If you turn with me, please, to Romans 9. Romans 9. I'd like to read from verse 13. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, even for this same purpose have I raised thee up. that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will, he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay, but O man, who art thou that replyest against God? Shall the thing form, say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory and the vessels of mercy which he had aforeprepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles thus far. Dear Lord, we bow before Thee again and do thank Thee for Thy tender mercies over us and ask for Thy divine assistance this hour as we address difficult questions that often arise in the natural rebellious heart. Lord, that we may bow under thy truth, that we may receive it submissively, and that we may learn to communicate it effectively. Be with each man here, Lord, and bless each one, Help us all to learn how judiciously to proclaim the doctrine of sovereign double predestination. Be in our midst this morning. Lord, we need thee. We are continually wading in depths beyond us in this course, and we need thy wisdom, thy instruction, thy guidance, thy divine enlightenment into thy words. Lord, bless us and be near to us and go with us also in the coming last week of classes that we may be able to complete all matters in a timely way. And bless the students as they grapple with studying for exams and completing papers. Be with them each hour of each day. We pray in Jesus' name, amen. Well, we're at the bottom of page 9 of our outline. We began to look at predestination last time, and now we are taking a look at reprobation, particularly in the context of Romans 9. My goal for today, if possible, is to complete the entire section on the divine decree. and then next Wednesday to lecture to you on Providence, and next Friday a little bit on the angels, and then mostly on Satan and the devils. What does the doctrine of election imply for those who are not saved? Or, to say it perhaps more pointedly, Does election to salvation implicitly carry within it a doctrine of God's selection to damnation? In raising that question and responding to it, we need to go back to some of the basic statements of Scripture that we've been looking at. We've already noticed on several occasions, Ephesians 1, 11, and Romans 8, 28 forward. And we've seen there that the divine purpose is a purpose which pursues to the very end, the telos, divine glory. And that involves then the very things that God has decreed. So the implication, obviously, is that everything happens, we've seen, or rather everything that happens, happens because God says it should happen, God decreed that it should happen. So the purpose that lies behind the event we have described as the divine decree. Now, with respect to those who do not find salvation, 1 Peter 2 verse 8 teaches us that there's a connection between disobedience to the message of the gospel and to the divine purpose. Let me read that text to you a moment. I'll start with verse 7. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious but unto them which be disobedient The stone which the builders disallowed, the same has made the head of the corner." Then verse 8, "'And a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed.'" So they stumble on Christ the rock, the reprobate do, because they disobey the message but they were also destined for that disobedience. Now that language is used elsewhere in the New Testament as well. Speaking of the reprobate in terms of a divine predetermined appointment, even at the same time as they are totally culpable themselves for the sin and disobedience. And so there's other texts you can study, I'll give them to you. Acts 1, verse 7. Romans 4, 17. 1 Thessalonians 5, verse 9. And Hebrews 1, verse 2. And so the point of all these texts, and specifically this one of Peter, is that present disobedience and stumbling, while absolutely contrary to the revealed will of God, does not escape the purposes of God. Well, you can imagine this is pretty strong material and it raises a number of questions. And the questions that are raised are usually quite similar to the questions that Paul raises in Romans 9. And the questions that are raised often revolve around this theme of God's integrity. How could God do this? And so I think the best way we can approach these difficult questions is by looking at what we might call the locus classicus of the discussion of reprobation, which you find in Romans 9. In Romans 9, Paul poses three major questions. The first question we find already prior to the material I just read to you back in verse 6. Romans 9, 6 says, no, 6 through 13, 6 through 13. This whole section, I won't take time to read it now, you're actually quite familiar with it. This whole section is really asking the question, has God's word, which he has promised, failed? The thrust of it is indeed in verse six, not as though the word of God, he says, had taken none effect, for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel. So what Paul is saying here is, no, God's purpose has not failed. The rejection of the gospel by the Jews is not an evidence of the failure of God's purpose. It is rather an evidence of the way in which God works out his purposes in history. And then Paul goes on to provide us with two examples, two case studies, as it were. His first case study is Isaac and Ishmael. God shows the line of Isaac, not of Ishmael. Now, it is not because they are his descendants, that they are all Abraham's children. On the contrary, here is the promise given to Abraham, in his seed all the nations would be blessed. But what has happened is that his very seed physically have rejected the Messiah. That's what we read in verse 5, whose are the fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is overall God blessed forever. So, the question he then poses in verse 6 is, has God's purpose failed? And he begins to say in 7 forward, no, you see God's purpose is a discriminating purpose. Abraham is the father of both Isaac and Ishmael, but it is through Isaac, according to God's purpose, that Abraham's offering or offspring will be reckoned. In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but the children of the promise. Well, that illustration is open to a kind of rebuttal, which leads Paul to a second illustration, which is even more effective, and I'll show you why in a moment. He says, God in his distinguishing election, as he pursues his purposes, even made a distinction between twins, between Jacob and Esau. You see, the distinction between Isaac and Ishmael, people can raise the objection, well, they had the same father, but they had different mothers. Sarah was the bona fide wife of Abraham, so there's a natural tendency to select Isaac. But in the case of Jacob and Esau, both men had the same father, the same mother, and they were in the same womb at the same time. So the point of illustration here is even more powerful. Besides, Esau is the firstborn, the one you'd expect to be chosen. But Paul notes God's purpose, God's plan, and he appeals back to Malachi 1, you know the text, I'm sure, 2 and 3, and draws on that and repeats here in Romans 9, 13, as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Now, it's particularly that statement, Esau have I hated, that is offensive to many people. What are we to make of that? Well, two things. First of all, we cannot in this context simply reduce what Paul is saying to the idea that Esau is somehow simply loved less than Jacob. I'm not saying there aren't other contexts in scripture where that may be a valid argument. But here there's compelling evidence that God is not saying, I love the Edomites a little bit less. God is saying about Esau, I hated Esau. The whole context carries with it the context of reprobation and judgment. What the word hated really means here is, I reject it. I've turned his mountains into a wasteland. I've abandoned his inheritance. So hate means in this context, at the very least, rejection. Rejection by God. But Paul uses this to say that does not mean that God's purpose has failed. From the very beginning, God has made a promise which has carried on through a line, a covenant line, which has indicated that others will be rejected. And those who are rejected, like Esau, are rejected on the grounds also of their own sin. And so God distinguishes the elect from the reprobate here in order that his purpose to election might stand. That's what Paul concludes. But that in turn raises a second question. Is God then unjust? Surely he's unjust. Verse 14. That's what natural man says. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Now, the very fact that Paul raises this question indicates to us here that we're on the right track when we speak about a sovereignly discriminating election. If Paul were teaching our minionism here, the whole question of the justice of God would never have arisen. It arises precisely because of the sharpness of his statement. And to crystallize that, you see, Paul has moved on from Isaac and Ishmael to Jacob and Esau. Now, Paul goes on to explain why God is not to be charged with injustice in his sovereign election of one and his passing by of another. The answer, he says, you can find back in Exodus 33. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. And so salvation doesn't depend on man's desire, because that would be hopeless, but on God's mercy. And then Paul brings in a third case study, namely Pharaoh, and he says, I raised you up for this very purpose that I might display my power in you and my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. So the illustration of Moses in Exodus 33 and the illustration of Pharaoh implied in Paul's conclusion teaches us that God will have mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He will harden whom He wants to harden. So Paul is teaching us a few things here. He's teaching us for one thing, that the salvation of the elect is solely of mercy, and it belongs exclusively to the divine prerogative. And so the question of implication that God somehow is unjust totally misses the point. To move that back to Jacob, Jacob I love, but Esau I hated. That discriminating election of God, which involves the loving of Jacob and the reprobation of Esau, is not a matter of injustice, it's a matter of love. It's a matter of Jacob receiving what he didn't deserve, and Esau receiving precisely what he deserved. So the question of injustice, Paul is saying, cannot even arise. Who are we compared to God? It's as if Paul says, do you really want to ground your appeal for your relationship to God in the matter of justice? Don't you know by now, Romans, in terms of justice, no one would ever see salvation? There's a kind of ad hominem character about Paul's response, as well as a theological response, in which he's saying, between the lines, the person who appeals to issues of justice hasn't understood a word of what I've been saying from Romans 1 to Romans 8 about the guilt of man and how all the world lies guilty of God. How can you still say that you want justice from God? If you want strict justice, without the mercy of Christ, no one will stand. And therefore, mercy always must come from outside of us. It must come from God. It must be rooted in the eternal purposes of God. But that still leaves one major nagging question. If God reprobates, how can God blame us? That leads to the third question raised in verse 19. One of you will say to me, why doth he that is God yet find fault for who hath resisted his will? Now, It is sometimes said that in connection with what Paul says in Romans 6 verse 1, that Paul is so fond of preaching grace that people are saying, well the implication is we should just go on sinning because grace super bounds anyway. So it is sometimes said if that is what the apostolic gospel produces, if it produces sinfulness, then it's a gospel in vain. And when there are people listening to your preaching one day, there will be people that will be saying something like that. They'll say, you make the gospel so free, so sweet. It's almost as if it's too free, too good. Well, that's what Paul is arguing here in between the lines. He's saying the gospel is so good and so free to sinners that how will you find fault with God? This question is no more legitimate than question number two. Your only hope of being saved is in the goodness of God. So the whole idea that one would throw up one's hands and say in despair at this point, look where Paul's reasoning leads him. To say we are pots and God is the potter. There's no hope there. But Paul's point is, don't look at it from that perspective. Look at it from the perspective of who you are. Who you are. Hath not the power, powder over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel into honor and into dishonor? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? You see, what if God, willing to show his wrath, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction? You see, we are all vessels of wrath by nature. We've made ourselves worthy of wrath. So Paul's implying what Anselm refers to when he dialogues in his famous book with the disciple Bozo. He says, your problem, Bozo, is that you have not considered the greatness of the weight of sin. If you considered that, And some says to Bozo in another context, you wouldn't be asking a question like this. And that's basically what Paul is saying. You asking that question, you who made yourself worthy to be a vessel of wrath. If you considered the weight, the weightiness of sin that I presented to you in Romans one, two, and three alone, you would put your hand over your mouth. He would praise God for his election. See, the implication is it is impossible for someone to appear before the judgment seat of God and say with respect to reprobation, I don't deserve this. And so Paul brings us to the same conclusion that we came to theologically Here we see it exegetically. Last lecture on the board here where we said, really election boils down to this, that God is sovereign and gracious and reprobation boils down to this, that God is sovereign and just. Now that leads us then to several conclusions or implications. First of all, both election and reprobation are then sovereign. God is the sovereign divine. The distinction is not rooted in any distinction among individuals in themselves. And that needs to be recognized, particularly by the elect. The elect need to realize that there's nothing in them, naturally speaking, that incline God to them. There's no reason in you or me why we should be saved. And it's only when we really grasp that and understand that every reason resides in God that we are in our right place before God. But secondly, Salvation is here seen in Romans 9 to be rooted in divine mercy. Reprobation is viewed by Paul as an expression of divine justice. So the discriminating principle, yes, is entirely sovereign, but the ground of salvation, of implementing, of carrying it out is God's grace, God's mercy. You see, the answer to all these problems and all these questions is that we must not forget that we do not come into the equation neutral. We come into the equation sinners, deserving to be rejected, deserving to be reprobated. Now, these questions and implications have caused a debate to be debate to arise within the context of Calvinism, with which I'm sure you're somewhat familiar, called the Lapserian debate. And the Lapserian debate, in the context of Romans 9, and the context of other scriptural texts, really is a debate that is sometimes more smoke than content. Because the biblical data never discusses the issue of this debate directly. Now we can say, and perhaps with some justice, that the only context in which Scripture discusses the notion of reprobation is that of humanity viewed in its fallen condition. Beyond that, the Bible doesn't appear to speak. And of course, that's a, I suppose, a veiled way of saying that maybe this great controversy between infralapsarianism and superlapsarianism pushes the boundaries of the discussion of the decree of God beyond the limits of scripture. Now that it really falls under the mandate of what Calvin said when he said, where God makes an end of teaching, we make an end of learning. Or as Augustine put it, I see the depth, but I cannot reach the bottom. So what I'm saying is, when Paul is speaking in Romans 9, he's speaking in the context of Romans 1 through 8. The universe of discourse in which he's speaking is not neutral clay, but fallen clay. So the picture Paul paints is not the picture that many people have of Calvinism, as if there's All the human population in the world is sitting on a long, long wall, thousands of miles long, and God comes along and says, Oh, I'm going to knock you off the wall. And I'm going to knock you off the wall. And those I don't knock off, I'll keep. No, we're not in a neutral position on the wall. We are all off the wall. And it's within the context of being off the wall that God vindicates His righteous judgment and reprobation and manifests His unmerited mercy and salvation by plucking sinners from the bottom of hell, the bottom of their filth and sin, and putting them on the wall and cleaning them. Let's see, and beyond all this, Scripture doesn't go. In fact, Scripture stops us and says, wait a minute, who are you, old man? to talk back to God. And yet the Lapsarian question is there historically, and we need to at least be aware of it, even if we don't subscribe to either side. Lapsus comes from the Latin word, the fall. And Lepserianism really has its roots even prior to the Reformation, but it first came into focus during the Reformation. It began to evolve when the first and second generation Reformers asked the question, was the fall of man in paradise actively willed by God or only passively foreseen by God? in his eternal decree. Luther and Zwingli and Calvin and the majority of the Reformers argued for an active willing of God in the Lapsarian question. Heinrich Bollinger and a few more minor Reformers felt uncomfortable going that far, and taught instead that only God's foreknowledge could be linked with the Fall, but there was no direct active decree, decreeing the Fall. Subsequently, the Reformers and the Puritans realized that Bullinger's reasoning seemed to be more palatable to the natural man, to our flesh and blood, but couldn't offer a solution for the relationship between the counsel of God and sin. And so eventually a reformed consensus developed that the fall must never be divorced from the divine decree. But that consensus generated additional questions. Was divine reprobation ultimately based on the mere good pleasure of God or was it an act of divine justice exclusively connected with sin? Were both election and reprobation to be considered equally ultimate as acts of pure sovereignty Or was election to be viewed as an act of divine grace and reprobation as an act of divine justice? So questions such as these generated a concern about the moral order of God's decree. The moral order, not the chronological order, that was all done from eternity. The moral order of God's decree related to man's eternal state. And that debate crystallized into two camps called infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism. The infra, of course, meaning in Latin below, and the supra meaning above. And the reference being to the relationship between predestination and the fall." Supra is saying it should be placed above the fall first in the moral order of God's decree, and Imphra is saying no, it should be placed after the fall in a moral order of God's decree. Now, Imphras say that because they believe it to be inconsistent with the nature of God, for him to reprobate any man without first contemplating him as created, fallen, and sinful." So the inferlapsarian proposes that God's election is, in its deepest sense, a loving act of grace in which God decreed to save certain individuals. which he already contemplated as created and fallen. And that means then that his reprobation is simply a righteous passing by of the others, leaving them to their eternal rejection and condemnation. Hence the conclusion, the decree of predestination must come after or below the decree of the fall. Superlapsarians believe that the decree of divine predestination must morally precede the decree concerning mankind's creation and fall. They teach that God's predestination is, in its deepest sense, a pure, sovereign act of good pleasure in which God elected certain individuals and reprobated certain individuals contemplating them in his decree as, create a bowl and fall a bowl, but not as already created and fallen. So the accent here is that everything, including all decree, flows out of sovereign good pleasure. Now in the actual execution of that decree, The supras would maintain, of course, as much as the infras, that reprobation is always just. Everyone deserves it. So the point and issue here really is the conceptual and moral order of the decrees. The superposition stress to putting more stress on sovereignty and decretal theology And it infers putting a bit more accent on the mercy of God and the responsibility of men. Now, there are problems with both views. The super view has some strong pros and then some strong cons, and the info as well. Let's look at both the pros and cons just briefly. The Superview says, and this is two or three arguments in its favor here, that God is absolutely sovereign over all things, even over sin. And that seems to coincide with many strong scriptures Proverbs 16 verse 4, Matthew 11, 25 and 26, and of course Romans 9, 17 through 21. Secondly, another advantage for the super view is that it has a more ideal and unified and logical approach than the infra. It more clearly exhibits the rational order that exists between the ultimate end, which is God and His glory, and the intermediate means. Thirdly, and perhaps the most powerfully to our rational minds, is that it seems to fit more with the nature of God in terms of his omniscience. God knows his end from his beginning. The human illustration here is like a builder who pictures a home he desires to build. He's got the picture in his mind. Then he goes out to secure the means to build it. So God first decrees, then pursues the means of creation and fall to fulfill his decree. Hence, predestination over creation and fall in terms of a moral order. Now the arguments against the super view are also strong. And I've mentioned just two of them to you. There's more, but two major ones. One, it is difficult to believe that God would morally determine to reprobate sinners to damnation without as yet having viewed them as created and fallen. Inferes maintained that the decree of predestination must morally follow creation and fall because it is inconsistent with God's nature to reprobate anyone without seeing them as sinful. Secondly, superlapsarianism makes the eternal punishment of the reprobate an object of the divine will in the same sense as the eternal salvation of the elect. And it makes sin, which leads to eternal destruction, as a means to this end in the same sense as redemption in Christ is a means into salvation. And that kind of parallelism or equal ultimacy, as it's often called, though denied by some supras, does tend to open the door for charging God as the author of sin. Now, infralapsarianism also has some problems and some strong points. arguments in favor of infralapsarianism is that, one, it appeals more to those passages of scripture in which the objects of election appear in a condition of sin and are shown as objects of God's mercy through union with Christ. John 15, verse 19, Romans 8, 28 and 30, and Romans 9, 15 and 16. So, Infas look more at the mercy and justice of God than at God's pure sovereignty. Infas also claim that one of their strong points is that their view is less philosophical, more natural than the super view. because it's in greater harmony with the historical order of happenings. Thirdly, Infants see as a positive argument for their view that if in the moral order of God's decrees the election follows creation and fall, that election of Christ and election of the elect are in the closest possible proximity. They can happen at the same time, as it were. I'm speaking of a time of morality, of course, ethically. Now, they look down on the supers in that respect, because the supers, of course, if God predestines the elect, but he hasn't viewed them as created and fallen they're really only elect in Christ so in some sense God would have to elect Christ here and then the election would only be carried out or actually they argue how can you have the elect be in Christ when they're not even viewed as created and fallen that's that's the point that the emperors have against the supers And then I suppose the last point in favor of the infras is that the Reformed churches have always adopted the infra viewpoint in their confessional documents, particularly evident in the Canons of Dort, even though they have tolerated and even refused to condemn the super view. What are the points against infralapsarianism? Well, I'll just give you two of them here as well. There are more again, but two main ones. The infraposition scarcely does justice to the unity of the divine decree. The decree of the fall seems to be a frustration In this system, creation, fall, predestination, seems to be a frustration of the original plan. Election and reprobation seem to appear as a corrective to God's failed plan rather than as the foundation of the whole plan. And secondly, the infraposition, which speaks of God as only passing by the reprobate, and views reprobation then only as an act of justice rather than sovereignty, tends to make the decree of reprobation conditional, which in turn may lend itself to an incipient Arminianism, Now, happily, all our forefathers agreed that this was not an essential doctrine. Some of them did wonder whether they should be speaking about it at all, that it may be beyond scripture. Others, to confuse things and make them more difficult yet, actually said we ought to speak of a combination of super and infra somehow. I've never quite been able to grasp that fully, although I do have a little sympathy for Frederick Spanheim's comment. Frederick Spanheim was a teacher in the Geneva School of Theology, post-Beza, and Spanheim said, when I pray, I'm supra, and when I preach, I'm infra. Now, these comments like that have that have kind of led people to conclusions like this, that the super view equals sovereignty and the infra view equals responsibility of man. And we have people in our church sometimes that say, I'm a super or I'm an infra, according to their position on sovereignty and responsibility. But that's a simplification, an oversimplification of the complexity of this issue. It seems to me that when I study people like William Perkins, who had such a stress on responsibility, and yet was a Supra, and William Twist, the same thing, the chairman of the Westminster Assembly, a strong Supra, yet has a strong stress on responsibility in his writings, that you cannot equate these on a one-to-one basis. In fact, William Twist, in his book about the vessels of mercy and wrath, actually says, this whole debate is nothing more than a philosophical debate. And it has no bearing, he argues, on whether you emphasize sovereignty or responsibility. So there's a lot of smoke about this issue. If you can read Dutch, the best thing to read on it is Kost Dijk, D-I-J-K. He has a whole book on the debate. English, probably the most thorough thing is this new book by Fesco that came out a couple of years ago that we have in the bookstore. But at points I think that book is a little simplified as well and overstretches the case of saying that Kelvin was a supra. because the debate really revolved around Basis theology, and to call Calvin either super or infra is really anachronistic to the debate. Now, I've written two articles which I passed out, I believe, last time to you that I won't go over. I'll just let you read them. On the question of equal ultimacy, and also on the question of Beza's superlapsarianism. And the burden of these articles is to show that Kelvin did not teach equal ultimacy, so he definitely was not what later would become known as a hard superposition, but nor did Beza, in his superlapsarianism, spoil Kelvin's Christology. because the argument goes by many modern scholars that Beza is the culprit in this whole thing by moving it from an infra to a superposition and it's a hard theology and therefore it's not very warm pastorally, not very Christological, and it's cold and causal and deterministic and fatalistic. Well, that simply is not true. You can't possibly read Beza and come to that conclusion. In fact, when you read Beza, you'll find him, if anything, even warmer than Calvin and very pastoral. So it has more to do with the philosophical view of how we look at the nature of God than it has to do with a lot of pastoral implications. Alright, I'll be opening this up for questions in a little while. Let me just go on here though for a moment and look with you now at some objections that we need to answer with regard to this whole matter of predestination in general. Number one, some people say that Predestination really promotes human pride. It creates Pharisees. And there can be Calvinists that come across cold and proud. I believe I've met some of those. A kind of triumphalist approach to other Christians And often there are people actually that have come from very Arminian circles, come to despise Arminianism, tend to look down on it. But such people show really a fundamental misunderstanding of the precious soul humbling doctrine of predestination. The fact that a misunderstanding of predestination ministers to human pride, cannot be used as a denial of the biblical doctrine any more than the brute fact of the election of Israel, which many Israelites often employed as a reason for boasting over other nations, was a right understanding of divine election. God told Israel very often, it wasn't because you were better than anyone else that I chose you. I chose you when there was nothing in you to boast about. And so we would argue against this first objection just the opposite, that actually predestination promotes humility when it's rightly understood. In fact, there is no doctrine in scripture that can so powerfully humble us as divine election when we realize that it means that there's nothing in us whatsoever. But everything is of free and sovereign grace. Why God would ever choose us? It puts the last nail in the coffin of a natural man's reliance upon himself. And it puts the last nail in the coffin also of the true believer's all too frequent desire to have his salvation based on at least a little something, a little fragment in me that makes me different from someone else. We're always prone to go back to that. Election humbles us because it says to us, dear friend, it wasn't because of anything in you that you are saved. The only reason God chose you for salvation is in the mind of God. You see, when we're greatly humbled, we learn that, and vice versa. When we learn that, we are greatly humbled. so that we cry out from the bottom of the fish's belly with Jonah, salvation is of the Lord. Jonah 2 verse 9. Secondly, the objection is raised that predestination destroys moral responsibility so that it is productive of license to sin. And one only needs, of course, to look at what happened to this doctrine in Israel to see that it may be so understood. And yet, here too, if you read the New Testament's exposition of the doctrine of election, you will conclude that election leads to holiness. Because holiness is what God has in view. in choosing us. Isn't that just what Paul says in Ephesians 1, 3 forward, that we are chosen in Christ that we might be holy and blameless before Him in love. And similarly, 2 Thessalonians 2, 13, 2 Timothy 1, verse 9, and 1 Peter 1, 1 through 3, all teach us that we are chosen to be sanctified, to be holy. The Old Testament speaks of it a bit as well, Psalm 130. I love this text, 1 Peter 1 verse 2. And if you want to do an entire overview sometime for your congregation on the doctrine of election, and you want to really do it exegetically. This is my favorite text to preach predestination from. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit and to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. So there you have the whole triune God involved. You have the triune God involved in a very warm way. The sprinkling of the blood of Christ. the foreknowledge of the Father, the sanctifying of the Spirit. The Spirit works out election in us through making us sanctified and holy. So if you would ask Paul, how do you recognize someone who's elect? Paul would say, well, you recognize them by the fruits of holiness because Those who are elect are made holy. And, of course, he tells us what those fruits are in Galatians 5, the fruits of the Spirit. So, predestination produces Christlikeness, it unites us with Christ, and it brings forth fruits to the glory of God. And thus we could say, and this is solid Reformed doctrine, that anyone who supposes himself to be elect who ceases to be concerned about living a holy life before God is trusting in some delusive experience. Thirdly, the objection is raised that discriminating election is the death knell of evangelistic zeal and action. This too is misunderstood and we could reverse. We believe that rightly understood, the doctrine of election promotes evangelistic zeal and action. In the first place, we have to remember that in the New Testament, the God who decrees the end also decrees the means by which the end will be accomplished. The God who decrees the salvation of the elect also decrees the means by which that salvation will come to pass. And those means are the means of the evangelism of the church, the praying of the people of God, the preaching of the gospel. So in a biblical understanding, rather than repudiate the necessity of evangelism, the doctrine of election necessitates the practice of evangelism. because that is the means by which God fulfills the great end. Someone has to put it this way, we don't have, God doesn't really have hands, but we, our hands are to be the hands of God in this world. God doesn't have a physical mouth, but our mouth is to proclaim his word, to be his mouth in this world, and so on. And so God uses means to carry out his election. So it's all the more call for evangelism. Now, of course, the Armenians look at us today and they say, but the proof is in the pudding. And look at you evangelists. You sit on your hands in your churches. You don't evangelize with the zeal that we do as Armenians. And what do we say to that? Well, we say two things. We say, first of all, to our shame, it appears you're right in many, many areas. And it is to our shame that post Finney in America, Armenians have been more active in evangelism than Calvinists. Many times, not always, but many times. But we could also say pre Finney, Nearly all the great evangelists, the William Careys, the David Brainards of this world were Calvinistic. So this whole idea of beating up on each other, you know, we Armenians are more evangelistic, we Calvinists are more evangelistic, really is a futile exercise. The call is go out and be evangelistic, and what I'm saying is theologically the Calvinist viewpoint has a better motivation for evangelism than the Arminian, because the Arminian one ultimately depends on man, doesn't it? Where, say, Daryl and Kara have made a decision yesterday, I believe, or the day before, to go to Cambodia. That's a wonderful thing. How do they know they're going to be successful? Well, they plead the promises of God's Word, that where God sends, God will bear fruit. And so, because he's an electing God, they know that God will not send them there fruitlessly. Or you and your future ministry. Even if you go to a small group of people. Will it be worth it? Of course it will be worth it. Why? God sends his word. His word will not return to him void. He's an electing God. He will fulfill his word. You know deep down you will be successful in God's book. Because it's God's will. Because he's an electing God. So that's a tremendous comfort. Especially in times of discouragement. Secondly, we note here too that the two great illustrations of the evangelistic enterprise in scripture illustrate the principle that convictions about election actually maximize evangelistic burden. The first is, of course, Paul in Romans 8 and 9, where he gives such majestic expression to divine predestination. And at the same time, you see, he says, at the first four verses of Romans 9, in the first verse of Romans 10, he unveils his passionate evangelistic heart for his kinsmen according to the flesh. It's right in this context. And he's saying, I would die for my kinsmen. So Paul is obviously a man here, and you could exegete this out much further, of course. ties together election and evangelism in a wonderful way. And then you've got the case of, well, you've got two more cases, actually, I might mention. One is the Lord Jesus himself in Matthew 11, 25 through 30. For him, there's no contradiction between the knowledge that God has hidden the gospel from those who regard themselves as wise and understanding and revealed it to babes No tension between that and the great evangelistic appeal that follows immediately behind that in verses 28 through 30. Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden. You could argue the same principle from John 6. But also historically, this is evident in a powerful way didactically. Yes, but also historically. Acts 13. I once preached a conference message on this text, and I was asked to speak on the connection between election and evangelism, and this is the text I chose. Acts 13, 47-49, For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldst be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord, and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region. See, as many as were ordained to eternal life believed, and the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region. So, this divorcing of sovereignty, responsibility, or election in evangelism is just an unbiblical divorce. Scripture ties them together. In fact, election gives us our marching orders. It compels evangelism. God will not bring in the elect without means. We are to live by his revealed will, his word, not by our guesses about his secret will. So evangelism, being his appointed means for the gathering of his people, means that we should be bold in bringing the gospel. You see, many times people are weak, they're afraid, they're timid, they're afraid of being rejected. But this gives us boldness, because we know that God's Word will not return to him void. Paul was frightened in Corinth. You remember what the Lord came and spoke to him. Acts 18 verse 9, in a vision by night. Be not afraid, Paul, but speak and hold not thy peace. Why? How do you dare do it, Paul? For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee, Well, that's great. That's good news. Yes, that helps take away my fear. And, for I have much people in this city. That gives him the boldness. God has elected people in that city. They have to be brought in. I have to go and do his work. That gives steel in the backbone and courage. But also, I believe that Believing in and electing God gives patience in evangelism, holy patience. We know it's God's work and not ours. We know that Paul and Apollos do the planting and the watering, but God gives the increase. So we know we have to wait on God. And though we at times get discouraged from the human perspective, we can still be patient because we know that God uses a whole host of people in this process of planting and watering and that He When we cast the bread upon the many waters, we shall see the fruit after many days." Election ought to make us confident, tireless, expectant, patient in evangelizing. Now, that doesn't mean patience in the sense of sitting back and saying, well, I don't have to do anything. Just the opposite. Holy patience is active patience. Evangelism, you see, is not a desperate activity. It is an urgent activity. The call of God is strong, but it's not a desperate activity because it's in God's hands. You see, love is not a desperate thing, but love is an urgent thing. And finally, Election drives us to prayer in evangelizing. It makes us bold, makes us patient, makes us prayerful. Prayerful. Because you see, it rests with God. There's a beautiful circle here in the whole understanding of the doctrinal relationship between election and evangelism. Because we know that God blesses prayer. And we know that every Christian Bottom line, on his knees, is a Calvinist. Listen to Arminians pray. They pray Calvinistically. Many times. What does an Arminian pray for? He doesn't pray, Please help this person in his own strength, accept the gospel." And he says, God, take hold of this person, convict, open his eyes, change his heart, bring him to know thee. You see, the doctrines of election encourage us to pray. Well, may God so help us to preach election and to preach and practice evangelism so that as many as are ordained to eternal life might believe. Then fourthly, we are told that election reduces our hope. It makes things so dark and foreboding. But in reality, we argue the opposite here as well. Actually, we argue, don't we, that discriminating election is our exclusive hope. Our exclusive hope. What hope will we have without election? We're sinners. Yes, if man is not depraved, then election can seem like a barrier. Because everyone has their own strength to save themselves. If we really believe depravity, then election promotes hope. And so, sovereignty and responsibility are promoted together. Together. Both must be preached for 100%. 100%. We must exercise that in our ministry all our lifetime. Make man fully responsible and make God fully sovereign. Now finally let me conclude by looking just briefly with you at what predestination does not mean. The predestinating decision of God does not mean that sinners do not sin of their own will. God never moves anyone to sin. We can't stress that enough. Sinners sin of their own free will. Everyone must answer to God. Predestination does not affect that. Those rejected on the day of judgment will not be able to say, I'm rejected, Lord, because thou hast reprobated me. But they will be rejected for their own sin. Second, the doctrine of predestination does not mean that fatalism is true. Fatalism implies the sovereignty of a god who doesn't care, a capricious god, a force, call it chance or fate, that does not concern itself with the welfare of human beings. It turns human beings into a number, into a cog in a machine. That's the opposite of predestination. Predestination is warm and intimate. I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with cords of loving kindness have I drawn thee. Jeremiah 31. Thirdly, predestination does not mean that people can be saved without faith in Christ. It's not as if, well, I'm predestined, so nothing has to happen in time. No, the salvation has to happen in time. We are children of wrath even as others until that moment. In faith in Christ is the means. And so, God works by these means. Hence Romans 10. Salvation comes through the hearing of the gospel and through being received by faith. This is the outgrowth of Romans 9. Election leads to the need, preaching the gospel. How shall they be saved if they don't hear the preacher? And that preaching is received by faith. Fourth, the doctrine of predestination does not mean that the universal gospel offer is a fraud, or that it's not a well-meant gospel offer, or that it's not a bona fide invitation to come and find life in Jesus Christ. No, it's true. Not all are predestined to salvation. It's true that not all who are predestinated to hear the gospel are predestined to salvation. But the well-meant offer is a well-meant offer. No one who comes to Christ comes in vain. John 6. And so everyone who refuses to come to Christ, which all men will do by nature, have only themselves to blame forever and ever. Fifthly, the doctrine of predestination does not mean that the door of mercy is barred to anyone who wants to come in. That's the nightmare that some people have of imagining someone knocking at the door of mercy, wanting to be saved, and discovering they can't be because God hasn't elected them. That's the way Armenians paint Calvinists to teach, but that is obviously very un-Calvinistic. Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out." Sixth, the doctrine does not mean that we can identify the reprobate. Yes, we can say of certain men and women at this point, can't we? It seems they are without faith. Their lives betray them. But we don't know if they're reprobate. God can convert them to the very end. So we are called to work in the hope of their salvation, to evangelize, to reach out. We should not even try to identify the reprobate. That's God's business. The secret things belong to the Lord your God. He reads the hearts. He knows for sure. Deuteronomy 29.29. And this is a very practical point too, that we need to emphasize at certain junctures in our ministry, often at times of funeral, people will say some very crude and crass things to you, and they want you to say some crude and crass things to them. I've had several occasions where people wanted me to say at the funeral sermon that so-and-so, the person who passed away, obviously wasn't converted, therefore the place was in hell. You can never do that at a funeral. You don't know. You don't know the last hour of that person's life, what God has done in the mind. You don't know. You don't know. Maybe they couldn't even communicate. Maybe God put the seed of regeneration there, the very end. It's said to be very careful. You tell at a funeral what is needed. You give the invitation. And if you have no indication that a person is saved, you don't address that question. Don't give hope where there's not hope, but also don't play the role of God. Seventhly, the doctrine does not mean that we may know our election before we believe. I've seen people like that as well. I've had a couple of people in my own church actually. Said, I'm not a believer yet, I'm not saved. But I know, I can feel that God will save me someday. But what are they saying? They're saying, I'm elect, but I'm not yet a believer. You see, the knowledge of election is not a warrant for faith. The warrant for faith is the universal invitation of God, the word of promise. And we cannot know that until we have believed. You know the old illustration of the Ark of Salvation that from the outside as you approach it, it says, whosoever will, let him come. those who do come and go through the ark, or go through the doorway rather, into the ark, I turn around and on the back side of the door, from the inside, it says, chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. I'm sure you've heard that illustration before. You don't read that, you don't feel that, you don't experience that before you believe. It's only after you believe. So election, is really the answer to the question, why am I a believer today? And that's how I wish to conclude. Just a few quick practical thoughts here. The three questions I've listed there on the outline under the conclusion, really the answer for them all is election, election, election. Why am I a Christian today? I'm a Christian today because God sent his son into the world to save sinners. and elected me, changed my heart, brought me to faith in Christ, and had an eternal plan for me. Secondly, what hope do I have of getting to heaven? My hope is sure and certain, because God will keep me believing. Having brought me to faith, He will not abandon the work half done, because of His eternal purpose with me. And thirdly, what do we owe God thanks for? Well, we owe Him thanks for His Savior, for the new birth, for a new heart, for a new relationship with God. But what's the bottom line of all this? Even our perseverance and our salvation and all that we are is rooted in predestination. Predestination provides security, and I thank God for that. I thank God that I'm safe because Christ will keep me unto the day of glory. Not because I could keep myself, but because He keeps me. So I, oh God, thanks for everything. Because it's all, salvation is all His work. It's all His gift. It's all because of His predestinating grace. Thus my entire life, having been saved and still being saved, ought to be a life of doxology. a life of giving, of thanks. Thanks be to God for His unspeakable gift. For of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.