So this is part two of Unconditional Election, and you may recall last week that I mentioned to you we were going to cover pages one through four, and then I think it was pages eight and nine. So I will not be going back to those pages today, but instead I will be going to page four, the middle of the page, and I can't promise to get through all of these notes, but I'll get through most of them. But there is an article that I've reproduced for you by Cornelis Venema. He is a professor at Mid-America Reform Seminary on why some believe and others remain in their sin, a consideration of the canons of Dort. And if you're not familiar with the canons of Dort, you will be in the next hour. So we're going to spend some time on church history. And I would confess to you that I, early on, was not all that interested in church history, and I'm ashamed of that, to be honest with you. Church history is great value, and I encourage all of us to be students of church history. There's many reasons we should be students of church history. There really are, to the best of my knowledge, no new issues, no new theological issues that people are wrestling with. They seem to be recycled versions of things that have been going on for centuries. And secondly, it will bring a measure of humility to us as we study the scriptures, because we'll see, frankly, not all of church history has been a lovely sight to behold. There's been some disappointing periods, but it's Christ's church and he builds his church and he always continues to build his church, but there have been some difficult times. And it gives us a sense of, I guess, union with our forebears, because we tend to be those who think that that which is of current vintage is what is important, and that's not always the case. We are organically linked to our brothers and sisters for centuries and centuries and centuries, and so we need to recognize that this is Christ's Church. So there's any number of reasons that we look at church history. And in particular, I'll be referring to the Canons of Dort, the Synod of Dort, et cetera. And sometimes people wonder, why do I reference some of these documents like the Synod of Dort, Canons of Dort? And even this last week, I listened to a brief little interchange between Steve Lawson and Derek Thomas and Bob Godfrey, I believe those were the three, but I remember Steve Lawson saying in this little excerpt that was on the Ligonier website, that why should we study Christian creeds, confessions, and catechisms? And the answer that he gave was, he said, in his life, he said he wouldn't say that it was the most important book that was ever written in all of church history, but he said very specifically that it was clearly the most important book that he read in a very formative period of his life, and it was Thomas Watson's Body of Divinity. And probably there aren't many of us who've read that, but that was Thomas Watson, a Puritan, preaching through the Westminster Confession of Faith. And it's beautiful. It's very helpful. And he went on to say that it's so helpful for us to understand how these doctrines have developed over the years. And the creeds, for instance, the Apostles' Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed, I'm probably missing one or two in there, but the confessions in the Dutch tradition, the Belgic Confession of 1560, roughly, and I'll be referencing that, the Westminster Confession, 1640s. And then you've got the catechisms and the confessions were designed to teach doctrine and to capsulize years and years of study by very godly expositors of the word and theologians. And then the catechisms were designed to teach the word, to instruct, and we use catechisms in teaching our children. And sadly, we live in times where catechesis is the down for that describes instruction by catechism is kind of a lost art and it shouldn't be. But these are immensely helpful and we look at this and I'm thinking of some of the creeds and I'm thinking of Some of my brothers and sisters in Christ who at some point have been captured by various cults, and it happens, and they've emerged from that. All I can tell you is that if they had been rooted in the evangelical creeds, the Apostles' Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed, the Nicene Creed, etc., they would not have gone down that path, clearly, because these cults do not adhere to Orthodox Christianity. And I know of a situation now where there's a professing Christian that's in a cult and I've heard what is being taught and it's clearly contrary to what this person was taught in their upbringing. So there's great value in knowing the church history and being rooted in the These confessions, I didn't mean to leave out the London Baptist Confession, 1689, which was basically an edited version of the Westminster Confession with obvious differences of opinion between a Presbyterian perspective and a Baptistic perspective. But we'll be looking at the Canons of Dort, and the Canons of Dort come from the Dutch Reformed tradition. And my Dutch Reformed friends would say that there are the three forms of unity. That would be the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort. And the Synod of Dort, just to tell you, when we're looking at these doctrines of grace, these really came out of the Scripture directly. But they were forged in a systematic way to some extent by Augustine. and he battled with a fellow named Pelagius, and then later there was a fellow named Arminius, and a response to Arminius and his colleagues called the Remonstrance was the Senate of Dorton, 1618-1619. They started in 1618 and they met 180 times to study these doctrines and to look at of what we call the Doctrines of Grace. And I know this sounds a little geeky, but I've got the Canons of Dort on my phone. I'll be reading from that. Actually, it's a resource that I carry around with me. But they have various heads of doctrine, as they call it. And the first head of doctrine deals with the doctrine of election and reprobation. But we look at these things, and these all came out of battling against false teaching. The Canons of Dort were a direct response to false teaching. And how did the false teaching develop? We'll see in a moment, but a fellow named Arminius was actually a pastor in a Dutch Reformed church, and he began to veer off the rails and to take exception with the Belgic Confession, which is a very solid Reformed confession. And this happens. There are pastors that go off the rails in churches and praise God that there are church courts that will deal with this. So you don't have a renegade pastor who was teaching in a seminary, who was teaching his congregation and alluring people after him and creating theological division and controversy. And fortunately, in the Dutch Reformed tradition, they had a senate. And they got together and they soundly reproved this false teaching. And I praise God that there were men who actually took this to heart and corrected and reproved false doctrine. They did not let it go unchecked. And today we benefit from their work, even though we don't often know that we come back to 1618, 1619, and we're largely indebted to the theological research that was done by those men. But J.I. Packer, Diane and I once had a wonderful occasion to spend some time with him and what a wonderful gentleman and a scholar. now with the Lord. But as he put it, the doctrine of election and by that clearly J.I. Packer did not mean conditional election. J.I. Packer advocated what the scripture teaches which is unconditional election and he went on to say preserves the simple gospel truth that God saves sinners. You go to Jonah chapter 2 verse 9, salvation is of the Lord. And the Lord is the author as well as the agent of salvation, whether we're talking about temporal, physical deliverance or eternal, spiritual deliverance. But sinners do not save themselves, only God saves. And He does so out of His undeserved love. Why does He save? Because out of love. And how does He save? his free decision to grant his people salvation in Christ. And when did he save? Before the foundation of the world. So that one sentence answers three questions. Why did God save? Out of love. That's exactly why he did it. Out of love. Out of his free decision. How did he save? He made a decision in eternity past. And so this was advocated at the Senate of Dort in 1618, 1619. Well, what was the Arminian doctrine? And basically I've given you sort of the backdrop at the bottom of page four. But it goes through this account of Arminius, and he had all of his followers, and they were called the Remonstrants. And then the Senate of Dort convened. and met, as I said earlier, for 180 times and literally formulated a very clear response to the false teaching of Arminius. But it's interesting how people can go off the rails. Arminius was a student of Theodor Beza, and Theodor Beza was a successor to John Calvin. So not all who are well taught persevere in good teaching. And there's a reason that there are church courts that convene to uphold sound doctrine and to reprove false doctrine. As a matter of fact, if you look at the canons of Dort, there are both affirmations and denials, and there are statements of true doctrine and then there are rejections of false doctrine. And that's actually a model that has persevered into our times. When you read sometimes the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy, Sometimes you'll read a Ligonier statement on Christology, there will be statements, this is what we affirm, and then just to be crystal clear, we reject this and this and this. Because we live in times when people are very nuanced and they will use smooth language and sometimes you have to be very clear and say, this is what the scripture teaches and it does not teach this, it does not teach that, and they address a various variety of false teachings. At the top of page five, What's interesting about this is that Arminius developed four statements, if I can call them that, or four decrees, and it was written in a fairly academic way, and so I'm not going to get too deeply into the weeds on this, but I've reproduced them for you here, at least a digest of them. Well, what's interesting is I was asked a question by a few people. Why do people reject the biblical doctrine of unconditional election? And the answer to that, in brief, is it's rooted in an absolutely false understanding of the character of God, number one, and it's rooted in an absolutely false understanding of the nature of man. And that, really, it's that simple. When I say a false view of the character of God, look at the first one, God eternally and absolutely wills, okay, that sounds good so far, to save all fallen sinners. Well, if he wills to save all, this is not what we're teaching, this is what Arminius was teaching, so I want to make sure you're following me here. And therefore, he has decreed to appoint his son, Jesus Christ, as the mediator and savior of all who are lost. And then it goes on to say that his universal and gracious intention, and that ought to cause your ear to sort of perk up, to save all fallen sinners without exception upon the basis of Christ's atoning work. Well, okay, if you were to stop there you'd say, well clearly if God wills and appoints and it is his intention to save all, then they will all be saved. Because his counsel is rooted in eternity, it is immutable, it is indefeatable, God's purposes are never frustrated. So when someone begins with the proposition that God's intention is to save all people, and yet not all are saved, then you should see there's not a connection there. There's clearly a problem with the character of God that is immediately apparent in the first statement. Number two, He eternally and absolutely wills to receive and to favor all fallen sinners. And then he goes on to say, last few lines, he wills to save only those who choose to believe and persevere in believing, and to damn those who choose to remain in their sin and belief. There's already intimations that God is decreeing to save those that in his foreknowledge, in his advanced understanding of what people are going to do, those who will persevere. And there's even elements here of what happens to those who are saved but they don't persevere. And there's an intimation even of that. And that's the essence of Arminian doctrine, that there will be those who do not have eternal security. And these things all really fall together. If we have a faulty understanding of the character of God, a faulty understanding of the nature of man, a faulty understanding of the doctrine of salvation, then you really will not have a biblical understanding of how we're saved and how we persevere and who saves us. And it ultimately reverses the course of all things. And instead of affirming that it's God who saves, The Armenian point of view would be that ultimately it is man who saves himself. Jesus, of course, provides the judicial basis, the atoning work that is necessary. But it's applicable only because man of his own, quote unquote, free will, has decided that he would do that. And you should, based on what we've already studied in the doctrine of total inability and radical depravity, you should know that that's utterly impossible. Because there is none that, and it's not simply because someone affirmed this in a theological convention or a doctrine. But it's rooted in scripture. Paul, the apostle, himself says that there is none that seeks after God. There is absolutely none. All turn away from God. So if we really understand the nature of the fallenness of man and what happened in the fall and to the successors of Adam, and we're all successors of Adam, then we should reject Arminian theology immediately because it's rooted in a faulty understanding of man. Third, God wills to appoint the means Which sounds good, and he does. God does appoint the means. He does. So when he elects to save people, he also provides the means, which is he provides the faith. None of us has faith that's rooted in our own ability. We don't. None of us has that capacity. But then he goes on to say in the last sentence, the actual salvation of fallen sinners, notice this, depends upon their willingness to meet the conditions of the gospel invitation. So that ought to, now it's becoming, I hope you're seeing this more clear. And then this fourth statement is where it all really comes to a head. And fourth, God eternally decrees. Okay, if you stop there. So if you're talking, if God eternally decrees, then it will happen. His counsel is rooted in eternity, it is immutable, and it is incontestable. It will ultimately have to save those persons whom he foreknows. And Arminius was using the term foreknowledge not to mean God in advance out of his sovereign law setting his saving affections upon the elect, but God in his omniscience looking down the quote unquote corridors of time and seeing in advance what decision person A, person B would make, and then taking steps to assure that whatever they have decided that he would cause to bring to pass. So then who becomes the author of salvation? Man. And at the end of the election and actual salvation of some fallen sinners rests upon God's foreknowledge of their free choice to believe and persevere in faith. Free choice. And as we go through this, what you'll find is all of this is rooted in human wisdom. And I can't tell you how many times Arminian theology has crept into conversations I've had with well-meaning Christians who really, instead of rooting their theology in scripture, are rooting their theology in what they think makes sense and what seems right to them. It seems right to us that we would have free will, right? I mean, we've heard that God doesn't violate our will. That would be something that God would never do. Have you never heard that? I've heard that countless times. And the question that, if you hear that, your immediate question should be, what would be your authority, your basis for that conclusion? How did you arrive at that? Where in scripture do you go to support that? And all you're given will be a blank stare, because there will be virtually no basis in scripture to support that. So this fourth point really goes to the point that man is the author of salvation. So going to the top of page six, Actual salvation in the first full paragraph rests upon the free choice of some to believe and to persevere in faith. So then what is the, notice the next paragraph, God's universal will and intention to save all sinners is frustrated or thwarted in the case of those who persistently refuse to respond to the gospel. And that's a, Arminian doctrine has a view of God's will that it is frustrated and thwarted. Because he wills and he decrees that all will be saved and yet they're not. And why is that? Because these stubborn human beings have thwarted his eternal will. And that's clearly, what does that do? That shows an utterly false understanding of the character of God and it shows an utterly false understanding of the nature of man. And so that's where Arminian theology comes from. So then the reform doctrine of unconditional election, there are All of this is rooted in scripture. So the first paragraph in the Canons of Dort, the facts that are recited here, all people have sinned in Adam. Okay, you should be thinking Romans 5.12, as through one man sin entered the world and death through sin. and all die because all have sinned, right? I mean, Romans 5.12, it's rooted right there. And have come unto the sentence of the curse and eternal death. And you should be thinking Romans 3.23, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And you should be thinking Romans 6.23, the wages of sin is death. And so all of this is, they will anchor all of these assertions in biblical authority, every single one of them. There's nothing that is said here that cannot be traced directly to God's clear revelation. That's in Article 1. And that God has manifested his love in sending his only begotten son, Article 2. And you should be thinking 1 John 4, verse 9, and this is love. God sent forth his son. You should be thinking John 3, 16. And by the way, for God so loved the world, who's the world? Okay, the key is that whomever believes will not perish but have everlasting life. And someone asked me the question, well, what does it mean that whomever? And I said, it means exactly that. It means that whomever believes will have eternal life. The real question is who is the one that will believe? And the answer to the one who believes is the one who's granted faith. And from whence comes faith? Faith is a gift of God. It's not the fruition of some type of capacity that unsaved people have in their own abilities. It's not there. They don't have the capacity to do that. And then Article 3, it should be Article 4, that the wrath of God, that God's displeasure, continues to rest on those who do not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. And you should be thinking John 3, verse 18. that the wrath of God continues to abide on those who do not believe. So what does a person have to do to be lost? Absolutely nothing. The wrath of God abides on all until they repent and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ. And who will repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? Those who have saving faith. Saving faith is a divine grace, it's a divine mercy, it's a gift of God. Ephesians 2, 8 and 9 were saved by faith, by grace, not a result of works so that no one would boast, right? And then we're appointed unto good works so that we should persevere in them, we should continue in them. And so within all of this is the proposition that we have a gift of God and that those whom God has ordained in eternity past to believe will in fact respond. So the question, why do some believe and repent at the preaching of the gospel and others remain in their sins and under just condemnation of God? And the answer to that is rooted in the unconditional election in Christ of some persons to salvation. Here's a direct excerpt from the Canons of Dort. The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time and that others do not stems from God's eternal decision. Notice that this all happens in time because it is rooted in eternity. We exercise faith in time because it has been determined in eternity past that we would do that. Okay. For all his works are known to God from eternity, that's God's decrees. In accordance with this decision, he, God, graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe. But by his just judgment, he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us his act, unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just, of distinguishing between people, notice, equally lost." So God distinguishes between people equally lost. All are equally lost, but God in His love sets His saving mercy upon some to bring them to His saving knowledge of Christ. So flip over to the top of page 7. Notice this second paragraph. Because the sovereign and gracious purpose of God in the election of his people is the source and basis of faith, the canons go on to assert that it cannot be based upon faith. Okay, what that's saying is, where does faith come from? Faith is a gift of God. What is the condition that is required for someone to be saved? They have to exercise saving faith. That is true. As we'll see in a moment when we get into some more church history, Pelagius said that God would never command what man is incapable of doing. Now that sounds very good, doesn't it? And that appeals to our nature, that God would never command something that we're incapable of doing. And you should say, no, that's not true. And you should say, what's your authority for that statement? And there is no authority for that statement other than human wisdom. But you'll hear this kind of reasoning over and over. You'll hear it over a cup of coffee when you're talking with your friend. God would never require me to do something that I can't do. He does it all the time. The good news is that God grants faith. It's a gift. Does He grant faith to all? No, He does not. To whom does He grant faith? He grants faith to the elect. Who are the elect? The elect are those who are lost. but who God, out of his sovereign mercy in eternity past, agreed to save. And in time, they exercise faith. And they are thereby justified because of the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is credited to their benefit, is saving them from the guilt of sin and crediting them with his own perfect righteousness. So faith is a gift. The Armenians claim that salvation is contingent upon faith and that faith is a work of man, And therefore, that undermines the entire understanding of where faith comes from. Do you follow the reasoning there? Okay. I'm going to read to you Article 9 from the Canons of Dort because it's not reproduced here, but I want you to see that this is a classic statement of unconditional election. This election was not founded upon foreseen faith and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man as the prerequisite, cause, or condition of which it depended. But men are chosen to faith and to the obedience of faith and holiness. Therefore election is the foundation, and this is so important I want you to hear this, election is the foundation of every saving good from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself as its fruits and effects according to the testimony of the apostle. For he chose us not because we were, but in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight." It goes to Ephesians 1-4. Election is the fountain of all the blessings that we have. And that's because we are elect in Christ, to be placed in Christ. And that's why the scripture over and over refers to Christians as those who are in Christ. That's our identity. We are in Christ. The term Christian has only a very limited, literally less than a handful of occasions where it occurs, but the Pauline nomenclature for someone who is a believer is someone who is in Christ. As a matter of fact, it also refers to believers as saints, and it has nothing to do with being beatified. It has nothing to do with Roman Catholic theology, which hijacked that term, completely hijacked it. But saints are holy ones. The Greek term is hagias, it's holy ones. Why are every single one of us here today who are believers are holy ones? Do you know that? Why are you holy? Because you're in Christ. How does God see you if you are a believer? He sees you clothed with the righteousness of Christ, 2 Corinthians 5.21. So does your standing depend upon some human churches, and I'll put that in quotes, determination that you did something extraordinary and thereby are worthy of the term saint, and the answer is no. Who determines that you're a saint? God determines you're a saint. Every single one of you, brothers and sisters, are saints because you're holy in Christ, because you're placed in Christ. And your election in Christ is the fountain of every other blessing that you have. Faith comes from your election. Your sanctification is a fruition of your election. Your ultimate sanctification, which is glorification, is a fruit of your election. Because that which God began, he perseveres all the way to the end. Romans 8, 28 through 30. Right? Okay, we know that God causes all things to work together for good. For those who before knew, we also predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son. And so we've been predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son. And we will be. Completely. Perfectly. Not in this life. But that's glorification, and that is the fruition of God's predestination, which is a synonym for His election. Predestination, as I said last week, looks more at the end goal, the purpose, the final result of His electing work. You're predestined unto holiness, and all of us are predestined to that end. So the conclusion on page 7. The teaching of unconditional election glorifies God, and I underline that, and I circle that, by acknowledging that salvation is rooted in His eternal, God's eternal, immutable, and merciful decision in Christ to save His people. The triune God is the God of our salvation. The Arminian teaching of conditional election bases the salvation of sinners upon their own independent action. But Dort, the Synod of Dort, and all Dort was doing, by the way, the Synod of Dort was going back to the Scriptures. That's all they were doing. They were going back and they were refuting false doctrine. Comforts believers by reminding them that the proclamation of the gospel will unfailingly achieve its purpose, the salvation of undeserving sinners from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. God's gracious purpose of election will not be frustrated, and those whom the Father gives to Christ will never be snatched from His hand. You can only make those statements if you adhere to unconditional election. If somehow your doctrine of election is based upon a conditional framework that is contingent upon human initiative, you will never have assurance of salvation. You will never have an accurate understanding of the doctrine of salvation. You will never have an accurate understanding of the character of God. You will never have an accurate understanding of the nature of man and his fallenness and his total inability. They all go together. That's why it's so important to work through these things. Let's flip over in the time that remains to page 10. I'm trying to figure out what to do, because I don't want to do part three. I'm going to do part two, but we'll get it done. What's interesting in this page, you can read this at your leisure, but the point that's being made is a lot of us would say that this began, this teaching with the Protestant Reformation, and the answer to that is it was codified, it was affirmed, it was boldly taught. It was advocated by Luther, by Calvin, by Svingley, and others in the Protestant Reformation, but that was not the historic basis for what we've been looking at. The historic basis beyond scripture was really in Augustine, and the Catholics will take Augustine as their hero. The problem is that much of what Augustine taught has been lost in the centuries, and there were those who studied Augustine and appelled, but Augustine went toe-to-toe with a fellow named Pelagius. Pelagius was a British monk in the fourth century, early fifth century, who taught, as I mentioned earlier, that God would never ordain what needs to be done, that which we cannot perform. And Augustine said, that's hogwash. That's modern terminology. But he said, that's not biblical. And it's not biblical. The reason that Pelagius taught that was because he saw that the nature of the fall was that it did not render us with original sin and with total incapacity to do something which was righteous and good. That's the Pelagian view. The semi-Pelagian view is a slightly improved version of that that says, and the semi-Pelagian view would be more frequently advocated in Arminian theologians today, and they would say that man He's fallen, but he needs God's sort of boost to exercise saving faith. But he's capable, with the assistance of God, of exercising saving faith. That's semi-Pelagianism. Man is not capable of exercising saving faith. God grants saving faith. It is 100% a gift of God. And so Pelagius clearly had a grossly deficient view of the fallenness of man, and that's why he would come up with those types of things. But the Protestant Reformation brought all of this to the forefront and really made it common knowledge, and it was Calvin who most ardently advocated these things in the Protestant Reformation. Page 11. In the middle of page 11, third paragraph, This is worth noting. It's not difficult to understand why the Armenians taught conditional election. And this, I understand, is a bit redundant from what I said earlier, but the statement is, they did not believe in total depravity to begin with. They wanted to preserve in man the freedom of his will, the power of man's will to choose for the good, to accept the offer of the gospel. It was their condition that God on his part loved all men, that hatred and wrath were foreign to God's nature, that it was God's intention and desire to save all men, that therefore God made salvation available and obtainable to all men through the universal atonement, a universal cross on which Christ died for the sins of every man. So that really capsulizes much of what I have said earlier. The arguments against this, and there are two that are most common. One of them is that God is unjust, that this depicts God as unloving, unmerciful, unjust. How would God not extend the same gift of salvation, the same offer of salvation to everyone without exception? Why would some be condemned if God is just and merciful and loving? And you know the answer to that. The answer to that is none of us deserve salvation. The fact that any of us are saved is the miracle. And the fact that any of us are saved is a reflection of God's distinguishing grace, his mercy which he has extended to us. To whom does God owe salvation, if I might pose that question? And the answer would be none. who among us is entitled in our own innate condition, our natural condition, to God's saving mercy? Our human nature would be that God needs to give us a chance, right? I mean that God needs to give everybody a chance. That would be the answer that if you left me to my own natural human devices, I would probably come up with an answer like that. And then if you said, well that sounds good, but where would we go in scripture to arrive at that conclusion? And the answer would be that there is no basis in scripture for that, that none of us are entitled to salvation. So when we study this doctrine of unconditional election, there are different ways of responding to this. One of them would be to really wrestle with the nature of the character of God and say, this seems so harsh, this seems so unjust. And the proper response to this would be for us to fall on our knees and to say, God, why did you choose me? Why, of all the people in the world, as utterly rebellious, as heinous in my sin, as wrathful as I was towards you, as rebellious as I was toward you, the fact that I was absolutely fighting you tooth and nail, why would you choose to change my heart? Why would you do that? Why would you set your love upon me? when I'm no more worthy of salvation than my unsaved neighbor?" And the only answer that can possibly be given to that question is God's love. And if someone were to say, well, why doesn't God love all people? Then the answer to that question would be, his love is a decision that he makes. he chooses to love some. And the fact that he chooses to love some and not all is his prerogative because he is the creator and we are the created ones. He is God and we are not. And so the arguments against this really come from human wisdom. They really are rooted in a sense of this doesn't seem right to me. The first charge is that Predestination makes God a tyrant, the author of sin, a capricious dictator who arbitrarily chooses some and rejects others. Well, Paul, the apostle, addresses this very question in Romans chapter 9. And we've touched on this earlier, so I'll be brief. The question, and someone in the back of the room raises their hand and says, Paul, this absolutely cannot be true. He's dealing with a theoretical objector. This can't possibly be true. What do we say? Is there unrighteousness with God? Because it would be the view of the subjector that what you've just taught about election makes God unrighteous. And the answer that Paul gives in two English words would be, God forbid. May it never be. In Greek, it's a very strident rejection. Absolutely not. Under no terms and conditions is God unrighteous. In verse 19, well you will say to me, why does he find fault for who has resisted his will? And the answer that Paul gives in verse 20 is, who are you that replies against God? It is God that sits in judgment upon us, not that we sit in judgment upon God. God does not answer to us, we answer to God. Now, I know that sounds harsh, but the nature of our human nature would be that we like to be autonomous. We like to be independent. We like, literally, to be gods in our own eyes. That's the nature of our fallenness that all of us still wrestle with in everyday life. Even though we're saved, we still wrestle with indwelling sin, and rebellion and a desire for autonomy is rooted in all of our hearts. And so Paul is addressing all of this and saying, be reminded that God is God. And that's the answer to that question. The other objection is under the category of what some people would call fatalism. I don't know that I would have used that word, but that is, I would call it, what would I call it? The objections say that the truth makes men careless and profane sinners. That it actually is a basis for lawlessness. That it is a basis for antinomianism or a conscious disregard for God's law. If He's going to save you, then you just live as you will. And the answer to that is in Romans 6.1. What should we say then? Should we continue in sin that grace might increase? Romans 6.1. And you know the answer to that? It's the same answer that Paul gave in Romans 9 verse 14. God forbid, may it never be under no terms and conditions. Any true believer knows that to be saved by grace, to be ransomed from captivity to Satan, to be adopted into the family of God, to be made a brand new creation, To have God set His love upon you does not foster sinfulness. It creates a gratitude. It creates a thankfulness in our hearts, an eternal sense of debt. Not just a sense of debt, but a true debt to God's mercies towards us. We obey Him, not out of sheer obligation, but out of thankfulness, out of a recognition. How good is God? Oh, how can I live for Him today? Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6, do you not know that you are not your own? You have been bought with a price. Therefore, what? Glorify God in your body. And therefore, he goes on in chapter 10 of 1 Corinthians, therefore whether you eat or drink or whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God. And why do we do that? Out of thankfulness to God. Out of gratitude to God. Out of appreciation for what He has done for us. So that's really, those are the denials. Top of page 17 really addresses these things under the category of charging God with unrighteousness. There's an explanation there. And then under the category of fostering a sense of loose living. that actually does happen. There is a category of teaching which is really shameful, easy believism that says that all you have to do is make a bare naked profession of faith and you're good to go and that there's no resultant change in your life that is necessary, that there is It would be desirable if you would live for God, but he saved you, so continue as you will. That's an atrocious caricature of the doctrine of salvation. Someone who is truly saved will live, not perfectly, no, Romans 7 teaches us that, but will live out of a sense of eternal gratitude to God, of a sense of obedience to him. As Paul says, to walk in a manner worthy of your calling. And so after all in the first three chapters of Ephesians, dealing with the bountiful mercies of God and His sovereignty and His eternal grace towards His beloved saints, whom we are, His children, He goes on to say in the last three chapters, starting in chapter four, verse one, therefore, I exhort you to walk in a manner commensurate with or fitting with the calling that you receive. And what is the calling? That you would live worthy of the one who has saved you. So there are answers to these objections. Just in the last couple of pages, there was an article about what does this do with our fervor for evangelism. And one time Spurgeon was asked, how do you reconcile evangelism and the sovereignty of God and unconditional election? And the answer, just you can read this on your own, but I never try to reconcile friends. That's really what Spurgeon said. And that's true. They're already friends. Why would I try to make them more friendly? But these are both truths that God has enunciated in His Word. So that's a quick rundown of an unconditional election. There is more that we could have said, but I've hit the high points for you. And it would be helpful for you to go back and perhaps to review some of this at your convenience. But it's all rooted in an accurate understanding of the character of God and in the nature of man. And once we understand the biblical doctrine of God and the biblical doctrine of man and the doctrine of sin, what happened at the fall, and we understand Romans 5.12 and the imputation of Adam's sin to all of his successors, then all of this falls into place. It's not just logical. I'm not teaching this because it's logical. It is logical. But we teach this because it's biblical, and God speaks with one voice. There's nothing in his scripture that's contrary, and that's why these doctrines fit so well with each other. They do fit, they are logical, because God speaks in a way that is of a consistent message all the way through.