We are back discussing chapter 20 of our confession of faith, of the gospel, and of the extent of the grace thereof. We are really, in many ways, just beginning it. Last time I was with you, oh, it was three weeks ago now, if you remember, I kind of explained the historical need, or not the historical, the perceived need to write this chapter by the Congregationalists and to adopt it by the Baptists, as chapter 20, at least this chapter 20, is not in the Westminster Confession of Faith, but in the Savoy and in the Baptist one. And so we looked at the reasons for that. We saw there was some very, at the time, discouraging historical theological developments and trends. Arminianism was on the rise and was making headway among not just the Baptists, but I would even say particularly among some of the Puritans, unfortunately. I've said at that time, it's not uncommon to read old Baptist church books where it'll say, you know, Sister Hutchinson went to the free willers or something like that. And there was actually one where a lady left a particular Baptist church to go to a general Baptist church, and she asked for a letter of recommendation. And they said, we will officially dismiss you without disciplining you, but we will not recommend you to this church. It was just kind of like, you know, we're not exactly happy, but it was common. The most pernicious development at this time, however, was Socinianism, and I hope that that was helpful for you. You've probably heard the term Socinianism out there, maybe read it without understanding it, but it was by far, it's hard to find an adequate word. I think pernicious is very good. As we saw, anything that is just good about God and the gospel, Socinianism, not only destroys, but it's very deceptive in how it goes about. And this was spreading at this time. And those two, Arminianism and Socinianism, have in common some of the issues we'll talk about today. This idea of really universalism, being able to come to Christ without coming to Christ, without having a knowledge or faith in Christ and being saved. And so that is one reason. The other reason, and we'll notice this as well, is I said there had been some accusations in New England. And remember, at this time, when you think New England, just think congregational Puritans. The Congregationalists even kind of, I wouldn't say they persecuted the Presbyterians there, but they weren't friendly with them either. So, totally Congregationalists there. And there had been accusations by some that they weren't reaching the Native Americans there, and they threw their ecclesiology under the bus as the cause. And there was a fellow who wrote a book called Plain Dealing, Thomas Letchford. And he basically said, well, the reason why they're not effectively reaching Indians is they have no bishops to basically send missionaries. And the Presbyterians agreed, except for they said, well, no, but they have no Presbyteries. That's why they're not reaching the Native Americans. And we'll see part of the response in chapter 20 is kind of an answer to that critique. And that's kind of what relates to the handout I gave you, although it's probably very mysterious at this point. Okay, what I did wanna say, oh, I'll say this now. Contrary to those accusations of not being missionaries or missional, there was a lot of missionary endeavors among the Puritans in New England. There were a good number, not just of ministers, I would say people in general, but ministers who not only spoke the native languages but could preach in them and did preach in those languages. And there was actually a great effort made to not only learn the languages, but to write grammars and dictionaries for them, which is no small task. That's actually an enormous task, and it shows kind of the passion they had for it. They did put effort into this, and having kind of transliterated it with English letters, they translated several works into that. If you notice, The first page of what you have says John Cotton's catechism, Milk for Babes. When I wrote my own catechism, it's called Milk for Little Ones, and I originally wanted to call it Milk for Babes from this one, but it was decided by others that babes was too archaic, so we made it Little Ones. But it was a translation of that catechism made really for Native American parents or for brand new believers who are Native American to learn the catechism. There is also a page of the Psalter, and I believe it actually says, it also has the Gospel of John being an introduction for the training up of the Aboriginal natives in reading and understanding Holy Scriptures. And then last, on the last page, just for fun, I knew they had the Savoy Confession of Faith translated, and so I thought, you know what, I'll show them chapter 20 of the Gospel and of the extent of the grace thereof. I think that's in Algonquin, but don't hold me to it. It's actually kind of funny. I don't think they translated the word God or Christ. But other words, you can kind of see like, oh, that's probably the Algonquin word for covenant. It's kind of interesting. But all that to say, that was definitely an unfair accusation by others. There were efforts made, and if there was not as much success as was hoped for, the Congregationalists give an answer for that. But you can have that, that's all we're really gonna look at, that's just for fun. But let's go ahead and dive in. Open up your confession, if you have it, to chapter 20, and we will begin in paragraph one. We should be able to wrap up the whole chapter today. Paragraph one. It says, the covenant of works being broken by sin and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect and begetting in them faith and repentance. In this promise, the gospel as to the substance of it was revealed and is there an effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners. All right, well, first, just notice The Confession here affirms the existence of what is called the Covenant of Works. It actually uses that terminology that is part of holding to the Baptist Confession is a belief in the Covenant of Works. I would say that although the substance of the covenant of works is kind of mentioned elsewhere, this is really only the explicit mention of the actual covenant of works. The phrase covenant of works is used in chapter 19. But there it's more talking about the idea of a covenant of works. And it says we are not under the law as a covenant of works, but it's not referring to the historical covenant of works with Adam. But that is what is mentioned here, showing it's a part of our confession. It continues, the covenant of works being broken by sin and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect and beginning in them faith and repentance. What this is showing, simply put, is the absolute necessity of the gospel and of special revelation, okay? It says not only that the covenant of works had been broken by sin, had been, but that thereby it was made unprofitable unto life." Okay? In other words, because the covenant had been broken, it could only condemn men to death. It could not give life. There was a time when it was presented with the offer of life, with the tree of life, if Adam had obeyed. In fact, in chapter 6, this is why I said Elsewhere, the Covenant of Works is mentioned, though the term Covenant of Works is not used. But it says in chapter 6, paragraph 1, But he broke it, so he received death. Therefore, the covenant of works being broken by Adam and all those in Adam, it was therefore made unprofitable for life. And this necessitated another covenant. And this covenant is announced in the preaching of the gospel. It mentions the gospel, giving forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman. That right there, of course, is a reference to Genesis 3.15, what is called the Proto-Ewangelion, the first gospel. I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring. He shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel." The confession is saying that is the very first revelation of the promise of Christ, of the gospel covenant. It continues, in this promise, the gospel as to the substance of it was revealed. As to the substance of it, the gospel was revealed in that little promise, even though it's kind of teeny tiny, Genesis 3.15, it doesn't tell you everything there is to know about Christ and the gospel, yet it does contain, in a nutshell, the substance and the essence of the gospel. This is interesting because what this is arguing for is not just that special revelation was necessary for the elect to come to salvation, but this argues that even early on, though it had not been fully developed as we now live in the light of the new covenant, right? Yet at the time, it was a sufficient revelation for the calling of the elect and for beginning faith and repentance in them. It's interesting. There is an older distinction. We don't really use this anymore, though it's very helpful. It's a distinction between something's esse and bene esse. Who can tell me the difference, what those mean? It's Latin. Jason, no, sorry. You can't say it. Esse and bene esse. OK, Jason, sorry. I'm sorry, Jason. It's essence, and what's bene esse? All right, sorry. It's the difference between being and well-being, okay? Being and well-being. And what this gets at is that certain things are necessary for something to be. There are certain things that if you don't have, you cannot be, right? You're just not you if you don't have certain things. For example, let me ask you this. Can a church be a church without elders? Seeing different answers. If you say no, what do you say? What? So if you say no, you're saying that elders are part of the essence of the church, right? Who says that they are not part of the essence of the church? Who says that they are? Oh, all right. I would say they are not part of the essence of the church. Don't elders have to be called and elected by a church in order to be called and elected? Well, how can that happen if they're not called and elected by a church, right? The church itself precedes the elders. So we would say they are not necessary to the being of a church. A church can exist without elders. And in fact, we see this in the book of Acts. For example, it says in Acts 14, 23, that Paul and Barnabas had appointed elders for them in every church, the implication being They were true churches, but before that time they did not have elders. So that's kind of a very simple, straightforward argument. Yes, you can be a church without elders. So if you don't need elders, why do I get a check here? I mean, am I just like mooching off of you guys? Do I contribute to put it in another way? What is it that you do here, right? If elders aren't necessary to the church, what do you say? Are they helpful in any way or just do we not need them? Jason, yes. Ah, so they're not necessary to the being, but to the bene esse, the well-being of the church. A church may exist, but the Congregationalists would say it's a not complete church. You could say it's not good for, you know, just as it's not good for a man to be alone, though he is truly a man if he's not married. It's not good for a church to not have elders, okay? That's the distinction. between essay and bene essay, and it's very helpful for a lot of things. In terms of gospel preaching, getting back to the substance of the gospel, what makes the gospel the gospel, right? What is necessary to the essay of the gospel that if you don't mention it, you have not preached the gospel? I'm not gonna, at this point, outline everything that we might include, right? We could probably say, this has to be put in, that has to be put in. We would say, though, there are many things which are very helpful for a Christian to know about the gospel, but maybe not absolutely necessary to be known or believed in order to be a true Christian and to have faith, right? And what I mean by that is, consider the Philippian jailer. I imagine when he was saved at first, his faith was very much a childlike faith, very simple. What must I do in order to be saved? I imagine he had heard something about Christ when Paul and Barnabas, or Silas, one of them, were singing in the Philippian jail. So he obviously was hearing something, but he says, what must I do to be saved? Paul says, believe in your heart, right? Help me out here that Jesus is Lord and you shall be saved or something like that, right? I'm just totally not quoting scripture correctly. But I imagine his faith was at that point fairly simple. He had not yet perhaps understood all the distinctions. Maybe he hadn't yet understood the threefold office of Christ as mediator, as prophet, priest, and king, right? All things which are very necessary and are helpful for the Christian to understand a full-orbed gospel, but you can truly be saved and yet be growing on the way and not know them and yet be a true Christian, right? What our confession is saying here then about this little nugget to the gospel proclamation in Genesis 3.15 is it may not have everything that might be known and that is helpful to know about the gospel and about Christ, but as to the substance of it, it has everything necessary to be known about him to be saved. Okay? So this is sufficient then. It gives, although a limited early on, it gives a sufficient revelation of the promise of Christ. Now, why is this important to stress here? That might seem obvious. Obviously, there are some things you need to know about Christ. There are some things that must be preached that if you don't preach, you've not preached the gospel, right? Well, we have to remember, I don't have an exact example of this from the Sosinians, but I do know that the Arminians did argue it was quite possible to be saved apart from the hearing and believing of the gospel, right? One way to think of this is while we would say there's like a bare minimum that must be presented in a gospel presentation, that bar is even lowered, okay? We would say there has to be Christ put forth in some way. Even if it's simple to say, the seed of the woman shall crush the head of the serpent, that is a putting forth of Christ. But the Arminians, they say, well, no, not even that is necessary to be saved, okay? John Owen is helpful here. He points out it's kind of just like, as long as you have a vague belief in God and that He is good, that's sufficient, according to the Arminians. In his book, The Display of Arminianism, in the 11th chapter, it's titled, Whether Salvation May Be Attained Without the Knowledge of or Faith in Christ Jesus. And remember, Owen was most likely the chief architect of the Savoy Declaration, the Savoy Confession of Faith, and probably Chapter 20 as well. So just keep those two in mind, okay? But the chapter's titled, Whether Salvation May Be Attained Without the Knowledge of or Faith in Christ Jesus. And he says this, first, they, the Armenians, grant salvation to the ancient patriarchs and Jews before the coming of Christ. We do that too, right? That's not the problematic part. Abraham believed the gospel. He rejoiced to see Christ's day, right? So, we grant them salvation. However, he goes on to say, they grant salvation to the ancient patriarchs and Jews before the coming of Christ without any knowledge of or faith in Him at all. No, they deny that any such faith in Christ was ever prescribed to them or required of them. They say in their apology, This was a work written by Episcopius. After Arminius dies, Arminius died before the Synod of Dort even met, but his main protege was Simon Episcopius. He was kind of the main one, I think, at the Synod of Dort, and he's kind of, at least early on, the main kind of like guy writing confessions. They wrote a confession, the Arminians did in 1621, I think, And then he wrote an apology or explanation further arguing for the theology behind it. So that's what this is from, okay? He says, they say jointly in their apology, and this comes from them, it is certain that there is no place in the Old Testament from which it may appear that faith in Christ as Redeemer was ever commanded or found in any of them. That's straight from their confession or their apology. "'They grant only a general faith,' Owen says, "'involved under types and shadows, "'and looking at the promise as it lay hidden "'in the goodness and providence of God, "'this indirectly might be called faith in Christ "'according to them.'" Now, let's break this down a little bit more, because it could be a little confusing. First, he says, "'They grant only a general faith "'involved under types and shadows.'" Types and shadows is actually biblical language. That phrase actually comes from the book of Hebrews. And it says, and we've seen this as we've gone from Genesis through Exodus, that Christ is revealed under types and shadows. So is Owen saying they're wrong to say he's revealed under types and shadows? That's not what he's saying, okay? When he says that for them Christ is revealed, or they have only a general faith involving types and shadows, this is how he means it. For us, Christ is revealed in types and shadows. The high priest, the ancient Israelite could look at the high priest and by that he is pointed to the great high priest that will come one day, Jesus Christ. It points, it's a type to an anti-type. For the Arminians, and I imagine for the Sassinians as well, they're just types. That's how I can explain it. They don't point you to Christ. They don't give any kind of revelation to Christ. And so that's why they're arguing. They just have a general faith. And when he says under types and shadows, it means like it doesn't go beyond the high priest to Jesus, okay? That's what Episcopius is arguing. For example, this is a perfect example, Owen quotes Arminius' own comments on John 8.56. In John 8.56, Christ says, your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day. He saw it, he was glad. Now for us, we would say that means Abraham knew Jesus. Probably not only is that a reference to maybe the appearance, the theophany of Christ coming to Abraham, but also knowing of Jesus Christ to some degree and rejoicing in the gospel, the future seed that would come one day. That's how we would understand that. Owen says, Arminius answers with a hefty gloss corrupting the text. This is what Arminius said, "'Abraham rejoiced to see the birth of Isaac, who was a type of me.'" What Arminius is saying there is Abraham rejoiced Not because he was therefore seeing me, not because Isaac pointed to me, but because he's a father rejoicing at the birth of his son. So he's a type of Christ, Isaac is a type of Christ, but Abraham doesn't really know that. That's kind of how Arminius is arguing. So as you can see, they're types and shadows, but they're just types and shadows. They're not actually revelation, okay? Owen again points to Arminius, and this is astounding, I was like, oh my gosh, says concerning the faith of Abraham, the whole description of the faith of Abraham in Romans 4 makes no mention of Jesus Christ either expressly or so implicitly as to be easily understood by anyone. It's Arminius. Arminius was not a believer, or Abraham was not a believer in Christ. He didn't have faith in Christ, according to Arminius, at least not a way that could be easily understood by anyone. Contrary to that, I mean, there's so many ways you could take that to task, right? I just have here Galatians 3.18. Paul says in the scripture, for seeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham saying, in you shall all the nations be blessed. Paul says that in that nutshell, you have again, the substance of the gospel. All nations of the earth shall be blessed. From Paul, according to Paul, there's actually quite a bit you should see in that. Paul says you should look at that and see not only the justification of Jews, but the justification of Gentiles as well. So the gospel going to the whole world, justification by faith, all that, according to Paul, is seen in a nutshell there. And so certainly also Christ is seen. And so from this, Owen concludes, I see no reason why thousands of heathen infidels should be excluded from this kind of faith, and that's exactly right. If it's just kind of a general vague faith in God, then yeah, I mean, others have that kind of a faith, like the demons have a faith in God, they believe God exists. According to that, then, they can also be saved. You know, as I thought about this, and I don't really want you to be all salty with Arminians, because they're our current hosts, but if you've ever been, in dealing with Arminians, I've been asked, or kind of put it to me, if everyone's chosen then why do we need to go share the gospel? Now there's a reason, there's a good answer you can give to that, that God uses means and he uses the church as his instrument to go gather in the elect and all that stuff, but you could just say, why do you even need to go share the gospel anyway if the gospel is not necessary to being saved? If anything, by giving more revelation, if they reject that, Couldn't they actually be condemning themselves? Why not just leave them in their vague faith? They'll be saved then, right? Now, perhaps they have some kind of response to that. I'm sure they do. But it's something to think about. Because the way it is put forth is, no, we go forth and by the preaching of the gospel, people are being saved. However, if you're familiar with classical Arminianism, that's not even necessary, technically speaking, okay? Now, the other thing that Owen says here is that for Arminians, not only did they argue that kind of shadows and types were just that, but he says that it was enough to simply have faith in what Owen refers to as the goodness and providence of God, okay? He says that for them, the promise lay hidden in the goodness and providence of God. Now, what is he getting at here? This is really the subject of paragraph 2 of chapter 20. So let's look there real quick, paragraph 2, chapter 20. This promise of Christ and salvation by Him is revealed only by the Word of God. Neither do the works of creation or providence with the light of nature make discovery of Christ." And discovery there 400 years ago meant revelation. They don't make a revelation of Christ or of grace by Him. so much as in a general or obscure way, much less that men destitute of the revelation of him by the promise of promise or gospel should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance. All right, now it mentions there the works of creation and providence and the light of nature, all what we refer to as general revelation. These things do indeed give a revelation about God. Our confession says in chapter 1, paragraph 1, although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable." That's the conclusion it comes to. It doesn't give you the hope of the gospel. Why? Well, first of all, Christ Himself is not revealed, but is it actually good news to know that the God to whom you are accountable is a holy, good, and righteous God if you are, in fact, a sinner? No, that's actually terrifying to sinners. The fact is we'll see today in our sermon that God will by no means clear the guilty. Why? Because He's good and holy and just and wise and all those things. That only leaves men inexcusable, but it does not give them the hope of the gospel And so, for the Arminians, however, they argued that by this mere knowledge of the goodness of God, as you see the goodness of God in creation, you can't but look at anything. I was talking to our neighbor, we have a neighbor. It was kind of cool. We finally had a few gospel conversations. She came over, she was holding Santi, and I said, no, there's evidence of God everywhere. And she said, where? Kind of like being smug. Not being smug, but she thought she had me. And she's holding Santi, and I said, look in your arms. And I said, look at that and tell me that a God doesn't exist. And she was like, yeah, you're right. And that He's a good God. There's evidence everywhere, right? However, for the Armenians, they take that goodness of God as though it is a sufficient revelation somehow connected to the promise of the gospel. And so Owen says, The promise lay hidden, according to them, in the goodness and providence of God. In other words, according to them, the gospel lay hidden in general revelation, which is by no means true. And so, Owen says, this indirectly we might call a faith in Christ. So, yeah, they don't have faith in Christ, but they have a faith in a God who's good and that God sent Christ. And so, like, indirectly, it's a faith in Christ. That's what they argue. Again, this means that any pagan can be saved apart from the knowledge of Christ, and that is what Arminius taught. Furthermore, Owen says, what they teach about the Jews, meaning that they were saved apart from knowledge of Christ, they also grant concerning the Gentiles living before the incarnation of Christ, that they also might attain salvation and be justified without any knowledge of Christ. For although, says Corvinus, who is apparently some Arminian, okay? For although the covenant was not revealed to the Gentiles by the same means as it was to the Jews, yet they are not to be assumed to be excluded from the covenant of grace, nor to be excluded from salvation, for some way or other they were called." How? He doesn't know. Some way or other. What do you call that? Begging. It must be so. Why? Well, because according to them, God has to do that. No. Just consider if that were true for a moment, that the Gentiles were called by any other means apart from the gospel. Consider how wrong Paul is in Romans chapter 10. How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him, of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, how beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news." We don't say to Paul, well, Paul, some way or other they were called. No, it's pretty clear Paul's questions are rhetorical. They will not believe if they do not hear. They will not hear if no one is sent, and they will not go unless they are sent, right? It is a necessity that the gospel be preached. And as it says in the beginning of paragraph 2, that this promise of Christ and salvation by Him is revealed only by the Word of God, okay? So, that's what it's getting at there. All right, let's look at paragraph 3 now. This is interesting. Paragraph 3. The revelation of the gospel unto sinners made in diverse times and by sundry parts with the addition of promises and precepts for the obedience required therein." Okay, just stop there for a second. This is basically talking about what we call progressive revelation. It's a revelation that perhaps starts off small, indeed very small, Genesis 3.15. and yet it continues to grow and it grows and it builds on that and what is once established is next built on that and it kind of grows into this kind of flowering of a tree. The one who's really good on this, who had truly profound genuine insights, it's kind of like It's rare to point at some thinker in the history of the church and go, like, that guy actually had genuine insights. The one who did was Gerhardus Voss concerning this. He really talks about progressive revelation in a way that you're like, oh my gosh, how did this guy glean all this stuff? But it's true, God builds on revelation, right? That makes sense. If you have later revelation but you've not kind of built on that, it's gonna be unintelligible. It's interesting, when Paul preaches the gospel, he presents his gospel presentation differently depending on the amount of revelation that his hearers have. When he's speaking to pagan Gentiles, he doesn't start talking about David, who prophesied, my Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand. They've never read the Hebrew scriptures. It's going to be unintelligible to them. Where does he start? With general revelation, right? the God who made the world and everything in it, he starts there and then builds on that with further revelation of the gospel. With the Jews who have more, he can go straight to start arguing from the scriptures themselves, the necessity, he's from the tribe of Judah, all this stuff, and he can do that because revelation is progressive. And so what this is basically getting at is that from the very beginning it's been growing, and really the full flowering of it is the coming of Christ Jesus. I like the way Chapter 7, Paragraph 3 describes it. Speaking of the covenant of grace, it says, First of all, to Adam and the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament. That's what this is talking about, all right? All right, that's kind of the first part of paragraph three. It's just setting us up for what follows though, okay? Paragraph three, as to the nations and persons to whom it is granted is merely of the sovereign will and good pleasure of God. As to the nations and persons to whom it is granted is merely of the sovereign will and good pleasure of God. What is this talking about? Well, why is it, for example, that Christianity really, really took root in Europe? Why? It kind of spread everywhere at first, and yeah, it did even early on, although it was kind of like They were like, didn't hold to Nicene Christianity, but they did kind of go off into China. But it was really Europe where that's kind of like Christendom, if you think about it, right? Why there and why not Africa? Why not Siberia? Why not China? Why not India? Why? The answer is given here. Is merely of the sovereign will and good pleasure of God. The paragraph continues, not being annexed by virtue of any promise to the due improvement of men's natural abilities by virtue of common light received without it, which none ever did make or can do so. In other words, what this is getting at, is that one thing that wasn't a reason why the gospel spreads to this or that place was because those there who received the gospel were somehow more spiritual, right? That's why it took off in Europe. Europeans are just really holy people, and they're really spiritual, and that's why it went there, right? No, that's not at all what happened. It's not any promise to do improvement of men's natural abilities. Nor was it because perhaps they had good training in Plato, right? Perhaps it could be argued, well, it really spread among the Greeks because the Greeks had kind of had a really good introduction with Plato and all that, and that really helped. The gospel just made more sense to them in some ways. No, that's not it. That's not it. You could still say there's things that the Greeks saw that were helpful, but at the end of the day, that's not why they accepted Christ more or less than any other person. It was merely of the sovereign good pleasure of God. We see some glimpses of this in Scripture. It's very interesting. The first time I read this, I was like, what does that mean? For example, turn with me to Acts chapter 16. Acts 16, verses six through seven. First time I read this, I was like, what? How can that be? Acts 16, six through seven, it says of Paul and Timothy, and they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. What? Now, Asia there means modern day Turkey, not like East, East Asia. having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. Then verse 7, And when they had come up to Mycenae, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. Now that is a really fascinating scripture. They were forbidden by the Spirit from speaking the word in Asia. What does that mean? I don't know. I don't know how that played out. I imagine Could it be, you know, it says, they attempted to go to Bithynia, but the Spirit did not allow them. Does that mean like the Lord closed so many doors, it was just like abundantly obvious from God's providence? Maybe. It seems, when it says the Spirit forbade them, that seems to be a bit more direct. Perhaps there was a bit more of like a, you know, Paul having a vision or a dream. Don't go here, go this way, right? We don't really know. What we do see, however, is there is a sovereign guiding of where the gospel is preached. That's very interesting. Right? He could have let the gospel go into Asia and into, where does it say, Bithynia. He could have, but he didn't. Why? Not because the non-Bithynians were anything special. Not because those who were in Asia were really horrid and God was like, oh, you are not going to hear the gospel. It's simply his sovereign will. And it's essentially the same reason why God chooses one person over another. Why? It's not because they've done works either good or bad. It's not because of this or that. It's simply His sovereign will and pleasure. And so also, as He guides where the gospel has gone, it is in His sovereignty now. And His sovereignty now, praise be to God, it truly is going all over the world, and as Pastor Jason preached a few weeks ago. It is our task. We don't know where he'll shut doors or things like that, but it is our job to attempt to take it to the whole world. And so the paragraph 3 ends, and it says this at the end of paragraph 3, chapter 20, and therefore, in all ages, the preaching of the gospel has been granted unto persons and nations As to the extent or straightening, now, extent means going far and wide, and straightening means the narrowing of something. You ever heard of dire straits? Not just the band, but, right? Something that's super narrow you have to go through, that's what it means, to straighten it. So, as to the extent or straightening of it, it says, it is in great variety according to the counsel of the will of God. So why was it that some missionaries go and they don't see any conversions at all in their lifetime, but they're praying, and then the real fruit comes in the next generation? Simply the sovereign will of God. That's what this is getting at. Now this then is their response, the response of the Congregationalists as to why, although they had made attempts, they were not seeing as many conversions among the Native Americans as they would like to. The answer of the others was, well, because you're Congregationalist. The Congregationalist and the Baptist answer is, it has nothing to do with that necessarily, at least not immediately. It doesn't matter if it's Congregationalist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian. If it's not God's sovereign will for the gospel to spread amongst a certain people, it won't happen. And if it is, He will use, you know, Congregationalists, he'll use Presbyterians or Bishops as he has throughout all his history. It's kind of interesting that in some people groups, they're like all one denomination. I remember reading about a place in India called Naga, Nagaland. It sounds like a made up place, Nagaland. It's like a region and the people they're called like Naga or something. And it was like, they are all Baptists. There's no paedo-baptisms happening in Nagaland. Why? Well, the Baptists went there. There are other islands. It's interesting, when we went to Hawaii last summer, there are still little congregational churches, because the Congregationalists went there. And there's other places in the Pacific where they're very Presbyterian. And so you can fall into that. That doesn't mean one ecclesiology is not more biblical than the other, but it means that it's ultimately, at the end of the day, God's sovereign, Sovereign will who are his instruments and where it goes and where it does not go okay? All right, well, let's finish off chap paragraph 4 and then we'll end and here it says Although the gospel be the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and is as such abundantly sufficient thereunto, yet that men who are dead in trespasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated, there is moreover necessary and effectual insuperable work of the Holy Spirit upon the soul for the producing in them in new spiritual life without which no other means will affect their conversion unto God. All right, what this is essentially getting at is something you see all throughout the confession of faith and in other confessions of faith. It's that word and spirit go hand in hand. You'll see that all the time. The means by which God gives faith and repentance to His people is by the outward proclamation of the Word and the inward work of the Holy Spirit, so Word and Spirit. And we would say that these two Never work apart from one another. You will never receive benefit from the Holy Scriptures unless the Spirit comes and is opening your eyes to see what is in the Scriptures. Likewise, you're never going to have revelations of the Spirit apart from the Word of God. Word and Spirit always go together. One little interesting thing, you can notice it says, there is moreover necessary and effectual insuperable work of the Holy Spirit. What does insuperable mean? Super means over. Right? Hyper. So it's in-overcomable. That is unique to our confession. The congregation was put irresistible. And I think our guys changed it because they're like, well, you can resist it at first, but eventually it will overcome you. So they chose insuperable. I think that's interesting. Just as a minor application of this when we close, something to also consider as we are about to hear the Word of God. We'll talk about this a little bit today. Because Word and Spirit always go together, that means that when we come to hear the Word, especially on the Lord's Day or when you are going to read the Word, You should always spend preparation before hearing the word, seeking the enabling of the Holy Spirit and stirring up faith within you. A good liturgy will do that, and yet I would still say there should be more stirring up of that beforehand. Listen to what Thomas Boston writes. Consider your own self, too. I mean, I have felt this. It's okay if you tell me this, I'm the preacher, but that's okay if you're like, yeah, Pastor, there's times when I leave here and I'm like, all right, that was great. But he says this, no wonder most of the hearers of the gospel get no good of it. They are at no pains to prepare for hearing it. They wrestle not in prayer for the Lord's blessing upon it, receive it neither with faith nor love. They are not attentive to lay it up in their heart and as little to practice it in their lives. How then can they reap benefit by it when they use not these commanded means? Here is the way to get good of the word, prepare for hearing it, pray earnestly for the blessing of God to accompany it, receive it with faith and love, lay it up in your hearts, and reduce it to practice it in your lives. Just a little reminder on the necessity of being reliant, not just to come and hear the word, but on the spirit to come and really take it into your heart, all right? Any questions about chapter 20? No, all right, you guys are just