00:00
00:00
00:01
Transcript
1/0
of even believing in Christ.
Why would God appeal to the will of man over and over again in
Scripture? Let me just give you some examples. Romans 3.11 is sometimes brought
forth as an example for those who teach Calvinists that man
can't exercise his faith. And I want you to understand
about this passage, maybe you've wondered this too. How does this
fit with our responsibility to believe? Romans 3.11 says, There
is none who understands, there is none who seeks after God.
And I understand what that passage is saying is that no man naturally
seeks after God. And that apart from drawing,
no one would even seek God. In fact, that has to be the understanding
because The normal term for seek here is actually a heightened
form of the word, ek zetom. Normally the word zeteo is to
seek, but ek with the preposition intensifies it. And no man seeks
out God in an intensified way unless God is obviously working
in their life. So this passage is not teaching
total inability to believe. In fact, if that was the interpretation
of Romans 3.11, how would you square that with these other
passages like Deuteronomy 4.29? But from there you will seek
the Lord your God and you will find Him if you seek Him with
all your heart and with all your soul. And this is addressed to
the nation of Israel. And obviously within the nation
of Israel, they were not all 100% regenerate, right? So there
were some non-elect in terms of eternal life in that group. and yet they were implored to
seek God with all their heart. 1 Chronicles 22.19, Now set your
heart and soul to seek the Lord your God. Isaiah 55.6-7, Seek
the Lord while He may be found. Call upon Him while He is near,
etc. Does that sound like you have
no ability from God's vantage point? Jeremiah 29.12-13, Then you will call upon Me and
go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you, and you will seek
Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart."
It goes way beyond total inability. Amos 5.4, Seek Me and live. 5.6, Seek the Lord and live. Zephaniah 2.3, Seek the Lord,
all you humble of the earth. Matthew 6.33, But seek first
the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and these things shall be added
unto you. John 4.23, The Lord Jesus told the woman at the well
that the Father is seeking such to worship Him. The Father is
seeking. Now He calls upon us to seek
Him as well. Do you see the biblical balance
there? Alright, now I'm going to go
to the next PowerPoint here. This is really neat to have this
screen here. It's the first time I've ever used something quite
like this. I know during the Bible conference,
I didn't know what to do with this thing, but it's really great
to have this ability. So let's move on tonight from
total depravity to the next four points. And we're going to move
more quickly through these four again, because if you can show
the Calvinist, the first point on total depravity, the whole
system crashes after that. It's a systems failure. But also,
the next point is key because Calvinists, again, are really
big on this idea of sovereignty. They believe, really, that their
system of theology is the only one that upholds and magnifies
the sovereignty of God and the grace of God. Because God does
it all. Man doesn't do anything. Therefore,
they say God gets all the credit. But again, that is a distorted
and imbalanced view of both sovereignty and grace. And in this point
we want to consider now, unconditional election, the ewe and the tulip,
we see that really what this is is sovereignty run amok. Calvinists desire to protect
the sovereignty of God so much that they say man cannot exercise
his volition when it comes to faith in Christ. God has to do
all of that. because He controls everything. In fact, they teach that God
has ordained everything through a single divine decree. God has foreordained everything
through a single divine decree. Everything has been planned by
God already, including what your choices are going to be. And
that's part of God's decree, acting like a king over the universe,
He decreed what you would think and do, and that's the way it's
going to be. That's their understanding of sovereignty. Now, this leads
to some serious problems we'll see in a moment, but I just want
to show you what this is teaching or point is based on on your
handout. For example, the Westminster Confession, a definite classical
Calvinistic source, says this regarding this decree, that 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. Notice the singular decree of
God, this overarching decree. It's His eternal purpose according
to the counsel of His will. whereby for his own glory he
is foreordained whatever comes to pass. A. A. Hodge, I think the brother
of Charles Hodge, another famous Calvinist, says in his book Outlines
of Theology, he says, God having from eternity absolutely decreed
whatever whatsoever comes to pass, 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 you see from this that classic
Calvinism has taught there is one singular decree of God. It's overarching, it's universal,
and it's eternal. And this decree was apparently
a decision by God, acting as king, in which he predetermined
everything that would ever happen. And then he brought it into effect
by his singular will and volition. So you can see how their view
of sovereignty is such that God is a very controlling God, who
literally causes everything. And that's going to be the next
point. on your handout there. They teach that God is so sovereign
in this universal, overarching decree that you know what? He
actually foreordained sin and saw to it that it would come
to pass. Remember what it says here? That He continually controls
and directs the actions of His creatures to bring His plan to pass. And
that must mean that he is in control of sin. And we know that
sin is under his control. It doesn't escape him in his
sovereignty, his power, his knowledge, his omnipresence and such. But
they go one step farther than that and they say that God actually
moves to bring about certain acts, all acts in fact. And that
would naturally mean sin. That's why Lewis Burkoth says that God causes everything. That's his understanding of sovereignty.
There is no absolute principle of self-activity in the creature,
that's us, to which God simply joins his activity. In every
instance, the impulse to action and movement proceeds from God. He goes on to say, 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 the
specific acts and impulses you have to act come from who? God,
because it's part of his singular divine decree. Here's another one from Burkoff.
The divine concurses, funny word, energizes man and determines
him efficaciously to the specific act. In other words, God energizes
you to act in a specific way and you're just acted upon. Something
he predetermined. He efficaciously, in other words,
he made it happen. And you are just the recipient.
R.C. Spruill says in his book, Our
Sovereign God, or in that book, he says, What we mean by the
sovereign or efficacious will of God is that determination
by which God sovereignly will something to come to pass, which
therefore, indeed, does come to pass through the sheer efficacy,
force or power of that will. Well, what will? The will of
God. God's predetermination of everything. Here's J.I. Packer. He says,
To mainstream Calvinism, predestination of persons means the foreordaining
of both their doings, including their response to the gospel
and their consequent destinies. So your response to the gospel
or lack thereof is directly related to whether God chose you or did
not choose you for heaven. Amazing. You know what this really
reduces to when you stop and think of it? We often have that
triangle where we show the ten attributes of God. And you can
enumerate the attributes of God in various ways. There's nothing
magical about the word ten or inspired about ten. But really,
the Calvinist comes up with a new attribute of God, if you will,
an eleventh attribute to put on our triangle here. They go
beyond sovereignty to teach the omni-causality of God. He causes everything. That's
their definition. In fact, this leads to some serious
problems, and maybe you're already anticipating them in your thinking.
One of these problems is illustrated very well by Norman Geisler,
who rejects this five-point system of Calvinism. He's a little bit
Calvinist, he says, but he rejects this big package of Calvinism,
the consistent view. And so he says, bringing home
an illustration to personalize this problem, 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,
by the way, he's at this conference, He triumphantly informed us that
then and only then did I get peace about the matter. A sovereign
God killed his son, and therein he found ground for a great spiritual
victory, he assured us. 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 concluded
victoriously that God raped my daughter? God forbid, Keisler
says. Some views do not need to be
refuted. They simply need to be stated.
Very well put. One Calvinist, Edwin Palmer,
writes in his popular little booklet, The Five Points of Calvinism,
to emphasize the sovereignty of God even more, it is necessary
to point out that everything is foreordained by God. And then
he goes on to say, it is even biblical to say that God has
foreordained sin. Gordon Clark, another philosopher
and Calvinist, 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. A little later on the page,
he goes on to say, in Ephesians 1.11, Paul tells us that God
works all things, not some things only, after the counsel of his
own will. You see where this theology leads?
It's horrifying. That's why R.C. Spruill's son,
R.C. Spruill Jr., says this. By the way, I think he's following
the same theology of his father, but he's not quite as careful
as his father. And so he speaks freely about
where the same theology leads. His dad would have been a little
wiser and not said what he says here. Here's what Jr. says. Every
Bible-believing Christian must conclude, at least, that God,
in some sense, desired that man would fall into sin. He goes
on to say, God wills all things that come to pass. It is 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. Now, we would
agree with that to an extent. He goes on to say, but wait a
minute. Isn't it possible for God to do evil? He can't sin. I am not accusing God of sinning.
I am suggesting that He created sin. Whoa. This is really horrifying stuff.
Houston, we've got a problem here, don't we? Milwaukee, Duluth,
Minneapolis, we have a problem. You see where a system of theology
will take you? if you follow the system instead
of Scripture. To say that God is sovereign
does not mean that He causes everything. In fact, we'll see
in a moment, as we look at the balance of Scripture, that He
permits some things, many things, including sin, but He directly
causes and imposes His direct will on some things. In fact,
many things in that respect too, but not when it comes to sin
or the exercise of our volition and faith, etc. And so this is
a distorted view of God's sovereignty. Now, another thing you need to
understand regarding the Calvinist view of sovereignty is that sometimes
they claim that people are free. They recognize that we have to
admit free will in some sense. So sometimes they will say, well,
people are free. but free only to choose only
their greatest desire. You are free to choose, but you
really only choose your greatest desire. And God is the one who
happened to have put that desire within you. And so they try to
come up with what they say is a balanced perspective. On the
one hand, there is the teaching of sheer determinism, which is
fatalism. And I believe that that's where
consistent Calvinism ends with its universal singular decree,
God causing everything. But some Calvinists who say,
well, no, we're more moderate than that. They want to get away
from sheer determinism or fatalism. Yet they don't want to embrace
what is sometimes called libertarianism, where man's will is completely
free without bounds. So they say, we believe in something
more nice and moderate. It's called compatibilism. Sometimes
you will hear that phrase. Compatibilism. Where they say,
yes, man really does have a will. And God is still sovereign and
causes everything. And the two are compatible. They
teach that man has free will, 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
and yet he can control the outcome so that his will is always done. I know some of this is heady
stuff, but just try to concentrate now for the next half hour or
so on this because this is a very important point. Jonathan Edwards
was one who tried to promote as a Puritan Calvinist this idea
of compatibilism. So he even wrote a book called
The Freedom of the Will. And yet you read it, and you
don't really feel very free. God is giving you desires, and
even your greatest desire, but you can only really choose your
greatest desire. In fact, Bruce Ware teaches this
view in his book, God's Greater Glory. He says, compatibilist
freedom insists that regardless of what struggles we go through
in making our choices or deciding what action to perform in the
end, we choose an act. We do so from when we choose
an act. We do so only or from prevailing
desires which explain exactly why this choice and not another
is made. This obviously means, however,
that when we choose all things being just what they are, we
must choose as we do. Wait a minute. We must choose
as we do. That's a contradiction. You really
don't have freedom if God gives you one choice. John Feinberg,
in his book No One Else Like Him, says, so an act is free,
though causally determined, if it is what the agent wanted to
do. You're the agent acted upon.
You do what you want to do because God gave you one desire, in essence,
your greatest desire. So it was determined and yet
you're free. I don't think this is consistent
at all. In fact, there's several problems with this view. Kind
of reminds me of this poor cow here. He's got one choice really,
left or right, right? But there's only one destination
for the poor guy. It's been predetermined. You know, thinking of you choosing
your greatest desire, is that biblical? Do you always choose
your greatest desire? What about Paul in Romans 7?
The good that I don't want to do, I do. And the evil that I don't want
to do, I do. In fact, I remember in this church
years ago, when I was a college student, I had a friend, a female
friend, who was a believer, part of this church. She was dating
a gal, a guy, I should say. It's getting late. And this particular
fellow was not really interested in pursuing the will of God in
his life, and yet they got engaged. And it became evident over time
that she should not marry this guy, and yet in her heart she
wanted to. And you know what she chose to do? She chose to
act contrary to her greatest desire, to go against her emotion
and everything telling her. In fact, the wedding was planned.
She broke it off because she took a step of faith to do the
right thing, even though her heart was telling her to do this,
the wrong thing. You know what? Just as a side
note, God greatly honored that choice. And she has lived a blessed
life in the Lord. And he's blessed her in many
ways as a result of that choice. So it is not true that just because
you have a desire, the greatest desire, you will always act upon
it. and that really you can only choose your greatest desire.
You know what that does in essence? It kind of makes God like a communist
government in a way. You know who this guy is, right?
Fidel Castro. And you know what this picture
is? He's casting his vote in the Cuban election. Isn't it
amazing how he gets elected every single time? How is that? Well, people have a choice, don't
they? But the outcome is predetermined. There can only be one result. It's like I saw this official
communist voting ballot. Governor, one choice, Bob. Attorney
General, one choice, Larry Smith. Party affiliation, choose for
the communists every time. That's how some people view God.
And that's really what this Calvinist compatibilism reduces to. It's
thoroughly unbiblical. Now, what is the biblical balance
regarding God's sovereignty? Well, the biblical balance regarding
God's sovereignty is that on the one hand, he is sovereign
and everything is under his control. Nothing escapes. His ability
to continue to implement his plan where everything is headed
for his glory. And yet under his control, he
permits the exercise of man's volition and will. And he is
able to keep everything steered along and allow man to exercise
his will and intelligent creatures, even angels, to exercise their
will in fulfillment of God's plan, because he's always a zillion
steps ahead of them. His creatures are finite. He's
infinite. both in knowledge and in power,
and by the way, also in presence. So if one demon says, well, I
want to do this on planet Earth, God says, well, you know, you
want to move from this destination, Duluth, Minnesota, to Washington,
D.C., I already beat you there. I've been both places at once.
You know, that's why I've always said that Satan and the demons
must be the most frustrated, bitter individuals in the universe.
Can you imagine getting thwarted time and time and time again?
God always outsmarts you. He's always stronger than you.
He even beats you to the location. That would get irritating if
you're sinning. And that's how God exercises
His sovereignty. But it doesn't mean that He makes everything
happen in a direct sense. He has everything under His control.
In fact, even when a A leaf falls in the woods or a sparrow eats
some food off the ground. Is God sovereign over that? Some
people say, well, according to your view, the Calvinists would
object that according to our view, God is really not sovereign
and therefore some things must happen by chance. Do we believe
that some things happen by chance? No, there is no such thing as
chance. When God sees it all, And he even incorporates the
little sparrow and the seed and the leaf and the woods into his
bigger plan. He sees it all. He knows it all.
And he has the ability to incorporate our choices into his bigger plan. There's no place for chance,
as we use that term. And so the biblical balance is
that God is not the cause of sin or evil. In fact, look at
Genesis chapter 1 with me. Or actually, don't turn there.
I'll just quote it. You remember at the end of the creation week,
what did God conclude about all that He had created? Behold,
it is very good. Then God saw everything that
He had made and indeed it was very good. So the evening and
the morning were the sixth day. He did not create evil or sin. In fact, we're told in James
1, verses 13 and 14 that God cannot be tempted by evil, nor
does he tempt anyone. Let no one say when he is 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." The scriptures
put the responsibility and even the fault back on man, not God. In terms of biblical balance,
we see also from Scripture that though God made intelligent creatures
sinless, He also made us with the capacity to choose good or
evil. Wasn't that true in the passage
with Adam in the garden in Genesis 2, 16 and 17? Of all the trees
of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree which is
in the middle of the garden you may not eat. For in the day that
you eat thereof, you will surely die. He gave Adam a choice. By the way, if everything was
dictated to mankind right from the beginning, why would God
even give Adam a choice? Choose between these two? It
doesn't make any sense. Even after the fall, man is given
a choice. In passages like Deuteronomy
30.15, 30.19. How about Joshua 24.15? Joshua beseeches the nation
of Israel. Certainly not all elect. And
he says to them, choose you this day whom you will serve, whether
it's the Lord Jehovah or these other gods. You see, if you say
that God causes everything, including the free will choices of every
intelligent creature, then that must include the choice to sin
and the choice for evil. And therefore you make God liable
rather than man. And that is the ultimate problem
with Calvinism. But in terms of biblical balance,
we see that God permitted sin in the universe because He desired
a relationship with His intelligent creatures that was based on choice,
not coercion. Choice, not coercion. We see
that over and over again in Scripture. Like in Colossians 3, 22 and
23, where we are told, Whatever we do, do it heartily
as unto the Lord and not as unto men. But notice that term, heartily. God is looking for a heart response.
Our choice in the matter. Not because we have to, but because
we want to. Pastors are exhorted in 1 Peter
5 too, to willingly serve as shepherds and not lord it over
the flock. But to willingly do that. And
so God created his original creation, mankind, with the capacity to
choose. But with that capacity to choose
came the capacity to sin. But in order for God to have
a genuine relationship with his creatures, he had to give him
that choice. And he ran the risk, so to speak, of his creatures
choosing against him. By the way, that's how he also
allowed for his great attribute of grace to come in by even allowing
for sin. And thus his plan for the Savior
was in place. So the character of God came
out in spite of sin. He had to allow for the free
will choices of his creatures. Turn with me to another passage,
Job chapter 1. I want to show you something
very important here. When it comes to the biblical
balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, we
also see that though God does not determine that people must
sin, He permits it. Does God have a permissive will?
He sure does. What about those passages in
Matthew 19, 7 and 8 that speak of divorce? In that context, Jesus says there
that Moses didn't command you to divorce your wives, but because
of your sin and your stubbornness, He
permitted you to do this. God permits certain things without
causing them. In fact, He even incorporates
man's choices into the fulfillment of his righteous purposes. We
see this with Job. Most righteous man on the face
of the earth at that time. So Satan targets him and Satan
goes to heaven. There's a meeting there. Satan
shows up last, comes in dragging his feet, so to speak. And verse
11, God says to him, well, let's back up to verse 9. It says,
So Satan answered the Lord and said, Does Job fear God for nothing?
Have you not made a hedge around him, around his household, and
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, he is saying to God, and touch all
that he has, and he will surely curse you to your face. Verse
12, And the Lord said to Satan, Behold, all that he has is in
your power. Only do not lay a hand on his
person, i.e., To persecute him to the point of death, God retained
in his sovereignty the parameters or boundaries to which Satan
could go. And yet, who was it who could
act and carry out the evil? It wasn't God. And that's why
even in passages in the Old Testament that sometimes can be confusing,
and I've even seen some extreme Calvinists use these passages
to support their view of omnicausality. There are some passages where
it says that an evil spirit went out from the presence of the
Lord and caused, you know, such a person to act in such a way.
Saul, for example, is a great example. 1 Samuel 16, 14, other
passages. It kind of sounds like God might
be the cause of evil in those passages. And yet when you understand
Job here, what really happened, you can understand how these
other passages in the Old Testament should be interpreted. That an
evil spirit was in the presence of the Lord. God is sovereign
even over them. And God allowed them to go out
to fulfill their desire because God also had other purposes in
allowing demonic affliction. What about Paul? The thorn in
the flesh. God allowed that. It was for
Paul's good. And yet the evil itself did not
come from God. And so we see when it comes to
biblical balance that God incorporates the free will choices of His
creatures even to sin. That's why in Genesis 50-20,
regarding Joseph, though his brothers meant their persecution
towards him for evil, God meant it for good. So God allowed it. Romans 8.28 and many other passages. But along the way, God will even
allow the hardening of a person's heart based on their choices.
And thus, in that sense, indirectly, He causes that. But not apart
from their choice. That's how we explain Pharaoh,
for example. How in some passages it says,
God hardened his heart. In other passages, Pharaoh hardened
his own heart. In some passages it says both.
God and Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh's heart. By the way, it all starts
off in Exodus with Pharaoh hardening his own heart towards God. And
then after that you see God saying, okay, now here's another choice
I put before you. When he chooses evil again, it
hardens Pharaoh's heart even further. God knew Pharaoh would
choose that. He set that up in his plan. So
God drew him along to cause further hardening so that God's glory
and character would be contrasted all the more. So he's not responsible
for sin or evil. He always gives his intelligent
creatures that choice. In terms of biblical balance,
Calvinism also teaches, going beyond the subject of sovereignty
now to knowledge, that even God's foreknowledge is causative, making
foreknowledge practically synonymous with foreordination. When you see the word foreknowledge
in Scripture, Does that mean God foreordains
or causes? Or does it mean He has prior
knowledge? Just as the etymology of the
word would indicate. Well, here's what some Calvinists
teach. Augustus Strong says in his Systematic Theology, 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 see, they have the divine
decree of God first, and then they have the knowledge of God
afterwards. God knows how everything is going to play out in the universe
because he set it up that way and he planned it that way. By the way, doesn't that lead
to a problem with the attributes of God? leads to acting first and knowing
second. And yet, I think biblically,
the order is the other way around. God always knows what he's going
to do. And then he acts. That's another
issue. There's another quote from Schreiner
and Bruce Ware in their book, Still Sovereign. They say in
the preface, Foreknowledge is, and this is how they define it,
the term refers to God's foreordination of future events and includes
the idea of God's covenantal commitment. Again, foreknowledge
equals foreordination or prior determination. But biblically,
how are these terms used? Let me give you one more quote
here. S. M. Bowe says in the same book,
according to Calvinism, the term for foreknow, and the Greek word
is prognosko, in the New Testament means to elect, to determine,
or to indicate an intimate relationship. Now can you see why they have
to come up with such a definition and not let foreknowledge simply
mean prior knowledge? Because if foreknowledge means for ordination, it fits
with their idea of cutting man's will out completely and man's
responsibility. But for knowledge, of course,
means God can foresee what his intelligent, responsible creatures
will choose. And thus man is responsible in
the end. But how is this term used biblically?
Let's just do a little survey several uses of prognosco in
the New Testament, look at Acts chapter two. Here on the day of Pentecost,
Peter is preaching to the generation that was responsible for the
crucifixion of Christ. And here he's speaking to the
Jews, not the Romans. In verse 22 it says, Verse 23, him being delivered
by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have
taken, by lawless hands have crucified and put to death. And
then it goes on. Did you notice in verse 23 where
it says, him being delivered by the determined purpose, that
speaks of God's will, his boule, the Greek word, and foreknowledge
of God. And Calvinists will say that
these two are use synonymously here, that this is a Granville
Sharp construction. And so therefore the predetermined
purpose of God and the foreknowledge of God are one and the same thing.
You know, that is a misunderstanding of the Granville Sharp construction
for one. It doesn't always mean that the
two things that are linked are one and the same thing. For example,
pastor-teacher refer to the same person, but is it true that in
Ephesians 4, verse 11, a pastor and a teacher are one and the
same gift necessarily? No. Because you can have women
who are gifted to be teachers, but they're not pastors and teachers. But it is true that all pastors
are also gifted to be teachers. The gift is really from the Lord.
But here it can clearly be understood that God had a predetermined
purpose and he also knew how man would act. And that's why
even in the passage, this generation is held responsible for the crucifixion. And they are called upon to repent,
change their mind about who Christ really is. And so God, foreknowing,
What the negative exercise of their volition would be in choosing
to crucify their Messiah, he incorporated that into his plan
so that his son would be offered up as a sacrifice yet at their
hands. And then he could appeal to them
to repent and believe and then show his grace even in that great
invitation. and offering them salvation,
the very ones who had Christ crucified. Imagine that. And
of course, in the spiritual sense, we all are responsible for that
as our sins put them on the cross. So here's one use of the term
prognosco or foreknowledge that could clearly just simply mean
to know beforehand. Turn to Acts chapter 26. I'll
show you another very clear example of this definition of prior knowledge. and the use of prognosco. In
Acts 26, Paul is recounting his testimony before King Agrippa. And he says,
verse 2, I think myself happy, King Agrippa, because today I
shall answer for myself before you concerning all of the things
which I am accused of by the Jews. especially because you
are expert in all customs and questions which have to do with
the Jews. Therefore, I beg that you hear me patiently. Verse
four, my manner of life from my youth, which was spent from
the beginning among my own nation at Jerusalem, all the Jews know. Verse five, they knew me from
the first if they were willing to testify that according to
the strictest sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee. And then he goes on. You know
in verse 5 there where it says, they knew me from the first? That is the Greek word progenosko. They knew me beforehand. They
knew before. And here it's very clear. What
did they know about Paul? Did they foreordain Paul? Not
in any sense. But they had prior knowledge
of Paul. And in particular, they knew something about Him. We're
going to see in other passages in Scripture that God's foreknowledge
simply means that He knows something about the individual, you and
lost people, whether we will believe or not. We could look at other passages,
but I think we're short on time tonight. You could write down
2 Peter 3.17. 1 Peter 1-2, which says that we
are elect according to the foreknowledge of God. That is a very important
one. Elect according to the foreknowledge
of God. Our election by God is in accordance
or keeping with what God foreknew. The question is what did He foreknow? Clearly He foreknew something
about us. In Romans 8, we have sometimes what is called
the golden chain. And you know that it contains
foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. And all whom God foreknew, He
predestined, He called, He justified, and He glorified. And these chains
are unbreakable. And yet in this chain, we see
that even here foreknowledge precedes it all, includes even
preceding predestination. In 1 Peter 1, 2, we saw that
foreknowledge preceded election. In fact, the foreknowledge was
the basis for the election. Here we see that foreknowledge
precedes even predestination. And then if you look at Ephesians
chapter 1, verses 4 and 5, there you see that election precedes
predestination. So both election and predestination
biblically come after foreknowledge as you compare these parallel
passages. Foreknowledge precedes it all.
Good question. If foreknowledge meant to foreordain,
wouldn't it be very redundant for God to say that you are elect,
forechosen according to the foreordination of God? God predestined you based
on his foreordination. There's some redundancy there,
isn't there? That's why I don't think this is biblical at all.
So you must understand that Calvinists redefine foreknowledge to mean
foreordination rather than simple prior knowledge. And the divinely
revealed order is foreknowledge first. Now let me clarify something
here. This is an important point. about
God's omniscience. When we say that God foreknew
first before He elected or chose based on what He saw in terms
of our faith or choice to believe in Him, are we saying that God
at some point in eternity passed before He chose us? There was
some point in which He didn't know what He was going to do?
In fact, has God ever been without some kind of knowledge. No. Biblically, omniscience means
that he's always known all that there ever is to know. Including
every free will choice of his creatures and what he would do
in conjunction with those choices. So, it was not possible for God
not to have ever known what you would choose. He's always known
what you would choose. Simultaneously, He has always
known what He would do regarding the sending of His Son to be
the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world. And so our choices
in God's plan were eternally simultaneous, always known to
God. And thus, it was impossible for
God to not have factored in your choice to believe in Jesus Christ.
Our will was incorporated into his divine will because he's
always known what you would choose. That did not mean he made it
happen in an unconditional sense. But he always knew. And so election
to individual salvation must be conditioned on our response
to the gospel. In fact, we could reduce it very
simply to this. God chose to save those whom
he knew would choose to trust his son. Or put it all in the
present tense, God chooses to save those who choose to trust
His Son. It's just that simple. It fits with this illustration
here. You've probably heard of the
door analogy. That from the human standpoint,
God is reaching out to a lost world. And no one here can see
who's chosen and who isn't. We don't have some sign on our
head that says elect. And so we preach the gospel to
everyone and invite everyone. That's God's call. And yet those
who are chosen are only those who receive the invitation of
whosoever will. And this illustration here combines
two passages, Revelation 22, 17, whosoever will may come and
Ephesians 1, 4, chosen in him before the foundation of the
world. But once you go through the door of salvation, Jesus
Christ, you take that step of faith. It's as though you can
turn around and look above the archway and see written, chosen
in Him, the foundation of the world. And that's the biblical
balance. I like what D.L. Moody said years
ago. He said regarding this whole subject, it's very simple. Who
are the ones who are elect? Well, the elect are the whosoever
wills and the non-elect are the whosoever wants. There you have
it. That's true. Now, does the Bible
teach an unconditional election? It does in some ways. What about
the nation of Israel? They were chosen as a nation
unconditionally. That's what Romans 9-11 is really
all about. By the way, Romans 9-11 is not
dealing with unconditional election to eternal life. The Gospel is
dealing with Israel's election to a place of national service
in God's plan. And I'll tell you, historically,
those who are non-dispensationalists have missed the boat on that
point. When you look at Romans 9-11 non-dispensationally, it's
no wonder you get confused about the doctrine of salvation. Because
you think Israel and the church are one and the same. And you
don't make that distinction. And see, this is a passage just
for God's unconditional election of Israel as a nation. You take
it as church truth regarding the doctrine of salvation. And
that's why I think even historically, Calvinists have gotten into trouble
because many of them, again, have been non-dispensationalists,
especially at the beginning of their movement. And they have
held to covenant theology. As you see, one theology affects
another. So is election to salvation conditional
or unconditional? I think it's clearly conditional
for several reasons. You can summarize these any way
you want, but I don't have them on the PowerPoint here. But first
of all, it has to be conditional because just as God had prior
knowledge of man's sin problem and determined to send his son
accordingly, as the Lamb of God would take away the sin of the
world, So, in his omniscience, God must have foreknown who would
believe and elected them accordingly. In other words, he always knew
that man would sin. He devised a plan to send his son to be
the Savior. And therefore, he must have known,
just as he foresaw our sin problem, he must have foreknown those
who would believe in his son as the Lamb of God. Second reason
why election to eternal life must be unconditional. I mean,
conditional, it's getting late again, is that God consistently
offers salvation to all based upon the condition of faith without
ever distinguishing that the offer is only for the elect.
Why is it that in all these passages where it says, you know, to come
to him, whosoever wills, etc. There's never a qualification
about, well, this will only happen if you're one of the elect and
unconditionally elected that. You don't see that anywhere in
the many passages where people are beckoned to come to Christ.
Another reason why the election must be conditional is because
God consistently treats the unregenerate as though they're volitionally
capable of choosing His will. We saw that already with the
many seeking passages in Scripture. So he treats us as volitionally
capable of choosing as well. And he does so without first
saying that we have to be regenerated by him and given the gift of
faith. Anywhere in scripture. Another reason that we are conditionally
elected is because God consistently holds man exclusively responsible. for his own eternal condemnation,
due to his own willful unbelief and rejection of Christ, and
not due to any supposed unwillingness on the part of God. You find that over and over again
in Scripture, that the liability is man's, not God's. can never be held in contempt
by man. Because man can't shake his fist
at God one day and say, well, you never chose me unconditionally. It's your fault. God makes it
possible for all men to hear the Gospel and be saved if they're
positive towards His truth. Just like Cornelius. Here's a fifth reason. That it
must be conditional because it's consistent with His just and
loving character as revealed in Scripture. In addition to
His expressly revealed desire to save all mankind. For God
to have unconditionally chosen to salvation only the minority
of mankind, while choosing not to unconditionally elect the
rest of humanity. That would be a contradiction
of God's character, wouldn't it? And so that leads to some
serious, serious problems. So what does all this lead to?
If you were to follow the Calvinist party line on this whole election,
foreknowledge, doctrine, what it would lead to is a flat out
contradiction of certain passages of Scripture where God says He
desires that all men be saved, like 2 Peter 3.9. The Lord is
not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness but as
longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish,
but that all should come to repentance. By the way, in the context of
2 Peter 3.9, What is the context? Both before
verse 9, it's speaking of universal judgment, and after verse 9,
when it speaks of the world being burned up by fire, it's speaking
of universal judgment. It is not saying he desires only
that the elect should not perish, but come to There we go. Got a green light
again. Thank you. So some Calvinists who are more
moderate will say, well, God doesn't really assign people
to go to hell. He just doesn't provide what
they need, the gift of faith to go to heaven. So he just kind
of leaves them on their own. And they think they kind of soften
their image of God that way. Whereas some who are consistent
Calvinists, I think, the moderate Calvinists will call them hyper-Calvinists,
they actually say God reprobates or assigns people to hell, like
John Calvin himself did. Here's a quote from C. Samuel
Storms. On this point, he says, if people
are to repent, they must be equipped by God to do so. They must be
granted repentance as a gift. Ultimately, it rests with God
in His sovereign good pleasure to give or to withhold that which
leads to the knowledge of the truth. To give or to withhold
that which leads to the knowledge of the truth. Now, interestingly,
he's quoting in part from 1 Timothy 2.4, where it says that God desires
all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. If
that's true, why would he withhold what people need to believe?
Unless he wants them to go to hell. See, it's kind of like
this whole matter of choosing in a positive or negative way.
It's kind of like when you were a kid and you were playing football
in the neighborhood and you got together a bunch of guys and
you all know who the two best players were. They usually were
the captains. And so they'd separate the other
guys who weren't quite as good. And you'd all line up, and the
two guys would stand there, and they'd say, no, no, I want Jim,
and I want John, and I want Bob, and I want Steve, and the teams
would line up. And the worst player usually
was last, right? And by virtue of not selecting
Tom last, that was a choice, wasn't it? A choice not to choose
for me to be on the team was a choice for me to be left on
the other guy's team. So it's just sort of a semantic
word game they play. And that's why when you look
at some Calvinists like Storms here, they put it kind of bluntly
that it's God's good pleasure. Like even Calvin, who said, 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. He's saying that God is glorified
by consigning some people to hell. In fact, since the way
is broad that leads to destruction, he apparently has decided that
the majority should go to hell. And that glorifies him. This
leads to a very distorted view of God. And that's why I think
it's really appropriate when Dave Hunt titled his book a few
years back, What Love Is This?, when he critiqued Calvinism,
He hit the nail on the head. Because again, if the Calvinist
God says that he's capable of unconditionally electing all,
and he loves mankind, and his will is to save them, as these
various passages say, then why wouldn't he do so? Apparently
he doesn't love all, and it's really not his will to do so. And that's even what Calvin clearly
says here. Now, let's move on quickly to
these last remaining three points. I'm going to move quickly through
these. When it comes to the L in the
tulip, of course, it stands for limited atonement. Strict five
point Calvinists also believe that Christ died only for the
sins of the elect. And if there's one point in the
tulip that many Calvinists seem to hedge on, it's this one right
here. But why do some Calvinists, in
fact, many Calvinists hold to this view? Well, again, it's
not something taught in scripture, but their system necessitates
it. Why would God send his son to
be the lamb to take away the sin of the world if he knew that
he had already planned for the majority to be lost and the minority
to be saved? Therefore, logically, he should
have only come and died for the elect, the few. And that is,
in fact, what they teach. And yet, Scripture testifies
that Christ's death paid for the sins of the world. John 1.29. Behold the Lamb of God who takes
away the sin of the world. For God so loved the world that
He gave His only begotten Son. In 2 Corinthians 5.19, several
passages testify to this truth. In fact, 1 John 2.2, let's go
there. says that Christ died for the
sins of the whole world. This is one of the best passages,
I think, to set forth the truth that the atonement or redemption that
Christ provided is unlimited. Available to all. But not applied to all. only
to those who believe. In 1 John 2, starting in verse 1, it says,
My little children, these things I write to you so that you may
not sin. Clearly, he's speaking to children of God. And if anyone
sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins. As you think of the person of
Christ, You should think of the Lamb, the cross, and Jesus Christ
as a person are one and the same. He's Christ crucified. He is
our propitiation. In Him is redemption. He himself is the propitiation
for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the whole
world. That's very clear. I don't know
how you can really get around that. So the Scripture testifies
that He died not only for the sins of the world, but the whole
world. He died for all or every man. 1 Timothy 2.6 says, 1 Timothy
4.10 says, that He is the Savior of all mankind, especially of
those that believe. 4.10 says. And Hebrews 2.9 says
that He tasted death for every man. By the way, in the context
of Hebrews 2, every, that same word is used just prior to verse
9 to speak of all of mankind. So it's very selective reasoning on the part of the
Calvinists by the time they come to verse 9 to say it's only the
elect. And in fact, 2 Peter 2.1 says that he died even for false
teachers who deny him. Now does this doctrine really
matter? Sure it does. When you preach the gospel again,
can you say in all honesty to anyone you approach with the
gospel that Christ died for you? Only if you hold to unlimited
atonement. Can you do that? Okay. Let's move on to the next point
in the TULIP. Any questions on limited atonement?
Robert? I just lost it. Hold on. First
blank is world. The second blank is whole world.
And not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world,
John says in 1 John 2. Scripture couldn't be any clearer.
You really do have to have a man-made system of theology you're imposing
on the Scriptures to get around what these passages are teaching.
So the system has to go if we're going to keep to Scripture. Let's
move on to the fourth point in the tulip, that of irresistible
grace. Calvinism teaches that those whom God has unconditionally
elected, he will also draw to himself in an irresistible fashion
by causing them to believe the gospel. R.C. Sproul, in his book, Whosoever
Will, says the word draw in John 644 and 1232 is a more forceful
concept than to woo, He goes on to say that it means
to compel by irresistible superiority. And so really, when they look
at these pre-salvation passages describing that work of God in
drawing, convicting, etc., they interpret that to mean that God
is essentially dragging people to Christ. He makes them come
effectually and irresistibly to himself. Now, what is the biblical balance
here? Well, we know again, as we saw earlier, that no one can
come to Christ unless he's drawn by the Father. John 6, 44. Unless
Christ draws him. John 12, 32. Unless the Holy
Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness and of judgment.
By the way, why would you bother convicting the whole world of
sin, righteousness, and of judgment unless you wanted to show man
his needs so he could be saved? But all these things are done
by God to show man his need without actually making man believe. I'd like to use this analogy
with some people to illustrate this again. Imagine that you
as an unbeliever are like a chicken on a farm. And the farmer is
God, and the barn is heaven. And you as an obstinate chicken
like to walk around outside the barn. You like your freedom,
right? But the farmer wants to get you
in that barn. How is he going to do it? Well,
if he tried to chase you around, he'd get all tired out. And you
know how chickens can do that. Farmers are frustrated. But,
in this case, you have a very wise god or farmer, so he wants
to appeal to your volition as a chicken, and he decides, I
know that if that chicken's hungry, I can bring him into the barn.
If you're spiritually hungry and you want to know God, here's
what's going to happen. I can take a bucket of corn,
and I can drop one seed right there, ten feet away from that
chicken, and that chicken knows, oh, there's food right there.
And if he's hungry, he'll come over and get it. He'll respond
to my initiating work. And if he eats that one, I can
back up 10 more feet and drop another one. And I'm making my
way towards the barn until I get to the door of the barn. Let's
say this very threshold right here. And he's standing right
there. And I drop that piece of corn
inside the barn. It's his choice now to come in.
I have just wooed him in. But I've appealed to his appetite,
spiritually speaking. And I think when it comes to
divine sovereignty and man's responsibility, that's exactly
how God works. To draw people to himself. Not
in a coercive fashion, but in terms of wooing. And we could
take the time, we don't have time tonight, to look more involved
at the Scripture and how it uses that term for calling. And I
think you will see that when it applies to human beings and
God working in them, He doesn't use it in the sense of dragging
them. He uses it in the sense of wooing. The Scripture teaches
that not all who are called are also chosen. In fact, that's
what Matthew 22.14 says. Many are called, but few are
chosen. because the drawing and invitation
of God can be resisted. Acts 7.51, Stephen is exhorting
the Jews of the crucifixion generation. And he says, you always resist
the Holy Spirit just as your fathers did. Very interesting. The Spirit
of God can be resisted. Look at Matthew 23 with me. This is an important passage
when it comes to irresistible grace. By the way, the Calvinists will
say that God has a general call and then he has an effectual
call. And I think they make that distinction, not because the
Bible speaks of two different calls in that way, but again,
their theology necessitates that. But here in Matthew 23, we see
that God wants, again, all Jerusalem to be saved, and yet they would
not. In Matthew 23, verse 37, Jesus
says, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets
and stones those who are sent to her, how often I wanted to
gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under
her wings, but you were not willing." We see in verse 37 that Jesus
Christ is speaking here and He says, I wanted to gather your
children together. And the term for want there is
the general term for will, fellow. And then at the end of the passage
He says, but you were not willing. Again, fellow is used there.
So what is the reason why they were not gathered together? It
was their will, not God's. Clearly they had resisted and
rejected the invitation of God. And Jesus Christ wasn't going
to make them believe in Himself. Now I do think that God has an invitation to all
mankind. In Matthew 11.28, again, Jesus
said, All you who labor and are heavy laden, come unto me. That's
everyone. Acts 17.30, God now commands
all men everywhere to repent. That's an invitation and a command,
isn't it? But all men everywhere. That's
universal. Now when it comes to this word
calling, Look at too many passages of scripture because of time.
I want to get to the pea and the tulip. But this is a term
that's used over and over again in the New Testament that believers
are referred to those referred to as those who are called. And
why is that? I think it's because God wants
us to understand that though we do have to exercise our volition
and belief, we should never forget the fact that he was the one
who reached out to us and invited us. You're the call. It's like
being invited to a banquet for, let's say, the richest person
here in the city of Duluth. let's say a mansion here in Duluth. What is the wealthiest, fanciest
mansion here? Is it the Glensheen? Let's say
the Glensheen family owns it. Let's just say they're very wealthy
and you get invited. None of us here know the family,
but we were invited and we came. And so here we are rubbing elbows
with all these big wigs And you're inside this big banquet hall
with the big glass chandelier and everybody's decked out in
their nice clothes. Do you say to the people standing
next to you, you know, I'm here because I'm so great. No, you're
saying, I'm here. I can't believe I got invited.
I was called. I was a called one because of
the generosity and graciousness of the host. And that's what
it will be like in heaven. we'll look back and say, I am
just so amazed that God had a plan of salvation and invited me. And yeah, I responded, but he
gets the credit. He's the host. I think that's
how we should look at the word called. You are called of God. What a privilege. Because again,
could God and His justice have just judged everybody and sent
us to hell? He sure could have. But he didn't.
He's a God of love and grace as well. Let's go on to the fifth
point in the tulip, that of perseverance of the saints. I won't spend
too much time on this because you've already gone over much
of this with Lordship Salvation. But Calvinism also teaches that
all whom God unconditionally elects, regenerates, and causes
to believe will also necessarily persevere in faith and good works
until the end of their lives. That is what Calvinism has always
taught, going back to John Calvin, going back to the Council of
Dort, Synod of Dort, the Westminster Confession, taught that in the
mid-1600s. Calvinists today often speak
of that. Now this is something interesting
that you may not hear Calvinists speak much of, that not only
do they believe that you will persevere in your faith and good
works, You also persevere by means of prayer, the threatenings
of the Word. That's the term they use. That
God has certain warnings and threatenings for you to persevere,
to hang in there, so you better abide by those. And also through
the use of the sacraments. And thus they speak of means
of grace. And I don't have many of these
quotes for you today. I could get them for you. But
it is astonishing to read men like John Calvin, and even some
who followed him for the next couple hundred years, to speak
of using the Lord's Supper and baptism as means of saving grace. That if you will apply those
things in faith, those are the means God will use for your salvation. We heard tonight a quote from
John Piper. He says, I believe God uses means,
one of which is prayer. And that's why I pray more often
than any other prayer. Lord, keep me saved. How is that
not salvation by faith plus works? And of course, this whole doctrine
of the perseverance of the saints is very different from the doctrine
of eternal security that requires only one step of faith. in Jesus
Christ in order to be guaranteed of eternal life and kept saved
thereafter by the Shepherd. The Bible teaches the perseverance
of the Savior, not the saints. And it teaches the preservation
of the saints by Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd. In fact, there
are many passages of Scripture the talk about the kind of faith
that saves. In this sense, as we saw in John
3, all God is asking of us and inquiring of us is a look of
faith. Wasn't that true in John 3? That
if the Israelites would look to the serpent raised up on that
pole, that brass serpent, they would be healed. And Jesus Christ
is saying, if you will look to me lifted up on the cross, you
will be saved. You will get eternal life. Now
did the Israelites have to keep looking at the brass serpent
and never let it out of their view? To stay healed? That would be absurd, wouldn't
it? And yet, that's what some Calvinists do with John 3.16
and the requirement to believe in Christ. Or likewise, John
4 where Jesus likens the water of life and drinking it to believing
in Him. And He says to the woman at the
well, If you only knew the gift of God and who it is that says
this to you. And so she believes later in
the passage and she gets eternal life. But question, did she have
to drink and keep drinking? Keep on drinking? No. That wasn't the requirement.
The whole idea was one drink. and you'll be satisfied and you'll
never thirst or hunger again. The same is true in John 6 with
the bread of life in that passage. So scripture does not require
an ongoing faith to stay saved. In fact, it very definitely in
several passages speaks of the possibility of our faith not
enduring to the very end. Luke 8.13, 1 Timothy 1.19, 1
Timothy 5.8, You can have your faith overthrown.
Faith can be destroyed. Faith can be shipwrecked. By
the way, you can't shipwreck a faith that never existed in
the first place. And shipwrecking faith speaks
of total destruction. When you see a ship wrecked on
the rocks of some beach somewhere, it's not going to sail again. And that can happen to faith
through false teaching, through sin, through various things.
So the Bible warns against that. So, besides 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. Let me demonstrate this for you
through the use of some quotes. I want to play a game with you
here. Pastor Roxer used this about a month ago. I don't know
if he's hearing this, but actually I came up with this about 10
years ago when I wrote some articles on, must faith endure for salvation
to be sure? So he stole it from me. Let's
just be clear about that. And maybe you remember who quoted
some of these things, and so it kind of lost its punch. But
let's try it again here tonight. Try to guess if these quotes
come from a Catholic, an Arminian, or a Calvinist. Here's the first
one. We cannot earn our salvation
through good works, 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, we'll be rewarded with eternal
life. Roman Catholic. This is their
track, their most popular track. Kind of the equivalent of Campus
Crusades, Four Spiritual Laws. Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth.
Here's another one. 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 a person to pass through the
gate. God will not declare a person righteous without also making
him righteous. Roman Catholic, Arminian, Calvinist. Calvinist, John MacArthur. By
the way, that sounds very much like the Roman Catholic doctrine,
though, of infused righteousness. That God never justifies somebody
without making them sanctified as well. So he imputes and infuses
righteousness both. As a Roman Catholic, former Catholic,
I'm horrified by these comments. They smack of Catholicism. There
is no cleansing from sin and no salvation without a continual
walking in God's light. Catholic? Arminian? Calvinist? Who knows? Arminian. Guy Doody. How do you like that name? In
his book, If You Continue. Arminian. Here's another one. Endurance in faith is a condition
for future salvation. Only those who endure in faith
will be saved for eternity. It's a condition for future salvation.
Roman Catholic. Arminian. Calvinist. Don't care
anymore. R.C. Spruill. Calvinist. Here's another one. The scriptures
repeatedly exhort us to persevere, to hang in there. There's only
those who endure to the end who will be saved. Sounds like R.C. Spruill's quote, right? Calvinist. Arminian? Catholic? Roman Catholic? Joseph Kindle?
What must I do to be saved? I think you can see from this
that really, in the end, there's no difference. Even classic Calvinism
says you've got to use the means of grace, which are the sacraments.
Huh? It's astonishing to me that evangelical
so-called Calvinists today like Piper and MacArthur are leaving
out historically that other means of grace that their predecessors
clung to, the sacraments. Because they know it would hearken
of Catholicism. And that would be very bothersome
to many people. And yet their theology is just
the same. That's why when it's all said and done and the shells
get moved around and you guess which one the ball is under,
it doesn't matter. If not Catholic, Arminian, or Roman Catholic,
or Calvinist, I've come up with the term Roman-Calminian to describe
the whole thing. You know, the tragedy of all
this is that what's at stake here ultimately with the perseverance
of the saints, the character of God being affected, and people's
salvation really is at stake. People are robbed of the assurance
of salvation. to look inward. They're told
to look at their life for enough fruit, enough endurance, and
so forth, instead of the object of their faith, which is Jesus
Christ and His finished work. You know, it's really sad that
John Calvin, we're told by Norman Dowdy in the book, The Death
of Christ, that on Calvin's deathbed, he spoke of a will, or he had
a will made up shortly before he died, and in it he expressed
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." That's from Calvin's will drafted right before he
died. He knew he was dying. But think
about these words for a minute. 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 wasn't even sure
that this would be true of him at the end of his life. What
a tragedy. No wonder so many Puritans on
their deathbed cried out for mercy from God because they didn't
know. How different from what the Scriptures
promise us. That if we believe on the name
of the Son of God, we may know we have eternal life. 1 John
5. Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine. Oh, what a foretaste of glory
divine. Heir of salvation. Purchase of
God. Born of His Spirit and washed
in His blood. Calvin couldn't have sung that
song. That's a tragedy. And I think that's where ultimately
all of this takes us is back to the Gospel again. And that's
why I just want to underscore in closing tonight, the main
point that I started with, that when you talk to practically
a person who's Calvinist and you run into them at a coffee
shop or wherever, don't make the issue the doctrine of omnicausality
or something like that. How do you define foreknowledge?
There will be a time to get into that down the road. But focus
on the Gospel. That's really what they need.
In fact, if they can see the clarity of the Gospel, a lot
of these things will take care of themselves down the line too.
Because they'll come to understand better the character of God and
the character of the true Gospel of grace. So, any questions tonight? No? Okay. Why don't we close
with a word of prayer and just thank the Lord. for what we have
in Him. Heavenly Father, we do thank
You not only for the truth and the clarity of Your Word in contrast
to this human system of theology again, but we also thank You
that through Your Spirit's work, through Your Son's drawing and
Your drawing, You have made our eyes open to the truth. You brought us to that point
where we could see. And Father, yet we know that
You do require our volition and yet You draw You initiate, you
work, and you're gracious, and yet you never violate your own
character. Father, we just pray we would be wise and discerning,
that we would keep our eyes fixed on Christ, the object of our
faith, and not have our assurance robbed. And may we, Father, just
never tire or grow dull, and not appreciate our Savior and
who we have in Him so that we could ever hold forth Him as
you are holding Him up for the world to believe. So Father,
I just pray for these Gibbs students to that end, my fellow brothers
and sisters in Christ, and we thank you and praise you again
for your great grace offered to sinners like us. In Jesus'
name we pray. Amen.
Confronting Calvinism - Pt 3
Series Confronting Calvinism
Publications Director Tom Stegall teaches "Confronting Calvinism - Pt 3" during the Grace Institute of Biblical Studies for February 6, 2012.
| Sermon ID | 26122215145 |
| Duration | 1:29:16 |
| Date | |
| Category | Teaching |
| Language | English |
Documents
Add a Comment
Comments
No Comments
© Copyright
2026 SermonAudio.