Good morning to you all. We are continuing our lessons this morning on who were the Puritans and what did they teach and we are going to be dealing with lesson 10 this morning on the Synod of Dort and the Doctrines of Grace, formerly called TULIP. I want to basically give you an overview of the Puritan conceptions that came out of the Synod of Dort and talk a little bit about why There was such a thing as the Synod of Dort. In dealing with the Puritans, there were a number of men who came over from England to the Netherlands, William Ames being one of them, as we've talked about before, that dealt with this particular problem and were involved in the Synod. Here, though, I do want to go over James Arminius, I want to go over his teachings just a little bit, and why the Synod of Dort got together, as well as demonstrating to you the Doctrine of Tulip or the Doctrines of Grace in dealing with what the Synod of Dort actually had or formalized as a result of Arminius' teachings. So let's begin with talking about the question, why is it that we have the doctrine of Tulip? Why does that even exist? Obviously the doctrines of grace are important, the grace of God is important, but in dealing with Jacob Arminius, or rather his Dutch name was Jacobus Harmanzoen, And his Latinized name is what you'd be more familiar with as James Arminius. In dealing with his teachings, we're going to see why the Doctrines of Grace took the form of TULIP, T-U-L-I-P being an acronym for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. We'll see why the Synod of Dort came up with those in the reaction against Arminius' teaching. Now why is Arminius important? He was born in 1560 and he was sent to school in Geneva being a smart lad by a patron that he met in the restaurant or the inn that he was working at. They found him to be smart. The patron decided, because his mother was poor and his father wasn't around, that they would send him off to school, and so they did. Ultimately, he went to Geneva, where Theodor Beza presided after Calvin, but indulged in subordination. And in this insubordination, in a spirit of self-sufficiency, He spoke privately to the other students against the teachers there and was ultimately thrown out of the university. After leaving there, he toured Italy, came back to Geneva and had a wide following of people at that time spreading around his contrary doctrines to the Belgic Confession and other creeds at the time. The people there decided to make him a minister of Amsterdam. He was called to the University of Amsterdam with a promise that he would adhere to the Belgian Confession. Now let me just read to you an article from that. In Article 16, the Belgian Confession says this. We believe that all the posterity of Adam, being thus fallen into perdition and ruined by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest himself such as he is. That is to say, merciful and just. merciful since he delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom he in his eternal and unchangeable counsel of mere goodness has elected in Christ Jesus our Lord without any respect to their works. He's just in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves. Now that's what he was supposed to uphold but Arminius actually did not uphold that and did not uphold much more in the confessions and in the creeds, because he had a different view. He had something that was contrary not only to those confessions and creeds and catechisms, but to the Bible as well. He taught that man had a free will, that there was still some good in men, even though the fall of Adam affected men. And so when you teach and you preach that to people who are basically lost, they like that idea because that enables them to do a good work that earns them favor with God. So he had a large following. After a year or two, it was found that it was his practice to teach the doctrines of grace in alignment with the Confession while he was in the class. But then, after class, he would distribute private confidential manuscripts among his pupils. and that's attested by many Dutch writers on the subject in history of Arminius. And so his students became infected with the same errors. They decided to create a kind of a conference with him and they sent some deputies of the churches to question him and he denied the rumors. They called a council to question him and he agreed to listen and sit and talk with the council on one condition. If they found anything wrong, that they wouldn't report him to the synod, the chief over these deputies. Well, obviously they refused that, believing that wasn't really a statement of integrity to make. In other words, Arminius was saying, listen, I'll talk to you, except if you find anything wrong, you just can't tell anybody. And that was the whole reason for questioning him in the first place. So they summoned him to a council before Classus, a reformed theologian. He declined, and he would not subject himself to an open synod. He did not want to expose himself. And he did this to win over the secular men of the state and university to have enough backing behind him as a popular person. Now that's important to note, again, because Arminianism is the secular man's salvation. When the secular man can do a work before God that earns him favor, they like that. And whenever heresy comes up or arises in the midst of the church, it is often never frank and open. They were almost never honest and candid as a party, the Armenians in general, until they gained enough strength to be sure of some degree of popularity. Now this has happened with Arius, Pelagius, Arminius, Amariute, the Unitarians, just about everybody who is in a cultic or heretical sect. Arminius' goal was to unite all Christians, that's what he wanted to do, except Rome. He did not want them excluded. But he wanted everyone under one common form of doctrinal brotherhood, and that was his form. He agreed substantially in the five doctrines that were set forth by the Remonstrants. And we'll talk about who the Remonstrants were. They were his followers. He died, though, in 1609. The Remonstrants, though, in 1610 organized themselves into a body and set forth what's called a Remonstrance. to the States General of Holland, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Now, remonstrance simply means vigorously objecting or opposing. Their goal was to solicit the favor of the government and to secure protection against the ecclesiastical censures to which they felt themselves exposed. There was a godly prince at this time, his name was Prince Maurice of Orange, and he was opposed to their work, and he desired a national synod against them to sit down and criticize their work. In 1618, on November 13th, the Synod of Dort, or the city of Dortrecht, where they actually met, consisted of 39 pastors, 18 ruling elders from Belgic churches, 5 professors, the University of Holland, and delegates from Reformed churches all over Europe. At least 4 ministers and 2 elders from each province were to come. Men came from France, from Switzerland, from the Republic of Geneva, from Bremen, from Ebden, as well as various deputies of the Belgic Church and some of the English Puritans as Hall and Davenant, as well as some of the Scottish Puritans. They convened to examine the doctrine of the remonstrance. And not only did they want to look at the doctrine, but they also wanted to look at their lives, because both are important. You can't have sound doctrine without it affecting the manner in which, practically, you live out that doctrine. Now, after the Synod convened in 1619, they gave the following censure by unanimous decision. Here is what they said. The Synod examined the Arminian tenants, condemned them as unscriptural, pestilential errors, and pronounced those who held and published them to be enemies of the faith of the Belgic churches and corruptors of the true religion. Now, they also deposed the Arminian ministers throughout the land, excluded them and their followers from the communion of the church, suppressed their religious assemblies, and by the aid of the civil government, which confirmed all their acts, sent a number of the clergy of that party, and those who adhered to them, into banishment. Now from a large part of the disabilities, however, the remonstrants, after a lapse of a few years, unfortunately were relieved again. Prince Maurice died in 1625, and so the ban seemed to lift on them, and some were restored to their position previously, and to their churches. Now, that is basically a very brief overview on how these doctrines came about. The Synod examined the remonstrance, took them about eight to nine months to do that, and as a result came out against the five points of the remonstrance with five points of their own. Now we call this the doctrines of grace in the doctrine of Tulip. In looking at the doctrines of grace, I want to briefly go over them with you, each of them, all five of them, in the next 40 minutes or so. Let me first say this is an introductory comment. This is a flower. A tulip is a flower, and it's a flower from the Puritan's garden. There are no daisies in the Puritan garden. Some of you might be familiar with daisies, where you grab the daisies and you say, he loved me, he loved me not. He loves me, he loves me not. He loves me, he loves me not. And when you get to the end of the flower, you just, you know, it's 50-50. That's basically the Arminian doctrine. Theirs is a daisy. But the Puritan teaching is a tulip. The flower itself is a result of fastidious work in the soil in which it grows up from. And that soil is very important. It is the lifeblood of Puritanism because it demonstrates the grace of God, the power of God, and solid theology surrounding the character of God and who God is. So let's begin with the key of tulip. Here are five points all intertwined together that make up one flower, and the T begins with total depravity. Now, total depravity, let's talk about what it is not first. Total depravity is not absolute depravity or utter depravity. In other words, a person is not as vicious as he could be. take your Bibles and turn it to Genesis 20 and verse 6 and in Genesis 20 verse 6 it says, it has a little conversation so to speak between the Lord and Abimelech and there God says to Abimelech and God said unto him in a dream yea I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart for I also withheld thee from sinning against me. Therefore, suffit I thee not to touch her." Here we see that God had withheld Abimelech from a particular sin. And it's God's restraint on men. God does not allow men to be as wicked as they could possibly be. He has a particular limit to which he will even allow a person to continue to sin. For instance, in 1 Thessalonians 2.16 it says, "...forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins, but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost." That's talking about the Jews. The Jews, with God, He had a breaking point to fill up the measure of their sins to a certain point until Wrath comes upon them to the uttermost. So he has a certain point in which he will allow these things to take place. And so he limits man. That means total depravity does not talk about men being utterly wicked. Like, for instance, Hitler. Hitler was not as bad as he could have been. He could have killed his generals. He could have killed his wife and his mistress. He could have done that. He didn't do that. As a result, he was not as bad as he could be, although he was totally affected in all of the areas of his being, being a depraved person, just as everybody else is to different degrees in the sins that they commit, but always affected in every area. So when we define total depravity, we say this. Due to the imputation of Adam's original sin to all his posterity, Men are unable to please God whatsoever and rather prone to evil in every area of the faculty of their being. Now Dort in Heads 3 and 4 in section 2 says, a corrupt stock, that's Adam, produced a corrupt offspring. So when we say total depravity we're talking about totally fallen or totally depraved. The Puritan view in terms of inherent spiritual bondage to evil is the idea. It is complete through the whole man. Now as we go through these different aspects of TULIP I'm going to give you certain Puritan quotes and certain men. Here's what Turretin says, there is a universal disorder in our nature. Men are not only destitute of righteousness but also full of unrighteousness. William Ames said it's the corruption of the whole man. Christopher Love says if you consider the flesh as habit, then it notes that primitive, radical, and original indisposition in man's nature to good, it is natural corruption. William Perkins, in his work concerning men, says this, original sin which is corruption engendered in our first conception whereby every faculty of the soul and body is prone and disposed to evil. So that means men's minds received from Adam ignorance, impotency, and vanity. Ignorance, namely a want or rather a deprivation of knowledge in the things of God, whether they concern his sincere worship or eternal happiness, impotency, where the mind of itself is unable to understand spiritual things though they be taught, and vanity, in that the mind thinks falsehood truth and truth falsehood, a natural inclination only to conceive and desire the thing which is evil. That is because we have bad hearts. William Ames says, Bondage to sin consists in man's being so captivated by sin that he has no power to rise out of it. Rather, he wants to wallow in it. He wants to roll around in the pig pen. So we ask the question, what is bondage? Well, the beginning of spiritual death in the form of conscience realization is spiritual bondage. And that's the way Ames deals with that. Dort says, Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and bondage thereunto. And without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit they are neither able nor willing to return to God to reform the depravity of their nature, or to dispose themselves to reformation. In other words, they like it. It's normal for them. In act and subjectivity, it inheres in man and continually excites evil desires in him. That's what the fallen heart does. It excites evil desires in him, as Turretin says. So when you think about the practical use of this doctrine, This is just basic understanding of what happened to man. It consistently drove this idea home. You cannot grasp the good news of the gospel until the bad news of sin is adequately dealt with. It's not starting simply with, you know, you're a sinner, but it gives the reasons behind why you are a sinner. Christopher Love says, every man by nature is a slave to his lusts, a slave to sin and to the creature. He says that in his sermon on man's miserable estate. He is dead. For example, you know a dead man feels nothing. Do what you will to him. He doesn't feel it. So a man who is spiritually dead does not feel the weight of his sins. Though they're a heavy burden pressing down upon him, and pressing him into the pit of hell. He is a stranger to the life of godliness. He's past feeling, given over to a reprobate sense so that he does not feel the weight and burden of all his sins. That's Man's Miserable Estate again by Christopher Love. Now you can look in Genesis 6-5 where it says, And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and every intent of the thoughts of his heart were only evil continually. That's it. That's all he was, is evil. Jeremiah 17.9 says the heart is deceitful and wicked above all things. Psalm 51.5 says that in sin we are conceived. Romans 3.10-18 demonstrate a horrible nature that we have. Not prone to good, prone to evil. There is no one who does good. No, not one. Isaiah 64 6 says that we have gone astray, and all of our righteousness is as filthy rags. So in other words, when we say total depravity, and the biblical teaching on that, we're talking about total inability. Man has a total inability who saved himself, to be saved, to do good, to follow after God, to heed the voice of God. It's like men are dead men walking. They're zombies. They're moving around, but they aren't alive, so to speak. Ezekiel 11, 19 says that God needs to take out that heart of stone. What does a heart of stone do? It does nothing. needs to put in a heart of flesh, needs to do a spiritual operation on us. Colossians chapter 2 and verse 19 says, and not holding fast to the head from Christ from whom all the body nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments grows with the increase that is from God. That is how men continually grow. It's through the head. It's by God. And that's just after he said in verse 13, you being dead in your trespasses. In the uncircumcision of your flesh, he's made alive with him, having forgiven you all trespasses. And so we grow in Christ. It's not of our own ability. It's what God does. Ephesians 2, verse 1 and verse 5 uses the phrases like dead in trespasses, not kind of alive. Not struggling to keep afloat in the water. You're dead. Dead in sin. Children of wrath. Now Arminius believed men were sick and not dead. And that is the great difference. So there you have total depravity. Now the next is unconditional election. How shall we define that? Let's say it this way. that the gracious and free act of God's secret election of a certain number of men is without any condition but the sheer good pleasure of his will. In other words, who is God going to perform this spiritual operation on? Dort in Head One and Article 10 says the good pleasure of God is the sole cause of gracious election. Perkins says Election is an act of God whereby from all eternity he purposes within himself of his own pleasure and will to bring a certain number of men unto salvation by Jesus Christ. Now we need to then understand election. Turrington says, for the counsel of God by which he decreed to pity some from grace and save them being freed from sin by his Son, election then by the force of the word is stricter than predestination. God predestines everyone somewhere. Election is more narrow, though it's more strict. For all can be predestined, Tartin says, but all cannot be elected, because he who elects does not take all, but chooses some out of many. He then continues, and he says, this, therefore, is the opinion of our churches, that election to glory, as well as to grace, is entirely gratuitous. Therefore no cause or condition or reason existed in man upon the consideration of which God chose this rather than another one. Rather, election depended upon his sole good pleasure, his eudokia in Greek, by which, as he selected from the corrupt mass a certain number of men neither more worthy nor better than others to whom he would destine salvation, so in like manner he decreed to give them faith as the means necessary to obtain salvation. That means that God has to perform that spiritual operation. He doesn't do it on everyone and He chooses some to do it on. Why? Why does He elect some? William Ames says, election is the predestination of certain men so that the glorious grace of God may be shown in them. And so William Ames divides this into two parts. To will election and then to do it in men at a certain time. Perkins says this, After the foundation of election, which hath hitherto been delivered, it followeth that we should entreat of the outward means of the same. The means are God's covenant and the seal thereof. God's covenant is his contract with man concerning the obtaining of life eternal upon a certain condition. Now he spends a great deal of time in the moral law explaining the terms of the covenant of grace to men. That's how God delivers it. So Dort defines election and talks about election and what Jesus did this way. Head 1 verse 7. Election is the unchangeable purpose of God whereby before the foundation of the world he has set out of mere grace according to the sovereign good pleasure of his own will chosen from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom he from eternity appointed the mediator and head of the elect and the foundation of salvation." Now that's a glorious truth. That is what God did. Now do we have scriptural proof to back that up? Does the Bible actually say that God elects some and does not elect or give everyone a chance to be saved? Well, it most certainly does. Romans 8, 29, 30, and 33. For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. Moreover, whom he did predestine, them he also called. Them he called, these he also justified. These he justified, these he also glorified. Who shall lay any charge to God's elect? Now let's just spend a moment looking at that little portion of the It says, for whom he foreknew, he also predestined. Now, to foreknow is not just to know. God knows everyone. God knows everyone from all time. And it says, those whom he foreknew, he also predestined. Now, to be conformed to the image of his Son. So that means, if we take the Arminian logic down its path, this really doesn't work. It becomes universalism. God saves everyone. Why? Because Arminius said, when it says God foreknows, it's talking about an intellectual knowledge. It's not talking about an intimacy that God has with His elect people, which is exactly what the word means. So Arminius said, well God knows everyone, so He gives everyone a chance. God foreknows those who will by faith choose Him, so He predestines them to be conformed to the image of His Son. Now first, that just isn't in the text at all. He's adding words. Second, foreknow does not mean to intellectually know. It means to know intimately. For instance, in Genesis 4, it says that Adam knew his wife Eve, and they had a son. Now, last time I checked, you can't just know your wife in order to have a son. You have to have an intimate relationship with her. But that's the idea behind the Hebrew and the Greek words in these Old and New Testaments here. To foreknow does not mean to simply know beforehand. It means to love beforehand. So he predestines those he loves beforehand in Christ. Now listen to what else Paul says here. Moreover, whom he predestined, them he also called. Now listen to what he says. Them he called, these he also justifies. Now this cannot be an external call. Not everybody who hears the gospel is justified. You can't say some, you can't insert some, because that'll just mess up everything. Think about it this way. Some he predestined, he calls. Some he calls, he justifies. Some he justifies, he glorifies. I mean, that's a theological monstrosity. That just doesn't work. It's the internal call. Those whom God has regenerated, those whom he's changed, He's internally called, or as we say in theology, effectually called, He justifies them. And those He justifies, He glorifies. Ephesians 1 verse 5 and verse 11 says this, According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will. in whom we also have obtained an inheritance being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things after the counsel of His will." That's just a wonderful, wonderful passage. 2 Peter 1.10, give diligence to make your calling and election sure. Romans 9.13, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. Before the twins had done anything good or bad, good or evil, that God's purpose and election would stand, that's what he did. He loved Jacob, and he hated Esau. And hated does not mean loveless. Hated is the Greek word misheo, which means to hate. God hates those whom he does not change, because he sees nothing good in them. And those he does change, He sees Christ, and that's why he loves the cheat and the liar and the deceiver, Jacob, over Esau. Unconditional election. Well, in our survey, let's move on to limited atonement, the L. This one is probably the greatest stumbling block for Christians in general to comprehend because they've been so conditioned. to misunderstand things like John 3.16, that they've just butchered the idea of the atonement. They don't understand the Old Testament concept of atonement. This is the most controversial and emotional of the points. It's controversial because it's not readily accepted with a cursory reading of the Bible. It takes a little study. It's emotional because it just doesn't seem fair. But the thing is with that, that's really a fallen and warped sense of fairness that those people are falling into. Arminius could not fathom the idea that Christ didn't die for all men. The problem is that he's missed the idea that if Jesus dies for all men, then all men are saved. And I'll talk about that in a moment. Let's define limited atonement. Jesus died for a limited number of people out of the mass of humanity and eternally secures their salvation by his life, death, and resurrection. That is the idea of limited atonement. It's limited in its scope to a certain number of people, not in its power. It is of infinite power, and that infinite power secures the salvation of a limited number. It was a purposeful death that Jesus died, not a hypothetical possibility. See, for Arminius, it was a hypothetical possibility. Jesus makes a way of salvation. He actually doesn't secure the salvation of anyone. Instead, he leaves it up to the person to see whether or not they'll exercise faith. Now how does somebody who has a stony heart, who's totally depraved, who has not been effectually called and changed, how is it that they're going to, out of some mysterious faith, wherever that pops up from, to be saved. Well Arminius, that was the idea. Arminius did not believe in total depravity, so that allowed a little goodness to be in man, and out of that little goodness he has the power to choose to be saved. Now that is not what the Bible teaches. It was a purposeful death. It was an act of Christ and not a mere matter of enduring because he met and endured it purposefully, as Ames says. It was a satisfaction that all the requirements were met to be a sacrifice. Satisfaction is that whereby Christ is a full propitiation to his Father for the elect. That's Romans 3.25. Romans 3.25 says, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood. Now, propitiation means that He propitiates the wrath of God. He turns it away. He removes it. He takes it out of the way of the sinner. He has actually done that on the cross. That's not something that's a hypothetical possibility for those who might have faith in Him. Think about it this way. It's hypothetically possible then, for Arminius, that no one would ever come, no one would ever be saved, and Jesus died in vain. That is not the purposeful God of the Bible that we see. All of the requirements were met. As for the intention of its application on men, it is rightly said that Christ made satisfaction only for those whom he saved. Only for those. So that means it's an effectual death. The Synod of Dort says this, it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby he confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to him by the Father. Tarleton says, such a giving of himself, Ephesians 5.25, is here meant as has for its end the sanctification of his church and its salvation. In other words, the application of it by procuring their salvation. This clearly belongs to none but the elect and the church alone. And since he delivered up himself for none except for this end, he can be said to have delivered himself up for no one who will not attain that end. Does the scripture bear that out? Scriptural support. Matthew 1.21, And he shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins, not all people. John 10.15, As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. Remember, there are sheep. And there are goats. Jesus lays down his life for the sheep, the ones that the Father gives him. Acts 20, 28 says, Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. See, he purchases the church. If he purchases the whole world, the whole world would be saved. Ephesians 5.25 Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it. Jesus gives himself for the church. He dies for the church. He redeems the church. His blood was for the church. He lays his life down for the sheep, the church. That's what he dies for. He secures the salvation. Now when you find all of those all men, world, passages, everyone, you have to really look at the context of what's going on there. Because the world doesn't mean every single person, individually, for all time, forever. That's not how it is. Rather, it talks about all kinds of people. Jews as well as Gentiles. And God does save, and Jesus is Someone who dies for the world in that sense, not just for one kind of person. So, limited atonement is important because you have to understand that God gave, an understanding that gave his only begotten son for those he so loved in the world. Limited atonement is one that everybody stumbles over, and I understand that we're moving basically as an overview over these things, and you might have some questions. Hold them until the end because I just want to make sure that you have an overview of the opposite of what the Arminians taught and still do teach. Let's look at irresistible grace. Now that's defined like this. that the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit is irresistibly received and is efficacious upon the heart of a lost and wicked sinner. We call it efficacious grace or effectual calling. Now, receiving the grace of God is either passive or it's active. Let's talk about that for a moment. The passive receiving of Christ is the process by which a spiritual principle of grace is generated in the will of man. Like when Ephesians 2.5 says, He has quickened you. What God does is He comes down and He changes the heart. That is passive on our part. We don't do anything. There's just nothing that we can do that way. So we don't receive anything on an active measure. We're not running after God. As a matter of fact, there is no one who seeks after God. No, not one. So what happens is God must change us first. Effectual calling, that's what we call irresistible grace with a practical application of it, where God changes the heart. Effectual calling is the fruit of God's election whereby God, of his free grace, works a wonderful change in the heart of an elect person by the inward operation of the spirit accompanying the outward ministry of the Word, by virtue of which the soul is brought from under the dominion of sin and Satan into a state of grace, and so made meet for the enjoyment of God in glory." Christopher Love said that. Now, what's needed for that grace to take place? Well, in Dort, Head 3 and 4 in Article 11, says this, When God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion, He not only causes the gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illuminates their minds by His Holy Spirit that they might rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God, but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit, He pervades the innermost recesses of man. He opens the closed and softens the hardened heart. And he circumcises that which is uncircumcised. He infuses new qualities into the will, which, though heretofore dead, he quickens. From being evil, disobedient, and refractory, he renders it good, obedient, and pliable. Actuates and strengthens it, that, like a good tree, it may bring forth the fruit of good actions. It's an elevated reason. It's a new implanted spiritual principle of understanding. And this happens under our radar, so to speak. Turretin says, therefore, this is the first degree of efficacious grace by which God regenerates the minds of the elect by a certain intimate and wonderful operation and creates then, as it were, anew by infusing his vivifying spirit. who, gliding into the inmost recesses of the soul, reforms the mind itself, healing its depraved inclinations and prejudices, endues it with strength and elicits the formal principle to spiritual and saving acts, in which sense we are said to be the works of God." Ephesians 2.10. That is most glorious. We are the works of God. Now, There's an active part to this. Not only are we passively attacked, so to speak, or arrested by the Spirit of God who changes our heart, but we also have an act of receiving on the part of the sinner. The supernatural faculty of the heart apprehending Christ Jesus, being applied by the operation of the Holy Ghost, and so we receive him to ourselves. That's what William Perkins says. So, there is a receiving of him that we enjoy, and there is a passive aspect of it that first has to happen before we can receive him with joy. Now, the scriptures support this inside out and backwards. John 6, 37. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me. The Father must give these to Jesus. John 5, 21. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and will quickeneth them, Even so, the Son quickeneth whom he will." John 3, 3. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Now that's a great verse. And you might say, well, I'm not sure I understand how that applies. You know, it says except a man be born again, he can't see the kingdom of God. He won't be able to go to heaven and see it. Well, that's not actually what Jesus is saying. The word see is not bleppo, I see with my eyes, it's orao. It's yedo, it's a derivative of orao, which means to perceive or to spiritually understand. So unless a man is born again, he can't spiritually understand the things of the kingdom. 1 Corinthians 4, 7 makes this quite plain. Who maketh thee to differ one from another? What makes you different? If you're an Arminian, you say, well, my choice makes me different. You have something to boast about. I did something. I chose Jesus. I initiated it. Well, that's not grace. Grace says, who makes you to differ one from another? Ah, the grace of God, the sovereign election of the Lord Jesus. that is irresistible grace. It is irresistible because the Lord Jesus, through His Spirit, comes and changes our heart. And those whom He wants to change, He changes. Let's look at the perseverance of the saints. The last one, the P of TULIP. Let's define it. The Spirit of God continues to work faith in the regenerate, and they persevere in good works. always struggling against the remnants of their original sin, whose guilt is pardoned, but whose power is decreasingly felt and is destroyed at death." Now, I want to say that Perseverance of the Saints is not once saved, always saved. That's a corruption of the doctrines, popular in recent years, but has never been true, and has never been a good representation of the doctrines of grace. Once saved and always saved is more keenly given the name the Perseverance of the Sinner instead of the Perseverance of the Saint. It teaches that man can be saved by Christ and then sin habitually. It doesn't matter what you do because in the end you'll be saved anyway. Do whatever you want and you can still persevere to the end. See, that's Perseverance of the Sinner. Perseverance of the Saint is quite different. It's an exceedingly practical doctrine. It's something both Christ and we do. It's synergistic in many ways. We can't do it without His grace, but we must act upon that grace that's given. We must be motioned by it, as Christopher Love tells us. Redemption in the Scriptures is often called deliverance and preservation from the wrath of God from death and from the kingdom of darkness. That's what William Ames says. Now sometimes people use the idea of preservation of the saint. God preserves them. and continues to preserve them. In his regal or kingly office, Christ's government of the church is either by the collection of it out of the world, or the conservation of it while it's being collected. He makes sure he upholds his church. In lieu of the other four points that we've just briefly gone over so far, how do we know this is true? Well, there's proofs that people are preserved in faith. Turgeon says, from the election of the Father, God has elected us, we will then persevere. From the nature of the covenant of grace, the covenant of grace can't fail, it's what Jesus does. So those who are saved in that way are going to be saved. From the merit and the efficacy of Christ himself, what Jesus actually does on the cross, he actually does to save people. from the guardianship of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit's not going to let somebody whom Christ died fall and miscarry into hell. He's applied them spiritual life. If this were not so, Tartan says, the gospel itself would simply be mere conjecture. And for the Arminian, that's what it is. It's just basically conjecture. Maybe you'll be saved. Hopefully you'll persevere. Hopefully you'll do your best. Hopefully you'll give it a gung-ho try. Hopefully you'll get to heaven. Maybe. Possibly. How do we persevere? Well, it's by the Holy Spirit in stirring us to performance of good duties. We do it with cheerfulness and He rouses us and motions us. So that we're not dead. We're alive. We're not overwhelmed anymore with our sin. Rather, we're joyful to serve Christ. Perkins says, may one who is elect fall away from his election and come to be damned? Oh no. A man who is elected by God can never perish. If election were changeable, then God must be changeable. Which there is nothing more absurd to think. If the elect could perish, then Jesus Christ would be very unfaithful to his Father. Should this be true, then Paul's golden chain would be broken, and so bring an absurdity upon the Scripture thereby." In Romans 8, 29, which we talked about. Can't break it. Dort says in Head 5, Article 7, For in the first place, in these falls he perseveres in them the incorruptible seed of regeneration from perishing or being totally lost. So God sustains that. He hasn't let it go. And again, By His Word and Spirit, He certainly and effectually renews them to repentance and to sincere and godly sorrows for their sins, that they might seek and obtain remission in the blood of the Mediator, may again experience the favor of a reconciled God, through faith adore His mercy, and henceforward more diligently work out their own salvation with fear and trembling." That's what He does. He keeps us. It's God's fatherly kindness. He's not going to turn His gracious countenance away from us. Certainly not. Scriptural support? Well, there's oodles for this one as well. Romans 8, 38 and 39. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Now I remember my Arminian teachers saying, ah, accept yourself. And they like to read into the text, nothing can take us away except yourself. You can turn away, you can fall away. Well, why don't you just read, accept yourself, in all the verses, you know, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever should believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life except for you. You know, why can't we say that? Obviously that doesn't work, they don't like that, but that's logically what happens. You just have to ask an Arminian, does God overthrow our free will? And they say, oh no, no, no. We have a free will. We want that will operating. So then you ask him, well, when you get to heaven Is God going to overthrow that will so that you don't fall out of heaven? And they're a little bit stumped at that point because they want to hold on to their free will. And if you can fall now as an elect individual and thwart the ordained purposes of God and thwart the cross of Christ and everything that he did for that person, which obviously for the Arminian he doesn't do much, why can't you fall out of heaven as well? God doesn't take away your free will. You must be able to keep it. John 6 37 39 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, listen to what he says, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. John 10 28-29 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall anyone snatch them out of my hand. My Father who has given them to me is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." Philippians 1.6 Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians 5.23-24 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly. And I pray, God, your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, faithful as he that calleth you, who also will do it. 2 Timothy 4.18 And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. Isn't that a most wonderful thing? God keeps us, He saves us, He changes us, and we can't ever fall. We don't believe that it's salvation by grace alone and just that. We also say that it is salvation by faith alone through grace, but it's not a faith that is alone. It is a faith that demonstrates itself by good works. You can't just sit back and say I'm a saved person and do nothing. You have to continue to persevere. The saint perseveres by the motioning of the spirit, and God upholds them by the power of his hand. Now, in thinking about TULIP in general, I want to conclude by saying this. If this is the manner of God's redeeming actions with the salvation of men, it would do us well to know it thoroughly, and as thoroughly as the Puritans did. It should drive us to our knees in bewilderment and asking, why me? Why is it that God saved me? That's an okay question to ask, because it pushes, at the same time, humble adoration to the praise of His glory and grace. And it says, thank you, oh my God, for saving me. It is the most sweet, beautiful, lovely of all of Christ's communications to us. Even though it can be an advanced theological formulation and we can get into all sorts of things that way, it's beautiful, it's wonderful. For the young, to the old, but only to the saved. I pray that you'd understand then what it was that the Synod of Dort wanted to do in going against the heresy of the Romanstrance. The poor thing about this is that most of the church today believes this. It's ridiculous that they do. All they need to do is look at history a little bit, find out where these things begin to pop up, and they see that TULIP is not heresy. Tulip is what the Church has believed for the entire time that the Church has been the Church. It's what Luther believed, Calvin. It's what Aquinas believed, Augustine and the early fathers. It's what Paul believed. It's what he taught. It's what Jesus believed. It's why he came. It's what God believes. That's why he's the eternal ordination of all the salvation of the elect and all in Christ. Now for those of you who have questions, because of the late hour, I'll take your questions after we pray. Thank you. at SWRB at SWRB.com by phone at 780-450-3730 by fax at 780-468-1096 or by mail at 4710-37A Avenue Edmonton that's E-D-M-O-N-T-O-N Alberta abbreviated capital A capital B Canada T6L3T5. You may also request a free printed catalog. And remember that John Calvin, in defending the Reformation's regulative principle of worship, or what is sometimes called the scriptural law of worship, commenting on the words of God, which I commanded them not, neither came into my heart, from his commentary on Jeremiah 731, writes, God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions. since he condemns by this one phrase, I have not commanded them, whatever the Jews devised. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions than that they are not commanded by God. For when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to His commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship in which they absurdly exercise themselves would fall to the ground. It is indeed a horrible thing for the Papists to seek to discharge their duties towards God by performing their own superstitions. There is an immense number of them, as it is well known, and as it manifestly appears. Were they to admit this principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying His word, they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The Prophet's words, then, are very important. When he says, that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind, as though he had said that men assume too much wisdom when they devise what he never required, nay what he never knew.