Polemics - Discernment - Lutheran, Reformed & Presbyterian Churches

So, on what we tend to call Halloween Day, 1517, Martin Luther posted his famed 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church. By the way, that was done as a, let's initiate a discussion here. That was what that meant. Various people would post things on the door. that was intended to initiate a discussion. Well, this was a discussion that was refused. There was no desire to have that discussion. So it essentially started a firestorm in Europe. And then we have a fellow who was born somewhat later, John Calvin. propagating his Protestant views about 1525. So you have 1517 and then 1525, here's John Calvin coming along.

And whereas Luther was sometimes taken captive, sometimes taken under by a nobleman, I went to one of the places where Luther stayed over in Germany in Coburg and In fact, if you look at the mighty fortress, it'll say Einfeste Burg. That's the sign that points up to Coburg, right? At any rate, so you have Luther being taken around different places. Calvin, on the other hand, kind of hold himself up in Geneva and had a rather safe position as opposed to Luther's precarious position.

And so Geneva ended up becoming kind of a center for people who wanted to join in at least that aspect of the Reformation. Then you had another thing and John Knox was a fellow who then went to Geneva from Scotland and spent some time with John Calvin, and then went back and did two things, founded the Presbyterian Church, and started the Civil War to get rid of Mary, Queen of Scots, who was Catholic. So those are some pivotal people. There are other personalities who are involved. The bullets at the bottom of page one contained some kind of key principles or observations. Number one is whatever aspects of the Roman Catholic belief system that were not rejected were substantially retained or adapted by these movements.

What were the things that the Roman Catholic Church held to that both Luther and Calvin rejected? What were some of the things? payments to the church for, I forget what they call them, indulgences. Indulgences, right. And where did the Roman Catholic Church get that idea that when you make payments, you get some spiritual advantage for your loved ones? That actually came from Egyptian religion, right? So the Roman Catholic Church adopted that. And Luther and Calvin rejected that.

So that was one thing. Yes? Possibly infant baptism? Infant baptism, interestingly, in these churches were retained. However, it took on a different significance. It wasn't a, this saves you, so much as sort of a parent dedication kind of mindset. But they did retain infant baptism, but didn't have it as the basis for salvation in any uniformity or common understanding.

One thing is rejecting the authority of the Pope. Rejecting the authority of the Pope, that was across the board. So you had everything from elder-led, which is more the Presbyterian brand of things, to sort of a hierarchy of bishops and whatnot, among others. But rejecting the Pope is the ultimate authority, so rejecting that whole system.

Another one was alliance with or establishment of a sympathetic political and military system. That was one of the things that all three of these churches tend to do, and especially the Lutheran and Reformed. A particular political alliance was one of the things they would do. When Nancy and I were over in right on the river. They controlled the river level real tightly, otherwise the water would come pouring in. So we stayed at this millhouse and right across the river was this huge palace. I mean, it was just awesome. And we asked, what is that?

Oh, that was from the guy who sold munitions to both sides during the Thirty Years War. And so this guy made piles and piles of money, apparently, selling various kinds of armor, munitions, and everything else to all these different parties who were fighting the so-called Thirty Years War. And that was a fight among Lutheran and Reformed folks involved with that. and fighting the Catholics, and it just went around and around in circles. Finally, the Peace of Westphalia was signed to end the Thirty Years' War.

Can you imagine, you've got this war going on so long that people who were fighting it weren't even born when it was begun, right? Just going on and on and on. And there were certain areas where significant parts of the population were just eliminated. by this war. So they find this had enough snuff.

The next one, so the church replaces Israel taking the benefits promised to Israel. That church replaces Israel has kind of different shades of ways in which that's taught. Spiritual Israel would be one of the terms that would be applied to the Church. Another thing that goes along with that is Christ is King of the Church, and that whole mindset.

Retention of allegorical interpretation regarding eschatological passages. The Roman Catholics had four levels of interpretation from literal to different allegorical and whatnot, interpretation of everything, of the whole Bible, right? And so one of the changes coming along with the Lutherans, Reformed, and Presbyterian churches was to continue allegorizing certain areas of the Bible, but take other parts literally.

And we'll take a look at that in a minute. One of the classic ones that I like to look at with the commentaries is Revelation chapter 7 and there it talks about 144,000 and it says of Israel and then it gives each of the tribal names with 12,000 it all adds up to 144,000 so both by parts as well as by the summary it's Israel 144,000 12,000 in each of the named tribes denominations of Christianity. It's quite a leap, huh? But that's the standard allegorical interpretation of that chapter. And it gives you an idea of kind of what the thinking was.

Next here, amillennialism, or in a later variant, postmillennialism. Amillennialism says that there isn't going to be any millennial kingdom period, that those are all to be interpreted allegorically, and that there'll be just some point in time when Christ is coming back, there's no rapture, Christ is coming back, and one particular judgment and that's it. Everything gets lumped up into one. So that's all millennialism. Another one that became common during this period is called post-millennialism. And that is, we've got to make things better and better so Christ can come back.

Sanctification by rule of law sets up the law as your life, a message initially conveyed alongside political and military enforcement of the law. So there tends to be a legalism in here, although a lot of that has varied over time and among different groups. But it was written in, for example, the Westminster Catechism. That has the law just built right into the catechism. Another one is retention of infant baptism and viewing the Eucharist as more than purely symbolic. So there is a partial adoption or adaptation of the Roman Catholic practice of infant baptism.

Persecution of Anabaptists, and we would be in that group. So sometimes people will say, well, are you a Protestant? I say, well, strictly not, because these Protestants would have persecuted me. During the Reformation, about 4,000 to 5,000 Anabaptists were killed by Lutheran Reformed And because the Anabaptists tended not to get aligned with governments, it was often governments enforcing this baptism. That had begun in about the 5th century when it became capital punishment for a parent not to baptize their children.

So, on the European continent, the political and military conflict became severe, even substantially reducing the population of Europe, and in particular areas significantly, until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Thereafter, conflict and persecution internal to some countries continued for a time. So certain countries would adopt this particular denomination, and other countries would adopt another one, and so you might have persecution within those countries. And that continued for some time. Part of my ancestry is Huguenot. Those are the French Calvinists who were persecuted by the Catholic government. Because on my mom's side, there was a Robert Jennison who was a vicar at Colchester. And he left and came to Massachusetts. So at any rate, that continued internal to countries, but no longer fighting between them after the Peace of Westphalia. And the persecution could be severe. It could be all the way to killing people by the thousands. Okay, so where are we now?

The Lutheran, Calvinist, and Presbyterian churches have each fostered complicated family trees of church denominations and denominational split-offs. Okay, so if you were to look at from the early 1500s into today, all kinds of splitting off, joining up, you know, this one over here, uniting with this one, just very complicated. So you've got a lot of different groups.

It's not stable yet in terms of split-offs and whatnot. The Presbyterian branch, for example, that's got some names you may have heard of in its history. Some of the conservative break-offs from that include Francis Schaefer. was part of a group that broke off in a more conservative branch. So you've got conservative break-offs. You've got some that are quite liberal. And we, several weeks ago, covered Christian liberalism.

That is where people don't believe that Jesus was deity. They don't believe in the resurrection. They believe that the miracles are all just made-up stories. That has entered in some part of each of these denominations and a few others we'll talk about next week.

So you've got a spectrum. You have, for example, the Lutheranism. You've got the Missouri Synod, which is probably one of the more conservative groups that are out there. And so you've got that, but you also have like the ELCA, Evangelical Lutheran Churches, right? The ELCA were a much more liberal viewpoint. They'll have gay pastors and bishops and things of that sort. So quite a different perspective, different perspectives on creation and evolution. The Missouri Synod has helped to a literal creation account. The ELCA, on the other hand, long ago, all within one group, Lutheranism or the Presbyterian Church.

Some portions of these movements have drifted so far as to have lost an understanding of the basic gospel necessary for salvation. If you don't believe that Christ was resurrected and you don't believe that Christ was deity, you don't have a basis for salvation. Salvation in those groups gets redefined. Salvation is more good things you do, social action, maybe even political involvement.

And so it comes down to that. So how should we then live? This is the question we have in the middle of page two. Since the notion that the church replaces Israel requires that a person interpret at least some parts of scripture allegorically, these denominational movements have substantially embraced a method of interpreting scripture and viewing Israel and the church that remain from longstanding Roman Catholic tradition. While some would view these issues as insignificant or unknowable theological trifling, this perspective has a number of life-impacting consequences.

Citing passages such as Romans 8.4 as their basis, many in these movements propagate the notion that Christ worked for us and the Holy Spirit's work in us is to the end that we are empowered to fulfill and live out the requirements of the moral aspects of the Law of Moses. So here's Romans 8, 1-4.

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus for the law of the Spirit of life. In Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh as an offering for sin. He condemned sin in the flesh so that the requirements of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. So then they got you back under the law. and stop right there.

Now this verse is not saying that we are fulfilling the law with the Holy Spirit's help, but that's how it will take it. So, let's take a look at page 3 here. What the Bible actually teaches is that we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to live out the life of Christ Apart from the law, but nonetheless you'll find a lot of legal foundation among these groups. Now the allegorical interpretation, yes? So the Holy Spirit doesn't empower a person? The Holy Spirit does empower a person, but not to live out the law.

In other words, if you look at the New Covenant, given to the Jews. There's about 11 passages in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. The main passage people point to, Jeremiah 31-31, where the Jews, which we see it as that's in the Millennial Kingdom, which of course a lot of these groups don't even believe in, the Jews will be indwelled by the Holy Spirit in the Millennial Kingdom so as to know and live out the law. all the way to carrying out the sacrifices and having a temple and all those things. So that is taken as, you know, for the church by some of these groups here. So that's how they get the law back sewn into it. We're coming up on Christmas time here, so here's a classic passage, Luke 1, 26-31, which is in the middle of page 3.

It says, Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph. Of the descendants of David, and the virgin's name was Mary, And coming in, he said to her, greetings, favored one. The Lord is with you. But she was very perplexed at this statement and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. The angel said to her, do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.

This part of that passage, these groups have had a historical tendency to take literally. There are certain more liberal aspects that won't even believe this, but historically they would take this literally. Then, the next verses, 32 and 33, they would interpret allegorically. Luke 1, 32 and 33, for he will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, which they will see as where?

Well, that's how you would see it, but where would they see it? Well, the throne of his father David, they'd say he's there now. They'd say he's there now. Instead of seeing it in Jerusalem Like, we would say, well, that's David's throne, right? They'd say, well, he's there now in heaven. He'll reign over the house of Jacob. And who's the house of Jacob? Israel is what we would say, and that would be correct. However, they interpret it as the church.

And his kingdom will have no end. And what's the kingdom? Is the kingdom of Christ reigning from Jerusalem as king of the Jews over Israel and the Gentile nations? No. The kingdom is the church. And a higher paradigm that we grow into, right? So that we'll have more peace on earth than all the rest of it. Right. So we build the kingdom here. And it's our job.

So, they would take 32 and 33 allegorically, but the verses right before that, 26 and 31, would be taken literally. Now, what's the problem with allegorical interpretation? What's the problem with that? You can make it say anything you want. That's the problem. In other words, what do you interpret allegorically? Where do you decide to interpret allegorically? When you interpret it allegorically, what's the control over what it means?

There isn't any. And that's one of the reasons why these churches will split up, is they disagree over what's allegorical. There are portions of this tree, for example, of the Presbyterian church that would hold to a seven-year tribulation and would hold to a thousand-year, literal thousand-year Millennium, and other parts of it, just, nah. Not even close. So you've got a spectrum within there. Some of the Orthodox and Bible Presbyterian churches we would be in significant agreement with on a lot of things. So, yeah, very different from one end of the spectrum to the other.

And so that's the problem with allegorical interpretation. Where do you apply it? What's allegorical and what's not? And then what is the interpretation? There's no control that's definitive. And so these groups will often split up based on what do I allegorize? What's an allegory? Even is Christ's resurrection just an allegory?

So, that's one reason for such a broad spectrum among a lot of these groups. Okay, let's look at page four. So, I have on the top there some of these groups and that's important to make a differentiation because there's a broad spectrum of interpretation. among a lot of these groups.

So some of these groups have taken the allegorical interpretation of scripture to the degree that they would say we Christians are supposed to take over the government through the political process and enforce God's laws upon all, as was done by these groups in the 1500s and 1600s. So there are portions who hold to this viewpoint frequently. They will hold that Christ came in judgment against the Jews in 70 AD with the Romans when they came in and they'll say that's Christ coming in judgment with the Romans and so you'll have various groups who will hold to degrees of that. Christ is not coming back again, or the scope of his return is diminished since he already came in judgment upon Israel in the 70 AD assault of the Romans upon Jerusalem.

So some within these groups will hold to this. That's, by the way, what the 7th Adventists hold to. Next, Satan in the extreme. Some would say Satan is now bound. Christ is now reigning. and we're right now living in the new heavens and new earth. Okay? Yeah, this is as good as it's going to get. And it's up to us to take over and make things change and make that work out. It doesn't get any better than the way things are right now, except that we make it happen under law and under our own best efforts.

The next, there will be no rapture of the church. It's a false hope which needs to be set aside. There are those who would say that what we teach here at Holly Hills is just heretical. Next, modern Israel has no place in the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. It's just a fluke that there's this nation called Israel.

God hates the Jews and a good Christian should too. Why does God hate the Jews? They killed Jesus. In other words, Christ was born King of the Jews But then these Jews killed Jesus, and so now Jesus is the king of the church, because the Jews killed their king, and God hates the Jews. If you're a good Christian, you will too. And that was very widely taught, along with the foundation of the idea that the church is the kingdom, Christ is our king. All that originated with the God hates the Jews, and if you're a good Christian, you will too. So they would gather up the Jews, shut them up in the synagogue, and light it on fire. Because God hates them. So, do they not read Romans 9, 10, and 11? Yeah, it's a little hard to reconcile, isn't it? Yeah. God has not rejected his people of Israel. I mean, he was pretty clear about that. Yes. Yes, he certainly has. Yes? It's almost like you should have a consistent permanent Amazing, huh? And a lot of people don't realize how deeply ingrained this is.

Martin Luther wrote two books, two whole books, against the Jews. He just railed against the Jews. He also railed against the Anabaptists, too, which would conclude us. But yeah, there's a lot of that message that's been carried on for centuries. I remember being kind of stunned looking at Fiddler on the Roof. So here is this Russian Orthodox government talking about the Jews being the Christ killers. And I noticed that in the movie, it was kind of stunning.

But even up until modern times, that's been one of the teachings that has come into various parts of the church. And the talk now about the church being the kingdom and Christ being our king, people oftentimes have no idea what that is founded from. It's founded on absolute hatred for the Jews. And it's founded on the church replacing Israel.

OK, let's take a look at, we've got a handout with two sides here. Let's take a look at the big picture one. It shows four slides, Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian, and Anabaptist. Some of the lines didn't come out here at all. During the Reformation, starting in 1517, you have this one branch of Lutheranism that comes off. And this is shown in the upper left.

So based on the first man to spark the Reformation, Lutheranism originally was very politically tied to specific noblemen and political entities. Why would certain noblemen gravitate towards Luther and away from the Catholic Church? If you think about it, the way things were previously, the Roman Catholic Church just ruled everybody. And so if you were a nobleman and resented that, having this Luther guy come along and start speaking against them gave you an opportunity as a nobleman, as a king or whatever, to pitch off the authority of the Roman So it was a political opportunity for them, a military opportunity. Luther not only spoke out against the eras of Roman Catholicism that he became aware of, but railed against the Anabaptists and the Jews.

Reading through Luther's commentary on Galatians, for example, he would just go launching against the Anabaptists with these hot words. which we would be included in, hot words at various points, and I can't make any sense of why he would do it at certain places.

It's like he just felt like it, you know? As you're going through the book of Galatians, there's not that many places where that should come up, but he made it come up. So anyway, he would rail against the Anabaptists and put it in the middle of his commentaries. He wrote two whole books against the Jews. But what he didn't reject of the Roman Catholic Church, he continued to embrace. Some of the allegorical interpretations, some of the infant baptism practices, and the idea that there's something still happening in this wafer I put in my mouth. Something spiritual going on.

The reformed, the next one over, John Calvin operating out of politically supportive Geneva, actually proved many more groups than Luther. Calvin, like Luther, saw Israel as being replaced by the Church and so maintained the continuity of a legalistic basis for spiritual development. The Presbyterian group, John Knox, was a proponent of military rebellion, if needed, to achieve religious freedom, which went beyond Calvin, his tutor. So Calvin holed himself up in Geneva, a place that was kind of protected militarily, and so he stayed there. John Knox, on the other hand, had come from Roman Catholic dominated Scotland, and so he went back there and not only founded the Presbyterian Church, but then also pitched off the Roman Catholic rule over Scotland. So Mary, Queen of Scots there, was pitched off. So we vigorously introduced the teachings of John Calvin of Scotland, beginning about 1560.

So then we have the Anabaptist group, which by the way has no historical direct connection with Baptist. So what's Anabaptist? It's not anti-baptist, it's re-baptism. In other words, it's setting aside the infant baptism that was traditionally done and was actually enforced by government for centuries.

That you had to get your children baptized or you were killed was the earlier implementation of that. It was capital punishment. So you're going to have your kid baptized? Fine. If you don't, they'll kill you, take your child away, baptize him, and you won't get to raise him. That's the way it's going to work. Yeah? Isn't that when the pilgrims, basically, weren't they like an Anabaptist? Because when they left, it's because the laws, as far as like baptism and stuff, they didn't... Yeah, that was a part of it.

I had mentioned my ancestor, Robert Jennison. He was a vicar at Colchester. under the Church of England and all that. And he said, the Bible didn't say that. And left and came to Massachusetts and established himself with the Puritans. And so, yeah, that exact same thing where there were various groups that said, hey, we don't see that, you know, in here. And so they were persecuted. And that was part of what it was not the entire explanation, but it was part of what drove people to the colonies as they became. Yeah.

So the ones who believe in parental decision for salvation, Does that actually continue through the whole person's life? So even if that person became a staunch agnostic and fought against the church or whatever, they would still be saved because they were baptized as a youth or as a child? Are you talking about the Catholic Church or are you talking about these groups? The people who were baptized as babies. Yeah, that's a complicated thing. Let's take a look at it. First of all, with the Roman Catholic Church, which is where this whole thing got started, right?

The Roman Catholic Church, you've got mortal sins and venial sins. So even if you're baptized as an infant, you can commit mortal sins and that will take you out of salvation. You have to go get resaved again, right? Venial sins don't lose you your salvation, but you lose merit in the Catholic system. So now, here are these groups, they came out of Catholicism, and they retained the infant baptism. Frequently, their thought of infant baptism is not so much of a, this is going to save you, and again, there's a variety of teaching there, but this is going to save you, but it's more of a parent's dedication ceremony, more in that one.

And in fact, Calvinism would say the perseverance of the saints is necessary. And if you were to fall away and say I'm an agnostic or fall into some outrageous sin, then they would say, well, you never were saved in the first place. So that would be the standard Calvinist teaching.

That's their tulip, which we look at on the flip side here. That's their tulip. So let's take a look at that. The TULIP is total depravity, total inability and original sin, unconditional election. That is, God elects some, He doesn't elect others, and God chooses and that's it. Some would go so far as to say God chooses some for heaven and some for hell. That's double predestination. That's, by the way, what the Essenes taught. So the Essenes in Israel were the double-predestination Calvinists. Here's then limited atonement, that is, Christ only died for the sins of those who are elected and chosen.

So, let's take for example John 3.16, For God so loved the world of the elect, that he gave his only begotten Son only for the elect and chosen, that whosoever believes, which will be those who are elect and chosen, shall have eternal life. And that will be demonstrated by their persevering.

Well, that's part of the problem is you have to insert a bunch of additional words to come up with their meaning repeatedly. The irresistible grace, I kind of jokingly put it this way, grace is something God forces on you. Yeah, and a part of the problem with this is that it makes grace too small, and anytime you adopt law, you also shrink grace. So, it's mini-grace. So this is just something God forces on you.

And then the perseverance of the saints, in one sense we might agree with them, once saved, always saved. However, they would say that a true elect saint will persevere, continue on in the faith and being faithful. And if you don't, then that proves that you were never elect in the first place. So the word saints there apply only to the ones that have been elected. Elected and chosen, yep. And so this is their tulip. Now, here's where I think the tulip falls apart completely. What you have there in the bold horizontal line is chosen, and then they would add more detail in this in some cases, chosen and elect, regenerated.

In other words, the first thing, because you're totally depraved, unable to do anything, is that you are then first regenerated, and then given the gift of faith, and then you believe, and then you're saved. Now, let's ask this. Identification truths.

What's the first thing that happens? Do you get regenerated? What's the first thing that happens? You get crucified. Where does regeneration or giving life come in in the identification truths? The resurrection. So that's the third thing. So the first thing that happens is you get crucified in the identification truths and resurrection, giving life, is until the third item. So the sequence is wrong.

And let's ask something else. When a person is not saved, Is inability the major issue, or is it something else? Are you spiritually dead if you're not saved? You're dead in your trespasses and sins, right? Ephesians 2, 1-3. What does dead mean? Separation. So they've got total depravity defined wrong. So they've got total depravity defined wrong. The first thing in the identification truths is you're crucified. Resurrection isn't until the third step. And so it scrambles this rather badly. There's something else in here. The third bullet down, the clear sequence in scripture is not be given life then believe, but rather believe and then be given life.

That's John 3.16, 3.36, 5.24, 11.25, and 20.31. The sequence given right there throughout the Gospel of John from beginning to end is believe and then life. These things are written that you might believe and that believing you may have life in His So it's not give your life first and then you believe several steps later and then it's saved. Right? But scripture teaches the sequence of believe, then given life. That's a new creation. This doesn't even give room for a new creation at all. No. No, because it's again... Fixing up the old man.

Now here's something that You'll have the Calvinists giving sharp arguments with the Armenians, right? Most of whom, not all, most of whom will believe in loss of salvation among the Armenians. So the Calvinist believes you can't lose your salvation, but if you don't live life like a good Christian, then it proves you're never worthy. So it's kind of backdoor loss of salvation, right? So you don't do anything. You either are or you aren't as far as Calvinism. So why do they not have any outreach and missionary stuff?

Well, they do. Yeah, they do. There is a point at which you could say it's inconsistent because God's going to save whoever he chooses, right? But they're already saved. I mean, as I understand this, from day one. Yeah, here's an example. Here's the Philippian jailer, right?

What must I do to be saved? And Paul comes up to him and says, well, I don't know if you're elect or not. And so if you're not elect, there isn't a thing you could do anyway. And if you're chosen and elect, you'll be given the gift of faith, and then you'll believe, and then you'll be saved. So I can't tell you a thing. I just have no idea. But that's not the approach that you see. Yeah, Randy?

Well, their answer, because they're into sovereignty, their answer is that God has called them to be that person who goes and preaches the gospel to the elect, so to speak. Right. But I did confront a guy at seminary who was Calvinist. And I said, when you preach the gospel, do you let them know up front that they may not be saved and they may not be responding? Because you're concerned about being very clear on the doctrine of salvation. Does it have to be intimately tied to it? Do you tell people upfront? And he said, no, because that might scare people away. And I thought, well, that seems like a response that hasn't been enforced. Let's take a for instance. Here's Jesus.

He's talking to Jewish leaders that from any indication we have, never will believe. And he tells them unless you believe, you will die in your sins. He tells that to guys who, from any evidence we have, never are going to be saved. He gives the gospel to the non-elect.

And he does that repeatedly throughout the gospel of John, particularly where he uses again and again and again the word believe and belief and that kind of thing. So you find instances where Christ himself presents the gospel to those that he knows are not going to be saved.

And that's because of grace, and that grace is not Calvinistic. Let's follow another line of thought. The Calvinists essentially adopt a logical system that a human being can understand. And so that's what they're doing is they're essentially, okay I have this whole logical system, that's how they arrive at their order of salvation in the bold horizontal line there. So everything they've got are all figured out in the human mind as to how God does salvation. Elect and chosen and therefore regenerated and that whole thing. It's all a logical system. The Armenians have essentially done the same thing. I understand how God does the salvation thing.

And now we've had introduced, it's actually older, but it's become more common, open theism, where God doesn't know the future. And so, essentially Calvinists and Arminians and open theists, although they would argue with each other vigorously, All three of those groups embrace a human being's ability to understand from beginning to end how God does things. We've reduced God down to our limited logical system. The only difference between those three groups is where they pin it. The Calvinist pins it on God's sovereignty. The Arminian pins it on God's will. and the open theist pins everything on God doesn't know the future. And God changes. So the groups all agree that a human being can understand how God does salvation from beginning to end. All three of those groups agree with that.

Does that compare with scripture? Are his ways higher than our ways? And so there are multiple passages you can find where God says my ways are higher than your ways. My thoughts higher than your thoughts. And so reducing things down to a human logical system is not biblical. Is it possible God could do things that could be hard for us to comprehend? Yeah. Because his ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts higher than ours.

But this is what has caused a great deal of conflict among different groups here. And the Calvinists and Presbyterians have been more on the side of you can't lose your salvation unless it's apparent that you didn't persevere and therefore you never were saved. And then the Methodists we'll take a look at next week. have gone the other way, whereas traditionally those of the Methodist branch will say that you can lose your salvation, they're the Armenian group, and so the squabble has been going on among Christians for some lengthy period of time. The seminary where I went, and Randy went, taught Calvinism, but I didn't come out embracing it because of some of the reasons we see here. Then we have the last couple of bullets at the bottom of the page here.

The appeal of the apostles and their co-sponsored authors of the New Testament again and again was to actively believe in Christ, the saving gospel, as an appeal to the will of the hearer in order to be saved. What we do not find at all is the Greek grammar that one would expect of Calvinism or truth that says, you will be made to believe.

You will be regenerated first, then you will be given the gift of faith, and then you will be made to believe, or anything like that. Here's another one, the Lordship Salvation, which is kind of a derivation of Calvinism, where you have to make him Savior and Lord, and that's proven out because you persevere. Lordship Salvation then adds to the Gospel, because you have to super-believe. In fact, there's a way to say that, epipistule, which would mean an emphatic belief, some kind of super belief. But you don't find that. Calvinism requires that a great many passages, especially those in the New Testament, have multiple meanings inserted into the text which are simply not there.

He died for us, but not only us, but for the sins of the whole world. For God so loved the world of the elect. He just loves those. And by the way, some would even say that God used to love the world, but doesn't anymore. Because those he loved and chose We're already elect and chosen and regenerated and so God used to love the world but he doesn't anymore.

But you are saying in here that the Holy Spirit acts upon the will of the unbeliever to become a believer. Yes. Okay, so what's the motivation for the Holy Spirit to do that? Is that God, well the Holy Spirit is God, so Is he not actually the one who's initiating it? Yeah, and let's ask this question.

The Calvinists would say that the Holy Spirit's only going to work upon those who are elect and chose, right? There is no ministry of the Holy Spirit of convicting of sin and righteousness and judgment. So it's not only limited atonement, but it's also limited work of the Holy Spirit. Because the Holy Spirit would never, in their thinking, draw someone who wasn't elected and chosen. That would be a wasted effort.

And then the other question is, why would God create Why would God create someone for whom he just wants them to go to hell? Are you going to spend eternity in hell? That's what I made you for. Essentially, that's most of humanity, right? What we would say, based on reading God's Word, is that Christ died for the sins of everyone in the whole world from Adam all the way to the last person to be born on this planet. For every single one. And in that sense, everyone is savable. Everyone is savable. That doesn't mean everybody is going to be saved, but it means everyone is savable.

Now let's ask this question, if that is true, Christ died for the sins of the whole world, did Christ die for the sins of Judas? For what? The sins of Judas. Oh, yeah. Did Christ die for the sins of Hitler? Yeah. Yeah. Here's, you know, you think of just horrible people, Christ died for their sins too. When you start to describe grace as being large enough to cover the sin of Hitler, that starts to offend a lot of people from that Methodist or Catholicist background. Did Hitler have a sin nature? Did I? Do I?

Yeah, Christ died for the sins that get generated by the sin nature. Died for all of them. And yeah, a lot of people start getting offended when you say, wait a minute, this guy over here is terrible. Charles Manson, his sins get died for? Yep. Terrible, awful guy. But Christ died for his sins. But it doesn't mean that he's going to be in heaven. No, it doesn't mean that.

Sins are paid for. The sins are paid for, and we say Jesus paid it all. The sins are paid for, but that payment is only valid for those who believe. Using this analogy, let's say everybody is in this large prison room, and everybody in that room is condemned, except unless they pay four trillion dollars, just to pick some amount of knowledge you pay.

Unless they pay four trillion dollars they can't get out. Some guy walks in and he says I've got checks here for everybody and there's money in the account behind each one of these checks and they're all made out for four trillion dollars and I got one with your name on it and all you got to do is to take that check turn it over Sign it and hand it in at the door and you're out of here.

And some people say, Yahoo! Sign it and walk out. Somebody else says, eh, I'll wait until I'm older. And somebody else just drops it on the floor. It's a little bunch of nonsense. And someone goes and rips it up and screams at the guy who gave the checks out. So different people respond different ways, but the money's in the account for every single one. and that all the checks are good, whether they believe it or not. So that's kind of an analogy that illustrates the situation.

Jesus paid it all. The debt's been paid for every single one. So Jesus, before he died, which he did voluntarily, he wasn't killed. Jesus, before he died, said, to tell his time. It's all paid. having the implication of permanence. And it's all paid. It's all done. Paid for you. Paid for me. Paid for Adam. Paid for Judas. And for Peter. And every human being walking the planet. Jesus paid it all.

Further thoughts, comments, questions? Lord, we thank you that you did in fact pay it all. Thank you that we can know with a certainty that you indeed loved and love us. You have even loved and loved those who were not yet born, but will be. And we just thank you for your just immense love, your amazing grace that was not forced on us but in fact was shown and it's so phenomenal it'll take on into eternity for us to continue to learn and be shown about your grace, the wealth of your grace. We just pray in Jesus' name. Amen.