← Back to sermon library

for ordained are particularly 
and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite 
that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind 
that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of 
the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable 
purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, 
hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace 
and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition 
or cause moving him thereunto. As God hath appointed the elect 
unto glory, So he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose 
of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, 
they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, 
are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his spirit working 
in due season, are justified, adopted, and sanctified, and 
kept by his power through faith unto salvation. "'Neither are 
any other redeemed by Christ, "'or effectually called, justified, 
adopted, "'sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. "'The doctrine 
of this high mystery of predestination "'is to be handled with special 
prudence and care, "'that men attending the will of God, revealed 
in his word, "'and yielding obedience thereunto, "'may, from the certainty 
of their effectual vocation, "'be assured of their eternal 
election. So shall this doctrine afford 
a matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, and of 
humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely 
obey the gospel. Amen. Well, Westminster Shorter 
Catechism asks, what are the decrees of God? The decrees of 
God are His most I'm sorry, His most holy, I'm sorry, the decrees 
of God are His eternal purpose, according to the counsel of His 
will, whereby for His own glory He hath foreordained whatsoever 
comes to pass. And then the Catechism says, 
how does God execute His decree? By the works of creation and 
providence. And you see that flow here to God's decree in 
chapter 3, and then God's work of creation and providence. in 
chapters 4 and 5. And then, of course, redemption. 
God executes His decree in the work of redemption as He calls 
His people out of darkness into marvelous light. So the decree 
of God is His eternal plan and purpose to accomplish all of 
His holy will. and it's consistent with what 
we find out about God in terms of who He is in Chapter 2. In other words, the God described 
in Chapter 2 is obviously the God of Chapter 3. If God is who 
He is according to Chapter 2, then the decree must be what 
the decree is in Chapter 3. In other words, God is not a 
reactionary being, He is not dependent upon the creature for 
His next move or His next act. The God that is described in 
chapter 2 as supreme, as sovereign, as glorious and all-powerful 
is the God who purposes to achieve all of His purpose and plan through 
His decree. So tonight, or rather this morning, 
A little bit off, had the theology yesterday, and then the wedding, 
and then thought today was going to be a one thing, but it's going 
to be a three thing. So bear with me if there is a 
bit of choppiness, at least in this morning time as we get the 
plane off the ground. The nature of God's decree is 
in paragraphs one and two, and then the details of God's decree 
in paragraphs three to six, and then finally the practical use 
of God's decree in paragraph seven. That's what David Charles 
will be speaking on, God willing, next time we have our conference. It's on Chapter 3 of God's Decree. So Dr. Jim Renahan, Dr. Richard 
Barcelos will deal with the nuts and bolts of the chapter, but 
David will come and do the last section, the practical use of 
God's Decree, that we find there in paragraph 7. But in terms 
of the nature of God's decree, note the declaration beginning 
in paragraph one, God hath decreed in himself from all eternity 
by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will freely and unchangeably 
all things whatsoever comes to pass. So that's the overarching 
statement, that's the good definition of what the decree is all about, 
and that decree covers the whole system of life in general, Ephesians 
1.11. It's a redemptive context, but 
it tells us that God does everything according to His purpose and 
plan. As well, the scripture highlights the fortuitous events 
in the world happen as a result of the sovereign God. Proverbs 
16, the lot is cast into the lap, but every decision is from 
the Lord. As well, the free actions of 
men are ultimately governed and determined by God. We see that 
emphasis here in paragraph 1. God is the first cause, but that 
does not negate, but rather sets the foundation for the second 
causes in what men do. So the free actions of men. So 
the king's heart is in the hand of God, the Lord turns it the 
way he does the rivers of water. according to Proverbs 21.1. And 
then even the sinful actions of men. Remember that statement 
of Joseph in Genesis 50.20, you meant this for evil, but God 
overruled it for good. And then in the book of Acts 
in chapters 2 and 4, the apostles highlight the sovereignty of 
God in the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, never minimizing 
or mitigating the guilt of the Roman soldiers and the unbelieving 
Jews who sent Jesus to the cross. So in terms of this particular 
statement with reference to the decree, it covers everything. 
There's nothing outside of God. There's nothing unique that is 
existent out there that is not governed by God's most holy or 
most wise and holy counsel of his own will. Notice the qualification 
that we see there in the middle of the paragraph. Yet so as thereby 
is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with 
any therein. If you turn to Romans chapter 
nine, this seems to be the argument that is countered by the apostle 
Paul when he's dealing with what appears to be unrighteousness 
in God, at least on the part of the objector. One of the things that we learn 
from Paul is good theology in terms of response to difficult 
or questions that he had received. Romans 6, what shall we say? 
Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? May it never 
be. And as a result, we get good 
teaching that answers that objection. Well, the same sort of thing 
here. He's dealing with predestination and election and sovereignty. 
So notice in 9.14, What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness 
with God? Certainly not. For he says to 
Moses, I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will 
have compassion on whomever I will have compassion. So then it is 
not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows 
mercy. Notice that Paul does not shrink back from the objector 
in the sense that he tries to then reformulate his answer to 
sort of pare off the rough edges of what seems to be God. He doesn't 
do that. He simply says, nope, there's 
no unrighteousness in God, this is the purpose and the plan of 
God, and he raised up Pharaoh to demonstrate these various 
things. And then notice in verse 19, 
you will say to me then, why does he still find fault? For 
who has resisted his will? But indeed, O man, who are you 
to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to 
him who formed it, why have you made me like this? Does not the 
potter have power over the clay from the same lump to make one 
vessel for honor and another for dishonor? So he's dealing 
with those objections, and here specifically our confession does 
the same thing. When we underscore the reality 
that God is in charge over all things according to his most 
wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, 
somebody's going to say, well then that means God's the author 
of sin. God is responsible for the lawlessness and the wretchedness 
that obtains in this lower world. The confession is clear, so as, 
or yet so as thereby, is God neither the author of sin, nor 
hath fellowship with any therein. There is the first cause, and 
then there is the second cause. And again, when those men are 
indicted for nailing Jesus to the cross in Acts chapter 2, 
the apostle says it was lawless hands that did it. They didn't 
have a gun to their head that made them do this. God is the 
first cause, that's the establishment for the second causes, but the 
second causes do what they want to do. Concurrence, as Dr. Sam Renahan brought out, I think 
in the panel discussion or on the podcast. And then a further 
qualification is in the latter part of paragraph one. Nor is 
violence offered to the will of the creature. When somebody 
sins, they cannot claim that God made me do this. God didn't 
make you drink that bottle of whiskey and get into your vehicle 
and drive and crash into that family. Now again, is God over 
all that? Is God sovereign in that? Ultimately, 
did God decree that? Yes. It's a bit of a difficult 
thing to get our minds wrapped around. Yes. But nevertheless, 
the guy who gets hammered and the guy who slams his car into 
another family is guilty for drunk driving. He is guilty for 
having sinned against God. There was no coercion outside 
of him that made him or impelled him to do that particular activity. 
So when you and I sin, we can't blame God. Well, God, you know, 
if you hadn't have done this, then I wouldn't have done this. 
Can't do that scripturally. I mean, we try to do that practically. We try to blame God to get us 
off the hook for certain things. But biblically, philosophically, 
theologically, you cannot do that. The confession is countering 
these particular objections. So, nor is violence offered to 
the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency 
of second causes taken away, but rather established. In other 
words, we have a world, a universe, where God determines whatsoever 
comes to pass, not based on what may obtain or what happens in 
the foreseeable future. This is not an Arminian god. 
This is not a Pelagian god. This is the god of absolute, 
unmitigated glory, power, and sovereignty. So it's not condition. We see that in Romans 9. Again, 
Romans chapter 9, specifically at verse 11. Well, verse 10, 
and not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, 
even by our father Isaac, for the children not yet being born, 
nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according 
to election, might stand not of works, but of him who calls. 
It's a pretty familiar way to describe Calvinism or to pare 
off the rough edges. Think of Calvary Chapel, Chuck 
Smith's Calvary Chapel. God looks down the tunnel of 
time, he sees who's gonna believe on the Lord Jesus and those are 
the ones he chooses unto eternal life. That's bad. That's exactly what Paul is not 
saying. That's the exact opposite of 
what Paul is saying. He looks down the tunnel of time, 
Jim's gonna make a decision for Jesus, so God is gonna decree, 
determine, and predestine Jim to salvation. That's based on 
Jim. That's not based on God. We don't 
want the universe based on Jim, trust me. You don't want that. You don't want it based on you. 
You want a sovereign God who is in absolute control of all 
things. Notice again in verse 13, as 
it is written, Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. Again, 
it wasn't because of the conditions that obtained when they were 
25 years old, it was God's purpose and plan. Verse 16, it is not 
of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. Again, it's just the opposite. 
If he looks down the tunnel of time and he sees a particular 
individual that's going to believe, and then he elects them or predestines 
them unto salvation, that is the exact opposite of what verse 
16 tells us. It doesn't depend upon him who 
wills or upon him who runs, but upon God who shows mercy. And then in verse 18, therefore 
he has mercy on whom he wills, and whom he wills he hardens. So this idea of middle knowledge 
or this idea that God is contingent upon or dependent upon in any 
way the actions or the decisions or the mindset of man is contrary 
to the scripture and this doctrine of God's decree. That brings 
us then to details of God's decree in verses, I'm sorry, paragraphs 
three to six. Note first the doctrine of predestination 
unto life. predestination unto life. Paragraph 
3a, by the decree of God for the manifestation of his glory, 
some men and angels are predestinated or for ordained to eternal life 
through Jesus Christ to the praise of his glorious grace. So the 
decree of God, again, that's the blueprint, that's the plan, 
that's the mind of God as it were. The reason is the manifestation 
of his glory. Notice it's not the happiness 
of man, Man's happiness is certainly a corollary, but that's not God's 
primary function. It's to make us happy. It is 
to manifest His glory. This is something that is conspicuous 
from Genesis to Revelation. The Bible is a God-centered book. 
It's not a man-centered book. Man certainly plays in there. 
Man is there. Man is affected. Man is part 
of it in terms of creature. But it's all about God and the 
manifestation of his glory. And then the objects of predestination, 
some men and angels. Not all men, not all angels. 
So the confession rightly, biblically, is stating that universalism 
is incorrect. And then the goal is to the praise 
of his glorious grace. Now, the next statement deals 
with those who have not been elected, the psalm men and angels 
who were not elected unto salvation. So notice at the end of paragraph 
3, others being left to act in their sin, to their just condemnation 
to the praise of His glorious justice." So again, the others, 
some men and angels that were not elected unto eternal life, 
the goal specifically with reference to men, to their just condemnation, 
and with reference to God, to the praise of His glorious justice. 
But at this point in the confession, there's a question that should 
arise in our minds if we're thinking through this. Does the confession, 
or better, does the Bible teach double predestination, or predestination 
unto life and reprobation unto damnation, or does it teach preterition? So preterition simply means the 
passing over of. And as Fesko says with reference 
to reprobation and preterition, some theologians such as Calvin 
posit a double decree, one decree of election and another decree 
of reprobation. The elect and the reprobate are 
the subject of separate decrees. Other reformed theologians argue 
for a single decree of election and maintain that God passes 
by the non-elect. This view dates back to Augustine 
who explains reprobation in terms of preterition. So it seems to 
me that the confession does teach a form of preterition. And it 
seems to me that the confession does teach, I could be wrong, 
I'm certainly wrong on a lot of things, but this is the way 
that it appears to me. And then it also seems to have 
an infralapsarian bent. Now, if you don't know what infralapsarianism 
is, just buckle down, and you're going to be even more confused. 
Fesco on infra and supra-lapsarian. So lapsarian refers to the fallen 
state of man. And the question of infra and 
supra deals with the decree. How does God decree? And in some 
sense, it's a difficult thing to get our minds wrapped around, 
because it does seem to suggest there's a chronology. But chronology 
is probably not what's in view, but the logic, the logical relation. But Fesko says, infralapsarians 
argue that in the decree, the object of predestination is created 
and fallen man. Supralapsarianism, on the other 
hand, argue that in the decree, the object of predestination 
is man as creatable and liable to fall. So it's just a bit of 
a difference in terms of how God plays out in history what 
he has determined or decreed. Now again, it seems to me that 
the preterition and infra view are what's taught here. But if 
you look at chapter 5 in paragraph 4, it highlights that it's not by 
a bare permission. So notice in paragraph four, 
the almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness 
of God so far manifest themselves in his providence that his determinant 
counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall. and all other 
sinful actions, both of angels and men, and that not by a bare 
permission, which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth, 
and otherwise ordereth and governeth." To say one way or the other, 
again, I didn't have time to read Dr. Renahan on all of this, 
but I just think it reads that preterition is the view. In fact, 
in Westminster Confession, the same chapter, they have another 
paragraph, and their paragraph 7 reads thus. the rest of mankind 
God was pleased according to the unsearchable counsel of His 
own will whereby He extends or withholds mercy as He pleases 
for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures to pass 
by and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for they're said to 
the praise of His glorious justice." Sounds like a bit of a combination 
of both, He passes by and ordains them. I think the bigger issue 
is what does the Scripture teach? I think that the Scripture teaches, 
and again, good men disagree, probably some good men that were, 
you know, had a hand in the writing of this confession. I believe 
in double predestination. I think Scripture does teach 
that. If you're still there in Romans chapter 9, notice specifically 
again at verse 19. You will say to me then, why 
does he still find fault? For who has resisted his will? 
But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the 
thing formed say to him who formed it, why have you made me like 
this? Now notice in verses 21 to 23, does not the potter have 
power over the clay? Note this from the same lump. It's not dealing with a good 
lump and a bad lump. It's dealing with the same lump. 
humanity, the mass of humanity, not some good humans and some 
bad humans. Again, Paul's argument in Romans 
9 is to disavow the insane notion that God looks down the tunnel 
of time and see who's going to virtuously believe, and those 
are the ones he predestinates or elects unto eternal life. 
You couldn't write Romans 9 better to counter the objections to 
Romans 9. It's just that obvious. So back 
to verse 21. Does not the potter have power 
over the clay from the same lump to make one vessel for honor 
and another for dishonor? Again, a positive impact. He's 
making one for honor and he's making one for dishonor. Here 
comes the theological rationale. What if God, wanting to show 
his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering 
the vessels of wrath Notice, prepared for destruction. That's 
not preterition. That's not just passing by that. 
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the 
vessels of mercy which he had prepared beforehand for glory, 
even us whom he called, not of the Jews only, but also of the 
Gentiles. So we've got this same lump and 
two specific purposes in view. Vessels of honor and vessels 
of dishonor. One for the manifestation of 
God's justice and one for the manifestation of God's grace 
and his mercy and his glory. Turn to Matthew chapter 11. Matthew 
chapter 11. Again, just to show that this 
idea of preterition, while it may seem to soften the blow, 
does not seem to do justice to some of the scriptures that indicate 
other. or otherwise. Matthew 11 at verse 25, and at 
that time Jesus answered and said, I thank you, Father, Lord 
of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from 
the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. God hides 
gospel truth. That's the context. He hides 
it. Now, for those who say, well, that's not fair. Well, it's not 
fair. It's an act of justice. God is absolutely, perfectly 
legit to hide gospel truth from people that are wise in their 
own eyes and that are going to mock and ultimately crucify the 
Savior. He's perfectly just to do that. But I thank you, Father, 
Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things 
from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. 
Notice in verse 26, even so, Father, for so it seemed good 
in your sight. the good pleasure of God. That's 
what's the determining purpose behind all the things. It's not 
what's fair, what appears to be right, what appears to be 
fair in terms of these God-hating rebels. And then turn to 2 Timothy 
2. 2 Timothy 2. Just trying to show that when 
it comes to this idea of double predestination, specifically 
predestination unto life and reprobation unto damnation, there 
are biblical passages that support this over and against the idea 
of a preterition and just passing over the non-elect. So notice 
in 2 Timothy chapter 2 at verse 19, nevertheless, The solid foundation 
of God stands. Having this seal, the Lord knows 
those who are his and let everyone who names the name of Christ 
depart from iniquity. But in a great house, there are 
not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and 
clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. And then of course, 
Proverbs 16, one final text. And if you read John Bunyan, 
his text or his sermon on reprobation, this is his text. Proverbs 16, 
for the Lord has made all for himself, yes, even the wicked 
for the day of doom. So the biblical data suggests 
double predestination or reprobation unto damnation on the part of 
the non-elect. So those are some things that, 
again, might suggest themselves as you read through the Confession, 
as you think through Reformed theology. And remember, these 
are consensus documents. There was probably some differences 
of opinion on certain things. We know that to be the case, 
especially with the Westminster Confession. But what is in here 
is confessible. It's not contrary to Scripture. 
There's nothing wrong with confessing what we have in this section. 
But with reference to this idea of double predestination, does 
the Bible teach it? It certainly seems to teach it. 
Now, in terms of the nature of predestination, notice in paragraphs 
four to six, the doctrine of predestination as it relates 
to men or angels and men. So paragraph four, these angels 
and men thus predestinated and foreordained are particularly 
and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite 
that it cannot be either increased or diminished. So we don't pray, 
God, can you elect more sinners unto salvation? God, can you 
predestine more sinners unto salvation? Ephesians 1.4 is very 
clear, just as he chose us in him before the foundation of 
the world. Remember, whenever we talk about 
eternity, we talk about eternity past and eternity present and 
eternity. There's no kind of chronology 
in eternity, but when we think of before the foundation of the 
world, I think a human convention is to see eternity past. Way 
back then, God chose us in him before the foundation of the 
world. So there's no present operation on the part of God 
to elect more people. The number is determined, as 
the confession says here, it is unchangeably designed, and 
it's certain and definite, so it cannot be either increased 
or diminished. So the idea is that we preach 
the gospel, call sinners to faith and repentance, knowing that 
God has purposed the salvation of a great multitude that no 
man can number. In fact, turn to 2 Peter 3 for 
just a moment. 2 Peter 3, where discussions 
concerning the second coming of the Lord or the coming of 
the Lord in judgment seems to be uppermost in Peter's mind 
and in his audience's mind. Let's see here. Notice in chapter 3, verse 14, 
Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent 
to be found by him in peace, without spot and blameless, and 
consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation. In 
other words, the fact that Jesus hasn't returned at the time that 
Peter is writing is indicative of the fact that there are sinners 
to be saved. I've often thought there is a 
last sinner that's going to be saved. Imagine being that sinner. You believe the gospel and then 
the end comes. You think, wow, that's a... That's 
a happy sinner there. He doesn't have to go through 
the daily battles and sanctification and the good that I wish to do, 
I don't do, and the evil I don't want to do, I find myself doing. 
But Peter says, consider the longsuffering of the Lord to 
be salvation. And so when it comes to this 
idea of election and predestination and God choosing sinners to be 
saved, the confession says that's determined. It's in the decree. 
It's not something that is malleable. It's not something that's going 
to move or change. Then notice in paragraph five, 
those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation 
of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable 
purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, 
hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace 
and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition 
or cause moving him thereunto. There's nothing in the creature 
that evokes God's mercy. Wouldn't be mercy. It wouldn't 
be grace. It would be owed to us. It would 
be debt. This is, again, Paul's point 
in the Book of Romans in several places. If it is conditioned 
upon your performance, your free will, your doing, your anything, 
then it's not grace. It's not mercy. It's debt. It's 
payment rendered for good done by the person. It is so contrary 
to the Apostles' argument, to the emphasis on the grace of 
God throughout Scripture, and so contrary to the God described 
to us in chapter 2, that it's us doing, and therefore gaining, 
God's favor and pleasure. What does every sin deserve? 
God's wrath and curse both in this life and that which is to 
come. That's what we deserve. We don't deserve grace. We don't 
deserve mercy. If we did, it wouldn't be grace 
or mercy. It would be debt. It would be payment. It would 
be, you know, quid pro quo. So when it speaks concerning 
this, it looks back again in history to pre-temporal history, 
and it speaks concerning God's choosing us in Christ before 
the foundation of the world. We might refer to that as the 
pactum salutis or the eternal transaction, or a covenant of 
redemption that tweaks the persons of the Godhead to save His people 
from their sins. But that is then fleshed out 
in the Historia Salutis in paragraph 6. Notice, in history, as God 
hath appointed the elect unto glory, so He hath, by the eternal 
and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means 
thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, 
being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ. And then it moves 
into something that we're even more familiar with, the Ordo 
Salutis. So it goes from this eternal 
transaction to the history of redemption and to the application 
of redemption in what we call the Ordo Salutis. Notice in the 
middle of paragraph six are effectually called unto faith in Christ by 
His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, 
and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither 
are any other redeemed by Christ or effectually called, justified, 
adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. So you see 
that great movement, that grand movement in the execution of 
God's holy will. It's from before the foundation 
of the world, the time of history, these events, these redemptive 
events take place in the fullness of the time. God sends forth 
his Son, born of a woman, born into the law, life of obedience, 
death as a sacrifice and substitute, resurrection the third day. The 
work of the Spirit is then to effectually call us out of darkness 
into marvelous light. grant us the graces of faith 
and repentance, justification, adoption, and sanctification, 
and ultimately glorification. This chapter packs a lot of comfort 
and encouragement and confidence into the people of God. Not as 
to their status as the people of God, but in terms of who God 
is in his salvation of guilty, vile, helpless sinners. In other 
words, God's purpose is immutable in the saving of His people. 
He is not going to be frustrated. He is not going to be thwarted. 
And just in case there's any questions whatsoever, they're 
going to end this particular paragraph by saying, neither 
are any other redeemed by Christ, or affectionately called, justified, 
adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. In other 
words, this is God's purpose and plan for His people, and 
it's going to come to pass most certainly and most assuredly. So if you are the people of God, 
you have been justified freely by His grace, you ought to take 
some time to express gratitude and praise and honor and glory 
to this God for what He has wrought in your life. If you've been 
effectually called, if you've been justified by God's grace 
through faith, if you've been adopted and are being sanctified, 
What is the response of the people of God but to magnify His glory 
and His honor and His praise? When we go to sing praises this 
morning, we do it as the blood-bought children of God. When we think 
in terms of the gospel, we contemplate it and we ponder it as blood-bought 
children of God, as that place where our life has come. We think 
about Jesus as the altogether lovely and the chief among 10,000. We see our dependence upon the 
Holy Spirit and we pray for His presence among us in worship. 
In other words, if God has purpose to do this and we are the recipients 
of it, it ought to affect the way that we worship. It ought 
to affect the way that we evangelize and we talk about our Lord Jesus. 
It ought to affect the way that we pray, the way that we live, 
the way that we conduct ourselves, the way that we fret or don't 
fret better when we come to various difficulties and hardships in 
our lives. So notice then this capstone statement in paragraph 
7, based on all that has been said prior to this. It's not 
just heady theory with reference to the decree of God. Oh, that's 
just for the theologians to discuss supra- and infralapsarianism. 
No, it's for the saint of Christ to find great encouragement in 
his God. So notice, paragraph 7, there 
needs to be a proper heart disposition. This is anti-hyper-Calvinistic 
language. men attending the will of God 
revealed in his word." That means you come to scripture and you 
listen to the voice of God and you don't lean on your godless 
rationalism that says, well, if God is absolutely sovereign, 
there's no place for second causes. There's no place for anything 
other than God is the first. You're not listening to the word 
of God. You're not listening to the revealed will of God. 
But notice, it is to be handled with special prudence and care. 
That doesn't mean we never talk about it. That doesn't mean we 
never share it. I think sometimes people get 
that. Well, the decree, I can't talk 
to an Arminian about that. They'll lose their minds. Maybe 
the Arminian needs to lose his mind over that. Maybe the Jehovah's 
Witness needs to lose his mind over that. Thank you. I don't 
need to lose my mind. Some more coffee's good. All 
right, that's good. Thank you very much. Just a personal 
autobiographical note. I had a guy I used to work with 
at Northrop Grumman. And he was a professing Christian. 
And we used to talk about things. And he started asking me about 
predestination and about election. And he started bringing his Bible 
to work. And we worked in a control center. I was on one end. He 
was on the other. So we got into predestination one night, an 
election. And he thought I was out of my 
mind. And I said to him, You've got 
your Bible, open it up and read Romans 9. I have never seen this 
in my life, where somebody got what Paul was saying. He became 
visibly disturbed as he was reading, because it said what I said it 
said. And it didn't because I said 
it. I just simply said what Paul says. And this guy was reading 
it and he got visibly shaken. And he looked up at me and he 
said, if this is true, then it makes us puppets. And I said, 
no, it makes us pots. That's what Paul's illustration 
is. God's the potter and we're the 
pots, we're the vessels. I have talked to, you know, this 
guy, I wasn't sure he was a real believer. I'm sure you meet people 
like that. They get a bit religious, they 
ask some hard questions. might look into it in their Bible. 
I've met real believers that don't get Paul's argument in 
Romans 9. They can read it and still maintain Arminianism. I just don't understand that. 
How do you get it? So we have this idea that the 
decree is for up here, for the theologians. No, it's for all 
of us, but handle it with special prudence and care. Understand 
that there's going to be some things you don't understand. 
And don't be a rationalist and be Paul's objector in Romans 
9 and say things, well that doesn't sound fair then. Why does he 
still find fault with me? If he's absolutely sovereign 
and has decreed everything that comes to pass, even knows the 
number of the hairs on my head, or when a sparrow falls out of 
the earth, well then he's not You know, shouldn't shock him 
when I go out and sin tomorrow. You're not supposed to argue 
that way or reason thus. You're supposed to shut your 
mouth, according to the Apostle Paul there in Romans 9. So it's 
not saying don't ever handle the doctrine of predestination. 
Don't ever handle the doctrine of the decree. Don't ever talk 
to anybody about this except the initiates, those who come 
to the confession study. Those are the kinds of people 
that you can talk to it about. No, do it, but be prudent. Understand there is mystery here. Understand that it is the infinite 
who's revealed himself to the finite. And there's just some 
pegs we can't square. There's just some things that 
we can't fix in our minds rationally every jot and tittle. I'm sure 
that all of us at some point struggle with certain aspects 
of the absolute sovereignty of God. Right? You live in a godless 
world where abortion is rampant. I mean, there's times when I 
would think, God, stop the abortionists. Smash their teeth. Destroy their 
instruments. Keep them from engaging in that 
kind of lawlessness. Well, whatever God's purpose 
and plan is, whatever the judge of all the earth does is right. 
And I need to be in that spot and find comfort in the doctrine 
of the decree. Now, notice then, it goes on 
to speak of worship. So after men yielding or attending 
the will of God revealed in his word and yielding obedience there 
unto may from the certainty of their effectual vocation be assured 
of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford 
matter of praise, reverence and admiration of God. praise, reverence, 
and admiration of God. I've thought about this a lot 
lately in terms of some of the objections we hear with some 
of our higher Calvinistic brethren in our community, that it's presumption 
to confess faith in Christ. It could be, there's fakers, 
there's false. But it's also presumption to 
determine there's no hope for you based on an open Bible. Did 
you get special revelation that excludes you? So whoever believes 
on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved, you're presuming that 
that can't be you? How is that not presumption? 
How is that not bad? How is that not reading into 
the Bible or taking from the Bible something that is there 
for everybody who can read and everybody who can internalize 
it? So if it's presumption to confess Christ, I would say it's 
presumption to not as well. And if you're gonna presume, 
you might as well err on the side of confessing the way that 
God says to, because this is his commandment that we believe 
in the name of the Son of God. So, you know, I get it. We don't 
want to presume upon God. But it is to presume upon God 
when we consign ourselves to the doctrine of reprobation personally 
and practically. You don't have the right, you 
don't know the mind of God. How do you know your reprobate? 
You say, well, I don't know if I'm elect, so I shouldn't believe. 
Well, you don't know that you're reprobate, so you should believe. You can flip these presumptions 
right over on their heads. We only ever think of presumption 
in one way? What about all the presumption 
in the other way? You're presuming that what God 
is saying is not true? You're presuming that believe 
on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved is incorrect? or that you, delicate snowflake 
that you are, super sinner beyond any other sinner that's ever 
been saved, except Paul, cannot be saved. There's presumption 
built in to hyper-Calvinism that runs the exact opposite to Ratched, 
but it's okay. It's perfectly acceptable. It's 
not okay, and it's not acceptable, and brethren, call them out. 
If it's presumption to confess faith in Christ, it's gotta be 
presumption to not confess faith in Christ. But for us, from the 
certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their 
eternal election, so shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, 
reverence, and admiration of God, and then notice, it ought 
to provoke humility, and of humility. In other words, if you understand 
the God of chapter 2 and the way the God of chapter 3 executes 
his decrees through creation and providence and redemption, 
there's no room for pride. Man, I'm so smart, I chose for 
Jesus. No, that's not something you 
can congratulate yourself for. I'm so good, I deserved God's 
favor. No, this is a humility-inducing 
doctrine. It's supposed to keep us low. 
Thou didst hide these from the wise and prudent, but didst reveal 
them unto babes. That's the proper disposition. And then notice diligence. Whatever 
the framers of our confession in Westminster and Savoy were, 
they were not hyper-Calvinists. They were not hyper-Calvinists. They did not rationalize the 
scripture in one direction. Notice, diligence. Who would 
think that the decree of God and his wise, holy, powerful 
government of all his creatures and all their actions would induce 
man to diligence? Well, the Bible tells us that, 
right? And they pick up on that. The 
decree should not lead to indolence. It should not lead to hyper-Calvinism. It should not lead to not taking, 
you know, vitamins because God's sovereign. It shouldn't lead 
to not wearing seatbelts because God is sovereign. I don't want to get into the 
seat belt discussion here. That would be a rabbit trail 
that ultimately God is over, but I don't want to do that. 
But the diligence. Hyper-Calvinism is not just not 
coming to Jesus, but it's a fatalistic mindset. Well, God's absolutely 
sovereign, so it doesn't matter if I eat right or not. Well, that's not what the decree 
is supposed to be. you should ingest lots of protein 
and fat. Why? Because God decreed in his 
government of all his creatures and all their actions that protein 
and fat are good for the body. See, hyper-Calvinism is bad in 
the practical realm as well. And then notice, it affords abundant 
consolation. Don't you love our confession? 
It sets forth, I mean, glorious high doctrine, the decree of 
God, paragraphs 1 to 6, and then in paragraph 7. And this is what 
it should mean to you. This is how it should affect 
you. and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the 
gospel." Abundant consolation. I want to quote Davis, Ralph 
Davis, his commentary actually on 2 Kings, and he's dealing 
with Sennacherib. And on 2 Kings 19, this is in 
his commentary, he says, predestination, of course, makes some Christians 
nervous. They shudder at the mention of 
the P word. All I can say is, if you don't 
want predestination, well then, go ahead and live a comfortless 
life, bite your nails, and swallow your tranquilizers, and eat your 
guts out as you watch the evening news. Some of us prefer, however, 
the pillow of predestination, that is, of having a God big 
enough that He is never surprised by the blathering Sennacheribs 
of this age. I much agree with that. I think 
that's a very good practical observation, and in essence, 
what our guys were getting at when they said, abundant consolation 
to all that sincerely obey the gospel. Well, let us pray. Our 
Father in heaven, we thank you for this wonderful truth that 
you are over all things, that you govern all your creatures 
and all their actions, and you do so according to your own holy 
wisdom and power and glory manifested in the creation and in the written 
word. And we thank you for so great 
a salvation. May it affect us as we worship 
this morning and evening, and may it affect us as we live in 
light of these wonderful truths. And we ask this through Jesus 
Christ, our Lord. Amen. Well, any questions or 
comments on any of that? Yes, sir? So how do you respond 
to the verse that says that God, who uses the that he wishes that 
none should perish. Yeah, I respond to that by saying 
that what is going on in that particular passage is a revelation 
of God's benevolence, his goodness. I think the difference between 
predestination unto life and reprobation is there's a manifestation 
of God's glory in terms of justice, but it's not a sadistic, burning 
ants type of an approach. The vindication of God's glory 
and justice, it's not an expression of sadism. It's not an expression 
of a ghoulishness on the part of God to just get these people. So that would be the larger context. 
When it comes to those particular passages where God does not wish 
that any should perish. I would say the elect primarily 
are the target audience there. He doesn't wish that, or he hasn't 
decreed that the elect perish and that there is no wish on 
his part that they do. But in terms of reprobation, 
yeah, there's gonna be perishing. One further comment. One way 
of dealing with the issue of reprobation versus predation 
is, well, the concern is that does God stand behind the act 
of election versus reprobation in the same way, causally? So 
an analogy that one could use is like, OK, if you take, let's 
say, food. on a plate that's just room temperature, 
right? Does God stand behind it in the 
same way that someone who takes that food and puts it in the 
oven and takes this other food and puts it in the oven and brings 
them both to a certain temperature, right? Is that the way in which 
the person stands behind it both and acts and decrees in the same 
way? That's the problem that's called 
sometimes by theologians double jeopardy. And so then the idea 
is that that might lead to God having guilt in terms of him 
acting in a way, causally bringing it about, in a sense, in the 
same way as the elect. And the language of passing over, 
the Weavers Hawaii Committee use that language, but they still 
refer, hold to double predestination. to a higher temperature and bringing 
the food to a higher temperature. Rather, the causality is different 
than that. For the electric, it's like bringing up food, turning 
the heat up, right? So you're actively involved in 
it. Whereas in the cold, you've decreed that you're no longer, 
you're not going to warm this up. You don't want this food. 
So what you actually do is you, it's not quite, okay. So it's 
like removing the heat, right? So the way that like, The presence 
of heat, even in a food that's in room temperature, there's 
still heat in it, right? But in the sense of if you let 
all the heat go, like God can let all the heat go so it actually 
freezes, right? So it's a kind of absence of 
being or an absence of something, namely heat, or the absence of 
light. There's ways you can speak about 
that. So the causality is not the same. So it's a kind of removing 
of action rather than act. Well, I get the distinction in 
terms of that discussion, but when it comes to this particular 
scriptures, it really, to parse it out like that, I get the helpfulness 
of it, but he hides gospel truth from some, and he reveals it 
to others, and he makes out of the same lump. seems to envisage 
a God that is as active in the reprobation of the non-elect 
as in the predestination unto life as the elect. Again, those 
are good helps and good distinctions, and certainly one that would 
take us far astray from a simple study here in chapter 3. But 
yeah, thank you. Anyone else? Yeah, they'll figure it out for 
us. They'll crack the code. Yeah, it's good. And it will 
be here before we know it, especially since we're trying to put a book 
together for Richard Barcelos. I'm not being live-streamed here. 
Pray for that, brethren. There's stuff to do. All right, 
any other comments? No? Arjun, you're not? Okay, 
well, not for sure.