Our topic, The Biblical Superiority of the Reformed Faith, Part 2, and I'll be reading the text in a minute. It's going to be Galatians 1, 8-9. And today we're going to very briefly look at Lutheranism and some history, and then we're going to focus our attention on the doctrine of salvation and evangelicalism and how evangelicalism has departed greatly from the biblical views of salvation. Now, having proved from scripture that Reformed Presbyterian or Puritan churches, at least in their pure, more consistent times, their more faithful days, achieved a reformation in worship far beyond that of Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Baptists, and of course, modern evangelicals, let us turn our attention to the doctrine of salvation. Very important doctrine. This is a crucial doctrine that is central to the Christian faith. This doctrine must be guarded, protected, and propagated for no one can be saved without faith in Christ. This is the most important thing you're ever gonna consider in your life is what does the Bible have to say about Christ and our redemption? If one alters, perverts, or waters down this teaching, then one falls under the inspired curse of the apostle Paul, repeated twice for emphasis in chapter one. This is 1.8 and 9. If we or any angel or an angel or anyone, verse 9, preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. There's one gospel. There's only one gospel. Anything different than the gospel as preached by Paul, Peter, Jesus, and the apostles is a false gospel. So keep that in mind. This is critical. Now the Protestant Reformation first and foremost was a recovery of the biblical doctrine of salvation over against the heretical doctrines of the Church of Rome. The papal church taught that one is saved by faith and the good works that flow from faith. In their view, grace is infused in the one baptized by the church, and if one cooperates with and develops this grace, he can achieve salvation at a certain point in time. So it's a cooperative effort between God and Jesus, I mean, and the sinner. And, of course, they have all kinds of crazy stuff. You've got to take the sacraments. They re-sacrifice Christ every week in the mass, which is blasphemous, et cetera. Now in their view the majority of people never achieve this salvation and therefore when they die they go to purgatory to suffer until their venial sins are burned off. And this can take thousands of years. And much of the money raising in the late Middle Ages was to get people out of purgatory. Give us money and we'll get you out of purgatory. All of the early Protestant reformers rejected Romanism and accepted the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from the works of the law. This is the teaching that one is saved by faith in Christ alone. apart from what we do, apart from sanctification, apart from the works of the law. Repentance and sanctification is a fruit of saving faith. It has nothing to do with our justification by God, which is a declaration by God in the heavenly court that we are righteous based solely on the merits of Christ. Salvation is achieved solely by Christ, received solely through the instrument of faith. Good works are a necessary commanded fruit of faith, but have nothing to do with earning salvation at all. And that's the great error of Romanism and, of course, the federal vision and other heresies. One can look at good works and covenant keeping as evidence of a person's salvation, James chapter 2 and other places. It's evidence of a person's genuine faith, but one must never confuse justification with personal obedience or sanctification. And that's the great error of Romanism. They confound justification and sanctification. It's also the great error of the modern federal vision heresy. Reformed communions that are inconsistent with the gospel and God's sovereign grace Now, having noted this crucial recovery of the gospel, we want to look at the inconsistencies, errors, and serious problems that arose within non-reformed communions that are inconsistent with the gospel and God's sovereign grace and salvation. We'll be very brief mentioning Lutheranism and Episcopalianism. Now, Martin Luther was generally excellent in his doctrine of salvation, due primarily to the influences of Augustine. He was an Augustinian monk. And Augustine had all the elements of the Reformation in his teaching on salvation, yet he maintained all the horrible doctrines that led to Romanism that would arise in the Middle Ages. Very unusual person. Martin Luther emphatically rejected the free will doctrine of the semi-Pelagians and taught that regeneration was a product of sovereign grace. It was not, as Billy Graham and modern evangelicals assert, the product of God responding to an act of man's free will. That's Billy Graham's doctrine. He wrote a book on the new birth. Jesus died on the cross. This is Arminianism, evangelicalism. He died on the cross. He's waiting for you to choose him. If you choose him, then God, in response to your free choice, will regenerate you and give you a new heart. In his discussion of John 15, 5, without me you can do nothing, here's what Luther says. And this is great. It is totally unheard of grammar and logic to say that nothing is the same as something. To logicians the thing is an impossibility. That's Bondage of the Will, and that's the book, that's Luther's favorite book that he wrote is Bondage of the Will, and it's very Calvinistic. And he says regarding free will, But the guardian of free will answer the following question, how can endeavors towards good be made by that which is death and displeases God and is enmity against God and disobeys God and cannot obey him? Bondage of the will, page 300. And then he adds this. Do we not know what it means to be ignorant of God, not to understand, not to seek, not to fear God, to go out of the way and to be unprofitable? Are not the words perfectly clear? And do they not teach that all men are ignorant of God and despise God and moreover go out of the way after evil and are unprofitable for good? Paul is not here, and he's referencing Romans 3.11, there is none who understands, there is none who seeks after God. Paul is not here speaking of ignorance and seeking food, or of contempt for money, but of ignorance and contempt of religion and godliness. And that's a bondage of the will, page 280. Now however good Martin Luther was on sovereign grace, and he was quite excellent, The Lutheran Church departed from Luther's Augustinianism in favor of a form of semi-Pelagianism. And if you read Melanchthon, for example. This distortion of the gospel of sovereign grace is the logical result of their serious air of sacramentalism. They teach that infants are to be baptized and that when they're baptized, the moment they're baptized, they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. All infants that are baptized are regenerated. Thus, this same perversion, of course, is found in the Protestant Episcopal Church, the high church, and the followers of the federal vision heresy. They all teach a form of baptismal regeneration. If the infants of Christians are all regenerated at their baptism, then one must explain why the majority of people who are baptized fall away from the faith and end up in hell. And that's just obvious if you look at the Roman Catholic Church, if you look at the Episcopal Church, the Lutheran Church, Methodist, etc. Most people who are baptized as infants do not remain Christians their whole lives. They depart from the faith. That's just a sad fact. Well, the answer according to Melanchthon and most Lutherans is that most regenerated Christians fall away and lose their salvation. Well, this is a rejection of the perseverance of the saints and involves a redefinition of the new birth where the human will has more power than the Holy Spirit. And this is a return to semi-Pelagianism of the Roman Catholic Church. So the Lutherans, because of Luther, started out really good and then and also the Episcopalians started out really good on the doctrine of salvation, but their error regarding their sacramentalism drove them into the arms of Arminius and Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism. So just a note of history, why the Reformed churches are so much better. and there's Lutheran apologists on there and they argue against Calvinism. It's all based on sacramentalism, which is a false teaching. I have a book against Doug Wilson where I have a very lengthy chapter on sacramentalism on reformedonline.com. With this background in mind, let us contrast most of modern evangelicalism on the different aspects of salvation with the Reformed faith and see who is the most consistent with Scripture. We will compare common evangelical beliefs with the five points of Calvinism, and we're only going to get through maybe three today. First, what is the state of mankind after the fall, after Adam fell into sin? If you get this doctrine wrong, everything else is going to be wrong. The Reformed or biblical position is called total depravity, which leads, of course, to total inability. The extent of sin's pollution or influence on man's heart is man's total spiritual inability. Man cannot choose spiritual good or any good act from the heart that meets with God's approval apart from regeneration of the Holy Spirit and salvation. Jesus said that out of man's heart proceed all evil thoughts and actions, Matthew 15, 19. Every intent of the heart is only evil continually, we're told in Genesis 6, 5. The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, Jeremiah 17, 9. Men go forth from the womb speaking lies, Psalm 58, 3. Men are born sinful. Men sin because they're born sinners. Men are corrupt from birth. Therefore we are by nature the children of wrath, Ephesians 2.3. Sin and rebellion against God is built into the fabric of fallen man's being. Therefore Paul under divine inspiration says, there is none righteous, no not one. There is none who understands. There is none who seeks after God. There is no fear of God before their eyes. So are there people out there genuinely seeking the truth, genuinely seeking the true God, who really, out of their own free will, are gonna look to Christ? And the answer is absolutely not. That contradicts the word of God very clearly. Romans 8, 7 to 8, and this passage is just irrefutable. Because the carnal mind, and by the carnal mind, Paul refers to the unregenerated, unsaved mind. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God, It's hostile to God, it hates God. For it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Now I ask you this question, is believing in Christ pleasing to God? Of course it is. Is choosing Christ as your savior pleasing to God? Yes. Is picking up your cross and following Christ pleasing to God? Yes. Well, Paul just said that the natural man, the carnal man, cannot do that. Cannot do that. Because of this innate inborn sinfulness, rebellion, and depravity, Paul says men continually suppress the truth about God revealed in nature, suppress the truth of unrighteousness, create idols to replace the true and living God who exists. And this leads humanity into all sorts of gross perversions and violence, Romans 1.18 and following. And a sign of an apostate culture, Paul says, is the acceptance of lesbianism and homosexuality. Sound familiar? Man has an evil spiritually dead heart that every moment suppresses the true knowledge of God. Now this does not mean that men are as wicked as they could be. Not everybody's Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao or Charles Manson. Obviously, some men are outwardly much more behaved than others. And it does not mean that pagan unsaved men cannot do outwardly good acts, which the reformers referred to as civic righteousness. You could be a total heathen and earn money to support your family and go to work every day and so forth. Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, he talked about how evil men will even buy gifts for their children. It means that there's no spiritual good or goodness that flows from a heart that really seeks to glorify God. Now we just witnessed the horrifying Democratic National Convention where they talk all about love and we care about humanity and we care about you and we're all all this wonderful stuff. It's all totally satanic and it's just for the seeking of power. It has nothing to do with glorifying God or truly loving man. It's all a power trip. And even outwardly good deeds are actuated from wrong ungodly principles, as I just noted. Unregenerate man is totally unable to love God, do anything that merits salvation, and perform acts from a pure spiritual heart. Period. That's just the sad case of humanity and sin. Paul says that without faith it is impossible to please God, Hebrews 11.6. And even the plowing of the wicked is sin, Proverbs 21.4. And it's critical that we get this doctrine right. For once you understand this doctrine, it exalts grace. It exalts the cross of Christ. The Westminster Confession of Faith describes total inability as follows. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation. So as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself or to prepare himself thereunto. So if somebody seeks Christ, it's a work of the Holy Spirit. It's not a work of the autonomous will. And here's what Gordon Clark says, quote, Adam's ability to will what was good was lost by the fall. From that time on, man could not choose to will any spiritual good accompanying salvation. True, a man might will to be honest, to support his family, to discharge most of his obligations as a citizen. In colloquial language, these things are called good, but they are not spiritual goods and they have nothing to do with salvation. Furthermore, a man cannot will to be saved. He cannot convert himself nor even make preparations for conversion. The simple reason is that he is dead in sin." End of quote. Okay, so when we say that man is depraved and man is unable to do any spiritual good, We're not saying that a man might buy a good birthday gift for his kids or he might, you know, there are men who are total pagan swine who are faithful to their wives. You know, they're not out sleeping around. Now this doctrine of total inability plays a crucial role in understanding Christ's redemption. If men are dead and sin helpless and cannot believe in Christ, then salvation of sinners of necessity involves much more than Christ dying for all men and then waiting to see who will accept his gift. If unsaved men are unable to choose or to will any spiritual good, then regeneration of the new birth is not simply a little help. but requires a spiritual resurrection, and that's exactly what we'll see. It means that regeneration by the Holy Spirit must proceed or be coterminous with saving faith. So what Billy Graham and the evangelicals teach, that God regenerates you as a response to an act of your free will, is most certainly false. It is false both scripturally and logically. You can go preach at the graveyard and people aren't going to come out of the tombs. You can preach to people and if God doesn't regenerate them, they're gonna hate you and wanna throw rocks at you. It is only when God changes a heart through the power of the Holy Spirit that someone says, yes, I agree with that, that's great. I want Christ to be my savior. Now the modern evangelical view rejects the abundant biblical testimony and argues that all men have a will that is free to choose Christ or may choose Jesus with a little help from the Holy Spirit. Pelagius, a fifth century monk, taught that man's will is totally unaffected by the fall, but only influenced by Adam's bad example. That's Pelagianism. What is called semi-Pelagianism is very similar to Arminianism, accepts the fact that human nature is damaged and corrupted by the fall, yet still has a free will and the spiritual ability to do good and choose Christ. Arminianism is essentially the same. The sinner has an intrinsic power to cooperate with God's grace and choose Christ. Faith is not a gift received in regeneration, according to the Arminian or evangelical, but is a self-generated act with a little help from the Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit's assistance. In this system, men are saved because of faith, not through faith as an instrument, which is God's gift. And we're told explicitly that it's God's gifts in Ephesians 2, 7, or 8. And then we're told that repentance is a gift in the book of Acts and other places. It is a gift that comes in regeneration. The system of Arminianism, the evangelicalism of salvation, is syncretistic. Jesus does his part. Now it's up to man to complete the salvation process. And I can remember when I was a Baptist, Dispensational Baptist Arminian. I went to a Baptist church. This is literally what the pastor said. Jesus died on the cross. He's up in heaven. He's waiting for you to choose him. He can't save you. He's done everything he's going to do. Now it's up to you to choose him. In other words, it's up to you to save yourself. It's up to you to complete the salvation process. That's not biblical. That's not what the Bible teaches. Now, it's important to keep this in mind. Semi-Pelagianism or Arminianism is based on two humanistic presuppositions. It's a philosophy imported onto the Bible. The first, is that absolute divine sovereignty is incompatible with genuine human responsibility. Consequently, we hear sermons or read books which speak about God, and I've heard this myself, voluntarily restricting his sovereign power so man can be truly free and so on. I've heard that in sermons when I was a Baptist. Such thinking is radically unbiblical, for one of the fundamental truths regarding God is that God cannot change. God is not a man that he will repent. God does not change. He cannot deny himself or alter any of his attributes. Because he is perfect, infinite, and unchanging, his sovereignty cannot change or be limited, even by God himself. Okay, God cannot lie, we're told. God cannot deny his own righteous and holy character. If God did not create and control all reality, the universe would immediately cease to exist. The subatomic particles, the atoms that make us up, the cells in our bodies, everything is dependent on his continued power, upholding power, his providence. The Bible, however, teaches that God is absolutely sovereign over everything. Yet man is still a genuine, valid secondary agent with full responsibility for his actions. That's what the Bible says, and we have to accept it. In Acts 2.23, Peter says that Jesus was delivered up to crucifixion by God's determinate purpose and foreknowledge, that is, by God's predestination. God predestinated that this would happen in history. Yet Peter holds those responsible for their evil behavior. They are fully responsible for their actions in crucifying Christ, and he condemns them for their actions. God predestinated, he's in control of all reality, yet man is responsible when he does evil acts. The Bible's crystal clear about that. So that's the first presupposition. Okay, they're importing humanistic philosophy on the Bible. The second presupposition is that one's ability limits one's obligation. Since men are commanded to believe and repent, we are told that all men without exception must have the intrinsic ability to believe and repent. This assumption explicitly contradicts Scripture as well. When Jesus commanded the dead and rotting Lazarus to come forth, did Lazarus have the ability to hear and walk out of the tomb? No, he was dead. Modern evangelicalism, which is Arminian or semi-Pelagian, makes salvation dependent ultimately on man, not God. Saving faith is an autonomous act of the will, not a gift of grace, in their view. This is syncretism. It's very terrible. It's very heretical. The gospel is to be preached to all because we don't know who the elect is for one reason, and God saves whom he will. In the book of Acts, Paul, the Holy Spirit, told Paul to go to a certain city and told Paul, for I have many people in this city. In other words, you preach to everybody and it's up to the Holy Spirit who's going to be saved and who's not going to be saved. So they arrive at their conclusions not from a careful exegesis of scripture but more from philosophical considerations. They believe that all men must have a free will to choose Christ or things are not fair. They conclude the following regarding the effects of the fall on Adam. Now one view that is common is that the fall has affected man and corrupted him but has left him with a natural ability to do spiritual good and choose spiritual good. In other words, man's sick, but he's not dead. Very common view. That's what I was taught when I was a Baptist. And this view is totally in line with semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism. And of course, the problem with this view is that it explicitly contradicts scripture. In Ephesians 2, 1 and 5, Paul says that the unregenerate are dead in trespasses and sins, not simply sick. He says that the only solution is a spiritual resurrection caused by union with Christ. Read Romans chapter 6 for example. In 1 Corinthians 2.14 he says, the natural man, that is the unregenerated person, does not receive the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them for they are spiritually discerned. Well what is the presupposition there? The presupposition there is apart from a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit on man's heart and regeneration no one will believe. And you say, well, when I witnessed to my friends, they all laughed at me and mocked me and wanted to punch me in the face. Why? Well, Paul just told us why. They're spiritually discerned. They can't know them. They're foolishness to them. All my old friends, I was raised Roman Catholic, and I was, of course, a pagan, a drug dealer, and so forth. All my old friends think I'm a total moron. I'm a total fool. In 2 Corinthians 4, 3 to 4, he adds that the gospel is veiled, that is, hidden to those who are perishing, whose minds the God of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel should shine on them. In Paul says, Romans 1, 21 to 28, their foolish hearts were darkened and God gave them over to a base mind. Then he goes on to describe how this leads to all sorts of perversions, homosexuality, violence, murder, et cetera. And then, of course, Romans 8, 7, 8, again, the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Believing in Christ pleases God, but they can't do it, we're told. If unsaved man has an intrinsic hatred and hostility to the true God because of sin, depravity, and bondage to Satan, and thus cannot do anything spiritually good, then obviously such a person cannot and will not embrace Christ out of their own free will. David in Psalm 14.2-3 says this, and Paul will quote this in Romans, part of it. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there are any who understand who seek God. Okay, so God looks down upon all humanity. Are there any who seek God? They have all turned aside. They have altogether become corrupt. There is none who does good, no, not one. So there's a reason that we need Christ. There's a reason that we need the Holy Spirit to regenerate our hearts and draw us to Christ. And Jesus himself said in John 3, 19 to 20, this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world and men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light, lest their deeds should be exposed. Non-existent spiritual light and a heart that hates God will not seek the light, but run away from the light and suppress it. You know, you look at how people, how could people be so foolish to keep voting for Democrats and supporting evil policies that destroy their cities and bring poverty and crime? because they're spiritually blind and they follow Satan. The only way to solve the spiritual problem is to give man a new heart, a spiritual resurrection, a heart that loves the light and is drawn to it by the Holy Spirit. And this view, which is the biblical view, is called Augustinianism or Calvinism. And Spurgeon called Calvinism, it's simply a nickname for the gospel. It existed long before Calvin. It is simply the biblical gospel and it exalts the grace of God. Now others argue that man is to pray but the will remains free. Now the problem with this view is that the Bible says that the whole heart of man is corrupted by the fall and the heart determines the will. I'm not going to quote the several passages but the Bible teaches the controlling factor of all our faculties your emotions, your will, your intellect, it's all determined by your heart. And if your heart is corrupt, your will is corrupt. So you can't say that man is corrupt, but his will remains free. That's just not only irrational, but it contradicts scripture. This fact explains why man is still a free voluntary agent, yet in his unregenerate state, never chooses the spiritual good. Jesus said to the enemies of the gospel in John 8, 43 to 44 to 47, why do you not understand my speech? Because you are not able to listen to my word. You are of your father the devil. He who is of God hears God's words. Therefore you do not hear because you are not of God. So you need a spiritual transformation of your heart before you can believe. and that comes in regeneration, which is a gift of God, that proceeds saving faith, at least logically proceeds. For this reason, Jesus said that only those who are born again from above can't see or perceive the kingdom of God, John 3.3, and thus enter into it, John 3.5. So all unregenerate men are dead spiritually, Ephesians 2.1-5, hate the truth, hate Jesus Christ, John 3.19-21, dwell in darkness, John 1.4-5, have a heart of stone, Ezekiel 11.19, are spiritually helpless, Ezekiel 16.4-6, cannot repent, Jeremiah 13.23, are slaves of Satan, Acts 26.17-18, and cannot see or comprehend divine truth, 1 Corinthians 2.14. Now the will is free in the sense that there is no outward coercion forcing it to choose evil over Christ. God doesn't put a gun to your head. You're not controlled by outside forces. But because the heart is corrupt at birth due to the fall, the heart loves darkness. It loves evil and ignorance and willfully, happily, voluntarily, and deliberately chooses evil instead of Christ. This proves that only a sovereign work of God's grace can illuminate the soul and draw it to Christ. And that exalts the grace of God. Salvation is by grace alone, through Christ alone, received by the instrument of faith alone, which is a gift of God. Ephesians 2.8. Now I'm just going to briefly mention Wesley because he started the Methodist Church, which is a split off the Episcopalian Church. He came up with the idea, and this is really not believed anymore, but he came up with the idea that all men are born totally depraved, but Christ died for all men without exception, and this death somehow makes their will now free to choose Christ. So that comes from Wesley. So he can accept total depravity, but say when Jesus died on the cross, that total depravity was altered in a way that man now have a free will to choose Christ. That's what Wesley taught. And it's generally not believed anymore, but that's what he taught. He was trying to get around these objections I've been teaching. He understood the objections and he tried to get around them because he was basically an Arminian at heart. And this idea has absolutely no evidence from scripture whatsoever. Now having a false heretical concept of the fall causes other serious errors in evangelical theology. For example, they have the completely absurd unscriptural view of election that God looks down the corridors of time and sees who will believe in Christ and then only elects those because they choose Jesus in history. In other words, you elect yourselves. God only elects those who first elect themselves. The all-powerful Yahweh is controlled, limited, and conditioned by his finite sinful creatures. This view, as the previous, is based on certain philosophical presuppositions, and there is no scriptural evidence for it at all. In fact, the Bible emphatically rejects it and teaches the opposite. Acts 13.48, pay attention. Here's what we read. Now when the Gentiles heard this, okay, they're hearing the gospel. When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Now the verb appointed is the passive, indicating that the beloved, they believed because they were first appointed or chosen by God. They didn't appoint themselves. God appointed them. Election or God's choosing is the cause of believing, not the other way around. In Romans 9, 11 and 13 to 15, Paul writes, for the children not yet being born nor having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls, as it is written, Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not. For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy. I will have compassion on whomever I have compassion. Jacob and Esau were twins. Esau became an apostate and married a pagan. So then it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. These verses explicitly disprove the evangelical Arminian position for a number of reasons, and I'll be very brief. Paul says that election has nothing to do with the will or choice or effort of man and everything to do with God's sovereign choice. What makes the difference? God makes the difference, not man. If it is not God's choice, but is based on man's will or effort, then election is no longer an act of mercy, but rather is a reward for something man has done. So if you're an Armenian and you go see somebody preach the gospel and Bill believes and Bob does not, Bill has reason to boast. I was wiser than you, I had more spiritual ability than you did. Number two, the objection that Paul raises about election by God's sovereign choice being unfair could not be raised if election was based on man's choice in history. If men elect themselves, there could be no objection raised against God at all, for God is simply recognizing what men have done. How could you make an objection to that? The objection assumes the biblical doctrine that God chooses whom he pleases out of his own sovereign will. Three, Paul eliminates any possibility of ambiguity or doubt when he says that God has mercy and compassion on whomever he wants to. The point is that the decision behind election is found within God himself and has nothing to do with human choice or merit. And this is precisely what the apostle means when he says in Ephesians 1, 4, and 9, and I'm not going to go into this passage in detail, but I'm going to bring it up here because this also teaches the biblical doctrine of election, that he chooses who would be saved before the foundation of the world, that's predestination, verse 5. Note this, according to the good pleasure which he purposed in himself. In other words, election has nothing to do with what happens in history and everything to do with God's inner counsel within himself. God chooses. He chooses sovereignly. He chooses according to his own good pleasure. But the Arminian asserts that if God elects people before they are born, it has nothing to do with their choice or actions. Is that not, is that not truly unfair? And the answer is no, certainly not. All human beings, due to the sin of Adam and their own sins, deserve to go to hell. Isn't that, have you sinned? Yes, you've sinned. Are you guilty of sin? Yes, you're guilty of sin. Sin merits the eternal death penalty in God's sight, and you've earned that. God could justly send the whole human race to hell, but because of his grace, mercy, and compassion, he has decided to save some. All men are guilty. And God is not obligated to save anyone. Salvation is all of grace, but damnation is always a result of real sin and guilt. Salvation flows totally from God's grace and mercy, but damnation is always the result of a just judicial verdict against sin that men bring upon their own heads. So keep that in mind, this idea, oh, it's not fair. Well, God didn't have to save anybody. The fact that he saved some is wonderful, and we should thank God for it. Now, but what about the Arminian view that says that the word hate means that God loved Esau less? Well, such an interpretation is certainly incorrect, for the verse Paul is alluding to is found in Malachi 1, 2 and following, which speaks of God's wrath and judgment against Esau. It's not talking about God loving Esau. It's talking about God hammering Esau for being wicked. Esau apostatized and married a pagan, caused great grief to his godly parents. He rejected God. He was a wicked reprobate. And we can only conclude, therefore, that hate really means hate in Romans chapter 9. Now the only passage which is appealed to by evangelical Arminians is Romans 8.29. For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Now the basic idea here of the Arminian is that God foreknew who would believe in Jesus before the foundation of the world, and these are the ones that he predestined to salvation. In other words, he looked down the quarters of time, and he saw that Bob chose Christ, but Bill didn't, and therefore he elected Bob. Well, such a view is most certainly incorrect for the following reasons. Number one, the passage says absolutely nothing about a simple intellectual knowledge before the foundation of the world of who would believe in Jesus. It doesn't say that. That's a presupposition added onto the text. Arminians simply read their presuppositions into the text with zero evidence. Number two, the analogy of scripture, how the word no is used, tells us that Paul is using for no in a Hebraistic sense, meaning to love beforehand. What does it say about Adam and Eve? Adam knew his wife Eve. He had an intimate relationship with her. The word no, as in Adam knew his wife Eve, refers to a love or to set one's favorable loving regard upon. The Arminian view, which assumes a mere intellectual knowledge of history prior to its occurrence, does not really say much, for God knows about every person's history in advance. God foreknows everything. But if foreknowledge means to love beforehand, we have a sensible, logical explanation of predestination. Why did God predestinate one and not another? Well, because he loved that person beforehand, within himself. God set his love on some and therefore chose them for salvation. Number three, the immediate context of this verse indicates that it cannot be a mere intellectual knowledge of who will believe in history. For Paul says that this love beforehand leads to saving actions toward those who are predestinated. This is 8.30 and 39. Moreover, whom he prestinated, those he also called. This refers to the interior call of the Holy Spirit which accompanies the external call of the gospel. The Holy Spirit draws them to Christ. These he also justified. These he also glorified. And then after a lengthy thing describing how no one can separate those who God loves from him, he ends with, nor can any creative thing separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Number four. The Armenian interpretation contradicts what we have seen in scripture on total depravity and total inability. If God's election, choosing his people or predestination was dependent first on man's autonomous self-generated act of the will, then no one would be elected. For no one can believe without regeneration or a sovereign act of God's grace upon the human heart. You see how these things are all interrelated and one bad doctrine here will lead to another bad doctrine there. The doctrine of unconditional election is foundational to biblical Christianity, for it places the salvation of men squarely in the hands of God. The evangelical Arminian position is humanistic, for it places who will be saved squarely in the hands of spiritually dead sinful men. And that is heretical. And then one more thing, just briefly, and we'll end, because I know I've been going on for a while. Let's look at the nature and extent of Jesus' sacrificial death. Another area where evangelicals are totally in error regards the nature and extent of Jesus' atoning death on the cross. They teach that Jesus died on the cross for all men without exception, but that this perfect sacrifice for sin only made salvation possible. It did not actually secure or guarantee the salvation of anyone. That's what they actually teach. Christ's death only saves those who choose Jesus by an act of the free will. Now, although this view is pretty much universal today among evangelicals, there are Reformed Baptist churches that are Calvinistic, but they're small compared to the Southern Baptists and stuff. By the way, the Southern Baptists and Baptists in the 1800s used to, the vast majority of them were all Calvinistic, but they shifted to Arminianism in the late 1800s. Although this view is almost universally accepted, it is thoroughly unscriptural and irrational, and the reason why it is heretical are as follows, the reasons. First, the Bible explicitly teaches that Jesus' death on the cross actually saves. It doesn't make salvation possible. It really saves. Matthew 121, you will call his name Jesus for he will save his people from their sins. John 6, 37 and 38, all that the Father gives me, obviously referring to the elect, will come to me. And the one who comes to me I will by no means cast out. This is the will of the Father who sent me that of all he gives me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up on the last day. Can't get any clearer than that. This verse teaches that A, that number one, there is a group, the elect, chosen by the Father and given to the Son. Number two, everyone chosen by the Father will most certainly come to Christ and become a genuine Christian. Number three, everyone who becomes a true Christian will remain a true Christian until death. Christ will not lose even one. Number four, everyone that Jesus saves and preserves to the end will receive the resurrection and a glorified eternal life. So did Jesus make salvation possible? No, he secured an actual salvation. John 10, 14 and following. I lay down or give up, verse 11, my life for the sheep. You do not believe because you're not of my sheep. So what's the obvious logical implication of that? He didn't die for them. He just said he died for the sheep. He didn't die for the goats. My sheep hear my voice and follow me and I will give them eternal life and they shall never perish. Neither shall anyone snatch them out of my hand. This verse plainly tells us that number one, Jesus lays his life down for the sheep, those who are actually saved, not the goats. Number two, the sheep will most certainly come to Christ and be saved. Number three, the true sheep can never fall away or lose their salvation. These verses are very clear. These are not hard verses, if we're honest and interpret them correctly. So the design of Jesus' atoning death is to save only the elect, the church, Acts 20.28, Ephesians 5.25-27, his people, Matthew 1.21, the elect, Romans 8.32-35, Ephesians 1.4-11. The Bible never presents Jesus as providing a hypothetical salvation. that has to be actuated by man, but an actual perfect salvation. And this point is proved by the following facts. Number one, if Jesus paid the full price for everyone's sins, which is what the Bible says very clearly, then why would anyone go to hell? Hitler, Charles Manson, Caiaphas, the high priest, Pilate. Why would they go to hell if he died for their sins? They go because of unbelief, we are told. But unbelief is a sin, is it not? It's not the unforgivable sin. Unbelief's a sin. If Jesus died for all without exception, then everyone without exception would go to heaven, and that's universalism. Evangelicals don't believe in universalism. It would be unjust and absurd for God to pay for everyone's sins in Christ on the cross, and then pay for the exact same sins a second time in hell. Does that make sense to you? Of course not. Jesus' suffering and death pays for sin in full or it does not. If he died for you and he removed your sin and guilt, you will most certainly receive regeneration and the gift of faith and repentance and become a true Christian, and your sins will be forgiven in history. Number two, Jesus' death on the cross and glorious resurrection not only is the foundation and source of salvation, but also, and this is really what separates evangelicalism from the Reformed faith, but also is the guarantee of the application of redemption to sinners in history. Union with Jesus in his death and resurrection guarantees A, and this is from Romans 6, A, regeneration of the new birth, also John chapter 3. B, definitive and progressive sanctification, Romans 6. C, the high priestly work of Christ on behalf of his people, which the author of Hebrews says cannot fail. The author of Hebrews says that his intercession on behalf of his people is always efficacious. If he's praying for you to be saved and go to heaven and persevere, you will be saved, go to heaven and persevere. God answers the prayers of his son. And then E, excuse me, D, perseverance throughout one's whole life, and E, the resurrection of the body unto glorified life. And, for example, 1 Corinthians 15. Jesus is the first Adam. He's the first one to rise from the dead. He's the first fruits. And all those in him at his death and resurrection will rise under glorified life, will arise. Also in the Gospel of John, he teaches that. The Armenian or the modern evangelical separates Jesus' atoning work and resurrection from his high priestly application of this work in history, and thus makes the application of redemption contingent on an autonomous act of the human will. This view is a heretical syncretism where God cannot actually save anyone without the help of sinful, blind, dead, corrupt man. You say, well, that's crazy, but that's what they teach. and they mock Calvinism is absurd, but Calvinism, I can prove it. I've got a whole book on it, reformedonline.com, it's free, download it. Martin Luther's analysis of what modern evangelicals believe is right on the mark, and here's where Luther once again is, on the topic of redemption, is wonderful. Quote, granted that your friends assigned to free will as little as possible, nevertheless, They teach us that by that little we can attain righteousness and grace, and they solve the problem as to why God justifies one and abandons another simply by presupposing free will, and saying the one endeavoreth and the other did not, and God regards the one for his endeavor and despises the other, and he would be unjust were he to do anything else. They, the guardians of free will, do not believe that he intercedes before God and obtains grace for them by his blood and grace as it is said here for grace." He's just repeating what I just said. They deny Christ's intercessory work and that Christ applies his atonement to the elect. And as they believe, So it is unto them. Christ is in truth an inexorable judge to them, and deservedly so, for they abandon him in his office as a mediator and kind to Savior and account his blood and grace as of less worth than the efforts and endeavors of free will." End of quote. What a fantastic quote. That's why consistent Arminianism is a damnable heresy. Because it attributes salvation to God and to man. where the Bible attributes it to God alone. Arminianism is the first cousin to Romanism. It is a damnable heresy. If one man had the wisdom and will to choose Christ where his neighbor did not, then he has reason to boast. But if men are dead in trespasses and sins and totally unable to respond to Christ until he raises them from the dead through the regeneration and work of the Holy Spirit, then there is no reason for a man to boast at all. We are saved solely by God's grace through Christ. And I'll end with this quote from Pink. Quote, the god of the 20th century is a helpless effeminate being who commands the respect of no really thoughtful man. The god of the popular mind is the creation of a maudlin sentimentality. The God of many a present-day pulpit is an object of pity rather than of awesome, inspiring reverence. To say that God the Father has purposed the salvation of all mankind, that God the Son died and that God the Holy Spirit is now seeking to win the world to Christ, when as a matter of common observation it is apparent that the great majority of our fellow men are dying in sin, passing into a hopeless eternity, is to say that God the Father is disappointed, that God the Son is dissatisfied, and that God the Holy Spirit is defeated." End of quote. And that beloved is the God of modern evangelical churches, a false God, an impotent God, an incompetent God, a very disappointed God, crying and weeping, begging sinners to allow him to save them. And most say, no, I don't want to be saved. When the true God is sovereign, the true God saves his people. and not one will be lost, not one. Now, am I denying the personal responsibility of people to obey the word of God, the fruits of faith? No, I'm not denying that at all. Am I denying that we have to repent and that we have to pick up our cross daily and follow Christ? No, I'm not denying that, but these are fruits of faith. We're not saved by these things. They accompany salvation. They accompany justification, but they don't save us. We're saved solely by Christ, solely through the instrument of faith, and this instrument of faith is a gift of God received in regeneration. Same with repentance. Repentance is a gift. God has granted the Gentiles repentance unto life. It says in the book of Acts. God gave it to them as a gift. God changed their mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. They didn't do it of their own wisdom. Let us pray. Father, we thank you for your kindness and mercy in recovering the gospel unto us through Luther and Calvin in the Reformed churches. In our day, these things are believed very rarely and far between. We pray, Lord, for reformation and revival in the United States. The West and the United States, Canada, Australia, all these nations are due, they're ripe for your wrath and judgment. And you've provided before us two wicked leaders, Kamala Harris, satanic to the very core, proposing statism, advocating the transgender perversion and homosexuality, advocating the humanist sacrament of abortion, which is nothing but murder, cold-blooded murder, and then of course Trump, an egomaniac, liar, who is also a terrible candidate. Better than Kamala, but still a terrible candidate. Have mercy on your people and raise up godly men to rule over us. In Jesus' name, amen.