While we're continuing on in our march through the canons of Dort and the Fifth Head of Doctrine on the Perseverance of the Saints, this past week I was reminded of a famous Jim Elliot quote that most of you have probably heard. He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. That's a great comfort. Irrespective of the losses we can and will endure on this side of glory, the believer has the sure confidence that he or she can't lose the coming glory. And that's the great hope and consolation that the canons want to preserve against the erroneous teaching of the Arminians. In our previous lesson, we spent a good bit of time being reminded of two of God's attributes, that he's immutable and he's impassable. And these are essential Christian doctrines of the historic Christian faith. They teach us that God doesn't and can't change because He's absolute life and perfection in Himself. And if He did change, it would mean He's changing from a state of absolute life and perfection to something else. And the unchangeableness of God that we talked about is a crucial doctrine behind the doctrine of perseverance. God's unchanging promises are the anchor for our soul, God's unchanging love is why not a single saint will slip through his fingers and ultimately be lost. So we looked at God's immutability and God's impassibility. And we began to look at article six when we ran out of time. So that's where I wanna pick up this morning. So let's pray and we'll get to work. Father, we thank you for the opportunity to think deeply about your plan of salvation. how glorious it is that your salvation from Alpha to Omega is complete in Jesus Christ. And the accomplishment of the triune God to save your people is unbreakable. We pray that that confidence fills our hearts with delight and joy that leads us to praise you and love you more and more. So teach us deep things this morning but not simply to have an improved thought process, but to have an enlarged heart for your grace and your love. We ask this in Jesus' name, amen. As a reminder, you'll recall that Article 5 was teaching the grave consequences of sin. And when we transition to article six, it's teaching us that despite those grave consequences, God will not lose one of his elect children. He'll always bring us back to himself through the graces of repentance and faith. And as we did before, I think it'll be helpful to understand the backdrop of article six. So I wanna look at the rejection of errors. You'll find those printed on page 17 in your book. We're going to read the first part of Rejection of Error number 3 and Rejection of Error number 4. I'm not going to read the scripture references this week. We did last time. I want to spare a couple minutes here if I can. On page 17, the authors of the canons were rejecting those, Rejection of Error 3, They were rejecting those who teach that those who truly believe and have been born again not only can forfeit justifying faith as well as grace and salvation totally and to the end, but also in actual fact do often forfeit them and they're lost forever. And then Article 4, they were rejecting those who teach that those who truly believe and have been born again can commit the sin that leads to death, the sin against the Holy Spirit. The authors of the canon saw these views as severely diminishing the power and efficacy of God's grace. Grace could get you near Christ, but it ultimately left getting into Christ and remaining in Christ primarily in your hands. the hands of the believer. So a person could be genuinely regenerated and justified and still utterly forfeit their salvation and lose their status as an adopted child of God. And so Article 6 is the response to these soul-crushing errors. Let's read that again. This should be on page 7, Article 6. It speaks of God's saving intervention. For God, who is rich in mercy, according to His unchanging purpose of election, does not take His Holy Spirit from His own completely. Even when they fall grievously, neither does He let them fall down so far that they forfeit the grace of adoption and the state of justification, or commit the sin which leads to death, the sin against the Holy Spirit, and plunge themselves entirely forsaken by Him into eternal ruin. Now the reason we're picking back up at Article 6 is because there are a couple important doctrinal points that we didn't get to flesh out last time and I think they're worth taking a few minutes to contemplate. First, the canons teach you can't lose the grace of adoption and the state of justification. And then second, a believer can't commit any variation of what we might call the impardonable sin, or the sin against the Holy Spirit. The reason I want to hone in on the phrase that a believer can't lose their state of justification is because it's not only a doctrine that came under attack in the 17th century by Armenians, it's a doctrine that came under attack under a modern heresy called Federal Vision. And while it was a hot-button issue in the early 2000s, and it seemed to die down a little bit, it's reemerging. And so it'll be helpful to see how one of the godfathers of the movement worked out the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Now last week we began to look at a few of Norman Shepard's 34 thesis on justification. Shepard was an ordained minister in the OPC and he began teaching systematic theology at Westminster Seminary in 1963. By the mid-1970s, what he was teaching began to draw considerable scrutiny as his students began taking calls out into churches. They seemed to have some odd and even dangerous ideas about the doctrine of justification. In 1978, he produced the 34 theses, some of which I passed out to you, to provide to his presbytery to explain just how he works out the doctrine of justification by faith. Again, Theses 3 and 5, I'm just going to briefly read through them. They're not ideal, they're not perfect, but neither are they eye-raising. They're generally okay. Thesis 3, justification is an act of God by which he forgives sinners, acquitting them of their guilt, counts and accepts them as righteous and bestows upon them the title of eternal life. It's interesting, one of the things he doesn't have in his definition that would have never been absent in any Reformed definition is something about Christ's righteousness. Anyway, Thesis 5. The ground of justification or the reason or cause why sinners are justified in no sense can be found in themselves or in what they do, but it is to be found wholly and exclusively in Jesus Christ, and it is mediatorial accomplishments on their behalf. Again, he's moving in that direction. It almost sounds good. And as we sort of, where I think we ended last week is had he stopped here, he probably would have been okay. Were you gonna say something, brother? Any time a Presbyterian minister uses a different definition of justification by faith alone, that's not found in one of the catechisms. You say the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, received by faith alone? Yeah. That should be a red sign. It is. Why is he going against the Westminster standard? That's what he subscribes to. Right there, that's a warning sign, in my opinion. Yeah. I'll come back to some of his motives in a few minutes, because he had some. as is often the case, his motives weren't bad for wanting to think these things through. But anyway, we'll look there at thesis 19. Those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and are his disciples, who walk in the Spirit and keep covenant with God, are in a state of justification and will be justified on the Day of Judgment. Whereas unbelieving, ungodly, unrighteous, and impentinent sinners who are covenant breakers or strangers to the covenant of grace are under the wrath and curse of God and on the Day of Judgment will be condemned to hell forever unless they flee from the wrath to come by turning to the Lord in faith and repentance. The first thing I want to draw your attention to is that Shepard just introduced a category into justification that's Arminian and quasi-Catholic and not at all Reformed. Those who walk in the Spirit and keep covenant with God are in a state of justification. Now let that sink in. And remember, sort of alluding to what Jeff just said, this is a man who was a minister in the OPC, said he subscribed to the Westminster Standards, and he's making our justification a process that combines Christ's finished work with our good works, and together, they will lead to our final justification. And that's not Reformed, it's not Biblical, it's quite Catholic-y. When we move over into the gym in a few minutes, one of the banners we have flying behind the pulpit says, Sola Fide. It means faith alone. And it's a way of saying that believers are justified on account of Christ's finished work, which is received through the instrument of faith alone, faith apart from our works, faith apart from our best ideas, our best efforts, faith apart from walking in the Spirit and keeping covenant with God. We're justified gloriously and freely by faith alone. Again, you probably can't find it any clearer than Romans 3.19, by the deeds of the law, no flesh shall be justified. See, our justification isn't fixed to our covenantal obedience, it's fixed to Christ's covenantal obedience. That's why it's sure and certain that he accomplished for us everything God said. he would accomplish for us. But that's exactly what Shepherd is insisting upon. He's saying our obedience contributes to our justification. So look there at Theses 21. The exclusive ground of the justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Again, I want you to see how slippery this is. but his obedience, this is speaking of the believer's obedience now, which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the way of truth and righteousness is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification, right? So Christ's work initially justifies, but your perseverance in the way of truth and righteousness is necessary to remain justified. And you see, this is what Arminians believed. That's why we read those errors. That you could fall from your state of justification. And the author of the canons, the reason they were pushing back against this is because they understood it robs God's people of an appropriate assurance of their salvation. Let's go ahead and read Theses 22. Again, I'm going to say this several times. Notice how slippery his language is. The righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer's justification. Again, good stuff. But the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day. You see, Shepard and eventually all those who embraced federal vision theology believe sinners are justified provisionally when they're converted. And then there will be a final justification at the end of your life based on your works. In other words, the initial justification gets you saved, but your good works are added to that for the final justification that'll take place on the final day of judgment. And again, the reason this caused such an uproar as federal vision emerged in the 2000s is that it's not just not Rome, excuse me, not just not reformed, it's quite Rome. So the Council of Trent, many of you are familiar with it. They met from 1545 to 1563, and the Council of Trent had a pretty singular purpose, to push back against the Reformation. And I want you to notice what they taught in Canon 24 on justification. I printed this out for you. If anyone says that the justice or the justification received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works, but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof, it ought to be anathema. Now, let me explain what Rome believes here, because I know the language is a bit archaic for us. What they're saying is it's not right to say that good works, our good works, are merely the outflow of our justification or even the fruits of a lively faith. Our good works have to actually increase if we want to expect justification on the final day. And that's just what Norman Shepard is teaching. Is everybody tracking with me and seeing this? See? Again, you're initially justified by the merits of Christ But then there's gonna be a final justification that will always hinge on our works. And no matter how they slice it, dice it, no matter how slippery they are with their language, it always ends up to say, you're saved by Jesus plus, plus, plus. Not solus Christus, right? Well, now's a good time, I think, to pause and read how Our basic reform catechisms describe justification. I printed these out. I guess I could have just brought the hymn books back here, but I thought this would be easier. Again, excuse me, Brother Jeff mentioned what our catechisms say. We have a whole chapter also on justification. But the shorter catechism, question and answer 33, asks the question, what is justification? Justification is an act of God's free grace wherein he pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us, and received by faith alone." So justification is an act of God's free grace. It's a legal declaration. It's a verdict made from heaven's court that based on Christ's righteousness, justice has been satisfied for you, your pardoned, and it's not a process. It's a legal declaration from the court of heaven. And then look how the Heidelberg lays this out. I want to read question 60 through 62 because it really deals with some of these different issues in a really helpful way. Question 60, how are you righteous before God? only by true faith in Jesus Christ. Although my conscience accuses me that I have grievously sinned against all of God's commandments, have never kept any of them, and am still inclined to all evil, yet God, without any merit of my own, out of mere grace, imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ. He grants these to me as if I had never had nor committed any sin, and as if I myself had accomplished all the obedience which Christ has rendered for me, if only I accept this gift with a believing heart." Question 61, why do you say that you're righteous only by faith? Not that I'm acceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, and that's just what Shepherd is arguing, the worthiness of his faith. For the only satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God. I can receive this righteousness and make it my own by faith alone. And then question 62, but why can't our good works But why can our good works not be our righteousness before God, or at least a part of it? Again, it's not as though the catechism didn't have answers to these things. Because the righteousness which can stand before God's judgment must be absolutely perfect and in complete agreement with the law of God, whereas even our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin. So the reason I wanted to read these catechism questions is because it really highlights how far Shepard has strayed from the faith that he had made vows to defend. And when you talk to him, you know what the language he would say? And I'll come back to this in a moment. I'm just trying to be consistently reformed. No, you're not. You're lying. And he is a liar. He was dead now. He was a liar. The reason I say that is he was a professor. He understood what he was saying. This is not a lay person who got terms confused. That happens all the time. And I'm never hard on lay people who muck up a term. But when you teach systematic theology at what, for years, was sort of the Harvard of Presbyterianism, you know what you're doing is outside of the confessional boundaries. And he kept doing it anyway. Again, listen to the middle section from Article VI, because it contrasts the truth of justification with Shepard's error. God does not let them fall down so far that they can forfeit the grace of adoption and the state of justification. And he's saying, but you can forfeit the state of justification, and that's consistently reformed. And Shepard is saying, at your final justification, if you haven't done enough, there's the possibility you could forfeit your justification. Look there at Theses 23 now. Again, think slippery language. Because faith, which is not obedient faith, is dead faith. And because repentance is necessary for the pardon of sin included in justification. And because abiding in Christ by keeping His commandments are all necessary for continuing in the state of justification. good works, works done from true faith, according to the law of God, and for His glory, being the new obedience wrought by the Holy Spirit in the life of believer, united to Christ, though not the ground of His justification, are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation, and therefore for justification." Don't miss that final phrase. Our obedience isn't the ground of our justification, yet it's necessary for our justification. And you see, Shepard's doublespeak became the means of communication that characterized the federal vision controversy. This is how they did it. They would say one thing that was orthodox and solid, then say or write something else. So depending on the crowd they were talking to, they could point to this or that. And that is not the way God's people, certainly not teachers, that presume to teach in Christ's church are meant to handle these things. Let your yes be yes and your no, no. And they refused to do that. Now, you might be thinking, but Chip, these things were published way back in 1978. Why does that matter today? Well, the OPC began disciplinary procedures in 1978 and worked through those up into 1980. And instead of listening to the brothers he vowed to submit to, he left the OPC, joined the CRC. And I think for seven or eight years, over the course of seven or eight years, he pastored two churches in the CRC. By that point, the CRC didn't really care if you got justification right or not. And he continued writing in journals and publications often associated with various fringe groups in the reform world, groups that had an inclination for things like theonomy, paedo-communion, that sort of thing. And in 2000, he published a book entitled Call of Grace, in which he worked out these theses at a level that would resonate with lay people. And it became the spark that brought the federal vision folks out of the shadow. If I can share a personal antidote, I was in seminary when the book came out, and a friend of mine, Wes White, some of you might even know Wes, he brought a case of these books to seminary. He loved Shepard's book, and he's passing them out, and he gave me one of them, and I had like two hours between my morning class and my afternoon class, and I read through it. It was like 100 pages. I read through it, and then we had afternoon classes, and then when classes ended at two, he and I locked heads. And we were in a vicious argument. I hate to say this, but it almost came to blows over this issue, because I'm like, that's not reform. Eventually, Dr. Beach came in and broke us up. But it was a, I was like, what are you doing? And by the way, Dr. Beach also came in and ended up shepherding him and just really an encouraging way. But I was like, this is horrible. This is horrible, right? Don't miss this. What question does the doctrine of justification answer? What question? how we have a right standing with God. How can I, a vile, wretched stinner, stand before a holy God? This is not one of those doctrines you want to get wrong, right? So this comes out in 2000. In 2002, there was a conference in Monroe, Louisiana called the Auburn Avenue Conference. The speakers there were Pastor Steve Wilkins, Steve Schlissel, Norman Shepard, Doug Wilson, John Berrick, Peter Leithart, And some of the basic tenets that all these guys held in common, they denied the covenant of works. They denied a pre-fall covenant of works. They tended to blur any distinction between the law and the gospel. They denied the imputation of Christ's active obedience as the ground of our justification. They ascribed efficacy to the sacraments apart from the response of faith. They wanted to do away with the distinction between the visible and invisible church. And almost immediately, every conservative reformed body started pushing back on these things, because they're so out of bounds if you're reformed. They're completely outside of our standards. In 2007, a group of federal visionaries produced a document where they said they embraced the historic confessional standards and then went on to contradict them. I printed out a list of the initial signers, because it's important to note Some of these men have become really popular cultural commentators. And as far as I know, none of them have repented from teaching contrary to their ministerial vows, nor the division and schisms that they caused in Christ's church. And none of them repented from perverting the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and robbing God's people of a foundational plank in their assurance of salvation. So not even Doug Wilson has repented of this yet? No. I like Doug Wilson. Of course you do. Because he says good things culturally. He does. And you know what? Here's what he did. He's slippery. In 2017 he wrote an article called Federal Vision No Moss. You can find it on his site. And you know what he trusted? Most people would read the title of it and not read the article. Whoa. See, you wonder how I get excited. But anyway, see, that was the inner Hulk, actually. That was my reformed Hulk. I'm kidding. It's fascinating when you read it. He's got federal vision, no mosque. Here's what he basically said. I don't choose to use that title anymore because it's got so much baggage. But he says very clearly, I haven't changed any of my core convictions. And just this past summer, he published stuff on Facebook over and over and over. Here's the question he posed. Could it be that righteousness is not imputed to us, but it's infused in us? Again, that's Catholic. It is Catholic. And one of the reasons I'm pressing this is because he's gaining a lot of popularity because he does have, because he will say things about the culture that are accurate. You know, but here's my problem. Listen, I have no problem saying we're living through a sexual revolution and we've got to actually fight against it. We've got to fight against it, particularly as men, but I'm not willing to compromise the doctrine of justification by faith alone to do that. So, yeah, any questions, comments? Just a quick one. What denomination is CREC? It's a denomination that he formed. It's centered out in Moscow, Idaho. It stands for something reformed, evangelical, something. And guys like Peter Leithart, they've since gone totally off the rails. And his desire is to basically move us all back into close, close communion with either Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholics. Again, to sort of highlight how this has transitioned in the last 15 years, probably about 10 or 11 years ago, James White, you guys know James White is a fairly prominent Reformed Baptist. He debated Doug Wilson because Doug Wilson argued that based on the fact that Catholics are baptized in the name of the triune God, they should be called our brothers and sisters. And James White argued against that. Now James White is his buddy. You know? Oh yeah, yeah. Now, does James White hold a federal vision? I don't think so, but I think he's one of those guys who sees the cultural moment as needing a lot of collaborators, and that's okay. I'm willing to collaborate. I'm willing to collaborate with Roman Catholics. I'm just not willing to pretend they're Protestants. Right? The Reformation happened for a real reason, and it's to the detriment of our doctrine of salvation. if we lose that. Again, as I said, they had a whole host of things. Again, to sort of understand why they get where they are with justification, as I said, they deny the act of obedience of Christ. Well, actually, let me take a step back. They deny the covenant of works, right? The covenant of works before the fall, God said, Adam, you must be perfectly obedient. And perfect obedience was grounded in the commandment. that you should not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But Adam had the law of God written on his heart, apart from the influence of sin, and he understood that God demanded perfect personal obedience to His law. They deny that was a covenant of works. So why is that significant? Because they don't see salvation as offered by God as first providing that active righteousness that Adam was supposed to have, right? So this is why they move forward and they say, yes, justification gets you in, but it's not Christ's righteousness that keeps you in, it's your works. Again, I say this a lot, but a lot of times we think these doctrines that are downstream, if we muck with them, they won't have impacts. They always have impacts. How does their view of sanctification work? That's a great question, Gabe. Therein is part of the problem. Let me use the language of the Westminster. larger catechism. Justification and sanctification are inseparably joined. In other words, if the Spirit of Christ changes you, you're going to be legally declared righteous, and the Spirit's going to start transforming you to be more and more like Jesus. So certainly there is no justification without sanctification. But you have to keep them distinct because one is you're declared righteous. One is God's now making you in practice what he's declared you to be from the courtroom of heaven, right? And the reformers, and frankly, every Protestant, it's not just like, I'm going back to the reformers, every Protestant has seen the need to make that distinction. In the federal division, they just merge and muck together justification and sanctification. And here's the thing, I don't want to stand before, and this is no false humility. I trust you would say the same thing. I don't want to stand before God and say, look what I did. Because that can only condemn me. That's what the reformers knew. And they just mucked the two together. Are you going to speak to their motivation, or are you kind of saying that as far as the culture? And I don't want to get you off the track, but I'd like to hear it at some time. Yeah, that's a good one. When he wrote his book, Call of Grace, he wrote in the opening chapter what was motivating him. He saw in some conservative denominations, conservative Reformed and Presbyterian denominations, particularly young people who were baptized and then living just like everybody else in the world, with no evidence of a changed and transformed life. And yet, if churches said, you know what, we might have to begin the process of discipline against your children, the parents and grandparents are like, no, no, no, they're baptized, they're baptized. Well, yes, they're baptized, but that means they're They're the recipients of all the graces of the church to include church discipline. So that was a legitimate thing he was seeing, you know? And he was seeing a kind of moral laxity in the church, which again, that exists. It's a legitimate issue. But whenever someone sees a problem in the church and they say, I've got a new idea to fix it, instead of the old paths, the gospel that God has offered, they always go astray. Again, he saw legitimate things to be concerned about. But becoming a quasi-Catholic was not the solution. You mentioned that also the other problem is they didn't see the distinction between the visible and the invisible church, too. That's a major problem as well. Well, it is. And again, this connects to their view of sacramentology. Again, going back to Doug, Doug practices paedo-communion, and they essentially believe, and I alluded to this, they believe that the sacraments communicate grace even apart from the faith of the recipient. Now, this is what Roman Catholics call ex operata, right? The thing operates of itself, right? When we distribute the elements to you in the Lord's Supper, we don't believe there's anything in those elements in and of themselves. But when God gives you the empty hand of faith to receive them, they are a true spiritual blessing and nourishment to you, right? But what he sees is, this is why he gives the bread and stuff to his one-year-old great-grandchildren, because it's grace whether they understand it and receive it by faith or not. Again, we have a doctrine for that, it's called mass. I mean, it is, you know? And again, it might sound like I'm hammering this, but it's because I think I shared with you several months back, I started friending, and I've got all these, I'm seeing all these young guys here, say 20 to 35 years old, and they're just eating this stuff up, and they don't have the wherewithal to know the little bit of poison they're ingesting to get his good cultural commentary. So, anyway. Or I'm just a cranky reform guy, it could be that too. Oh, shoot. And again, I go back to motives. I think of, again, the book that Doug wrote in probably 2001 or 2002 was called Reformed is Not Enough. He was arguing we have to take it. We've got to take the Reformation into some new directions, which involves things like Post-millennialism, theonomy, paedo-community. And let me, I hasten to add, post-millennialism, theonomy, there are plenty of brothers who hold to those things, who are solid on the doctrine of justification. You know, that's not necessarily a bellwether. But that group seemed to gravitate toward this. As I said, as far as I know, none of them have repented. They just continued to double down. And whenever you pointed to their teaching, they'd say, well, look at what we wrote over here, though. I said, well, I am, but I'm also seeing what you wrote here. Yeah, but look over there. And it was this constant back and forth. And here's the thing to keep in mind. Just so you know, it's not a chip bird thing. The PCA, the OPC, the URCNA, the RPCNA, the RCUS, the Protestant Reformed, Every, every reformed denomination gathered and produced significant reports saying that's a heresy. Every one of them. But see, now some 15 years have passed and nobody remembers that. Any questions? No, no, no, no, no, no. You know what? Just go with the flow. You know what, I'm gonna try to do quick. I do wanna take just a couple minutes and deal with this, the phrase that they use that's very helpful, that reminds us that God won't let us lose the state of our justification or commit the sin which leads to death, the sin against the Holy Spirit. I'm just gonna take a minute to look at that. I printed out Matthew 22 through 28 and then 31 through 32. In your handout, I think I'm just gonna read beginning in verse 31 And then I'll build back from there therefore I tell you every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit Will not be forgiven it and whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven Whatever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either either in this age or in the age to come Most of you are probably familiar with Isaiah 520. Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. And of course, that's a description of people whose moral compass is backwards. Things that are evil and dark, they're calling good and light. Things that are truly good and light, they're calling evil and darkness. And certainly, we see this in our own culture and in our own lives. This is basically what the Pharisees were doing to Jesus in Matthew 12. They were saying what Jesus did, which was good and right and true, was evil, right? And so I just want you to briefly understand the nature of this issue that Jesus is dealing with. In verse 23, you know, Jesus has healed this person. He's healed this person of demonic influence, and the people see it. In verse 23, they said, could this be the son of David? And it was in response to that that the Pharisees said, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, this is the work of Beelzebub, right? The prince of demons. That's who this man is empowered to cast out demons by. So essentially what they're doing there is they've seen what Jesus did. And by the way, look again at verse 23. When the Pharisees heard it, they said, it's only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this man cast out demons. You know what's interesting? They didn't deny that he did a miracle. And these were students of the Old Testament. They knew demons don't cast out demons. They knew that, right? And that's a lot of what Jesus is arguing. in verses 23 down through 28. And they're saying, we've seen what you've done, but we're going to ascribe it, not to the Holy Spirit, but to demonic forces. That's the unpardonable sin. So I'll pause there so you can ask any questions you might have. Do you think they come up with this doctrine because they actually think when people are baptized they are Christians, and then when they don't, continue? Are you talking back to federal vision? Yeah. Yes. Absolutely. Hitchens was a Christian when he debated Doug Wilson. So? Hitchens, he debated Hitchens, the atheist. Yeah. And he told him he was a Christian because he was baptized. Yeah. Yeah. See, that's why I go back to they have a sacramentology that's Rome. So, again, I'm always very careful to say what we believe in baptism, whether we're talking about adult baptism or child baptism. We're saying that that person is named by God, is belonging to them, but they have to believe the promises, right? Again, they believe that grace is actually objectively conferred in such a way so that once they're baptized, they're considered to be in a vital living union with Jesus Christ. And since your little ones are in this vital living union with Jesus Christ, give them the wafer and the cup. Yeah. Again, as I said, the reason I'm doing this is because there's so many of these things that they're afar afield on and we've forgotten because Doug stands up and smokes a cigar and says homosexuality's bad and people get weak in the knees. By the way, he's a brilliant orator and a great teacher and he does say a lot of great things culturally. Yeah, we better stop here. Any questions about the unpardonable sin? Because I'm not going to come back to that. Over the years, I've encountered people who worry that they've committed it. Something Paul said last week, which is true. Those who worry about this usually indicate by their issues, their questions, that they haven't. It's not a fact of have I done an egregious sin, it's have I ascribed the good things of the gospel to demonic forces, right? And by the way, this is a poignant passage to be sure, but it's amazing to see the grace of Jesus. As evil as these Pharisees were, this is a warning. Jesus is basically bringing them to the jaws of hell and saying, if you keep down this path, that's the precipice over which you're going to fall. Don't. It's really quite gracious, right? Any questions? Well, next week, Lord willing, we'll be right into Article 7 and 8 And then we'll start to move in more and more to what genuine assurance looks like. So let's pray. Father, we thank you. We bless you for your mercy, your kindness, your goodness to us. We thank you for a gospel that truly saves, a gospel that is a solid rock, a foundation upon which we can live and move and have our being, a foundation that can't be shaken, a gospel that is so secure that there's nothing in heaven and earth that can separate us from the love of God that's in Christ Jesus. And far from creating moral laxity, that creates divine adoration in our hearts. We pray as we gather now to worship you, that adoration will be expressed in worshiping you in spirit and in truth. We ask this in Jesus' name, amen.