Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Well, we are continuing on in our study of systematic theology this morning, and we're going to be opening our books to Page seven if you have the book if you don't we have worksheets that are printed.
And everybody else has the book. Right. Yes, sir. All righty we have. For the past well last week We did a special christmas lesson because it was christmas. But in the weeks leading up to that we had spent three weeks looking at reformed theology.
And as I said, it's it's hard talking about reformed theology in this context because Our church is reformed. So we tend to we tend to want to emphasize that but the purpose of this is not to focus on any one Particular branch or type of theology, but rather to say okay here are the major schools of thought.
As we've already seen we began with roman catholicism. We moved to natural theology. We looked at lutheran theology. And then reformed theology we showed what the distinctions are between lutheran and reformed theology.
And now we're going to look at something called arminianism now. Oftentimes you will hear me and other teachers refer to arminianism as the opposite of reformed teaching or you'll hear the distinctions of calvinism versus Arminianism so it becomes there's a juxtaposition you have calvin on one side and arminius on the other side.
And because of this Distinction There has been a lot of Misunderstandings that have arisen one of the most common misunderstandings. Is that arminius? And calvin Were contemporaries who debated? That is not the case.
Arminius and calvin did not live at the exact same time in in history. Calvin Died when arminius was a very young boy. Arminius grew up and was the student of calvin's successor Theodore beza. Theodore beza took over where calvin left off and arminius was his student so arminius and calvin's debates Didn't happen.
There was no conversation between those two men and in fact The reality is much of what we call arminianism Is actually not even the theology of arminius Per se but rather is the theology of his Students see arminius had followers just like calvin did and just like theodore beza had students arminius had students and calvin's students.
Were known as reformed, uh, sometimes now referred to when we know classic presbyterianism um Calvin's students were called calvinists. Arminius Students were called arminians, but they were also known as something else.
They were known as the remand strontz the remand strontz simply means those who protest. They weren't called the protestants because well that name was already taken. The protestants were those who protested rome luther calvin's wingley.
These were protestants so in protest To calvin's teaching and protest to the calvinistic school Of theology which had risen in geneva and had spread all over that area of the world and was it was now influencing much of christendom.
Craig and calvin did have a huge influence over christendom. Calvin is responsible for much of Modern christianity's understanding of things. We have to understand the influence he had as a theologian.
He wrote the institutes of the christian religion, which had massive influence and he wrote them by the age of 26. I think it was he was a very young man by the time he finished his first uh, and he would add to them over the years, but the The first set of the institutes of the christian religion written as a very young man.
Very very powerfully uh gifted theological mind a very brilliant young man and and and he uh, you know was was like I said used mightily by god, but Those who did not appreciate his teaching those who did not agree with his teaching and I would say this there are things about his teaching I would disagree with so I I I'm not saying that these guys are are the evil lurking in the shadows.
I'm just saying those who disagreed primarily with calvin's understanding of nature of man the nature of god in election and predestination. And the nature of salvation in in general were called the remonstrants the those who protested or remonstrated against the writings and teachings of calvin.
So that's where arminian Theology comes from. Arminius had students his students taught these things. Uh, and as a result There was division now something that I don't think is mentioned in here. Uh, in fact just looking it over.
I don't see it if we come to it and I may have missed it. But uh something called the synod of dort. It's the synod of dort, uh, which is short for the synod of dorchek. Uh, the synod of dorchek was the uh, the synod or the Council that was convened to solve the issue of the risen remonstrants the the the the those who are protesting against calvin there was who were protesting against his teaching.
And the synod of dort synod of dorchek, which this book does reference later Came together to consider the five teachings that the Arminians were proposing the remonstrants were proposing five teachings.
How many of you ever heard the five points of calvinism? We talked about that before the tulip um, well the tulip is a distillation Of the teachings of the synod of dorchek who responded to the five Pronouncements or teachings of the remonstrants.
So When people say why do you have five? Why why is it these particular doctrines? Well, the reason is is because these were a response to the false teachings of the remonstrants. Well, at least what the council deemed as false teachings was basically the five teachings the same as tulip I mean, is that exact?
Essentially essentially the idea was that man has a libertarian free will. Um, so total depravity would have been the response to that that election is conditioned upon god foreseeing Faith and then of course the response is unconditional election.
The atonement of christ was Unlimited or at least it was intended for all men. Um in the in general and not specifically intended for for the elect. Grace itself is not something that cannot be overcome.
Uh, the calling of god is not something that's absolute so irresistible grace response to that and of course the the one big debate Was whether or not you could lose your salvation. And this is the thing about arminius arminius Never landed on that as an individual theologian.
He never said it was possible specifically For a person to ultimately and finally lose their salvation. So but his students did so arminian.
Don't believe in an errancy of scripture.
No, they do that. Well, they would argue that they do but but well. Before we I understand where you're coming from, but before we go there just understanding their their positions on these things and and their arguments.
Uh, uh. Were you referring to specifically eternal security or just every one of them? I mean, it just seems like they're. Every point that hit scripture I mean just a casual glimpse tells you they're wrong.
Sure.
But like I said, this is a this is a highly debated highly emotional issue because it comes down to two things. Uh for the arminian one is uh, the what they consider to be the character of god. Which they're, you know, their concern is that they are maintaining his integrity and his desire to save all men.
Which is a which is I think a false Requirement that they're imposing upon god. Well if god's going to be Generous, he has to give his grace to everyone and thus and thus they make grace a have to rather than a choose to God's grace in human terms or what we would think to do.
Yeah, it's it's it's and it's obligated. And once it becomes obligated is no longer grace. Okay. Yeah. So that's the first the first thing is they believe they're maintaining the integrity of god's grace and that it's completely.
Uh, uh, even and given to all men in the exact same way. And the other thing is they believe they're they're maintaining the integrity of man's free will. Um, so you have to understand they are they are holding to two things that they believe.
Are taught in scripture. I don't agree, but they are they are holding to two things. They believe are taught in scripture and to to maintain these two things what they consider the integrity of god's uh Grace and the integrity of man's free will to do that.
They have to be very inconsistent on other things. I mean i've heard Countless arminian pastors talk about how god has an absolute Plan and no one can frustrate his plan and his plan is perfect and it's going to be worked out.
I mean you have to believe that if you believe romans 8 28, you know. That god's working all things together for the good of those who love the lord. I mean you have to believe that but then you ask more probing questions and they they they tend to vacillate particularly on the issues of.
Well, does god know who all is going to be saved? They'll say yes, he knows but he doesn't decide. Okay, what has he decided to know that for certain? So because they'll say well, we don't know who's going to be saved.
But god knows and and the number's not set and I say wait a minute now if the number's not set then god doesn't know so it becomes an issue of it really is a. They they try to split some hairs and in doing so they tend to um, They tend to be inconsistent and I think it's a glorious inconsistency.
Because if they were consistent, they would be open theists. And i'm thankful that they're not open theists. Open theist believes that god really doesn't know the future. That god is in flux in the same way.
We are in the sense that god is moving through time the same way we are. And while god has a good idea of what's going to happen. He is not.
Absolutely certain of what is going to happen. Would you even call an armenian saved with their beautiful christ death? Um now this is a big.
Big issue because recently some of my very dear friends and i'm not going to name anyone because This will go out live. I've had some friends who have taken a very hard stance on some of these things and um.
Had to repent because I think their stance was too hard. For instance, you love dr. Michael brown. I love him and he's armenian as day is long. So yeah to ask the question is is he saved? I think he's saved.
I think he's mistaken.
But but I don't. Do you think he believes that christ death wasn't specifically for him? Oh, yeah. Well, he believes in universal atonement. He argues that but that's my point. I thought a lot of armenians don't.
They were that. It's kind of just like it's. It's like a pattern or a shape. No, he believes in. He believed. Well, so.
Again, he's inconsistent because he believes in universal atonement, but he also believes in penal substitutionary atonement. You can't have both. You can't have both and so. And he doesn't see it that way.
But like I said, I love michael brown. I think he's off on a few things. I think he's really off on the the whole grace didn't save no obedience did that makes me want to want to really take him to school on that because grace is what brought about the obedience, but.
Listen up mike if you're listening. Okay. You were off base on that one buddy, but but uh the um. Ultimately, I love what whitfield said about wesley, you know, whitfield and wesley were the best of friends.
In one sense they they loved one another but theologically they differed. Uh, wesley was armenian. Whitfield was calvinist. And yet someone asked whitfield. Do you think that you're going to see wesley in heaven?
And he said no he said because I believe he'll be so much closer to christ than I will. So much closer to the throne of grace than I will. I won't get to see him so that was the that was the love and Unity that he felt with his brother even though They differed on this issue.
So do I think that an armenian can be saved? Yes I think that they are safe through a glorious inconsistency. I think that their theology is not perfect and neither is mine. They uh, typically do not deny justification by faith alone.
Some do. They typically do not deny. Uh salvation by grace. Through faith alone. But again their understanding of how we procure that grace how that grace is given is I think at times. Uh inconsistent and it's a good inconsistency because if they were consistent they would they would bleach into heresy.
I've heard like armenians explain salvation as a gift and you it's up to you to accept it. So that's different from the night. Well, you know.
I don't necessarily mind the the language of salvation being a gift and we we receive the gift. I don't I don't like the word accept. I've always felt like the word accept because people are even my I had recently listened to a Minister and he and every every other word out of his mouth was accept christ accept christ accept christ.
I always think of accepting something as like you accept it, you know when the doctor tells you have cancer. Well, I guess I got to accept that. Yeah, you know, it's sort of like something you didn't really you didn't really have any Want, uh, but you kind of accept it and uh, and so i've never really preferred the language of except I like the biblical language.
Whosoever did receive him to them. He gave the power to become Children of god, so I like the word received um. But either way could be applied to a gift a gift to something that is received uh the difference I think in um, The armenian theology and the calvinistic theology in regard to that language.
Is that the armenian believes that christ has already given them the gift? Uh, but it's not actuated until they believe in it. Um. And so the gift sort of sits in limbo without application. But it's already been paid.
So where it becomes an issue for me is somebody dies and goes to hell having their sins already paid for. Because if you ask The armenian, what did jesus die to do? Well, he died to pay for the sins of all people.
Did jesus die for the sin of the unbeliever? They'll say yes, and i'll say well, why then do they go to hell? Well because they didn't believe what did then jesus not die for that sin? Because unbelief is a sin unbelief is the highest of sins.
Why what is it? Did he not die for that one sin? See in our in calvinism Jesus christ dies for all of the sins of some men. In armenianism Christ dies for some of the sins of all men. What about the rest of them?
That's what sins are in hell. Yeah. It's it really is. I mean that's the sins of all men. Yeah, they believe that christ died for all the sins except unbelief. That's the one you have to fulfill. Oh, you see that's that's what I mean.
It's really a and again, we haven't even gotten to the book yet. But that's where I think that's where I see the greatest distinction. I was reading ahead here and there's something that says they don't believe christ christ did not pay the penalty for our sins.
For if he had then all would be saved rather christ suffered for our sins so that the father can forgive those who repent and believe. And death was uh, christ death was an example of the penalty of sin and the cost of forgiveness.
Yes, this is uh, this is where I would say this book. Demonstrates one of the inconsistencies of armenianism and it does so good. That was bad grammar does so well. Because what this just showed. Is that there is inconsistency because I can prove to you that not all Armenians believe that right that there is A division even about what the atonement means.
In armenianism. Typically this is correct. But like I said, dr Michael brown who I would identify as an armenian at least from his at least I don't think he would call him. He would call himself a biblical Biblicist or whatever.
They they don't like the term armenian, which I which I understand. I don't like terms applied to me that I don't agree with but but ultimately if you have to say he's in one camp. Or the other calvinism armenian, he's in armenianism, but he would say he holds strongly to penal substitutionary atonement.
Well, if he believes that christ received in himself the penalty on the cross for the sins. And that all of the sins were paid for on the cross. And yet people still go to hell then you have to limit who was paid for.
You have to it sounds to me like they're trying to apply human human attributes to god human things like. Human justice to god. How how man would think of justice how man would think of salvation? Rather than you know what the word says.
Yeah, it just and then and that's why there's. They're all spread apart because each one's got their own idea of what that justice is and how it should be applied to god. Sure, and here's something that dr. White.
Dr. James white has said before and I think it's really a brilliant observation. The difference between calvinism and armenianism is this calvinism begins with god. And works the theology out from there armenianism begins with man.
And works the theology out from there. So the theology and calvinism, how does this come from and affect our understanding of god? And armenianism is that's what I was trying to say. Yeah, man. It's a very good point because you know with my background you know.
They'll fight you and unless you're something about his churches on the concept of free will and it's really man focused theology. Whether they intend to or not, but they'll fight you on something like free will but then feel the need to defend.
You know, we have to apologize for god's nature rather than accepting god as supreme and sovereign over all things. Yeah, you know what? I mean, it's a highly emotional battle. Oh, it is they're more willing to receive pentecostals.
Than they would be to receive a calvinist. Which is sad I mean in most southern baptist contexts.
You were gonna say I was gonna say I think it's awesome with the relationship between dr. Brown and dr. White.
Yeah, it's it's similar to Whitfield and Wesley. There are several things upon which they disagree, but they would refer to each other as brothers. They would they love one another. I love dr. White's open that people think he's such a mean nasty hard person and he can be forthright but I love the fact that he is.
He is willing to Concede that these people are brothers in christ, even though they would disagree with him on on very serious things um. You know, we draw the line. On things like the trinity we draw the lines on things that the things that have been historic christian truths.
That have not been you know, they they have only been held to by the heretics as far as divisional. Uh. So anyway, let us let us read what the book has to say. Uh because I do want to address some of what it says here and wesleyan theology and arminian theology do ride together because wesley would have been the Would have been the outgrowth.
Wesleyanism is the outgrowth of arminianism so We're going to look at arminian today and hopefully wesleyanism next we can just see How one is sort of the outgrowth of the other. Wesleyan puts more of a focus on personal holiness.
That's the that's the big thing that we'll see. So under arminian theology under theology itself, it says arminian theology is concerned to preserve the justice. Which they define as the fairness of god.
Keep that in mind the integrity of god's fairness or his grace is to all men equally and what they think is fair though. Yes, yes. How could a just god hold individuals responsible for obedience to commands?
They are powerless to obey. Emphasizes divine foreknowledge human responsibility and free will and a universal or common enabling grace. So they do ask a very legitimate question. How can god hold someone responsible for something?
He is powerless to obey. Well, let's just very quickly answer the question with a question. Does god command us to do things that we do not have the ability to do by nature? Yes. Okay. So before we even answer the question, we know at least god has commanded things that we are not able to do by nature for instance.
Be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect. Well, we're born as sinners. We're born in sin. We're born with a sin nature. We're born according to the nature of our father adam. And we're born with that natural Inclination to sin and jesus said he who sins is a slave to sin.
Um, so The first thing we have to say is they're they're asking the question. That is to me while it may be a legitimate question. We have to answer it first by saying he has. Because i've heard people say god.
I tell people No one can believe in jesus unless god enables them and they say well god wouldn't call him to believe in jesus. If he if they couldn't if they couldn't do it. And I said wait a minute god called the nation of israel to obey the 10 commandments.
And they couldn't do that. So you're telling me god won't call you to do things you can't do. Do you know why god calls us to do things we can't do. So that we have to rely on him. That's the whole purpose of grace is that we have to rely on him.
The reason why god calls us to do things that we cannot do by nature Is to demonstrate that he is god and we are creatures and that we Have to have him. It's the whole point of all of this if god simply called us to do things that we can do.
Then guess what? We didn't need jesus. Because we could do it ourselves.
Yes, you know I struggled with that for a long time. And what it came down to is something that you said to me you said Why should anybody be saved? We're all disgusting vile sinners. Why should god save any of us?
It's the fact that he saves anybody is the amazing thing not the fact that everybody isn't saved because we've got it twisted. As a Man, we think gosh. I want my friend timmy to be saved and he you know never accepts christ.
Well think about that. The point is I don't deserve to be saved. It's not that timmy isn't is going to hell. It's the fact that I don't deserve to be saved and I am being saved. That's the amazing part not the fact that timmy's going to hell.
We got it twisted because of our minds. We're all human centered instead of god's.
When we say why doesn't god save anyone the real question is why does god save anyone? Why does god save anybody? Well, we call it amazing grace instead of amazing justice because exactly exactly and and and and really.
You know the to answer the question. How could a just god hold individuals responsible for obedience to commands? They are powerless to evade because he requires Reliance upon him. That's that's the answer.
Because he requires reliance upon him we are Unable to do anything apart from him. This is why Augustine prayed the prayer that and by the way, the armenian calvin debate Didn't start in the 16th century.
No. You go back to pelagius. And augustine in the fourth century. Well fifth century they were having the same issue. Pelagius believed that man is not born in sin. That he does not have a sin nature and that he's not unable to come to god.
But why did pelagius arise to any notoriety? Because he responded to a prayer of augustine. Paris. The prayer was simple god Command what thou wilt? And give us the grace to do what thou commanded. That was the prayer of augustine tell us what you want us to do and then give us the ability to do it and Pelagius said no.
If god commanded it you already have the ability to do it. You don't need to ask for the grace. And that's why We're not pelagian. And that's why pelagian is referred to today as the arch heretic pelagius.
Because he didn't understand the necessity of grace. You see we talk about the necessity of grace. And most of your baptist or anybody else would say yes grace is necessary. But there's something else grace is not just necessary.
Grace is sufficient. We talk about the necessity of grace, but also the sufficiency of grace. Grace not only gives you the ability. But it empowers you to do it. And it's the cause. By grace are you saved through faith and that's not of yourselves.
It is the gift of god all of it. The grace and the faith today we're going to be in philippians one in our sermon paul tells us. He said it has been granted to you. Not only to believe in christ. But also to suffer with him.
Now here's the thing. What people often miss when they read that? He just told us That it has been granted to us to believe. That's not the point of the text, but it's in there. He said it's been granted to you not only to believe.
But also to suffer. Well, what's the implication? It was granted to you to believe. That was the gift too. The suffering is a gift. We avoid we don't think of suffering as a gift. But do we think of faith as a gift?
And it is so. You'll hear more about that later in the message. But the point is that is the answer to the question god's grace is necessary and sufficient. And that's why we refer to god's grace. As amazing and that's why we talk about sovereign grace.
It just seems like that. It all kind of boils down to thinking in human terms. The god that i've the god that I worship how I don't believe he would do that. Well, what god do you worship? Really? You know because you gotta you my god wouldn't do that right it all kind of boils down to that it's like well you can't you've got to Understand god through his word.
You cannot Try to understand him on your level. Exactly because he is not on our level and you've got to always remember that and you i've read stuff in here and i'd say Wow Lord, really. What's up with that and it's like but then you got to know oh you're god you can do that.
Oh, yeah, you're god. And well, you got okay I don't know what the reason is, but you do also fail to realize what? The book of revelation was how christ's going to return his conquering king with the blood of the robes and stuff like that, I mean it and many of the churches i've been it's like We we failed to grasp that he is also judge also he remains he remains the lamb perpetually and it's never the line.
Right, and we've over focused to the lamb to the to the neglect of the judge. What's the uh, what's the time? It's like 14 after is it? I need to uh, I need to get my uh I need to get a clock in here.
And I watched the time here, but I didn't know what time I started so there's no way to know. Uh the next the next line on here is that god is sovereign. But he has chosen to grant free will to human beings.
Now I uh, I could spend two minutes, which is all we have left. Discussing this but I think what i'm going to do. A few years ago. I actually I wrote an article and a lesson on the subject of the freedom of human will.
And I think that next week we're going to actually dive into that a little further and actually deal with What we because there's actually several different things. That are there are seven different ways, which the way free will can be used calvinist belief.
In something called free moral agency. But it is not the same. As the armenian view of what we would call libertarian freedom. And so next week I'm going to try to explain the difference between how we understand we I believe that we're free.
As our as r .c. Sproul has said we are free god is more free and when we run into his freedom we lose right. So I hopefully next week we'll come together and since we've stopped here I'm going to bring in A little bit more than what we have in the book and just help you understand what we mean when we say free moral agency.
And how that is distinct from what the armenians when they say free will what they're actually saying is libertarian human freedom. Okay, it's like some of the vectors i've heard they used to say well I believe you know, I believe that god said it I believe that that settles it and say no God said it that settles it doesn't matter whether you yeah, absolutely.
It's true whether you believe it or not. I'm glad you believe it. Yeah, but it didn't make it true. All right. Let's pray father. Thank you for the opportunity to study together I pray that in the weeks to come we'll have an even better understanding of what you mean.
When you say that salvation is of the lord and it's in christ's name we pray amen.