferences yesterday and he comes back with materials and it begins to seep in and have a leavening effect. Or maybe the youth pastor goes away to one of these passion conferences, gets all this material by Piper and so forth and others, comes back and begins to appeal to the senior pastor to consider these things. and things start getting taught in small groups in the church, and Calvinism seeps in. And I've even heard of a lot of Bible churches changing their name as time goes on, Reformed Bible Church. I mentioned one in Illinois by us. But the practical effect that it often leads to is one division among the flock, to a deadening when it comes to a real walk of faith with the Lord. We talked yesterday about the prayer life, about evangelism. It leads practically to a lack of assurance among the flock. It's very detrimental as time goes on. Good question. And somebody asked me here too, in legalism, And somebody asked me earlier here too, right at the start, how would you speak to somebody who is Calvinist? Do you just launch into a discussion of, you know, foreknowledge and foreordination and all these? No. If you know somebody who's Calvinist, I would appeal to them to consider the gospel. What is the gospel? Start with the gospel and just say, you know, you don't have to be antagonistic towards them. you want to see if they're willing to even engage you scripturally and have a nice two-way discussion and be civil about it and just say, you know, as I've been studying the gospel and hearing the teachings of MacArthur and Piper and some of these guys who are Calvinists, I see some real inconsistencies there in the area of works and perseverance and such. What do you think about that? And then you're asking their opinion and you're drawing them into the discussion. And if they're willing to talk with you about the gospel, and maybe that day or some point down the road they see your point about the freeness of eternal life and the grace of God, then you're halfway home. Then they may be willing to reevaluate some of these other points like irresistible grace and unconditional action and total depravity and such. But I wouldn't start off by going through the tulip point by point. You're going to lose them. Just talk about the Gospel with them. Apart from just asking them, are you a Calvinist? I don't know. Sometimes, but here's what's interesting. Many times as they recount how they got saved, you don't hear anything about a tulip. Like I said yesterday, ironically, many of them will say this system of Calvinism is the essence of the gospel. Yet when you ask, how did they get saved? Oh, it was just understanding who Christ was, what He did for me, and the offer of grace through faith, and I accepted it. Well, where was the tulip? That came later as they became indoctrinated. So it won't always come out in a testimony. But sometimes it will. Sometimes they will say, I made a commitment to serve Jesus Christ. And then you know that it's more of a Lordship perspective that they're coming from. I've noticed with some, when you're doing a survey with them, they're not too sure about their eternal security. I don't know that real well. They tend to be defensive. Yeah, that's unfortunate. It's so confusing with many Calvinists. They, again, have a desire to protect the grace of God. And they'll say in some context, yes, we're saved all by grace through faith alone. But you're really not. It'll come out later. There's your perseverance and all that in there. So it's really inconsistent. Let me just say this. If you read the New Testament for the first time, as a new believer, you never heard about Calvinism, Arminianism, or anything else, would you come away a Calvinist? You wouldn't. You have to be indoctrinated in this stuff, usually after a person gets saved. So, you know, I thought for sure somebody would ask me, explain Romans chapter nine. Or what about this passage here or there? So it's really late. It's almost 1225. And if you have a question about a passage or anything else you want to talk about, feel free to come on up. And I'd love to talk to you further about it. OK, why don't we just close with a short word of prayer?