Paul was the great champion of
the gospel. He received it by revelation
from Jesus Christ. He didn't learn it in the seminary
or from other men or from the other apostles. He learned it
directly from the Lord Jesus Christ. And so, I'd like to begin
with his passage concerning what the gospel is. If you look at
verse 4, first of all, who gave Himself for our sin that He might
deliver us from this present evil world according to the will
of God and our Father. Now look at verse 6, I marvel
that you are so soon removed from Him that called you into
the grace of Christ unto another gospel, which is not another,
but there be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel
of Christ. But though we are an angel from
heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have
preached unto you, let him be anathema accursed. As we said
before, so say I now again, if any preach any other gospel unto
you than that that you have received, let him be accursed. For do I
now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet please men, I should
not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren,
that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of
man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus
Christ. Now again, my subject is the
rotten pillars of Arminianism. In fact, I want to say the two
rotten pillars of Arminianism. Now, in the beginning, I should
make, I think, an open confession that I got the title for this
message and I also got the idea for this message from reading
a one-page endorsement of the book by John Owen, The Death
of Christ, by a minister of the gospel named Stanley Gower. Stanley Gower was alive about
the 1600s and I'd never read anything else, I wish I could,
never heard any other book, never heard anything else from this
particular minister of the gospel. Anyway, my point is that Gower
referred to Arminianism as, and I'm quoting, an egg of old Pelagianism."
Now this is meant to be an intentional insult unto Arminianism. Pelagianism, as you know, is
named after the heretic Pelagius a British monk in about the fourth
century who denied original sin and taught that the will of man
was capable of turning to God without the aid of divine grace
or mercy. In other words, he taught and
unconditional, unlimited free will of man. When we examine
Arminianism, we see that there are two main tenets upon which
it stands and which it propagates. There are two doctrines that
are given the most prominent place in the preaching and what
they call the gospel in Arminianism. It seeks to walk and to stand
upon these two legs. Or in keeping with our main title
or subject, Arminianism puts all of its weight and all of
its strength upon these two rotten pillars. The whole of Arminianism
can actually be summed up under or by two heads. Or let's let
Brother Stanley Gower set the tone by his direct words. Quote, there are two rotten pillars
on which the fabric of late Arminianism doth principally stand, unquote. And what they call their gospel
may be then summed up under these two propositions, where you meet
or find one, you will also usually find that the other is not far
behind. Where there is the first, there
is the second. They are the inseparable Siamese
twins of Arminianism. What are they, you say? Well,
they are, number one, that God loves every member of the race. This they declare. This they
are adamant about. This they insist upon. God loves everyone without exception. Now, you realize this means,
of course, that He loved Cain and Pharaoh and Judas. exactly
the same as he loved Noah, Abraham, Moses, Sarah, Isaiah, John, Paul,
and the Apostle Peter. It means that he loves the ones
in hell as much as he loved the ones that are in heaven. But Arminianism cannot jump around
on the one leg or else it will fall. So the second concomitant
doctrine is this. The other half of their gospel
is, not only does God love everyone without exception, but Christ
died for everyone without a single exception. That means again,
he died as much for Cain, as much for Pharaoh, as much for
Esau, as much for Judas, as he did for Peter, and Paul, and
Mary, and Martha, and John, and so on. Now, it is common for
Arminians to openly and publicly declare these things. whether
it be to a single individual or whether it be to a mixed congregation
of people, all kinds of people. They make sure to tell them any
and all, no matter their condition, no matter who they are, no matter
what they've done, no matter how they are living, God loves
you and Christ died for each and every one of you. They carry
it this far. God loves all of you, Christ
died for all of you, even if you are never saved and never
come to the saving knowledge of Christ and even if you fall
down into the torments of hell. That even if you perish in your
sin, God loves you and Christ has died for you. You will go
to hell, they say. You will perish, they say, in
spite of God's love for you and by walking through or over the
blood of Jesus Christ, which was shed for you. That if you
perish, It will be in spite of God loving
you and Christ having died for you. Now, let's make some concessions
in regard to the teaching of Arminianism. We will grant some
things without agreeing with their two main premises just
mentioned. We will freely grant with them
and to them the following two things. Number one, these two
things are far more pleasing to sinners than any other type
of gospel. These two things are far more
pleasing in the ears of sinners than is the doctrine of sovereign
grace. It does much to lessen the offense
of the cross. It deludes sinners into thinking
that salvation is at their discretion and at their choice. They had
much rather be told, God loves all, rather than to hear that
God's love is particular and discriminating. Rather than hear,
Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated." They had rather hear
that the final decision is theirs instead of hearing of the absolute
sovereignty of God. They had rather believe in free
will than to believe in the absolute sovereign will of God. So that, if faced with a choice,
between Arminianism and sovereign grace, they will choose that
which is the more soothing and pleasing sound upon their ears. We grant that. The second thing
that we will grant, theirs is the more popular preaching and
doctrine with more people in the world and has been ever since
it was born. Far more believe and follow Arminianism
than follow after the doctrines of grace. Nearly every major
denomination is in Arminianism and is eat up to the heart with
it. Yes, they have the numbers and
no doubt would make the claim that their greater numbers are
an evidence that the blessing of God is upon them and their
doctrine. Paul's spirit was stirred within
him when he stood in the city of Athens in the marketplace
in Acts chapter 17 and he saw the city wholly given over unto
idolatry. We look out today upon Christendom,
we see it for the most part given over unto Arminianism. Study the words in the Scripture. Few and many, or many and few. You will find that the many are
on the side of error and the few on the side of right. Is this the blessing of the Lord
upon them? We would answer, nothing is to
be blessed or to be judged according to the number of people that
are said to believe in it. This is not the measure either
of truth or of error by the number of people that espouse it. In fact, we use the measuring
stick of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said in Luke chapter 16 and
verse 15, that which is highly esteemed among men is an abomination
unto God. Let that sink into our mind. That which is highly esteemed
among men is an abomination in the sight of God. That that men
love, that that is popular with them, that which they espouse
can be said to be an abomination in the sight of God. So let me
say right in their face, we are not in the least impressed by
a church with 10,000 members. Because we have learned that
the biggest heretics and the biggest liars have the biggest
followers in our day and in our time. Now a third concession
we will make, they make a faulty use of their favorite proof text,
such as the words world, all the world, and the whole world. Wherever Armenians see these
words in the scripture, They assign unto them a universal,
a strict universal sin. That is, that world means everyone
without a single exception. Everyone is included by the use
of the word world, and if not world, then all the world, and
if not all the world, then certainly by the whole world. But they're
not only dishonest, but they are inconsistent in handling
these words and these sayings in the Scripture. For it is obvious
at times in the Scripture, the word world, all the world, and
the whole world cannot mean everyone without exception if they are
honest. For example, take Luke chapter
2 and verse 1. There is where the word world
is used. There went out a decree from
Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. All the world should be taxed
or registered or enrolled as it is. Now this pertained only
to the subjects of the Roman Empire and not to the American
Indians and people in the Isles of the Sea. Again in John 12
and verse 19, some of the Pharisees saw people following Jesus and
they said this, the whole world is gone after Him. The world! is gone after Him. Can this be
everyone without exception? Of course not. For they themselves
had not gone after Him. At times in the Scripture, the
word world refers to the Gentiles. I think that's its meaning in
John 3.16. I know that's its meaning in
Romans 11, verse 11 through verse 15, where world and Gentile are
used interchangeably and contrasted there from the Jew. In 1 John,
the little epistle of 1 John, chapter 2 and verse 2, again
in chapter 5 and verse 19, we have this expression, the whole
world. In both of those verses, the
whole world. Now, it is contrasted in both
of them from another set of people, and cannot mean, therefore, all
without exception, as in both places John is making a contrast
in 1 John 2-2 between us and the whole world, and in 1 John
5-19, between the world that lieth in wickedness and we that
are of God." Now, having said all of that, we come to the two
leading tenets of Arminianism to look them over. Number one,
God loves everyone without exception. Without exception. None are accepted. Not even Esau, for they have
a way of explaining that away. Secondly, Christ died for all,
equally and alike, no exception, everyone included. So we come
to consider that question. Does God love everyone without
exception? Armenians insist unequivocally,
yes. He loves everyone without exception. He loves the worst. He even loves
them that continue in sin until the day that they die. Then we can raise the question,
does He love those in hell right now, this moment, this morning? Is His love toward them and upon
them the same as it was? when they were young, or when
they were middle-aged, or when they were old, or when they breathed
their last breath. Now, how shall they answer that
question? God declares that His love is
everlasting. Jeremiah chapter 31 and verse
3. Listen. I have loved thee with an everlasting
love, therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn you. Loved and drawn. Let's not miss
the connection. Paul says something in Romans
8, 35-39, that nothing shall separate us from the love of
God which is in Christ Jesus Our Lord. And he names several
things there that cannot affect that separation of us from the
love of God. Now, out of love, God gave His
Son. Out of love, the Son gave Himself
for us to have eternal life. As in John 3 and verse 16, God
so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. Paul says of himself personally
in Galatians 2 and verse 20, Christ loved me and gave Himself
for me. Though God in Christ loved all
of the elect, Paul, as all can, speaks in a personal sin, the
Son of God loved me and gave himself for me. Now the question
is this, how can they perish that are the objects of God's
love? How shall they not have the benefit
of the love of God? How shall God love with so great
a love and it yet come to nothing with the majority of people in
the world today. What? God loves some and they
are no better off for it. The objects of God's love lost
forever. and forever and forever. His
love never bring them to that good that it intended for them
and designed for them. How can it be? Now, the love
of God is not only eternal, everlasting, It is also unconditional. There is no cause in the objects
of God's love as to why God fixed His love upon this one or upon
that one. Nothing in any person merits
or brings to them the love of God. He loves them for Christ's
sake. God's love did not commence in
time, not when we were born, not when we were young, not when
we believed, or such like. Also, the love of God is immutable,
like God. All of His attributes are immutable. They are ever the same, never
changing, never at an end, never more, and never less. It knows no variableness nor
shadow of turning the love of God just like all of His attributes. And God will give eternal life
to those that He loves. Consider Ephesians 2 and verse
4 a moment. He will show mercy unto eternal
life for His great love wherewith he loved us." Hear what Paul
is saying about mercy and the love of God. Paul there speaks
of the saving process in chapter 2 of Ephesians. He mentions mercy,
love, quickening, or regeneration, and grace among some things that
are evident in the saving of his people. Now the Arminian
knows only the mauling, mushy, humanistic kind of love that
they attribute unto God, and often they liken it to the love
of a mother or a father. And by the Arminian view of the
love of God, His love is in vain unto many. For it does not benefit many
of the objects of God's love in the way He intended, and is
therefore of no comfort unto any. Don't take comfort in the
love of God, my friend, if those that God loves may perish. They cannot put forth the love
of God as a source of hope or comfort or assurance, since those
that He loves and that he gave his son for may be lost forever
and forever." Now, I think that the question is at least worthy
of a consideration this morning. when and with a view to what
state? When and with a view to what
state was the love of God first fixed upon the objects of the
love of God? Of course, it was before the
world ever began, for His love is everlasting. But my question
for consideration is after this fashion. whether he fixed his
love upon some that he viewed them as fallen or unfallen. When did God fix his love? In the purpose and decree of
God, whether upon the fallen or the unfallen, in the fallen
mass or the unfallen mass. I think it best fits with the
unfallen mass. And yet even the fall and corruption
of the race did not cancel nor even lessen the love of God. For the love of God, like all
of His attributes, remains immutable. Once His love is fixed upon a
person, it is never rescinded, and is therefore effectual. Those that God loves shall have
the blessings of good that God intends toward them and to bestow
upon them. We mentioned Ephesians 2 and
verse 4. Mercy is made there. to be a by-product of the love
of God. Listen to it. God, rich in mercy
for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were
dead in trespasses and in sin, has quickened us. Let us not forget it was by redeeming
from sin that God's love has been manifested. There's not
a greater manifestation, nor could there be, of the love of
God than the redemption of sinners from their sin. Listen to Paul
in Romans 5 now and verse 8. God commended His love toward
us. That is, He demonstrated or He
manifested His love towards us. How? In that Christ died for
us when we were yet sinners. Universal love is an insult to
the particular effectual love of God. There is no ground for
assuring every God-hating rebel that he is a special object of
the love of God. Let me say this and hear me.
Jesus never did that, and neither did the apostles. And I'm going
to say it again. There is no ground for telling
God-hating rebels that they are the objects of the love of God. Jesus never did that, and neither
did the apostles. We'll look at it more later.
Now, the second rotten pillar of Arminianism is universal atonement. They preach that Jesus literally,
actually died for the sins of all without exception. Listen
to that. For all sin, of all men and women
without exception. That many that Jesus died for
can and do perish. That's our men in doctrine. I'm
not making it up. They believe that those that
God loved and those that Christ died for can and do perish. Now here is the heading of chapter
4 of a book written by that old Armenian John R. Rice, once a
high priest of fundamental Baptists in the United States. The name
of the title, chapter 4, is this, and I quote, Christ's atoning
debt paid for the sins of every person ever born, unquote. Then here's an excerpt from that
chapter. And again, I'm quoting verbatim,
word for word, his words. Quote, Every person ever born
has had his sins paid for. He could have been forgiven if
he would. He could have been a child of
God if he would. The atonement of Jesus Christ
on the cross paid for the sins of every poor sinner ever born."
This is the standard view of Arminianism. With this, the earlier
Armenians also were in agreement. That it was not a definite redemption
of any, but only a potential and conditional reconciliation. Now I'm going to quote the very
words of some older, old-time Armenians. Here's what some of
them said. Quote, the efficacy of the death
of Christ depends wholly on us. It cannot be otherwise." They
even admit that it could have been that none of the human family
were saved. Such was the arrangement of the
death of Christ. They always argue the death of
Christ is not effectual unto any person unless and until they
accept it as their own. That the debt is paid all right,
but it is not effectual because it must be accepted by the individual
for it to take effect in heaven. You can see that this notion
is in deference unto their darling, beloved idol of free will, lest
this Dagon-like idol of theirs fall on its face and its arms
be broken off as happened to the god Dagon in 1 Samuel chapter
5. When asked How can Jesus die
for one and that one not be saved? Their answer is usually, because
they did not believe or because they did not accept it. Now we
answer, Jesus paid that debt that he paid to God's justice
and God accepted that as payment. Jesus paid the payment to God
and God accepted it and it is paid in full and no other price
is required. Now if we wanted to, we could
poke the Arminian in the eye with a sharp stick and ask them,
What of the very young? What of the demented? What of
the imbecile? What of the feeble-minded? What
of the Alzheimer patient, incapable of consciously and deliberately
accepting the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ? But we won't
do that. Now again the point out that
Armenians make, no protest against double jeopardy. You ought to
consider this. Consider this point that we are
embarking on. They have no problem that the
debt of sin be required twice by God. First at Christ's hand
and then again at the hand of many who perish. That notwithstanding
the fact that Christ in his death, to quote Rice, paid for the sins
of every person ever born, unquote, and still many of those same
persons suffer for the same sin that Jesus paid for in the afterlife. Is God so unjust that He would
require a double payment? Will he not look upon the blood
of the cross and say, it is enough? If Jesus indeed, quote, paid
for the sins of every person born, unquote, then none of them
should be lost forever. For Jesus said His blood was
shed for many for the remission of sin. Matthew 26, 28. My blood
shed for many What for? For the remission of
sin. The angel said in Matthew 1.21
to Mary, to Joseph, he shall save his people from their sin. Not try, not make it possible,
not give them a condition or potentiality. He shall save his
people from their sin. I'm saying to you that Jesus
limited the scope of his death as being for his sheep. John chapter 10 verse 15. I lay down my life for the sheep. But in that same chapter, he
pointedly excludes them as not being his sheep. John 10 and
verse 26. Some he never knew. Matthew 7.
Remember that? Lord, we've done many wonderful
works. We've cast out devil. I'll profess
unto them, I never knew you. Now, kind of coming down the
home stretch, concerning Arminianism, we must say of it, I believe,
that even at its best and even at its worst, It is nothing but
religious humanism. Now I'll say that again. It is
religious humanism, Arminianism. It is humanism dressed up in
religious garb. Why is it humanism? Because it
is centered around and revolves around man. It exalts man's ability
to save himself and to bring himself to salvation and to Christianity. It exalts man's ability to lift
up himself, and that's what humanism is, to control his salvation. reading the old Puritan John
Owen, rightly did the author Owen say in a very lengthy writing
that he called a display of Arminianism, but he called Arminians, quote,
the modern blinded patrons of human self-sufficiency," unquote. Humanism, lifting up themselves. Again, he called it a proud Luciferian
endeavor. They are to Christianity what
the Pharisees were unto Judaism, blinded patrons of self-sufficiency. All these things have we done
from our youth up, one said to the Lord. Now, their doctrine
makes a two-fold assault upon the Word of God. One in regard
to God, one in regard unto man. First of all, They overthrow
the sovereignty of God, especially in regard to salvation, and assign
to man an independence of action that gives prominence to their
supposed free will. Number two, they would clear
man of the charge that he has lost all ability to turn to God
in his own strength and ability, when and where and as he pleases. They insist that one can make
themselves to differ from others by reason of their free will. And this is in essence a denial
of original sin and total depravity. But they will go to any length
to protect their idol of free will. Now, to draw to a close,
consider our beginning, the two rotten pillars of Arminianism. One, God loves all without exception. Number two, Christ paid for the
sins of all without exception, and Arminians Tell any and every
sinner, God loves you, Christ died for you. Now we say, take
this challenge. Here's a challenge that we throw
down the gauntlet. Show us in the scripture, please. where Christ or the apostles
ever used this formula in dealing with sinners and with people
that they dealt with and that they taught. Where is it written? that they ever told their hearers,
God loves you all and Christ died for every one of you without
exception. I want to tell you the Lord didn't
do that. Our Lord Jesus did not do that. That was not His manner. And if you say, well, what about
John 3.16? It was to correct an error of
the Jew Nicodemus. Now consider the apostles. Do
you find the apostles ever telling groups, God loves you all, Christ
died for every one of you? One of the best occasions to
use that formula, if it was to be used, would be at Pentecost. Consider in Acts the second chapter,
Peter and his preaching, he did not on the day of Pentecost Tell
that crowd of Jews, God loves all of you. Jesus died for every
one of you. He didn't do that down at Carnelius'
house under the Gentile. He just didn't do that. Neither
did Paul in his preaching. Read the apostolic sermon in
the book of Acts. Not once. Is it recorded that
they use the Arminian formula, God loves you all, Christ died
for you all? In fact, you know something?
I think I mentioned this a few weeks ago. Get a concordance. Find that the word love is not
one time in the book of Acts. William Huntington, on a Sunday,
March 13, 1791, in the church he pastored, preached the funeral
of Arminianism. And he said, He said, not because
it was dead, because it was robust and good health and would probably
live a long time gaining strength, but he said, I preach its funeral
now because in the end one day it will die. It will die before
the true gospel. In other words, he said, it is
under a sentence of death, and so he preached its funeral. I
close with a paraphrase of the parable of the wheat and of the
tares. Remember, early on someone sowed
tares among the wheat in the good field of the husbandman. Early on, so soon as the gospel,
the good seed of the gospel, was sown in the field of the
world, while men slept. an enemy of the gospel, sowed
the tares of Arminianism in the churches, and it appears that
they will grow together until the harvest time has come. So the conclusion is, we must
declare the particular, the special love of God, the effectual atonement
of Jesus Christ, for this is what the scriptures tell us.
Is not our Lord and the Apostles our pattern for our preaching,
our teaching, and our dealing with men and with women? So let
us use the pattern that they use. We find it not to be the
pattern of Arminianism.