I can't think of a better song, really, to sing before the preacher talks about Calvinism, because a Calvinist wouldn't go tell it, and there'd be no point in that. Now, by the way, let me mention, when we say Calvinist, we are talking about hyper-Calvinism. For those of you who are theologians, that would be supralapsarianism, okay? How do you like that word? Supralapsarianism. And I don't know what preacher came up with that terminology, but he liked big words. That's what we're talking about, the hyper end of Calvinism. Hyper-anything is usually a problem, certainly in children hyperactivity would be, but hyper-Calvinism is what we've been dealing with, and it is this Supralapsarianism, as I've named it tonight, That movement is on. It is very, very strong in corners of evangelicalism and now even into fundamentalism. This is why I want to expose it and make sure that we never allow its inroads here. Take your Bible and turn to 1 Thessalonians 2. Some time ago I was told about a church in Crown Point, Indiana, a strong Bible-believing church. It's been a strong and good church for many years in Crown Point, Indiana, and they have probably, oh, I suppose maybe about 250 or so, or maybe 200 in size, a good strong church there. in Crown Point, but all within about a year or so, in the last year, maybe a little longer than that, there was a group of folks in the church that decided they wanted to be Calvinists. And they weren't good enough just to quietly believe that silliness themselves. They had to try to convert everybody else in the church. To make a long story short, the congregation ended up splitting, and I think 75 to 100 people ended up leaving the church. They were the Calvinistic end. You see, they weren't building anything, they just left something. And away they went on down the road, and the church has struggled since then. They have been in need of a pastor. We've done what we could to recommend men into that pulpit, and so far that hasn't turned out at this point. But my point being this, that that church, a healthy church, was damaged when a group of individuals got into the church and tried to push a doctrine and an emphasis that would be contrary to the Scripture. And we want to always be careful about that. There are certain things that when overemphasized become contrary to the Scripture. We know that to be true. Now, 1 Thessalonians 2. Look at beginning of verse 9. 1 Thessalonians 2 verse 9. These, of course, are the words of the Apostle Paul, inspired under the dictation of the Holy Spirit, The Bible says, for ye remember, brethren, our labor and travail. You Thessalonian Christians, you remember how we worked among you. You remember that at times the work was painful. That's the word travail. Brethren, our labor and travail. For laboring night and day because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the Gospel of God. Ye are witnesses, and God also, how wholly and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe. As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you as the father doth his children, that ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory. For this cause also thank we God without ceasing." Now what's he going to thank God for? Notice this. For which cause also, thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received the Word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the Word of men, but as it is in truth the Word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." Now pause there for a moment. When the Apostle Paul spoke the Word to the Thessalonian church, the church of Thessalonica, his preaching was divinely inspired. This is not true of the preaching of any man today. The preaching of the apostles was divinely inspired, and the Thessalonians received it as the Word of God. As the various epistles of the New Testament were penned, the church received these as well as the Word of God. And you'll note in verse number 13 that Paul draws a dichotomy between the Word of God and the Word of men. Now listen carefully. The Bible that you hold in your hand is your final authority. Let me say categorically tonight that Pastor Monty is not your final authority. It is the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God. I as a man am frail. I as a man have problems. I as a man may not have a full understanding of everything the Scripture teaches. I have human frailty and failure The Bible never fails. So you do not blindly follow the teachings of a man. I have been always leery of teachings that purport to be scriptural, but have come to be branded with the name of a man, their primary teacher. An example of this would be Calvinism. I'm leery of that because it almost appears then that this man's brand of Christianity or his stamp has been placed upon a brand of Christianity that perhaps is not as close to the Bible as it ought to be. Another example of that would be a heresy that has entered certain conservative fundamental circles called Ruckmanism. How many are familiar with Ruckmanism? Are you familiar with it? Sure, some of you are. There is an error in Rachmaninism. Now, we are, we believe the King James Bible is the best English translation that there is. I believe that the Textus Receptus of the New Testament and the Hebrew Masoretic Texts of the Old Testament, the Jacob, Ben, Chaim 3rd edition, if you want to know the exact one, is the inspired Word of God given by God, that the textus receptus is in every syllable and in every letter the Word of God in the New Testament. We believe that. We believe God inspired His Word, that His Word was given in a verbal fashion, that it was given plenarily inspired, meaning in its totality that it is inspired. We believe all of that. But this error that is known as Rachmanism teaches that in 1611, the translators of the King James Bible were re-inspired. to give the word in English. Silly, silly, silly. Okay, that's ridiculous. What did they do before 1611 for a Bible? If that's when it was given. It was not given in 1611, it was translated, and there were reliable translations of the Textus Receptus in English prior to 1611. But this whole body then of thought known as Rockmanism, this entire body of thought that is regarded as Rockmanism, has that man's name. Peter S. Reckman is his name. He's a preacher down in Florida. It has his name on it. That makes me very, very leery. By the way, if you're a fan of Peter Reckman, understand please that he believes that the Bible teaches seven different plans of salvation. 7. That's ridiculous. The Bible teaches 1. Faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on Calvary's cross is the way to be saved. Old Testament, New Testament. For by grace are ye saved through faith. In the Old Testament they were saved by faith in the promise. They believed in the promise of the coming Messiah and so were saved based upon that faith. In the New Testament we are saved looking back at the finished work of Christ. But whether it is Old Testament or New Testament, salvation always comes by faith. I've got a little bit of feel tonight merely to say this, that I am leery of any ism that attaches a man's name. So again, the emphasis in 1 Thessalonians 2 verse 13 is this, the Word of God is important. The Word of men may or may not be the case. Now as we're examining Calvinism, understand please that the system of theology, and we've already studied this, that has come to be known as Calvinism was not original to Calvin. It seems to have originated in the mind and thought process of Augustine. We've talked about him and who he was. and the influence that he had on the early days of the church. However, there was another man who lived in the days shortly after Calvin, and this would be within 100 years of the life of John Calvin, a man by the name of Jacobus Arminius, sometimes referred to as James Arminius, who took an opposite end of the spectrum position in regard to Calvin and actually opposed him. Now it's going to be important to understand the emphasis here and the difference between what is commonly known as Calvinism on the one hand and Arminianism on the other. Now listen carefully please. In this lesson, I am not seeking to endorse either system. Quite obviously, I have stated my position in opposition to Hyper-Calvinism very plainly. I am not, in this lesson, endorsing what is today called Arminianism. Number one, there are very many brands of Arminianism today, probably hundreds of them, different positions and flavors. I'm not endorsing that. I am saying, however, that Arminius, the man who was named Arminius, was in many ways a very orthodox, Bible-believing Christian, and that he has been slandered even by contemporary Calvinists such as J.I. Packer. J.I. Packer is a very famous name in evangelicalism, who slandered Arminius. Now, the problem with it is this. Most people never go back to original sources. This is always the problem we have when we study something, especially about theology. Well, Pastor, Arminius believed blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Let me ask you a question. Have you ever read that from his writings? His writings are available to us today. I have the three volumes set in my office, the complete works of Arminius. I have it in my office, if you'd like to read it. It's about this much of the bookshelf. It takes up about that much. Ooh, preacher, have you read it all? No, okay, I have not read it all. I have read extensive sections of it, but I have not read all three volumes. They're very, very interesting, but we'll get into that in just a moment. Let's look at the introduction. Those who reject the tenets of extreme Calvinism are frequently labeled Arminians. This designation comes from Jacobus Arminius, 1560-1609. Notice that it died just before the translation of the King James Bible. He was a Bible scholar who dared to disagree openly with John Calvin. The doctrinal points of both theological systems came into some reform as a result of debates that raged between the two positions. Now, again, remember, we're talking about a battle that took place within Protestantism. You say, well, Pastor, where were the Baptists? Oh, I'm so glad you asked. The Baptists were in existence, and in fact, very strong. They were referred to as Anabaptists. Remember the prefix ana, which means to re-baptize? They existed before the Protestant movement ever came into existence. Baptist people are not Protestant. The battle that we're talking about between Calvinism and Arminianism is strictly a battle that was fought, or is being fought, within Protestant circles. Baptist people did not necessarily take part in this, although they did take various positions. There are Calvinistic Baptists and Arminian Baptists, but understand that this was something that was fought strictly on the basis of Protestantism. It did not include Baptist people. But those who disagreed with John Calvin, especially in this time period, we're talking early 1600s now, they were in grave danger in the circles of Protestantism. It was not above anyone's sense of morality to put folks to death for doctrinal issues. In fact, this was commonly practiced. There were those, for example, in the reign of James I, who were charged with witchcraft, and King James had them put to death based upon the witchcraft charge. It was a regular occurrence that those who did not agree with the state could be put to death for the slightest of reasons. Treason was another punishable offense, punishable by death. Now remember please, if you will, within Protestant circles, and you have to remember this, Church and state are always joined hand-in-hand in Protestant circles. This always leads to corruption. The Roman Catholic Church has believed and taught through the years that its authority is above the state. The Roman Church teaches that. How many remember the period of history known as the Holy Roman Empire? Do you remember that? The Holy Roman Empire, of course, was a time when the Roman Emperor, or actually he wasn't the Roman Emperor, he was just sort of a pseudo-Roman Emperor. He called himself the Emperor of the Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire, the historians are quick to say, was neither holy nor was it Roman, but it was a group of basically Indo-European countries that had formed together what was a loose empire. Now it was controlled by the Roman Catholic Church because the Roman Catholic Church held authority over the state. In Protestant countries, the reformers coming out of Catholicism, they carried with them the idea that the church and the state should be wed together. Where did they get that concept? They got it all the way back to St. Augustine in the City of God. So understand where all of these thoughts came. And so they established, once the country went Protestant, they would establish a state church and they would use the powers of the state to enforce the doctrines of the church. As Baptist people, we believe in no such thing. We believe that the church itself should enforce the standards of doctrine within the membership of its congregation, but does not exercise the right to force belief on those outside of its walls. Baptists have always believed that. You say, well, preacher, what did John Calvin think of that? John Calvin said that Baptists, the concept of Baptists, having their church and believing within their church, but not enforcing by the powers of the state their belief system on those outside of the walls of the church, John Calvin called that, quote, stupid, unquote. And so he went about, as we saw last time, to enforce religion upon the masses of Geneva and essentially turn that into a religious dictatorship. By the way, there is a lot in common between the philosophical view of uniting church and state in Protestantism of the European variety and in the concepts of Islam. Remember in our Islam teaching we said this, that Islam is a religion, And Islam is a politic. And you can never separate the two. Never, never, never. Anyone who is an adherent to Islam has not only adhered to a religion, but they have adhered to a political belief system. Now I was very, very sad over something that happened this week. Paul Harvey, a few days ago, And some of you heard it. You mentioned it to me. Paul Harvey mentioned something about the bloody nature of the religion of Islam on the radio. Did anyone hear that in the Paul Harvey news and comments? Well, somebody in this church did. You heard it, Brother Falls. I heard it. And I thought, oh, it was just one sentence. You know how Paul Harvey can do that? In one succinct sentence, he can send a message just like a dagger through that radio. And boy, I was listening to that. I was traveling somewhere, and I said, glory to God, somebody's put up the truth. It was one quick sentence, and away he moved from that. A couple days ago, a guy who was substituting for him read an apology over that. Now you know Paul Harvey still believes what he said the first time around. I do not believe that we should ever, ever, ever bow to the pressure of these Islamic groups to apologize for our existence. I don't believe that. I'm a Christian. As a Christian, I say Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. All other ways are false. And ladies and gentlemen, no apologies here. How many of you are familiar with Bill Abernathy? Anyone familiar with him? He is the host of a show called Religion and Ethics Weekly. It's a PBS television show. He was here speaking in Indianapolis on Monday at the Economic Club meeting at the Convention Center on Monday. Pastor Falls and I had been invited to go to that meeting. It was interesting to watch a man speak about religion for 45 minutes. And so rides the fence as to try to offend nobody. In fact, I think he did such a good job of talking for 45 minutes about religion and not offending anyone that he deserves really some kind of an award for it or a very high salary to be able to do that. They had, by the way, they had a fellow lead in prayer. This is interesting. This fellow led in prayer and he read a prayer. There was probably 400 people in the convention center. These are the movers and shakers in Indianapolis. And then there was me and Brother Falls, but the rest of them were movers and shakers. And this man led in prayer. The man who led in prayer was the president of religion at Lilly Corporation. Did you know they had a president of religion for the Lilly Endowment? He's the president of religion. I wonder how you get to be the president. Is that like being the Pope? I don't know. Anyway, president of religion. This Bill Abernathy was interesting though. He made some statements and he talked about the fact that several evangelical leaders, Franklin Graham and Jerry Vines, the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Jerry Falwell, had all come out making strong statements against Islam, and then he said that after their statements aired and there was a huge fallout, he said that other evangelical leaders sought to corral their airing brethren. Why would other evangelical leaders corral someone from speaking the truth? I'll never understand that as long as I live. If the truth is what is important, then you speak the truth and you let the chips fall where it may. I've never, ever, ever shrunk from preaching what I believe to be the truth. But there is a correlation then between, we talked about the fatalism and also the political and religious aspects of these movements. Now I've got to hurry because I got into something I didn't mean to get into. Number one, who was this man Arminius? He lived roughly within 100 years of John Calvin's life. Arminius was a Dutch theologian who started out as a Calvinist and even studied in Calvin's, put the word Calvin, C-A-L-V-I-N apostrophe S, Calvin's Seminary in Geneva. So he had studied there. Part of his goal in studying there was he was a very good writer, he was a Bible scholar, he was known for his prolific writing, and he had been asked to write a defense of a brand of Calvinism that was even less extreme than Calvin's, but he was asked to write a defense, so he wanted to study the matter out. Well, he was studying in Geneva. He came to the conclusion that the tenets of Calvinism from the scripture were essentially unprovable, and that the scripture did not support the main thesis of Calvin's belief system, and so he left the seminary and converted, really, or began his own study and established what is commonly known as Arminianism. Point being, While studying at Geneva, his entire family was massacred by Spanish Catholic troops which had invaded his hometown in Holland. Point C. Because he dared to disagree with Calvin, Arminius was branded a heretic. A heretic. In the blank there. Even today, the rabid followers of Calvin unjustly charge Arminius with grave heresies. Pelagianism is one of the charges that is rested against Arminius. This is false. Now listen please carefully. you will hear sometimes in the evangelical brand of Christianity that is reformed in its theology, you will hear the name of Arminius thrown around wildly as if this man were the devil himself. If you will get his three-volume set of his works and read it, you will find a godly man who sought only to explain the way of salvation directly from the Scripture. And by the way, in reading what he wrote, he had an incredibly logical mind. I would not agree with everything Arminius said, but I would agree with it more than I would that which I've seen of John Calvin, based upon, of course, following the Bible. Point D. Although some of Arminius' followers drifted into doctrinal heresy, Lawrence Vance writes, quote, Arminius was just as orthodox on the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith as any Calvinist, ancient or modern. So please remember, this was not a bad man. This was a man with whom we would have some differences of opinion, but he was certainly not a bad man. He was branded as a heretic simply because he dared to disagree with Calvin. Calvin was one who of course would desire then that there be punishment for disagreement with him. We taught that last time. What exactly did this Arminius teach? Well, I cannot go into all the details of it because that's a three-volume set that you can read at your leisure, but we'll give you some of the high points. Arminius neither taught nor practiced violence and revenge against one's enemies. He did not believe in that. He did not believe in it. He did not endorse the death penalty for heresy. Now remember, John Calvin did. Calvin believed that by the virtue of the power of the state, heretics could be put to death, they could be banished from the colony, their property could be seized. Any number of punishments could befall a heretic and did at the hand of John Calvin, including burning at the stake. Ladies and gentlemen, that is vicious. There is not one place in the Bible or the Gospel of Jesus Christ that condones that level of murderous activity over heresy. Not one. You'll never find it. By the way, in the midst of the Islam controversy, I laid down the gauntlet and challenged. I said, find me a New Testament verse. Find me anywhere that Jesus said, you're to slay your enemies. You'll not find it anywhere in the New Testament, okay? The New Testament principle is not conversion by the edge of the sword. It is always by the preaching of the Word of God and compelling the heart to turn to Christ by the virtue of the claims of the Bible and nothing more. There is no physical militancy or armed militancy promoted anywhere in the Bible. And we need to understand that Calvin did not believe that, and so he forced his belief system on those who had become subject to him. Point being, he, Arminius, believed in the infallibility of the Bible as inspired by God. These men were not questioners of the Bible. Understand that. John Calvin ferociously defended the inspiration of Scripture. He believed every word of the Bible. There's no question. However, he interpreted the Bible through the glasses of Augustine. That is where the problem arose. Among all of the Reformers, there was a reticence to forsake all of the trappings of Rome and go strictly with the Bible. There was a hesitance to do that, particularly on the part of John Calvin. and understand that because his theology is covenant or Augustinian in nature, he does not always interpret the Bible from a literal standpoint. We said last week he confuses passages in the Old Testament that were given strictly to Israel under a theocracy and tries to bring them into the New Testament and apply them to the church. Ladies and gentlemen, this can never be done except it be done with great damage to the Scripture and always. Damage to the reputation of Christianity. Please understand that my goal again is not to establish the Kingdom of God on this earth. I am not here to Christianize America. I am here to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to see souls saved. The Lord Himself will establish His Kingdom when that time comes. So at any rate, he did believe in the authority of the Bible. Point C. He rejected the doctrines of the Roman Church. Now these are Arminius' words. And the reason I've included them in this portion here is this reason. Arminius is accused by Calvinists as being Catholic. Now this is getting really ridiculous, but folk, listen carefully. Again, wild accusations have been made, even by some more recent evangelical scholars who apparently have not gone back to the original source material. Oftentimes in things like this, people quote each other, and then they quote someone else who quoted that guy who quoted this guy, and all of a sudden it gets confused. It is important to go back to the original source material. Calvinists accuse Arminius of having Roman Catholic leanings, but he said some things that were rather strong in regard to the Catholic Church. He said this, he called the Mass, the sacrifice of the Mass, a denial of the truth and excellence of the sacrifice of Christ. He called the Pope, and these are his words, Arminius' words, the adulterer and pimp of the church, the false prophet, the enemy." He put the word enemy of God and the Antichrist. Now, he does not seem to be overly pro-Catholic to me, but this is the accusation that is made by Calvinism. Okay, I understand that. That's why I've included this here. In contrast to Augustine, Arminius rejected the Apocrypha and the authority of church tradition. He believed in the authority of the Apocryphal books of the Bible. And he believed also in the authority of church tradition. Church tradition would carry eventually as much authority as the Bible did. The three lines of authority would be church tradition, the Bible, and the teaching magisterium of the church. Those would be the three lines of authority. They were endorsed by Augustine. Arminius rejected those. But very interestingly, Calvin did not. Calvin, once he had established his church, vested in his church by virtue of the secular authority the same power that Rome claimed for itself. In essence, John Calvin claimed, though he never did so publicly, but he did so in essence, claimed the same infallibility. Interestingly, John Calvin preached. When he would preach, he preached from a throne. How many knew that? Did you know that? He would sit down. He had a throne in his church. It was called his preaching throne. He would just sit down on this big throne, and then he would talk to the congregation in Geneva. The Pope has a throne, and when he speaks ex cathedra from that, he's speaking infallibly. John Calvin, though he would not necessarily have claimed infallibility for all his teachings, made it so that if you disagreed with him, you would be in trouble from the secular state and could be banished from the city of Geneva. My pastor, Dr. Clearwaters, One time, tells a story, he was visiting in Geneva, and they have, of course, all the historic sites of the reformers and all of those different things. He was visiting, and there wasn't a big crowd, and there was a tour guide in the church, and the tour guide pointed out the preaching throne of John Calvin, which is still there in Geneva. And my pastor, R.B. Clearwaters, there wasn't a big group, and he said to the tour guide, he said, Ma'am, he said, I'm a Baptist preacher. He said, I would like it if you'd just remove the little rope. If I could just sit in John Calvin's chair for just a couple of moments." And the tour guide kind of looked around and she said, OK, I'll let you. So she removed the rope and Dr. Clearwaters went and he sat down in John Calvin's chair for just a couple of minutes. And then he got up and one of the preachers that was with him said, said, Doc, why in the world did you want to sit in Calvin's chair? Dr. Clearwater said, well, I needed to confess some of his sins. And so there were many to confess according to what we've learned from this point. But Augustine would have been the influence for much of Calvinism. Arminius rejected these things. Point D, he believed in the sinfulness of man and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Now doesn't that sound good? Man is sinful. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. Just what we preach. Although Arminius believed that it was theoretically possible for a saved person to fall away, or in our terminology we would say to lose their salvation, we do not believe in that. But although Arminius believed that it was theoretically possible for a saved person to fall away, he also stated, and I read this right out of his own words, he stated this, quote, At no period have I asserted that believers do finally decline or fall away from faith or salvation. And I've cited the reference there for you. Arminius was unclear as to the practicality of this. It is important to note, however, that many of his subsequent followers do believe that saved people do fall away from grace either by sin or apostasy. It appears that Arminius believed in the possibility, put the word possibility in that blank, but not in the practice. So this was something theoretical with him. Later on, his followers said, yes, it is possible for someone to lose their salvation. Now please listen carefully. I believe that the Bible teaches emphatically that once you have put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ and have been born again by the Spirit of God, you become God's child, you are saved, and that never goes away. That you're eternally secure. having genuinely and truly put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. There are groups today, based upon the followers of Arminius, who took it a step further and said, yes, you can lose your salvation. There are groups today that believe that you can, after having been saved, lose your salvation. There are groups like that. Certainly we do not believe that, but there are some that do. Well, you say, preacher, if you lose your salvation, what would you lose it for? It depends on the Arminian style group. Some would say you can lose it over gross sins. Then you ask, well, what sin is bad enough to lose your salvation over? There's no list in the Bible, and so then you're in a problem there. Others would say you can apostatize from the faith by denying one of the cardinal doctrines, formally having believed it, and then denying it. If someone comes up to me, and says, Pastor, I used to be a born again Christian, but I no longer believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. I don't think the man lost his salvation. I think he was never saved to begin with. That's what I would say. Some would say, well, the Arminian might say, well, he apostatized, therefore he lost it. Well, whether he apostatized or whether he never had it, He's still going to hell. Does everyone understand me? It's six of one, a half dozen of the other. He's still going to end up in the bad place with the booger man. So, the bottom line is this though. The Bible teaches that we once saved our God's children. And God does not expel us from the family over sin. Okay, understand that. Once we are saved, we will not reject the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. We will believe in His deity. We will believe in His resurrection. We will believe in His blood atonement. and on and on it goes. So that would be a little bit of a difference. But Arminianism has gone too far, modern Arminianism, in believing that it is possible to fall away. Again, theoretically Arminius thought it was possible, but he did not believe it was practically possible. Point F. Dave Hunt, and Dave Hunt is my authority on much of this, Dave Hunt has summarized Arminius' teaching regarding salvation. Arminius was convinced that the Scriptures teach that those who will be in heaven are there because they believe the gospel, not because God elected them to be saved and regenerated them without any faith. on their part. Remember, the Calvinist believes that first a person is born again, apart from any faith, then they get saved. That's just ridiculous. He firmly believed and taught predestination, quote, as an eternal and gracious decree of God in Christ by which he determines to justify and adopt believers and endow them with life eternal, but to condemn unbelievers and impenitent persons. What is the crux of the issue? It is personal faith and belief. Well, preacher, according to Arminius, who are the elect? The elect then are all those who have put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. Those would be the elect according to Arminius. For the Calvinists, the elect was just a group of people somehow chosen by God who would believe the Gospel regardless of personal choice. And all the rest of the world would be damned. Does everybody see the difference? Do you see the difference? For Arminius, this election was based upon God's foreknowledge. God foreknew who would choose Christ as Savior. Those are the elect. They are saved based upon their willingness to receive Christ as Savior. They are saved. John Calvin said, no, it had nothing to do with man at all. God arbitrarily chose some to salvation and some to damnation. This is a huge, huge difference. It makes all the difference in the world in preaching. Why would I seek to persuade lost people that they will go to hell without receiving Christ? Why would I seek to do it if in all honesty I couldn't say, hey, look, you can receive Christ as your Savior. I never walk up to a person and hand them a Gospel tract and I say, here, this tells you how you can be certain that you're going to go to heaven as long as you're one of the elect. I don't do that. I tell them that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. I tell them that if they'll put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as salvation, if they'll believe on Him, they'll be saved. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. It's just that simple. So we don't want to confuse it. Point three, the church council. You say, Preacher, what happened in history? Well, it gets interesting. Within a year of Arminius' death in 1609, and he only lived into his 40s, 46 Arminian pastors at Holland, Gouda Holland, met there to draw up and sign a statement of protest against the prevailing Calvinism. So here we have these preachers, they're going to sign a statement. Their remonstrance is what they called it, and it stated in part that the doctrines of Calvinism, quote, were not contained in the word of God nor in the Heidelberg Catechism, and are unedifying, yea, dangerous." Put the word dangerous. Now here are the Arminian pastors declaring it's not in the Bible, it's not in our catechism, it's unedifying, it's dangerous, and should not be preached to Christian people. Wow! What a statement! Especially in a land that's dominated by Calvinists. Calvinists who don't mind burning you at the stake. Calvinists who do not mind cutting out your tongue. Ooh, that's scary stuff! But they went ahead and signed this little remonstrance. The five brief paragraphs of their remonstrance became known as the five points of Arminianism, and here is a summary of those five points. Remember we said Calvin had five points? Here are the five points of Arminianism. 1. God, from eternity past, determined to save all who believe in Jesus. Well, I believe that. God in eternity past determined to save all who believe in Jesus and to, quote, leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath. I believe that. I have no problem with that statement whatsoever. I believe it. Someone said, Pastor, what is election? Here's the election. We had election last Wednesday night. Here's election. The devil votes against you. and God votes for you, and you cast the deciding vote." Okay, that was an oversimplification, but if you want a good definition of election, there it is. Point two. Christ died for and obtained redemption and forgiveness of sins for all. He died for all. Calvinism teaches He died only for a select few. Only the elect. Arminian taught that He died for all, but that these benefits are effective only to those who believe in Christ. I can accept that, I'm fine with that. Point three, man cannot, quote, think, will, nor do anything that is truly good, and that includes saving faith, but must be regenerated. And of course, the Bible says, for by grace are ye saved through faith, and that, that faith, is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." And so this is the idea of man's depravity. Point four, that God's grace, that God's grace is absolutely essential for salvation, but that it may be resisted. You're saved by grace? Absolutely. But grace does not come with a big baseball bat and beat you over the head into submission and force you into salvation. Now remember, Calvin taught irresistible grace. That those who are elect could not resist the grace of God, but upon hearing the Gospel, they would be drawn against their will if need be into the family of God. I just don't see that teaching in the Bible, and I think it's contrary to the Scripture. Point five, that those truly saved through faith in Christ are empowered by the Holy Spirit to resist sin, but whether they could fall away from the faith, quote, and this is a quotation, must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture before we ourselves can teach it with full persuasion of our minds. So even these pastors after the death of Arminius, they were not certain about this matter of losing salvation. Now let me hasten to say that many of them shortly after accepted that as a tenant of their belief system. And I would certainly say that that is in error. I understand that that belief system would be. But at the time of this remonstrance, they had not made up their minds. Point C. Several months later, The Calvinists responded with a counter-remonstrance by combining several of its original seven points. We arrive at the five points of Calvinism. Here's what they said. Number one, because the whole race has fallen in Adam and become corrupt and powerless to believe. Now notice that. Powerless to believe. Inability. God draws out of condemnation those whom he has chosen unto salvation, passing by the others. Wow. Just passing them by. But doesn't the Bible say God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance? Why didn't He just choose to save all of them? Doesn't say. Point two, this is interesting. The children, now this is the Calvinist position. The children of believers, our sons and daughters. The children of believers, as long as they do not manifest the contrary, are to be reckoned among God's elect. God has decreed to bestow faith and perseverance and thus save those whom He has chosen to salvation. Unconditional election, including for your kids. Now, this has led to the horrible position and teaching and state of affairs in the Reformed church where children are baptized as an infant, of which, by the way, there is no precedent in Scripture. You say, well, what did Augustine believe? Baptize them as an infant. Why? In order to fulfill Old Testament circumcision. Wait! Circumcision was assigned to Israel. Ladies and gentlemen, the church in Israel are different. Baptism of the New Testament was not intended as a fulfillment or replacement to circumcision. The two rites, R-I-T-E-S, if I could use that word, are entirely different. One given to Israel, one given to the church, and they are not related. So understand, it's not a replacement. But that confusion came in. Then what happens in the Presbyterian or the Calvinistic churches? Children are sprinkled when they're little, and they're accounted as children of God. No, sir. Listen, my children grew up in a pastor's home, but you know how my children are going to become Christians? They have. They've both done so. They've received Christ as their personal Savior by faith. It was an act of their will, and I couldn't force them. The Holy Spirit dealt with their hearts, and I thank God they have. But that was their choice as to do so. Ok, number three. God delivered up His Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross to save only the elect. Only the elect. Limited atonement. We don't believe in that. 4. The Holy Spirit externally, through the preaching of the Gospel, works a special grace internally in the hearts of the elect only, giving them power to believe. In fact, it's irresistible grace. They cannot turn down the Gospel. Point five, those whom God has decreed to save are supported and preserved by the Holy Spirit so that they cannot finally lose their true faith. True believers do not carelessly pursue the lusts of the flesh, but work out their own salvation in the fear of the Lord. And this is perseverance of the saints as evidenced by works. Okay. And there's a little bit of an issue with that, but we won't go into that. Alright, those are the beliefs of Calvinism. Well, what happened? Quickly, I hasten, I know the time. The great Senate of Dort in the Netherlands. Having defeated the Armenians in a complicated political battle, this took place in the Netherlands, the Calvinists used their newfound authority in 1618 to convene a church council for the sole purpose of establishing Calvinism as the official doctrine of the Netherlands. The council adopted Calvin's five points as canons. Now that's when things really get serious. They're no longer points. They are canons. They're absolutes of the church and stated that rejection of the canons was rejection of the gospel. Now wow, that's a big thing. The Calvinists came to power politically. They gathered together a group of all Calvinists to say, you either believe what we believe or you don't believe the gospel. Under the authority of the state, 200 Armenian pastors were removed from their pulpits. Many were exiled. Persecution of Armenians continued unabated until the year 1625. Four of the primary leaders of the Armenian cause met with sad consequences for their beliefs. Look at it. A. John there was exiled and his goods were confiscated. B. Simon was banished. C. The third John, John Van, was beheaded. Put the word beheaded. Beheaded. Now folks, is this in the Spirit of Jesus Christ? Can you find this anywhere in the Bible? No, you cannot. Hugo Grotius was sentenced to life in prison, but he later escaped and he actually became a foreign minister to France. Point E. The Westminster Confession of Faith. In 1643, the English Parliament called for a convening of church leaders to systematize the doctrine of the Church of England. England had vacillated between Romanism or Catholicism, if you want to use that word, and Protestantism, but by 1643, Protestantism had won the day. Parliament, which had opposed and eventually executed King Charles I, favored Calvinism and controlled the entire assembly. Now, they controlled the meeting for the Westminster Confession. This was politics, again, controlling religion. In fact, only Calvinist divines or Calvinist preachers were invited to the gathering. Not surprisingly, the Westminster Confession is thoroughly Calvinistic. Dissenting voices had been all but completely silenced for the sake of political unity in the nation. Political unity in the nation. What are we saying? I gave you this lengthy and I hate to say but laborious history tonight simply for this purpose. How did Calvinism and the canons or points of Calvinism become so firmly established? They were established by the power of the state. And the power of the state enforced Calvinism so that all dissenting voices were silenced and Calvinism ruled the day. You say, Preacher, where in the world were the Baptists? Oh, I'm so glad you asked. The Baptists were simply preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They were being persecuted. They were persecuted to a horrible extent in Germany. They were very, very persecuted, as you'll remember, in England. And so they fled to Holland, where they met with further persecution and where their children were corrupted by the worldly children in the Netherlands. And so they purposed to come to the New World. And so they did. And the people who rode the Mayflower, the people who were on that boat, they were Anabaptist people. They didn't go by the term Baptist, per se, but they were labeled as Anabaptist. The Revaptizers. By the way, you'll remember their pastor, Robinson. How many remember that from history? Their pastor. Remember, he did not make the trip over. An assistant pastor went. It would be like me sending Pastor Falls on the Mayflower. Go on over there and take care of our folks over there. I guess what Robinson did, Robinson, after persecution had lessened somewhat, returned to London, England in the year 1611. the year of the King James Bible. He returned to London, England and he established the first church in history where the name of the church, he dropped the prefix Anna and just kept the word Baptist. The first church in history, the first solely Baptist church in history, was founded by the pastor of the pilgrims in London, England in the year 1611. Now isn't that a fascinating piece of history? I've always thought that if I could somehow draw a parallel between the King James Bible of 1611 and the founding of the very first purely Baptist church by name, I'm talking about by name. If I could somehow link those two events historically, I would become a great lecturer in conservative fundamental circles. Unfortunately, I have found no link. It is a coincidence, but it is true. The pastor of the Pilgrims dropped the prefix Anna and used the word Baptist in the church that he founded in London, England in 1611. So they were persecuted. They were not part of these great debates, and this is why Baptistic people have never uniformly accepted either position of extreme Calvinism or extreme Arminianism. We have sought to once again raise up the standard and say regardless of what men teach, our standard is the Word of God. Now, Pastor, do you have all the answers between these two extremes? No, I do not. But I believe when I get to heaven, God's going to have a Bible class, and I'm going to try to get a front row seat, and we'll all learn these things together. Preacher, what do we do until then? Until then, go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. Let's pray. Father, thank You for Your Word tonight. Thank You, Lord, for history. that is really bestackled with the blood of Christian martyrs who, some of them, murdered in the name of systems that were very, very far from Christian in their nature and character. Father, we would not excuse the blood that was shed purportedly in the name of religion. We reject religion that would shed blood that would be of a violent nature in the propagation of its tenants. Father, we thank you, Lord, that biblical Christianity is a message that is preached to hearts that are prepared by the Holy Spirit and it is received