LBCF Chap 20 Of the Gospel and The Extent of Grace

Looking at chapter 20 of the gospel and the extent of the grace thereof, all right?

This chapter is divided into four parts, one paragraph for each part that makes it nice and simple, all right?

Now, I put a couple of things up here. This is interesting. There is no counterpart to this chapter in the

Westminster Confession. Those of you who have followed our study know that in most cases, the 1689 is verbatim to the

Westminster in so many chapters and subdivisions. This is one of those chapters that has no counterpart in the

Westminster Confession. And that raises the question, why is it inserted here in the 1689 if there's no counterpart?

I'm going to give you two reasons, one substantiated in the book by Sam Waldron and the other one just coming out of the mixed -up mind of Pastor Jensen.

So, first thing is this chapter has its roots in the Savoy Declaration of 1658.

Remember what we had told you that the framers of the 1689 used both the

Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration, both reformed confessions, all right?

So, we do see a similar chapter in the Savoy Declaration even though there is none in the

Westminster. The authors of the Savoy were the Congregational Puritans, okay?

And they offer a reason for this chapter's inclusion in the preface to the

Savoy Declaration. This is – I put it in green because I didn't want you to get confused. This is what the writers of the

Savoy Declaration had said. A few things we have added for obviating some erroneous opinions that have been more broadly and boldly here of late maintained by the assertors than in former times.

Old English. It appears that between 1647 and 1658, there were errors that were manifesting themselves in the churches.

And so, by the time they were ready to publish the confession in 1658, they added this chapter to it, all right?

And although they don't name it, the content of this chapter refutes deism, all right?

Is everybody familiar with what the deistic heresy is? Or you need a little bit of explanation?

Okay. In general, deists are people who believe in God, but they believe that God has taken a hands -off.

In other words, he created the world, all right, set it in motion, and then really takes a back seat and lets things go.

Thomas Jefferson is said to have been a reputed deist, all right? If you go into his monument in Washington, you'll see all kinds of Bible quotes.

It's not that he didn't believe in the Bible, but he also—it's rumored that he cut out all the miracles of the

Bible, all right? So, that would be deism, all right?

The deists favored general knowledge of God as opposed to special revelation, all right?

Now, obviously, special revelation is what we get in the scriptures. General knowledge is the knowledge of creation, etc.

So, that's the reason that—one of the reasons why this chapter was included in the 1689 as opposed to the

Westminster. I'm going to assert another reason, okay? And again, I don't have anything to back this up.

I can't cite anything for you, all right? But having read this and studied through the

Confession, I believe that this chapter strongly supports the

Reformed Baptist view of the covenants, okay? And I hope—just keep that in mind as we go through the various paragraphs.

Remember, we differ substantially in our view of the covenants between the

Old Covenant and the New Covenant with our Presbyterian brothers, which is the basis for them baptizing their infants and for us baptizing believers only.

So, see if you see the same thing as we go through this. So, part one—excuse me,

I just need a—so, part one, the inauguration of the

Revelation. Paragraph 1a is the framework in which it was inaugurated.

So, what do we mean by that? The covenant of works being broken by sin and made unprofitable unto life, that's as far as we'll go.

Now, notice, this is the inauguration. What is the inauguration of the

Revelation of God in the Gospel, all right? Well, it starts with the covenant of works being broken.

Remember, Adam and Eve were in a covenant of works, okay, and it was broken.

What happened when it was broken? It made it null and void.

The covenant of works has no relevance, no benefit once it was broken by Adam and Eve because they were—Adam was our federal head, and what happens when a federal head breaks a covenant?

Everybody suffers. He's the federal head. This is why it's so important that we understand federalism in the terms of the

Scriptures, all right? So, the covenant of works being broken by sin and made unprofitable unto life. Nobody can be saved by the covenant of works.

Paragraph 1b, the form in which it was inaugurated. God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman.

Notice, to give forth the promise of Christ. Not a new covenant yet.

New covenant doesn't come until when? Yes, until Jesus, all right?

Are you seeing why I think that this supports Reformed Baptist theology? All right. God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ.

Genesis 3, 15, the promise of the Messiah is very clearly in the promise that God gave when they broke the covenant of works, all right?

And the promise would be that Christ, who is the seed of the woman. Paragraph 1c, the function for which it was inaugurated as the means of calling the elect and begetting them faith and repentance.

In other words, what is it now since the covenant of works is broken? How is it that anyone is saved?

From Adam on, the calling of the elect, begetting in them faith, what is it?

The promise of Christ. How were the Old Testament saints saved?

The promise of Christ, all right? Not the covenant of works, that null and void.

It's no longer good. By believing on the promise of Christ and in the fullness in which it was inaugurated.

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.

Because that's one of the questions, especially if you talk to somebody who is grown up or in a church where dispensational theology is preached.

This is one of the highlights that they can't seem to grasp. How were the old covenant saints saved?

All right. And there's all kinds of fanciful answers out there. They're saved by the same way we are through the blood of Christ, but they believe in the promise.

So the gospel, even though it was given in seed form and in a promise, is what saved them.

They had to believe the promise. Abraham believed and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

All right. So, and it's effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners. That's all we really need to know.

We don't have to try to figure out anymore. That says it in a nutshell. So I'm going to summarize a couple of things here.

What did Adam and Eve know about salvation? They knew salvation was grace alone.

How did they know that? Because they blew it. They knew they couldn't earn it.

We don't know how long they were in the garden before they sinned, but most theologians believe it was a very short period of time.

All right. They knew salvation was by faith alone. They knew salvation was accomplished through a coming

Redeemer. That's what God promised them. Which means that Adam and Eve believed in grace alone, faith alone,

Christ alone. Boy, they were reformed, weren't they? Okay. And even though they only had it in seed form in his shadow.

All right. I mean, all they had was Genesis 3 .15. Yet they believed.

And I am convinced, absolutely convinced, both Adam and Eve are in heaven. Okay. Anybody been in my class when

I've explained why? No. What was

Eve's first name? Yes. Eve's first name was Woman.

Remember, Adam, when God created Eve, he named her

Woman. When did he name her Eve? Yes.

Eve means what the Bible tells us. She's the mother of all the living, not all the dead.

She believed and was the mother of all the living. Okay. So that's just one reason

I believe that Adam and Eve will be in heaven. Part two of this chapter is the necessity of this revelation.

I hope you're seeing, again, the genius of this document. I just love, every time

I go through this confession, I see how the order of it. Remember, this chapter of the Gospel comes after the doctrine of faith, repentance, effectual calling, the law of God, the fall of man, and we come up in the

Gospel. We see the necessity of the Gospel. All right. And first, in the paragraph 2A, it's the affirmation of its necessity.

The promise of Christ and salvation by him is revealed only by the Word of God. It's the only way you can be saved, is through the

Word of God. That's just reaffirmed. We saw that in the first paragraph.

It's just reaffirmed. Neither do the works of creation or providence with the light of nature make discovery of Christ or of grace by him so much as in a general or obscure way.

This is where you see the deism coming in. This is the refutation of deism right here.

The deist would say, well, you know, all you have to do is look at creation, and you can see that God is there. Now, we agree with that.

But that will not save you. It is only by the

Gospel message that a person is saved. And the implications of this necessity?

Much less that men destitute of the revelation of him by the promise or Gospel should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance.

In other words, that's just saying that men who do not have the revealed Word of God cannot be saved.

Why do you think we place such an emphasis on evangelism? Because that's the means that God has decided to use to save people.

And without evangelism, people are not going to be saved. That's why you'll hear that from our missionaries.

Anybody who speaks from our pulpit, you're going to hear the Gospel. The Gospel has to be preached. So what are the implications of Chapter 2,

I mean Part 2 of Chapter 20? Men will be lost even if they never hear the

Gospel. Everybody grasp that?

Men will be lost even if they never hear the Gospel. Men must hear the Gospel even to have the possibility of being saved.

Why? Because men do not deserve to be saved. Notice how it always comes back to total depravity.

If you understand what happened to mankind in Adam's fall, we do not deserve to be saved.

Men have enough divine revelation to be without excuse, but not enough to be saved.

This is what Romans 1 is all about. In other words, God has built himself into this creation so much that anybody can look at this creation and know that there is a

God. Anybody who says there is no

God, what does Proverbs say about him? A fool. There's really no such thing as an atheist because in their heart of hearts they know there is a

God because this creation just screams of a Creator. So much so that the onus is on us to seek out that Creator.

That's why men are without excuse. Does that make sense? Okay, so now we come to part three, the sovereignty of this revelation.

The assertion of this sovereignty. The revelation of the Gospel unto sinners made in diverse times and with sundry parts with the addition of promises and precepts for the obedience required as to the nations and persons to whom it is granted is merely the sovereign will and good pleasure of God.

It's not that man wakes up one day and says, I got a good idea, I'm going to go and I'm going to repent of my sin. Said no one ever, unless there's the work of the

Holy Spirit. So notice what we've had. We've seen the inauguration of the

Gospel. We've seen the necessity of the Gospel. And here we see the sovereignty. And that's all consistent.

The man is 100 % responsible, but God is 100 % sovereign.

So the implication of this sovereignty, 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 nor can do so.

This is just repeating what we had said before. No one is ever going to, on their own, fallen man will never turn to God.

It's just an impossibility. The result of the sovereignty.

Therefore in all ages, the preaching of the Gospel has been granted unto persons and nations as to the extents or straightening of it in great variety according to the counsel of the will of God.

Notice in the section on sovereignty, reaffirming the sovereign grace of God.

Where's the responsibility for getting the Gospel out? On men. God places it on the hearts of men.

Is that making sense? And again, this has nothing to do with what God can do.

Could God have created a world where there was a difference? Could he have given the job to angels to preach the

Gospel? Those are foolish questions to ask because the point is he didn't. What did he do?

He gave it to man. Man is one who is responsible. In fact, we find out that the angels, they long to look into these things, to the mystery of the

Kingdom of God, and it's not for them. But on the other hand, he showers you with rewards in heaven when you are faithful to the call, especially as you witness the

Gospel. And by the way, he's not just talking about pastors, preachers, evangelists.

He's talking about the average person, day by day, who just witnesses to your neighbor, witnesses to your family.

And when you see your family coming to Christ, God showers you with blessings on top of that. Now we come to four, the sufficiency of this revelation.

Assertion of the sufficiency. Although the Gospel be the only outward means of revealing

Christ and saving grace, it is as such abundantly sufficient thereunto. In other words, when you give the

Gospel, if you are faithful and when you explain the Gospel, it is sufficient.

A person needs nothing more. Somebody tells you, well, all

I need to do is I see a sign. Nope. Nope.

Everything that they need for salvation is found in the Word of God, and that is absolutely sufficient.

Yes. Yeah, I think about the Lazarus of the rich man. Yeah. Where the rich man says, just send somebody from the dead to go speak to my friends and family.

And he says that's not, if they didn't listen to the Word, then the person would come from the dead. That's exactly right.

That's exactly right. Okay. The qualification of the sufficiency, yet that men who are dead and trespasses may be born again quickened or regenerated, there is moreover necessary and effectual insuperable work of the

Holy Spirit upon the whole soul. I love that that's there.

Why do you think so? Why do you think I'd say I love that? Very practical reason.

Huh? Yeah. I can preach the Gospel and it's not up to me whether somebody responds to it or not.

That's up to God. I just have to be faithful to preach the Gospel and then whether or not somebody comes to Christ when you preach, it's out of my hands.

There's nothing I can do to make somebody a Christian. That's the

Holy Spirit's job. Our job is to be faithful, to preach the Word in season and out of season, be a faithful minister of the

Word and then you just leave the rest. That's why I love this doctrine. I don't have to go, not that, you know,

I blew that, it's not like I have to say, last Sunday I blew that illustration, somebody's going to go to hell because I twisted my words.

No. It's up, no matter how eloquent you give the

Gospel, that person is not going to come to Christ unless the work of the Holy Spirit in their heart. And that's something we must never, why do you think we have a group of men pray every

Sunday before we go out into the pulpit? Because that's what we're praying for.

We're commissioning and invoking the Holy Spirit to come. You'll hear that even from the prayer of invocation,

Pastor Anthony, every Sunday, what does he say? We know we can't do this on our own. Please send your

Holy Spirit. Amen. I like the word insufferable here too. When you look at the

Savoy, it's almost identical, but they use the word irresistible there. I think insufferable describes the work of the

Holy Spirit better. Okay. For a minute I thought you were saying I was insufferable. Oh, okay.

For producing in them a new spiritual life without which no other means will affect their conversion unto

God. I mean, it just lays it out in such beautiful language. The divines who put these documents together, they labored painstakingly to try to be accurate to the scriptures.

And this just lays it out in such a way. Any questions?

It's a short chapter. So that's good, because now we have more time for prayer.

Any questions? On the extent of the gospel, its gracious intent?

No? We good? Yes, Jason. Just a random question that came to mind. I understand that the preaching of the gospel is sufficient to convert someone and that it requires the work of the

Holy Spirit as well. I was just wondering, what would the role of apologetics be in evangelism then?

Oh, that's an excellent question. We are called, 1

Peter, we are called to give an answer for the hope that lies within us. And even in that apologetic,

God can use that to quicken the heart and to save someone.

It's not like it's apart from it. It's not like we don't use logic.

In fact, it's not even that we don't use evidence. We use evidence. We show that the heavens declare the handiwork of God.

How can you explain this world apart from that? That being used by the preacher can be what tricks the heart of the person and the

Holy Spirit uses that. I mentioned there was somebody who attended this church a number of years ago and he was saved by reading the genealogy.

All right? And, yeah. And he just had that type of mind that when he saw the beauty of how the genealogy could only have been fulfilled in Christ, he said, immediately

I was saved. So, the Holy Spirit uses means and apologetics is one of the means of grace that God will use to convert the sinner.

So, it's both and, it's not either or. Any other questions? No? Okay.