I mentioned, I think it was in morning service, or maybe it was even Wednesday night, I don't even remember, but three of the things that I have seen just damage Bible-believing Baptist churches since I've been in the ministry is contemporary Christian music. The second one is moving to modern versions of the Bible, and oftentimes those two go hand in hand. And then Calvinism, those are three key. Now you'll recognize if you've been around here, I preached this series of message in 2016. But I am in the evening service as I get a chance. I'm not going to get completely done when I'm the pastor, but I will be filling the pulpit barring, I mean, they'll be plugging in people here and there, but when I'm filling the pulpit on Sundays, I'm going to take you through the Calvinist series again. because I think it is so dangerous and it's damaged so many churches. I want you to get a handle on what it is and what to look out for. I've titled it, the main title, Why I'm Not a Calvinist or an Armenian. Neither one. But the subtitle is, I Do Not Believe in Limited Atonement. The average person in the pew, does not have any idea who John Calvin was or who Jacob Arminius was, who Calvinism or Arminianism is. Further, they are unlikely to ever have even heard the words monergism versus synergism. Now I have a message that I'll be explaining in depth, the difference between monergism or synergism, but I want to give you a brief definition this evening so that you have a little bit of a handle on it. monogism or monergism, you have the moner part meaning one and energism, it means energy. So you have one energy is the Greek word there. But what does that mean? God is entirely completely, wholly, and solely responsible for a person's salvation. You have no part in it whatsoever. That's what monergism is. I am not a monergist. I'm a synergist. Synergism is combined force or combined energy And synergism is salvation is accomplished through a cooperative effort of God and man. You have the Holy Spirit that convicts a person of sin and righteousness and judgment, but if the man, the woman, does not respond, there will be no salvation. If they do respond, there will be salvation. So if you want the dollar words, I'm not a monergist where you don't have a choice in salvation. I'm a synergist where faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, but you have to respond and call upon the name of the Lord. Now, When I went off to Bible college, I never even heard of any of those four words, Calvinism, Arminianism, Monergism, Synergism. I never even heard the word. One of my most embarrassing times in Bible college, I was so biblically ignorant. I was in chapel and had my Bible and I didn't even know where the books of the Old Testament were. I knew the New Testament books, but I knew that in the front flyleaf, there was a chart that told you on what page the books were. And so the chapel speaker said, turn to the book of Job. And so I flipped over there first, and then I looked down, and I didn't see anything like that. I said, there's one that was spelled J-O-B, and I poked the guy next to me. I said, he said, Joe, but it's job. And the guy goes. Well, that's how biblically ignorant I was. Also, I learned to keep my mouth shut because another chapel speaker began talking about the rapture. I never heard the word rapture. The closest word I knew was rupture. And before I went out for sports, the doctor would have to check, yes. So I didn't say anything. I just went to the library and looked up the word rapture this time. So I didn't look so pathetically ignorant. So I don't want you to feel ignorant if you haven't heard about Calvinism, Arminianism, monergism, or synergism. But I do want to explain what they are and why you need to be aware of Calvinism. I had no idea when I went to Grand Rapids Baptist Bible College that nearly all, not all, but nearly all the professors were Calvinists. They all got their advanced degrees down the road from Calvin College. Calvin College and Seminary. They offer doctor's degrees, so most of our professors got their master's or their doctor's degree, or both there. And I would say that Grand Rapids, Michigan, is the most Calvinistic city in the United States. Now, why do I tell you that? The national headquarters for the Christian Reformed Church in North America is in that town. Also the headquarters for the Reformed churches in America is there. And I venture to guess that there's more Calvinistic churches, Reformed churches in Grand Rapids than any other city in the United States. I went to a Christian Reformed church to see what it was. I went to a Reformed church, and across the street from where Linda and I lived, I made the mistake of going to a Netherlands Reformed church. Two hours later, I got out of the service, and a good part of the service was in Dutch, so I felt like putting on my wooden shoes, and I'd have been right at home. Then there was the Dutch Reformed Church, and then the ones who were brave, they were called Reformed Baptists. Reformed Baptists, and there is a Reformed Baptist church in the area here. Basically, when I got to Bible college, I was reared a Methodist, which would be considered Arminian. I was reared a Methodist, but I was told that you're either a Calvinist or an Arminian. That's what I was told. Principally, it was indicated to me that if you believed in eternal security, and I did, then I was a Calvinist. That's what I was told. If you believed that you could lose your salvation, and that's what Armenians believe, then you were an Armenian. Well, I began to look into Calvinism and Arminianism, and to my alarm, I did not fit in either camp. I found that both Calvinism and Arminianism did hold to the fundamental Christian teachings. They both believed in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the virgin birth, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. However, there's a major difference over the definition and understanding of what human depravity is. what the role of election is, what the extent of the atonement is, what the will of God is, and what the perseverance of the saints is. While I agree with Arminians to some degree when it comes to free will, I cannot agree with them, the position of Arminianism, with the fact that their theological model holds that salvation is continuing, or is continued on one's continuing in the faith. In other words, you could lose your salvation. You could choose, just as you could choose free will to be saved, You could also choose to turn away in unbelief and they say fall from grace or lose your salvation. That didn't sit well with me because what do you do with John chapter 10 and in verse 28? And I give unto them, Jesus said, eternal life, and here's the crux, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. I cannot hold to the fall from grace theological position of the Arminians, so it's not possible for me to be an Arminian. I just don't fit. John Calvin lived from, let me think here, 1509 to about, don't hold me to it, 1563, 1564. He was born in 1509, I know that. And he died around 1563, 1564. You can check me on that. That brings me to Reformed theology. Now, Reformed theology didn't get put together, the five points of Calvinism, the Tulip, as I'll read to you here, wasn't put together until 1618 at the Synod of Dort, but they call it the Doctrines of Grace. I call it the Tulip. And the reason I call it TULIP is because here are their doctrines. Number one, total depravity. T for total depravity. U for unconditional election. And this next one is the third one I'm going to address first, because it's the one that really stuck in my craw first. Limited atonement. Then irresistible grace. You don't have a choice in salvation. and then the perseverance of the saints. Those are the five points of Calvinism. As I mentioned, I was taught that you are either an Armenian or a Calvinist. Clearly, I'm not an Armenian, so I was told, therefore, since you believe you can't lose your salvation, you have to be a Calvinist. But that's not true. No, I am not a Calvinist. When I began to dig into Calvinism, I could see immediately that there was a big problem with Calvinist teachings. And the first one that smacked me right in the face was this business of what they call limited atonement or definite atonement. And as I just mentioned, that came to be, they put this all together, 100 years, a little more than 100 years, 109 years after Calvin died, something like that, I don't know, but anyhow. in 1618, and that was after he's born, I guess. But in this point of limited atonement, Calvinists of 1618 and forward are more Calvinist than Calvin was. because Calvin didn't teach limited atonement. That's what's so funny about it. One time Calvin prayed, thou art pleased to be acknowledged the savior of the whole human race by the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ thy son. When he was preaching on the suffering of Christ, he said, quote, Indeed, our Lord Jesus Christ was offered for all the world. Our Lord Jesus suffered for all, and there is neither great nor small who is not inexcusable, for we can obtain salvation in him, end quote. So reading those things, Calvin wasn't an adherent to limited atonement unless there's some other things that I've missed, and I could have missed it, but those are the things, the quotes that I pulled out there from that. But five-point Calvinists, there are four-point Calvinists. I call myself a point-and-a-half Calvinist for a long time. Maybe I'll explain that along the way. But five-point Calvinists believe in limited atonement. What do they mean by limited atonement? Well, here's what they mean right from their own writings. They maintain that God's design and intent in sending Christ to die on the cross was to pay for the sins and secure the redemption for those who have been predestined to be saved, namely only the elect. This is contrary, completely contrary, to the clear teachings of Scripture. In my studies, I saw how Calvinists twisted, manipulated, and mutilated the Scriptures. The golden rule of biblical interpretation is this. when the plain sense of the scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense. I just wanna say that again. When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense. There are too many passages that make common sense and contradict limited atonement, just for the lot. One of the most common is John 3, 16 through 18. Say it as far as you can with me. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Clear to me. Clear to me. Calvinists twist the passage, and here's what they say. The world is the world of the elect only. They redefine it. The context shows that's hogwash. First, the word translated world is cosmos. The fundamental idea of cosmos, world, in John is that the sum total of created beings which belong to the sphere of human life as the order of the whole, the world then represents all of humanity in its fallen state that are alienated from God. Secondly, as Ron Rhodes points out in his research, The extent of the atonement says the Greek lexicons are unanimous that world here denotes humankind, not the world of the elect. Thirdly, now here's the interesting part when you take the context of the scripture. If the world in John 3.16 meant only the elect, There would be no reference to condemnation because none of the elect would be condemned because they'd all be saved. But you look at the rest, you say, if you believe not, you're what? Condemned. So if it's the world of the elect that's being addressed, there wouldn't be any condemnation. Did you know that some Calvinists believe that regeneration can occur in infancy and remain inactive until the faith years later, according to J.P. Boyce, one of the Calvinists? That's heresy. That's heresy. 1 John 2.2. 1 John 2.2. In this verse, John contradicts the Calvinist theory of limited atonement when he wrote, And he is the propitiation, the acceptable sacrifice. He is the propitiation for our sins. That was speaking to believers. Now, if it ended there, that would be all right. If he was just talking to believers, but he didn't end there, look what he says. And not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. So you have the elect, those who are saved, and you have the whole world, he's the propitiation of both. He can save both. In fact, we were unsaved at one time till we put our faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. And he, Jesus, is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Note the word whole here is holu. And holu in the Greek means whole. It means all. It means complete. It means entire. Hmm. For the complete world. The propitiation is as wide as sin, and clearly all have sinned. Amen? That's what the Bible says. The propitiation of Christ has its real efficacy or effectiveness for the whole world. For the whole world. John was clearly affirming that Christ genuinely died for everybody. I love Hebrews chapter 2 and verse 9. There's no loopholes to manipulate in the text in an effort to apply it to the elect. Hebrews 2.9 reads this, But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man. That closes the loophole. Every man. Hmm. What does every man mean? Well, it includes the idea of oneness, totality, the whole, the same as holu, the entirety of everyone. First Timothy chapter two, verses five and six. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, mankind, the man Christ Jesus, hmm, can you imagine that? Who gave himself a ransom for A-L-L, what is that? All, all as I've said numerous times, means all, and that's all all means. Who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time. I am unable to ascribe, even if it was just for limited atonement, Now, I don't agree with the other ones, as you'll see, because they don't hold up to the Scriptures. I cannot ascribe to Calvinists limited atonement. It's clear to me from doing an inductive Bible study, and that's what's important. You need to understand the difference between an inductive Bible study and a deductive Bible study. I've got to turn this on because it died. An inductive Bible study is when you go with a blank slate and then you let the Bible develop what you believe. And the other one, deductive Bible study if you would, deductive Bible study is you have your ideas already and you go to pick out separate scriptures to prove what you believe. And that's far too often what many people do, is that they do not follow biblical ideals when they're developing their doctrine. I've told you this through the years, and I'm sure that many of you have heard this. If I say something that does not line up with the scriptures, who do you believe? The scriptures. These were more noble than those at Thessalonica because they searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so. Friends, search the scriptures. because I don't want to be like the Catholics. The Catholics say that the Pope is above the scriptures. The Catholics say that canon law is above the scriptures. Your pastor isn't above the scriptures. If you have the right kind of scripture or pastor, guess what's the authority? It's the Bible, and that's why you need to be very careful to study, to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. It's a tentmaker's turn, rightly dividing, it means cutting it straight. Don't want pinking shears. Do you know what pinking shears are? Yeah, okay. You want it cut straight. You know, Christ's death on the cross of Calvary is sufficient to save all men and all women, but only efficient or effective in saving those who believe on Him. That's why I'm not a monergist. I'm a synergist because I believe that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, and that in order for you to be saved, you must receive Jesus. You must make that choice. But as many as receive him, to them gave he the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. You have to be an active participant. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Well, since I cannot be in good conscience, Arminian, that believes you can fall from grace, Because the Lord says, I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish. And since I can't be a Calvinist who gave himself a ransom for all men, because I don't believe that the whole world just means the world of the elect. So what in the world am I? Because I was told And for a long time, I said I'm a one and a half point Calvinist. What's a one and a half point Calvinist? Well, I found out it doesn't mean this at all, but I thought the perseverance of the saints and I was taught that the perseverance of the saints meant eternal security. That's not really what it means, but that's what I was told and I believed in eternal security. So that was one point. And then I believed in total depravity, but not as a Calvinist believe. I just believe that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. But when we get there, the total depravity means that you're dead like a stone, that you can't respond to anything. So it doesn't matter what the Bible says. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Since you can't respond, then you're dead like a stone, you're totally depraved, so your irresistible grace, you're just forced to believe. I don't believe that junk. I don't want you to believe that junk. You can go and look back at the 216 series in the evening service if you are in a hurry to listen to it instead of the parts, but I'm a Biblicist. I'm a Biblicist. I'm just going to go with the Word of God. And that's what you really need to do anyway. Calvin had some good points. I can't think of what they are, but anyway. And Arminius had some good points. If you really were forced, I would fall more on the Arminian side, but I couldn't swallow hook, line, and sinker. That's for sure. But I believe that we have a free will. And that's where you get the Calvinist, you get the free will Methodists, you know, and there's free will even Baptists. So, but then they accept all the other junk too. So I know most of you, and I would venture to guess that there's probably not a single solitary person here in this auditorium At least I pray that there's not who believes in limited atonement. Christ died for all men, and it's efficient for those who believe. Aren't you thankful that you believe?