Romans-Related Topical Applications

True Theology Part 1 of 2

Transcript: AI Transcript

Professor: John Weaver

Subject: New Testament Studies

Genre: Sermon

Dictation Name:

Date: 2012-06-19

Synopsis: In this sermon, Pastor John Weaver introduces the topic of true theology, emphasizing that it must be based on divine revelation rather than human speculation. He contrasts two theological systems: Calvinism, which is God-centered and exalts God, and Arminianism, which is man-centered and exalts man. Weaver provides historical background, explaining that Calvinism did not originate with John Calvin but is rooted in Scripture, while Arminianism traces back to Pelagius and semi-Pelagianism. He recounts the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), where the five points of Calvinism were formulated in response to the Arminian Remonstrance. The sermon sets the stage for a detailed scriptural examination in the following week.

[John Weaver] Romans 11, and notice if you would please, verse 36. Romans 11, verse 36. As you turn there, let me state that the message that I began today, I will not finish until next Sunday. And I am planning an additional two messages after this for further explanation and edification. So I would encourage you to do everything you can to be back here next Sunday because The majority of the message, the main point of the message, will be next Sunday.

[John Weaver] I have been asked repeatedly to deal with this subject by numerous people, and I'm going to do so. The title of the message is True Theology. So I want you to look in Romans 11 in verse 36, one verse. The scripture says, for off him and through him, and to Him are all things to whom be glory forever. Amen. Theology is the science concerning God. Since theology is the science concerning God, it follows that in order for it to be true, it must be based upon divine revelation. Speculation, superstition, private interpretations, have no place in the study of theology. In order to know God, we must study that which He has revealed concerning Himself. If God had not made a revelation concerning Himself, then it would have been absolutely impossible to know God. Now there are several questions that are asked in Job 11 and verse 7, and let me read that for you. Here are the questions. Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? And the answer to both of those questions is absolutely no.

[John Weaver] Man cannot find out God by himself. Man cannot search out God. If God had not been pleased to give us a revelation of Himself, we would know absolutely nothing about God.

[John Weaver] Now our Lord said it like this in Matthew 11 and verse 27. He said, All things are delivered unto me of my Father. Now listen. And no man knoweth the Son, but the Father. Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and He to Whomsoever He revealed Him. So even Jesus Christ said it's impossible to know God apart from Himself. Thankfully, God has revealed Himself in the Bible, which is the written Word of God, but He's also fully revealed Himself in the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the living Word of God. The Bible says in the book of Colossians 2 and verse 9, For in Him, that is in Christ, dwelleth the fullness of the Godhead bodily. So Jesus Christ is God.

[John Weaver] If you would turn in your Bibles, And look, please, at Hebrews chapter 1, beginning there with verse 1. Hebrews chapter 1, verse 1. Notice what is said. God, who at sundry times, and in divers or different manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.

[John Weaver] who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." Now go back to verse 2 and look. The Bible says that God hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son. When you look at verse 1, you understand that in times past, God did speak to the fathers by the prophets in different ways. In the Old Testament, there were dreams, there were prances that God gave to those prophets and those prophets heard the Word of God and they preached those truths unto the people. However, all of that is over, it is past, it is done with because God in these last days has spoken to us by His Son.

[John Weaver] In other words, Jesus Christ is the full and final revelation of God There is no need for anything else. When you try to add to revelation, when you try to say that there have been new or additional revelations since Jesus Christ, such as the Book of Mormon, or Judge Rutherford's works, or someone else, then what you're trying to say is this, that Jesus Christ is not the full and final revelation of God, which would be an insult, not only to Christ, but also to the Father who sent Him. In fact, the Bible says this in John 5 and verse 23, that all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father that hath sent Him. So when you try to say that there have been newer revelations and additional revelations since Jesus Christ, That is an absolute denial of Hebrews chapter 1 verse 2 where the Bible teaches us that God hath in these last days has spoken in us by His Son.

[John Weaver] Now let me tell you something about theology because some of the things I'm going to be telling you today will be new. Some of the things I hope that you already know. But I want to give you a quote by Spurgeon on theology. Charles Haddon Spurgeon has been called the prince of preachers as well as John Owen and some of the other great expositors in time past. But listen to what Spurgeon said concerning theology.

[John Weaver] It has been said that the proper study of mankind is man. I believe it is equally true that the proper study of God's elect is God. The proper study of a Christian is the Godhead. The highest science the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy which can ever engage the attention of a child of God is the name, nature, the person, the work, the doings, and the existence of the great God whom he calls his Father.

[John Weaver] There is something exceedingly improving to the mind in a contemplation of the divinity. It is a subject so vast that all of our thoughts are lost in its immensity, so deep that our pride is drowned in its infinity. Other subjects we can grapple with, in them we feel a kind of self-content, and we go our way with the thought, behold, I am wise. But when we come to this master science, finding that our plumb line cannot sound its depth, that our eagle eye cannot see its height, We turn away with a thought that vain man would be wise, but he is like a wild ass's colt with this solemn exclamation, I am but of yesterday and know nothing. No subject of contemplation will tend more to humble the mind than the thoughts of God. But while the subject humbles the mind, it also expands it. He who often thinks of God will have a larger mind than the man who simply plods along this narrow globe.

[John Weaver] The most excellent study for expanding the soul is the science of Christ and Him crucified, and the knowledge of the Godhead and the glorious Trinity. Nothing will so enlarge the intellect, nothing so magnify the whole soul of man as a devout, earnest, continued investigation of the great subject of the deity." And that is true. I can look at some things and say, I can do that. I know that. I understand that, but when you start trying to delve into the knowledge of God, you come to the realization that you know absolutely nothing and can do nothing. As you begin to study theology, when you begin to study the doctrine of God, it will not be long before you take note of the fact that historically, there have been two approaches to the study of theology. One is a God-centered approach, and the second one is a man-centered approach. The God-centered approach tends to exalt God, and the man-centered approach always tends to exalt man.

[John Weaver] It seems that many people cannot distinguish between man's duty and responsibility and obligations with the work of God, in its origination and its initiation. Now, let me just point something out to show you how God works. If you would examine, and this is based upon what I'm telling you earlier, we can know nothing of God except the fact that God has revealed Himself. If you were to examine Exodus 25 and 26 carefully, you will note, don't turn there now, but you will note when God gave the directions to Moses, for the tabernacle. God began with the ark inside the Holy of Holies. God began with everything on the inside and worked His way out. In chapters 28 and 29, He gave the duties of the priests and the offerings. So here's a picture of everything beginning with God and going outward toward man. You will also notice, as you read the book of Exodus, when Moses set up the tabernacle, he began with the external, with the outside, and then worked his way in to the Ark and the Holy of Holies.

[John Weaver] So here's the picture then of man moving toward God. But now I want you to watch something. Man could not move toward God until God had first moved toward man. So let me ask you a few questions. Do you think that any Old Testament believer would be bold enough and foolish enough to say, it is my salvation, I decided to bring an offering? Do you think any Israelite would think that somehow he approached God first? If God had not ordained the tabernacle, If God had not ordained the priesthood, if God had not ordained the offerings, then no one would have come to Him because no one would have known the way of approach, nor would they have known the offerings, nor would they have known anything that would be acceptable unto God. The movement of God first was absolutely necessary. If God had not moved outward in grace, man could have never ever approached God. So here's what I'm going to do today. I'm going to discuss these two differing theologies. And I want you to see, and I hope by the time we get through next week, you're going to see that one is absolutely biblical and it exalts God, and the other is unbiblical and basically it exalts man at God's expense.

[John Weaver] So I'm going to be using some names I'm going to be using some terms because I want you to be familiar with these. I'm going to be using the name Calvin and Calvinism. And I'm going to be using the name Arminius and Arminianism. However, I want you to understand something. It is not the men or the movements that I wish to focus upon, but rather their differing theologies.

[John Weaver] Obviously, both of them cannot be right. One is right and one is wrong. If I am right, I want to stay right. If I am wrong, I want to repent and be right.

[John Weaver] Now let me tell you something about these terms. A lot of people do not like the terms, but let me explain them. The terms Calvinism and Arminianism are mere handles to pick up a system or a body of thought or theology. A pot and a handle may be in separately connected but they're not one in the same. What is a handle? A handle is merely a convenient way to pick up a pot. So the term Calvinism or the term Arminianism is merely a simple way to pick up a whole system or a whole body of thought or a whole theology. So the handle Calvinism then identifies a theology or a body or a system of thought And the term Arminianism also identifies another system or another body of thought.

[John Weaver] So let me begin by giving you some definitions today. First of all, let's talk about Calvinism. I want you to listen carefully to this definition because I'm immediately going to give you the definition of Arminianism afterwards. Here it is. Calvinism is a comprehensive theological system chiefly distinguished by its view of God and His relationship to man.

[John Weaver] Now, the name of the system is indeed derived from John Calvin. Not because Calvin was the founder of this system, he was not. But he was one of the few men who was a chief exponent of this body of thought.

[John Weaver] Now listen to the definition of Arminianism. Arminianism is a theological system chiefly distinguished by its view of man and his relationship to God. Did anybody see the difference between those two definitions? Calvinism is a comprehensive theological system chiefly distinguished by its view of God and His relationship to man. Arminianism is the theological system, chiefly distinguished by its view of man and his relationship to God.

[John Weaver] Now, the name of the system bears the name of Jacob Arminius, not because he was the founder of it, he was not, but because he was one of the chief exponents of this body of thought. Let me put it like this, this is going to be a summary of everything I'm going to tell you in one sentence. Arminianism began in the proud heart of fallen man. It was espoused by Pelagius, modified by Cassian, defended by Erasmus, defined by Arminius, and popularized by John Wesley. Okay?

[John Weaver] Now, let me give some histories and some facts. Here we go. Calvinism did not begin with John Calvin. Calvin was born on July the 10th, 1509, and he died May the 27th, 1564. If John Calvin had never been born, there would still would have been the doctrines collectively referred to as Calvinism. Those doctrines would still be among us. Why? Because the history of Calvinism is the history of God's plan to create man for his own glory. In short, not only have these doctrines of grace known as Calvinism been around since the days of John Calvin, they were previously known as Augustinianism in the 4th century. And prior to that, they were known as Paulinianism in the 1st century from the writings of the Apostle Paul.

[John Weaver] Moreover, these same doctrines were taught and preached by the Old Testament prophets. Now, I'm trying to give you some facts. First of all, Calvinists do not see themselves as followers of John Calvin. Rather, they see themselves as Christians in the fullest sense of the word. They are men who reject man-made philosophies and seek to discover and declare the grand view of God and His relationship to man as it is set forth in the Scriptures. Those who are referred to as Calvinists Do not follow any man blindly, even John Calvin." They set themselves to follow the clear teachings of the Word of God. Wherever the Scriptures are, there is where Calvinists are.

[John Weaver] When the Scripture is silent, they are silent. When the Scripture speaks, they speak. True Calvinists are exegetes and expositors of the Word of God. They're never Pontiffs or Libertines. They adhere only to the Word of God.

[John Weaver] Now let me just point something out. If you have not done this, I invite you to my library and you can search this out for yourself. But I want you to take note as you begin to study theology. I don't care if you're talking about systematic theology, historical theology, biblical theology, there are all kinds of theologies. But whenever you begin to study, especially systematic theology, I want you to take note of the fact that most of the theological books are written by Calvinists. If you come to my library, you will probably find 25, 30, or 40 books just on theology. And out of those books, only two of them were written by Arminians. And I didn't just particularly pick all those that were written by Calvinists. No, the fact is that it's the Calvinists who do the studying and set forth true It was the Calvinists of the 15th and 16th centuries that produced the great expositors of the 17th and 18th centuries.

[John Weaver] Now, let me give you some facts. First of all, I've already said this, but I'm going to say it again. Fact number one, Calvin is not the author, the originator, or the founder of Calvinism. Calvin simply systematized the truths that he expounded from the Bible. Calvin did not invent a new teaching any more than Columbus invented America, or Newton invented the law of gravity. Columbus and Newton simply discovered what was already there all along. Likewise, Calvin just simply uncovered truths that had been in the Bible all along. He was not the first to uncover these truths, and he will not be the last to uncover these truths. So Calvin is not the author, originator, or founder of Calvinism.

[John Weaver] That's interesting since it bears his name. Fact number two. The chief doctrine of Calvinism is not predestination. Anytime you hear the word Calvinist, someone will say, well, you believe in predestination. Well, sure, I believe in predestination because the Bible teaches predestination. But the chief doctrine of Calvinism is not predestination. In the first catechism that Calvin drew up in 1537, predestination is barely mentioned. In his Confession of Faith that was drawn up the same year in 1537, there is no mention of predestination at all. In another catechism and four other confessions attributed to Calvin, the doctrine is mentioned only in passing. And when you get to the first edition of the Institutes, and by the way, the Institutes, if you've never read them, you should. If you've never seen them, you should. The Institutes were the first systematic theology ever published, and they were written by John Calvin. But in the Institutes, which was the first systematic theology, the doctrine is given hardly any place at all. It was only later, in the later editions, when the doctrine of God's grace was that he enlarged upon the doctrine of predestination.

[John Weaver] Now let me tell you why the primary doctrine of Calvinism is not predestination. And the answer is this. Because predestination deals primarily with man and other events. And especially fallen man. The emphasis in Calvinism is on God. God deserves all honor power and glory. And for the Calvinist, God is the center of all things and His name, His glory, His doctrine is a central tenet of Calvinism. Now it is true that predestination may be a fruit or logical scriptural conclusion from the doctrine of God, yet the main doctrine of Calvinism is God.

[John Weaver] Now, I want you to look back at Romans 11 again. and verse 36. And I want you to see this in this light. Romans 11 and verse 36, we read it earlier, where the Bible says, For off him, and through him, and to him are all things to whom be glory forever. Now watch this. For off him, that is originally, and through him, that is providentially, and to him, that is ultimately are all things.

[John Weaver] So the person of God, his attributes, his creation, his redemption, his providence, his eternal purpose, which he purposed in Christ Jesus, is the center or the central point of Calvinism. Henry Meador said it like this. He said, Calvinism has been defined as that system in which God is most highly glorified. and man most deeply abased. Here's fact number three. Calvinism is not restricted to the five points. If you don't know what the five points are, I'll tell you just momentarily. But let me just say this, Calvinism has an unlimited number of points.

[John Weaver] I never will forget when I was in graduate school, We were studying the sovereignty of God, and I would imagine there was at least 100, 150 students in that room. The instructor was a Presbyterian, and supposedly a Calvinist. We were talking about the sovereignty of God, and this one preacher boy in the back said this. He said, I believe that God is sovereign over all the big things, but not the little things.

[John Weaver] And when He said that, before I could stop myself, I said out loud, I did not intend to do it, but I said out loud, oh, what utter blasphemy! And everybody looked at me, including the professor. And I looked at Dr. Neal and I said, Dr. Neal, I'm sorry, I did not mean to make that expression vocal, but if you don't correct that young man, I will.

[John Weaver] I said, because you know that every big thing is made up of series of little things, and if there's anything over which God is not sovereign, God is not God. Dr. Neal looked around and he said, I'm afraid Mr. Weaver is right. Those were his exact words, I'm afraid. And then he said, well I suppose if there were 20 points to Calvinism, Mr. Weaver would believe them all. I looked at him and I said, Dr. Neal, you know there are only five points to Calvinistic soteriology, that is the doctrine of salvation. But there are multitudinous points to Calvinism because Calvinists speak only when the Bible speaks. So does the Bible speak of the deity of Christ? Yes. Does the Bible speak of justification by faith alone? Yes. Does the Bible speak of sanctification? Yes. Does the Bible speak of the second coming of Christ? Yes. Therefore, Calvinism would have a point on all of those things. So Calvinism is not just simply limited to the five points. And it may surprise you to learn that Calvin had nothing to do with the five points, which are commonly given as Calvinism.

[John Weaver] Calvin's goal, and every Christian's goal, should be to expound and exegete the Word of God in its entirety. There were two cries that were very prominent during the Reformation. One of them was, Sola Scriptura, that is the Scriptures alone, and Tota Scripturas, the Scriptures in total or fully and complete.

[John Weaver] Now, there are five points in Calvinistic Soteriology. Soteriology is the doctrine of salvation. But those five points are the exact same five points that you find listed in Romans 8, 29 through 30. So, I'm not going to go there right now, but they are exactly the same five points. And remember, these only relate to the doctrine of salvation. Okay, fact four. Calvin had nothing to do with the five points which are known as Calvinism. Calvin was born in 1509, he died in 1564. The five points did not come into existence as we know them until 1619. Calvin died in 1564.

[John Weaver] Well, if Calvin did not originate the five points, who did? Where and why were they formulated? Now, here are the five points. They're usually given under the acronym TULIP, T-U-L-I-P. They refer to total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. Now, I think there are a few better terms for some of those points, but that is how they are usually given under the acronym TULIP. So let's ask, how did these points come into existence?

[John Weaver] In order to understand that, you've got to understand Arminianism. Jacob Hermanson lived from 1560 to 1609. This is the man who defined Arminianism for us. His name was Latinized to Jacobus or Jacob Arminius. Arminius was four years old when Calvin died. So they never met. Okay? Fact number one. Arminius is not the founder of Arminianism. William Cunningham in his historical theology wrote this. As there was nothing new in the substance in the Calvinism of Calvin, So there was nothing new in the Arminianism of Arminius. The doctrines of Arminius can be traced back as far as the time of Clemens Alexandrinus and seem to have been held by some of the church fathers of the 3rd and 4th centuries having been diffused in the church through the corrupting influence of pagan philosophy. Pelagius and his followers in the 5th century were as decidedly opposed to Calvinism as Arminius was Though they deviated much further from sound doctrine than he did. Here's fact two. Arminius based his teachings upon the teaching and philosophy of Pelagius.

[John Weaver] And Cassian, who I will mention, who came around a little bit later and taught a modified Pelagianism. Now, let me tell you how awful Pelagius was. What a horrible heretic. Here are seven points that Pelagius espoused. And I got these from Philip Schaff's Church History, Volume 3, page 787-788. Here it is. Here are the seven points that were prominent in the teaching of Pelagius. I do not have to offer scriptural refutation for these points. If you cannot see the total absolute error of these points, we need to go back to step one. Here we go. Here's what Pelagius taught.

[John Weaver] Adam was created mortal and would have died even if he had not sinned. Number two, Adam's fall injured himself alone and not the human race. Number three, Children that come into this world come into the same condition in which Adam was before the fall. By the way, that point is very prevalent in today's educational realm. Tabula Raus, like a blank tablet. In other words, they think every child comes in this world with a blank tablet. That's straight from Pelagius. Number four, Here's what Pelagius taught, the human race neither dies in consequence of Adam's fall, nor rises again in consequence of Christ's resurrection. Number five, unbaptized children as well as others are saved. Number six, listen to this, the law as well as the gospel leads to the kingdom of heaven. Well, that would be true if you could obey the law. But nobody can obey the law. Number seven, Even before Christ, there were sinless men. Now Pelagius taught all of these. Augustine, one of the early church fathers, defended the biblical positions against Pelagius and so devastated Pelagius' teachings that no one wanted to identify with him.

[John Weaver] George Smeaton wrote, Augustine's unanswerable polemic or argument had so fully discredited Pelagianism in the field of argument, that it could no longer be made plausible to the Christian mind. It collapsed. But a new system soon presented itself, teaching that man with his own natural powers is able to take the first step toward his conversion, and that this obtains or merits the Spirit's assistance. So, here's what happened. Pelagius was defeated. He was exposed as an absolute heretic by Augustine. So Cassian came along and what he wanted to do was take some from Augustine and take some from Pelagius and combine them. So Cassian then came on the scene and he then taught a modified or a semi-Pelagian system where he combines from Augustine and from Pelagius.

[John Weaver] Cassian acknowledged that Adam's sin extended to his posterity, and that human nature was corrupted by original sin. But, on the other hand, he held to a system of universal grace for all men alike, making the final decision in the case of every individual dependent upon the exercise of free will. Speaking of those who followed, Cassian Smeaton continues, he says, they held that the first movement of the will and the ascent of faith must be ascribed to the natural powers of the human mind. Their maxim was this, it is mine to be willing and it is on the part of God's grace to assist. I hope you're listening. They asserted the sufficiency of God's grace for all and that everyone according to his own will obeyed or rejected the invitation while God equally wished and equally aided all men to be saved.

[John Weaver] So the entire system basically was a halfway house containing elements of error and elements of truth and not at all really differing from Pelagian and the final result. We have the same theology being preached and taught today. Whenever you hear a preacher say, God has done all that He can for you, now it's up to you. You must take the first step. That's semi-Pelagianism. That's Cassianism. It is saying that you must be willing, and once you are willing, God then is obligated to assist you and to help you.

[John Weaver] So what starts with man ends with man, and it ends up being for man's honor and man's glory. If God only assists in man's salvation, it is still man's salvation. Man is not dead. Man is not impotent. He is alive and has some ability and only needs a little help, according to semi-Pelagianism.

[John Weaver] Now, you're going to ask, what has all this got to do with true theology? And what has all this got to do with the five points? Well, let me try to pull it together for you. In 1610, one year after the death of Arminius, his followers objected to the Belgic Confession of Faith, which was a Reformed or Calvinistic Confession of Faith, and they objected to the Heidelberg Catechism, which was written in Heidelberg, Germany, which of course would have been Reformed or Calvinistic Confession or Catechism as well. And so, since they were against the Belgic Confession of Faith, and against John Calvin, and against Theodore Biza, And any of the followers, or those reformers, they published their objections in a document called the Remonstrance of 1610.

[John Weaver] Now the word remonstrance just simply means to protest, okay? So they were protesting the Reformed faith. So here's this document now, the Remonstrance of 1610, that they drew up. So therefore the Armenians are sometimes called Armenians, sometimes called Remonstrants. So they were protesting then the Reformed faith. What they wanted was to change the Belgic Confession of Faith, to which all of the Reformed churches in Holland and in Europe at that particular time had ascribed to. The Belgic Confession of Faith was written mainly by a preacher by the name of Guido de Bray. He was a Reformed pastor.

[John Weaver] He died as a martyr, by the way, in 1567. So, what they did in this remonstrance of 1610, the Armenians presented five articles to the Dutch Reformed Church of Holland. in the form of this remonstrance or protest and they wanted the churches of Holland to adopt these articles as their standard of faith. Here are the five articles they wanted the church to adopt. Number one, that each person is not spiritually helpless. Each one has a free will and can choose to be saved, which is a denial of total depravity, by the way. Number two, that God chose the elect on the basis of His foreknowledge of who would respond and be saved.

[John Weaver] The election is based upon man's choice and not upon God's choice. The election, therefore, would be conditional and not unconditional. Number three, Christ died for everyone, but the person must choose to accept salvation, a universal atonement, and a denial of effectual atonement. Number four, man can resist God. In essence, man is stronger than God, and God does not have the power or the right to go against man's will. Number five, whether or not man can lose his salvation is not clear. Later this point was changed to definitely teach the possibility of a truly regenerate believer losing his faith in salvation.

[John Weaver] Now I hope you're beginning to see where the five points came from because the Armenians now are presenting these five points and they are saying we want the churches of Holland to adopt this as their standard faith. Now let me explain this a little further. Here is basically what the Arminians were maintaining. They were maintaining that the scripture must be interpreted to teach the following. Number one, that man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot believe the gospel when it is placed before him. Number two, that man is never so controlled by God that he cannot reject the gospel. Number three, God's election of those who shall be saved is prompted by His foreseeing that they will believe based upon their own will and accord. By the way, that's not an election, that's a ratification. Number four, Christ's death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone. There is no such gift. What He died was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe.

[John Weaver] My own comment here is this, I suppose that there would be a possibility that no one would believe therefore. And Isaiah 53 verse 11 would be wrong when he said in Christ you'll see the travail of his soul and be satisfied. Number five, they said this, it rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith. Those who fail here and fall away are lost.

[John Weaver] So that's basically what they wanted the Dutch Reformed Church to accept. Here's what the church did. They called for a national synod. The synod met in Dorket, Holland on November the 13th, 1618. Hence it is referred to, if you want to look it up, as the Synod of Dort, D-O-R-T. The synod consisted of 84 members. and 18 secular commissioners. Out of the 84 scholars, 58 were Dutch and the rest were foreigners, that is from England and other parts of Europe. And the Synod conducted 154 sessions and finally ended on May 9, 1619. Now, let me tell you something about this Synod. The interesting thing is, it didn't matter if you were a biblical scholar or if you were a secular commissioner who happened to have been there. And you will understand why a little bit later some of those commissioners were there.

[John Weaver] Every individual had to take a vow who sat in this senate. I want you to listen to this vow. I promise before God in whom I believe and whom I worship, as being present in this place, and as being the searcher of all hearts, that during the course of the proceedings of this synod, which will examine and decide not only the five points, that is, of the remonstrance, and all the differences resulting from them, but also any other doctrine, I will use no human writing, but only the Word of God, which is the infallible rule of faith, And during all these discussions, I will only aim at the glory of God, the peace of the church, and especially the preservation of the purity of doctrine.

[John Weaver] So help me, my Savior, Jesus Christ. I beseech Him to assist me by His Holy Spirit." All I can say is, wow! If scholars and theologians believed that and would take a vow like that today and do it in search only of the Scriptures, I tend to believe we'd see a change in our country. So here are all these biblical scholars gathering together to consider the five points that the Armenians have presented.

[John Weaver] Now I want you to listen. What happened in the Senate? Well, one of the remonstrants by the name of Simon Episcopius, was one of the spokesmen. And he was summoned to the Synod in 1618, and he really wanted to speak. But here's what he insisted upon. Listen. Episcopius insisted on being permitted to begin with a refutation of the Calvinistic doctrines, especially that of reprobation, hoping that by placing his objection to this doctrine in front of all the rest, he might excite such prejudice against all the other doctrines of the system as to secure the popular voice in his favor." Now, here's what the Synod did. The Synod very promptly reminded him that as the remonstrants were accused of departing from the Reformed faith, they were bound first to justify themselves by giving scriptural proof in support of their opinions.

[John Weaver] The Armenians refused to do this. Did you hear that? They refused to give what they considered scriptural proof for their opinions. And thus, when the Synod would not allow them, therefore, to just go in and try to raise a disturbance, They withdrew.

[John Weaver] Now I want to tell you something. Here are people that have presented five points that they want the Senate to consider. But I want you to listen. They refused, the Armenians refused to answer questions. They refused to submit studies. They refused to submit copies of their positions. And they even denied the authority of the Senate. It was a long and tiresome struggle. So the Senate said, look, just put your objections to the confession of faith in writing. They refused.

[John Weaver] When one of the leaders by the name of Borgermann asked the Arminians if they acknowledged the remonstrance of 1610 as truth, remember, they wrote it. It was their desire that this be accepted. When he asked them if they acknowledged that the remonstrance of 1610 was truth, they all remained silent.

[John Weaver] Finally, on January 14, 1619, the remonstrants were asked again to respond, and they replied that they would not submit to the authority of the synod. One of the leaders of the Senate arose, Bogerman again, and he said this, the foreign delegates, that is those from Europe and England, the foreign delegates are now the opinion that you are unworthy to appear before the Senate. You have refused to acknowledge it as your lawful judge and regarded it as an opposing party.

[John Weaver] You've tried in everything to have your own way. You have despised the decision of the Senate. and of the political commissioners. You refused to answer questions. You declared the credentials to be invalid. Synod has treated you with gentleness, but you have been lying from the beginning to the end, as one of our foreign theologians has remarked. With this eulogy, we will let you go. God will keep His Word, and He will bless the Synod.

[John Weaver] In order that we will not be delayed any longer, you will be sent out. Depart! Go!" And thus they were kicked out. They were kicked out of the Synod. And the Synod proceeded without them. And so what the Synod then did, they considered each of these five points in detail. It was not that they just considered them. They then took them and refuted them with the Word of God. Thus, the five points that are commonly referred to as Calvinism.

[John Weaver] were brought into existence long after Calvin was dead. And the reason there are five points is because the Armenians raised those five points. And therefore, the senate came out and said, no, you are wrong, and here is where you are wrong. And they gave forth the five points as documented by scriptures. Now, one scholar, John Zardewitt, is very, very adamant in his judgment on the Armenians. He says this, Armenians, Arminius and his successors were oath breakers.

[John Weaver] And to avoid the consequence of this offense, they in effect withdrew themselves from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts while claiming to continue as faithful members of the church and place themselves under the protection of the secular power. He goes on to say that a man is rarely honest enough to withdraw himself if his views become incompatible with the confessions of the church, but instead attempts by means of a strange line of reasoning to convert the church to his own understanding of truth. Isn't that true?

[John Weaver] I had one man get upset with me one time at my preaching. I can't understand that. Can you not go and have anybody be upset by my preaching? He told me where I was pastoring at that time, I ought to leave the church. He disagreed with what the scripture said and what I was preaching. And I told him very kindly and lovingly, I said, you know, it would be a whole lot easier for you to leave. If I left, I'd have to move my whole family.

[John Weaver] All you've got to do is walk across the street. And that's true. The amazing thing is this. People, instead of wanting to find out truth and submit to truth, if they differ, they want you to change to them regardless. So the Arminians then were thoroughly and completely refuted and basically denounced as heretical. And I want you to note something. Isn't it amazing? that in 1619, if you were an Arminian, you were a heretic. In 2012, if you're a Calvinist, you're a heretic.

[John Weaver] Because Arminianism has become the standard of the norm. Spurgeon said this. In fact, I'm going to give you several things that Spurgeon said. Spurgeon said, I've heard it asserted most positively, that those high doctrines which we love, and which we find in the Scriptures are licentious ones. I do not know who has the hardyhood to make that assertion, when they consider that the holiest of men have been believers in them.

[John Weaver] I ask the man who dares to say that Calvinism is a licentious religion, what he thinks of the character of Augustine, or Calvin, or Whitefield, or in successive ages, were the great exponents of the system of grace. What will he say of those Puritans whose works are full of them? Had a man been an Arminian in those days, he would have been accounted the vilest heretic breathing.

[John Weaver] But now we are looked upon as the heretics and they are orthodox. Spurgeon said, opposition to divine sovereignty is essentially atheism. Men have no objection to a God who is really no God. I mean, by this, a God who shall be the subject of their caprice, who shall be a lackey to their will, who shall be under their control. They have no objection to such a being as that.

[John Weaver] But a God who speaks and it is done, who commands and it stands fast, a God who has no respect for their persons, but doeth as He wills among the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, such a God as this they cannot endure. I want you to understand that the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is not simply one of emphasis. I've heard all my life. Well, here's the difference. The Calvinists emphasize the sovereignty of God and the Arminians emphasize the responsibility of man. Calvinists emphasize the responsibility of man as well. The difference is not one of emphasis, the difference is one of content. Either salvation is by God or salvation is by man. It cannot be both.

[John Weaver] Spurgeon said, the doctrine of justification itself as preached by an Arminian is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works.

[John Weaver] Further, he said, there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. The nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works, nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God and His dispensation of grace, nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah, nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross, nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called and suffers the children of God to be burned in fires of damnation." Wow. Then he said this, I do not serve the God of the Armenians at all. I have nothing to do with them or with Him.

[John Weaver] I do not bow before the bale they have set up. He is not my God, nor shall He ever be. I fear Him not, nor tremble at His presence. The God that saith the day and denieth the morrow, that justifieth the day and condemns the next, is no relation to my God in the least degree. He may be a relation to Asheroth or Baal, but Jehovah never was nor can be His name." And that's true. The problem is this.

[John Weaver] Arminianism appears as the gospel of Christ, but in reality, it is another gospel. It is a heresy, deadly, and soul-ruining, and all the more so because it is subtle, plausible and popular.

[John Weaver] Now you're going to ask me, how can you prove everything that you've just said from the Scripture? And what really were the conclusions of the Synod of Doric? To that I respond, You're going to have to wait until next Sunday to find out. But I will show you from the scripture how God saves sinners. And it is the work of God and not the work of man. God saves sinners.

[John Weaver] When you hear someone detract and talk about and denounce the five points, you remind them the reason they're said in negative terms is because the Armenians presented the five points positively. And therefore, the five points soteriologically had to be presented negatively because it's refuting the false teachings of the remonstrants and the Armenians. Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we bow to Thee this day. We thank You for Your grace, for Your mercy, for Your love. We pray, Father, that You would help us as we fellowship around a meal together today. And, Father, that we would indeed bring honor and glorify Your name. In Christ's name we pray. Amen.

True Theology Part 1 of 2

John Weaver | YouTube

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	YouTube
Media ID	JDuaTmPv8Rg
Subject	New Testament Studies
Course	Romans-Related Topical Applications
Genre	Sermon
Date	2012-06-19
Dictation Name
Book	Book 151: True Theology — Chapter 1
Source Timed Segments	72

Formatted Transcript

Introduction and Purpose

Weaver announces a multi-part series on true theology, prompted by requests, and reads Romans 11:36 as the foundational text.

Romans 11, and notice if you would please, verse 36. Romans 11, verse 36. As you turn there, let me state that the message that I began today, I will not finish until next Sunday. And I am planning an additional two messages after this for further explanation and edification. So I would encourage you to do everything you can to be back here next Sunday because the majority of the message, the main point of the message, will be next Sunday. I have been asked repeatedly to deal with this subject by numerous people, and I'm going to do so. The title of the message is True Theology. So I want you to look in Romans 11 in verse 36, one verse. The scripture says,

Scripture Reading — Romans 11:36

"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."

Theology is the science concerning God. Since theology is the science concerning God, it follows that in order for it to be true, it must be based upon divine revelation. Speculation, superstition, private interpretations, have no place in the study of theology. In order to know God, we must study that which He has revealed concerning Himself. If God had not made a revelation concerning Himself, then it would have been absolutely impossible to know God. Now there are several questions that are asked in Job 11 and verse 7, and let me read that for you. Here are the questions. "Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?" And the answer to both of those questions is absolutely no.

The Necessity of Divine Revelation

Theology must be based on God's revelation; man cannot know God apart from Scripture and Jesus Christ, the full and final revelation.

I have been asked repeatedly to deal with this subject by numerous people, and I'm going to do so. The title of the message is True Theology. So I want you to look in Romans 11 in verse 36, one verse. The scripture says,

Scripture Reading — Romans 11:36

"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."

Man cannot find out God by himself. Man cannot search out God. If God had not been pleased to give us a revelation of Himself, we would know absolutely nothing about God. Now our Lord said it like this in Matthew 11 and verse 27. He said,

Scripture Reading — Matthew 11:27

"All things are delivered unto me of my Father."

Now listen.

Scripture Reading — Matthew 11:27

"And no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."

So even Jesus Christ said it's impossible to know God apart from Himself. Thankfully, God has revealed Himself in the Bible, which is the written Word of God, but He's also fully revealed Himself in the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the living Word of God. The Bible says in the book of Colossians 2 and verse 9, "For in him," that is in Christ, "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." So Jesus Christ is God.

If you would turn in your Bibles, and look, please, at Hebrews chapter 1, beginning there with verse 1. Hebrews chapter 1, verse 1. Notice what is said.

Scripture Reading — Hebrews 1:1-3

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."

Now go back to verse 2 and look. The Bible says that God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son. When you look at verse 1, you understand that in times past, God did speak to the fathers by the prophets in different ways. In the Old Testament, there were dreams, there were trances that God gave to those prophets and those prophets heard the Word of God and they preached those truths unto the people. However, all of that is over, it is past, it is done with because God in these last days has spoken to us by His Son.

In other words, Jesus Christ is the full and final revelation of God. There is no need for anything else. When you try to add to revelation, when you try to say that there have been new or additional revelations since Jesus Christ, such as the Book of Mormon, or Judge Rutherford's works, or someone else, then what you're trying to say is this, that Jesus Christ is not the full and final revelation of God, which would be an insult, not only to Christ, but also to the Father who sent Him. In fact, the Bible says this in John 5 and verse 23, "That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." So when you try to say that there have been newer revelations and additional revelations since Jesus Christ, that is an absolute denial of Hebrews chapter 1 verse 2 where the Bible teaches us that God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.

Spurgeon on the Study of God

Weaver quotes Spurgeon to emphasize that the proper study of a Christian is God, which humbles and expands the mind.

It has been said that the proper study of mankind is man. I believe it is equally true that the proper study of God's elect is God. The proper study of a Christian is the Godhead. The highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy which can ever engage the attention of a child of God is the name, nature, the person, the work, the doings, and the existence of the great God whom he calls his Father.

There is something exceedingly improving to the mind in a contemplation of the divinity. It is a subject so vast that all of our thoughts are lost in its immensity, so deep that our pride is drowned in its infinity. Other subjects we can grapple with, in them we feel a kind of self-content, and we go our way with the thought, "Behold, I am wise." But when we come to this master science, finding that our plumb line cannot sound its depth, that our eagle eye cannot see its height, we turn away with a thought that vain man would be wise, but he is like a wild ass's colt with this solemn exclamation, "I am but of yesterday and know nothing." No subject of contemplation will tend more to humble the mind than the thoughts of God. But while the subject humbles the mind, it also expands it. He who often thinks of God will have a larger mind than the man who simply plods along this narrow globe.

"The most excellent study for expanding the soul is the science of Christ and Him crucified, and the knowledge of the Godhead and the glorious Trinity. Nothing will so enlarge the intellect, nothing so magnify the whole soul of man as a devout, earnest, continued investigation of the great subject of the deity." And that is true. I can look at some things and say, "I can do that. I know that. I understand that," but when you start trying to delve into the knowledge of God, you come to the realization that you know absolutely nothing and can do nothing. As you begin to study theology, when you begin to study the doctrine of God, it will not be long before you take note of the fact that historically, there have been two approaches to the study of theology. One is a God-centered approach, and the second one is a man-centered approach. The God-centered approach tends to exalt God, and the man-centered approach always tends to exalt man.

Two Approaches to Theology

Historically, theology has a God-centered approach (exalting God) and a man-centered approach (exalting man), illustrated by the tabernacle pattern.

It seems that many people cannot distinguish between man's duty and responsibility and obligations with the work of God, in its origination and its initiation. Now, let me just point something out to show you how God works. If you would examine, and this is based upon what I'm telling you earlier, we can know nothing of God except the fact that God has revealed Himself. If you were to examine Exodus 25 and 26 carefully, you will note, don't turn there now, but you will note when God gave the directions to Moses, for the tabernacle, God began with the ark inside the Holy of Holies. God began with everything on the inside and worked His way out. In chapters 28 and 29, He gave the duties of the priests and the offerings. So here's a picture of everything beginning with God and going outward toward man. You will also notice, as you read the book of Exodus, when Moses set up the tabernacle, he began with the external, with the outside, and then worked his way in to the Ark and the Holy of Holies.

So here's the picture then of man moving toward God. But now I want you to watch something. Man could not move toward God until God had first moved toward man. So let me ask you a few questions. Do you think that any Old Testament believer would be bold enough and foolish enough to say, "It is my salvation, I decided to bring an offering"? Do you think any Israelite would think that somehow he approached God first? If God had not ordained the tabernacle, if God had not ordained the priesthood, if God had not ordained the offerings, then no one would have come to Him because no one would have known the way of approach, nor would they have known the offerings, nor would they have known anything that would be acceptable unto God. The movement of God first was absolutely necessary. If God had not moved outward in grace, man could have never ever approached God. So here's what I'm going to do today. I'm going to discuss these two differing theologies. And I want you to see, and I hope by the time we get through next week, you're going to see that one is absolutely biblical and it exalts God, and the other is unbiblical and basically it exalts man at God's expense.

Defining Calvinism and Arminianism

Calvinism is distinguished by its view of God and His relationship to man; Arminianism by its view of man and his relationship to God.

So I'm going to be using some names. I'm going to be using some terms because I want you to be familiar with these. I'm going to be using the name Calvin and Calvinism. And I'm going to be using the name Arminius and Arminianism. However, I want you to understand something. It is not the men or the movements that I wish to focus upon, but rather their differing theologies. Obviously, both of them cannot be right. One is right and one is wrong. If I am right, I want to stay right. If I am wrong, I want to repent and be right.

Now let me tell you something about these terms. A lot of people do not like the terms, but let me explain them. The terms Calvinism and Arminianism are mere handles to pick up a system or a body of thought or theology. A pot and a handle may be inseparably connected but they're not one and the same. What is a handle? A handle is merely a convenient way to pick up a pot. So the term Calvinism or the term Arminianism is merely a simple way to pick up a whole system or a whole body of thought or a whole theology. So the handle Calvinism then identifies a theology or a body or a system of thought. And the term Arminianism also identifies another system or another body of thought.

So let me begin by giving you some definitions today. First of all, let's talk about Calvinism. I want you to listen carefully to this definition because I'm immediately going to give you the definition of Arminianism afterwards. Here it is. Calvinism is a comprehensive theological system chiefly distinguished by its view of God and His relationship to man.

Now, the name of the system is indeed derived from John Calvin. Not because Calvin was the founder of this system, he was not. But he was one of the few men who was a chief exponent of this body of thought. Now listen to the definition of Arminianism. Arminianism is a theological system chiefly distinguished by its view of man and his relationship to God. Did anybody see the difference between those two definitions? Calvinism is a comprehensive theological system chiefly distinguished by its view of God and His relationship to man. Arminianism is the theological system, chiefly distinguished by its view of man and his relationship to God.

Now, the name of the system bears the name of Jacob Arminius, not because he was the founder of it, he was not, but because he was one of the chief exponents of this body of thought. Let me put it like this, this is going to be a summary of everything I'm going to tell you in one sentence. Arminianism began in the proud heart of fallen man. It was espoused by Pelagius, modified by Cassian, defended by Erasmus, defined by Arminius, and popularized by John Wesley. Okay?

Historical Roots of Calvinism

Calvinism predates Calvin, tracing through Augustine and Paul to the Old Testament; Calvin merely systematized biblical truths.

Now, let me give some histories and some facts. Here we go. Calvinism did not begin with John Calvin. Calvin was born on July the 10th, 1509, and he died May the 27th, 1564. If John Calvin had never been born, there would still have been the doctrines collectively referred to as Calvinism. Those doctrines would still be among us. Why? Because the history of Calvinism is the history of God's plan to create man for his own glory. In short, not only have these doctrines of grace known as Calvinism been around since the days of John Calvin, they were previously known as Augustinianism in the 4th century. And prior to that, they were known as Paulinism in the 1st century from the writings of the Apostle Paul.

Moreover, these same doctrines were taught and preached by the Old Testament prophets. Now, I'm trying to give you some facts. First of all, Calvinists do not see themselves as followers of John Calvin. Rather, they see themselves as Christians in the fullest sense of the word. They are men who reject man-made philosophies and seek to discover and declare the grand view of God and His relationship to man as it is set forth in the Scriptures. Those who are referred to as Calvinists do not follow any man blindly, even John Calvin. They set themselves to follow the clear teachings of the Word of God. Wherever the Scriptures are, there is where Calvinists are.

When the Scripture is silent, they are silent. When the Scripture speaks, they speak. True Calvinists are exegetes and expositors of the Word of God. They're never pontiffs or libertines. They adhere only to the Word of God.

Now let me just point something out. If you have not done this, I invite you to my library and you can search this out for yourself. But I want you to take note as you begin to study theology. I don't care if you're talking about systematic theology, historical theology, biblical theology, there are all kinds of theologies. But whenever you begin to study, especially systematic theology, I want you to take note of the fact that most of the theological books are written by Calvinists. If you come to my library, you will probably find 25, 30, or 40 books just on theology. And out of those books, only two of them were written by Arminians. And I didn't just particularly pick all those that were written by Calvinists. No, the fact is that it's the Calvinists who do the studying and set forth true theology. It was the Calvinists of the 15th and 16th centuries that produced the great expositors of the 17th and 18th centuries.

Now, let me give you some facts. First of all, I've already said this, but I'm going to say it again. Fact number one, Calvin is not the author, the originator, or the founder of Calvinism. Calvin simply systematized the truths that he expounded from the Bible. Calvin did not invent a new teaching any more than Columbus invented America, or Newton invented the law of gravity. Columbus and Newton simply discovered what was already there all along. Likewise, Calvin just simply uncovered truths that had been in the Bible all along. He was not the first to uncover these truths, and he will not be the last to uncover these truths. So Calvin is not the author, originator, or founder of Calvinism.

The Chief Doctrine of Calvinism

The primary doctrine is God Himself, not predestination; predestination is a logical conclusion from the doctrine of God.

That's interesting since it bears his name. Fact number two. The chief doctrine of Calvinism is not predestination. Anytime you hear the word Calvinist, someone will say, "Well, you believe in predestination." Well, sure, I believe in predestination because the Bible teaches predestination. But the chief doctrine of Calvinism is not predestination. In the first catechism that Calvin drew up in 1537, predestination is barely mentioned. In his Confession of Faith that was drawn up the same year in 1537, there is no mention of predestination at all. In another catechism and four other confessions attributed to Calvin, the doctrine is mentioned only in passing. And when you get to the first edition of the Institutes, and by the way, the Institutes, if you've never read them, you should. If you've never seen them, you should. The Institutes were the first systematic theology ever published, and they were written by John Calvin. But in the Institutes, which was the first systematic theology, the doctrine is given hardly any place at all. It was only later, in the later editions, when the doctrine of God's grace was that he enlarged upon the doctrine of predestination.

Now let me tell you why the primary doctrine of Calvinism is not predestination. And the answer is this. Because predestination deals primarily with man and other events. And especially fallen man. The emphasis in Calvinism is on God. God deserves all honor, power, and glory. And for the Calvinist, God is the center of all things and His name, His glory, His doctrine is a central tenet of Calvinism. Now it is true that predestination may be a fruit or logical scriptural conclusion from the doctrine of God, yet the main doctrine of Calvinism is God.

Now, I want you to look back at Romans 11 again, and verse 36. And I want you to see this in this light. Romans 11 and verse 36, we read it earlier, where the Bible says, "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever." Now watch this. "For of him," that is originally, "and through him," that is providentially, "and to him," that is ultimately are all things.

So the person of God, his attributes, his creation, his redemption, his providence, his eternal purpose, which he purposed in Christ Jesus, is the center or the central point of Calvinism. Henry Meador said it like this. He said, "Calvinism has been defined as that system in which God is most highly glorified, and man most deeply abased." Here's fact number three. Calvinism is not restricted to the five points. If you don't know what the five points are, I'll tell you just momentarily. But let me just say this, Calvinism has an unlimited number of points.

Calvinism Beyond Five Points

Calvinism encompasses all biblical doctrines; the five points relate only to soteriology and were formulated after Calvin's death.

I never will forget when I was in graduate school, we were studying the sovereignty of God, and I would imagine there was at least 100, 150 students in that room. The instructor was a Presbyterian, and supposedly a Calvinist. We were talking about the sovereignty of God, and this one preacher boy in the back said this. He said, "I believe that God is sovereign over all the big things, but not the little things." And when he said that, before I could stop myself, I said out loud, I did not intend to do it, but I said out loud, "Oh, what utter blasphemy!" And everybody looked at me, including the professor. And I looked at Dr. Neal and I said, "Dr. Neal, I'm sorry, I did not mean to make that expression vocal, but if you don't correct that young man, I will."

I said, "Because you know that every big thing is made up of series of little things, and if there's anything over which God is not sovereign, God is not God." Dr. Neal looked around and he said, "I'm afraid Mr. Weaver is right." Those were his exact words, "I'm afraid." And then he said, "Well I suppose if there were 20 points to Calvinism, Mr. Weaver would believe them all." I looked at him and I said, "Dr. Neal, you know there are only five points to Calvinistic soteriology, that is the doctrine of salvation. But there are multitudinous points to Calvinism because Calvinists speak only when the Bible speaks. So does the Bible speak of the deity of Christ? Yes. Does the Bible speak of justification by faith alone? Yes. Does the Bible speak of sanctification? Yes. Does the Bible speak of the second coming of Christ? Yes. Therefore, Calvinism would have a point on all of those things." So Calvinism is not just simply limited to the five points. And it may surprise you to learn that Calvin had nothing to do with the five points, which are commonly given as Calvinism.

Calvin's goal, and every Christian's goal, should be to expound and exegete the Word of God in its entirety. There were two cries that were very prominent during the Reformation. One of them was, Sola Scriptura, that is the Scriptures alone, and Tota Scriptura, the Scriptures in total or fully and complete. Now, there are five points in Calvinistic soteriology. Soteriology is the doctrine of salvation. But those five points are the exact same five points that you find listed in Romans 8, 29 through 30. So, I'm not going to go there right now, but they are exactly the same five points. And remember, these only relate to the doctrine of salvation. Okay, fact four. Calvin had nothing to do with the five points which are known as Calvinism. Calvin was born in 1509, he died in 1564. The five points did not come into existence as we know them until 1619. Calvin died in 1564.

Origins of Arminianism and Pelagianism

Arminianism traces to Pelagius and semi-Pelagianism; Pelagius taught heretical views like denying original sin, refuted by Augustine.

In order to understand that, you've got to understand Arminianism. Jacob Hermanson lived from 1560 to 1609. This is the man who defined Arminianism for us. His name was Latinized to Jacobus or Jacob Arminius. Arminius was four years old when Calvin died. So they never met. Okay? Fact number one. Arminius is not the founder of Arminianism. William Cunningham in his historical theology wrote this. "As there was nothing new in the substance in the Calvinism of Calvin, so there was nothing new in the Arminianism of Arminius. The doctrines of Arminius can be traced back as far as the time of Clemens Alexandrinus and seem to have been held by some of the church fathers of the 3rd and 4th centuries having been diffused in the church through the corrupting influence of pagan philosophy. Pelagius and his followers in the 5th century were as decidedly opposed to Calvinism as Arminius was, though they deviated much further from sound doctrine than he did." Here's fact two. Arminius based his teachings upon the teaching and philosophy of Pelagius.

And Cassian, who I will mention, who came around a little bit later and taught a modified Pelagianism. Now, let me tell you how awful Pelagius was. What a horrible heretic. Here are seven points that Pelagius espoused. And I got these from Philip Schaff's Church History, Volume 3, page 787-788. Here it is. Here are the seven points that were prominent in the teaching of Pelagius. I do not have to offer scriptural refutation for these points. If you cannot see the total absolute error of these points, we need to go back to step one. Here we go. Here's what Pelagius taught.

Adam was created mortal and would have died even if he had not sinned. Number two, Adam's fall injured himself alone and not the human race. Number three, children that come into this world come into the same condition in which Adam was before the fall. By the way, that point is very prevalent in today's educational realm. Tabula rasa, like a blank tablet. In other words, they think every child comes in this world with a blank tablet. That's straight from Pelagius. Number four, here's what Pelagius taught, the human race neither dies in consequence of Adam's fall, nor rises again in consequence of Christ's resurrection. Number five, unbaptized children as well as others are saved. Number six, listen to this, the law as well as the gospel leads to the kingdom of heaven. Well, that would be true if you could obey the law. But nobody can obey the law. Number seven, even before Christ, there were sinless men. Now Pelagius taught all of these. Augustine, one of the early church fathers, defended the biblical positions against Pelagius and so devastated Pelagius' teachings that no one wanted to identify with him.

George Smeaton wrote, "Augustine's unanswerable polemic or argument had so fully discredited Pelagianism in the field of argument, that it could no longer be made plausible to the Christian mind. It collapsed. But a new system soon presented itself, teaching that man with his own natural powers is able to take the first step toward his conversion, and that this obtains or merits the Spirit's assistance." So, here's what happened. Pelagius was defeated. He was exposed as an absolute heretic by Augustine. So Cassian came along and what he wanted to do was take some from Augustine and take some from Pelagius and combine them. So Cassian then came on the scene and he then taught a modified or a semi-Pelagian system where he combines from Augustine and from Pelagius.

The Remonstrance and Synod of Dort

In 1610, Arminians presented five articles; the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) refuted them, producing the five points of Calvinism.

Now, you're going to ask, what has all this got to do with true theology? And what has all this got to do with the five points? Well, let me try to pull it together for you. In 1610, one year after the death of Arminius, his followers objected to the Belgic Confession of Faith, which was a Reformed or Calvinistic Confession of Faith, and they objected to the Heidelberg Catechism, which was written in Heidelberg, Germany, which of course would have been Reformed or Calvinistic Confession or Catechism as well. And so, since they were against the Belgic Confession of Faith, and against John Calvin, and against Theodore Beza, and any of the followers, or those reformers, they published their objections in a document called the Remonstrance of 1610.

Now the word remonstrance just simply means to protest, okay? So they were protesting the Reformed faith. So here's this document now, the Remonstrance of 1610, that they drew up. So therefore the Arminians are sometimes called Arminians, sometimes called Remonstrants. So they were protesting then the Reformed faith. What they wanted was to change the Belgic Confession of Faith, to which all of the Reformed churches in Holland and in Europe at that particular time had ascribed to. The Belgic Confession of Faith was written mainly by a preacher by the name of Guido de Bray. He was a Reformed pastor.

He died as a martyr, by the way, in 1567. So, what they did in this remonstrance of 1610, the Arminians presented five articles to the Dutch Reformed Church of Holland, in the form of this remonstrance or protest and they wanted the churches of Holland to adopt these articles as their standard of faith. Here are the five articles they wanted the church to adopt. Number one, that each person is not spiritually helpless. Each one has a free will and can choose to be saved, which is a denial of total depravity, by the way. Number two, that God chose the elect on the basis of His foreknowledge of who would respond and be saved. The election is based upon man's choice and not upon God's choice. The election, therefore, would be conditional and not unconditional. Number three, Christ died for everyone, but the person must choose to accept salvation, a universal atonement, and a denial of effectual atonement. Number four, man can resist God. In essence, man is stronger than God, and God does not have the power or the right to go against man's will. Number five, whether or not man can lose his salvation is not clear. Later this point was changed to definitely teach the possibility of a truly regenerate believer losing his faith in salvation.

Now I hope you're beginning to see where the five points came from because the Arminians now are presenting these five points and they are saying we want the churches of Holland to adopt this as their standard faith. Now let me explain this a little further. Here is basically what the Arminians were maintaining. They were maintaining that the scripture must be interpreted to teach the following. Number one, that man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot believe the gospel when it is placed before him. Number two, that man is never so controlled by God that he cannot reject the gospel. Number three, God's election of those who shall be saved is prompted by His foreseeing that they will believe based upon their own will and accord. By the way, that's not an election, that's a ratification. Number four, Christ's death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone. There is no such gift. What He died was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe.

My own comment here is this, I suppose that there would be a possibility that no one would believe therefore. And Isaiah 53 verse 11 would be wrong when he said in Christ you'll see the travail of his soul and be satisfied. Number five, they said this, it rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith. Those who fail here and fall away are lost.

So that's basically what they wanted the Dutch Reformed Church to accept. Here's what the church did. They called for a national synod. The synod met in Dordrecht, Holland on November the 13th, 1618. Hence it is referred to, if you want to look it up, as the Synod of Dort, D-O-R-T. The synod consisted of 84 members and 18 secular commissioners. Out of the 84 scholars, 58 were Dutch and the rest were foreigners, that is from England and other parts of Europe. And the Synod conducted 154 sessions and finally ended on May 9, 1619. Now, let me tell you something about this Synod. The interesting thing is, it didn't matter if you were a biblical scholar or if you were a secular commissioner who happened to have been there. And you will understand why a little bit later some of those commissioners were there.

Every individual had to take a vow who sat in this synod. I want you to listen to this vow. "I promise before God in whom I believe and whom I worship, as being present in this place, and as being the searcher of all hearts, that during the course of the proceedings of this synod, which will examine and decide not only the five points," that is, of the remonstrance, "and all the differences resulting from them, but also any other doctrine, I will use no human writing, but only the Word of God, which is the infallible rule of faith. And during all these discussions, I will only aim at the glory of God, the peace of the church, and especially the preservation of the purity of doctrine." "So help me, my Savior, Jesus Christ. I beseech Him to assist me by His Holy Spirit." All I can say is, wow! If scholars and theologians believed that and would take a vow like that today and do it in search only of the Scriptures, I tend to believe we'd see a change in our country. So here are all these biblical scholars gathering together to consider the five points that the Arminians have presented.

Now I want you to listen. What happened in the Synod? Well, one of the remonstrants by the name of Simon Episcopius, was one of the spokesmen. And he was summoned to the Synod in 1618, and he really wanted to speak. But here's what he insisted upon. Listen. "Episcopius insisted on being permitted to begin with a refutation of the Calvinistic doctrines, especially that of reprobation, hoping that by placing his objection to this doctrine in front of all the rest, he might excite such prejudice against all the other doctrines of the system as to secure the popular voice in his favor." Now, here's what the Synod did. The Synod very promptly reminded him that as the remonstrants were accused of departing from the Reformed faith, they were bound first to justify themselves by giving scriptural proof in support of their opinions.

The Arminians refused to do this. Did you hear that? They refused to give what they considered scriptural proof for their opinions. And thus, when the Synod would not allow them, therefore, to just go in and try to raise a disturbance, they withdrew.

Now I want to tell you something. Here are people that have presented five points that they want the Synod to consider. But I want you to listen. They refused, the Arminians refused to answer questions. They refused to submit studies. They refused to submit copies of their positions. And they even denied the authority of the Synod. It was a long and tiresome struggle. So the Synod said, "Look, just put your objections to the confession of faith in writing." They refused.

When one of the leaders by the name of Bogerman asked the Arminians if they acknowledged the remonstrance of 1610 as truth, remember, they wrote it. It was their desire that this be accepted. When he asked them if they acknowledged that the remonstrance of 1610 was truth, they all remained silent. Finally, on January 14, 1619, the remonstrants were asked again to respond, and they replied that they would not submit to the authority of the synod. One of the leaders of the Synod arose, Bogerman again, and he said this, "The foreign delegates," that is those from Europe and England, "the foreign delegates are now of the opinion that you are unworthy to appear before the Synod. You have refused to acknowledge it as your lawful judge and regarded it as an opposing party." "You've tried in everything to have your own way. You have despised the decision of the Synod and of the political commissioners. You refused to answer questions. You declared the credentials to be invalid. Synod has treated you with gentleness, but you have been lying from the beginning to the end, as one of our foreign theologians has remarked. With this eulogy, we will let you go. God will keep His Word, and He will bless the Synod."

"In order that we will not be delayed any longer, you will be sent out. Depart! Go!" And thus they were kicked out. They were kicked out of the Synod. And the Synod proceeded without them. And so what the Synod then did, they considered each of these five points in detail. It was not that they just considered them. They then took them and refuted them with the Word of God. Thus, the five points that are commonly referred to as Calvinism.

Spurgeon's Assessment and Conclusion

Spurgeon declared Calvinism as the gospel and Arminianism as heresy; Weaver promises scriptural proof next week.

Because Arminianism has become the standard of the norm. Spurgeon said this. In fact, I'm going to give you several things that Spurgeon said. Spurgeon said, "I've heard it asserted most positively, that those high doctrines which we love, and which we find in the Scriptures are licentious ones. I do not know who has the hardihood to make that assertion, when they consider that the holiest of men have been believers in them." "I ask the man who dares to say that Calvinism is a licentious religion, what he thinks of the character of Augustine, or Calvin, or Whitefield, or in successive ages, were the great exponents of the system of grace. What will he say of those Puritans whose works are full of them? Had a man been an Arminian in those days, he would have been accounted the vilest heretic breathing."

"But now we are looked upon as the heretics and they are orthodox." Spurgeon said, "Opposition to divine sovereignty is essentially atheism. Men have no objection to a God who is really no God. I mean, by this, a God who shall be the subject of their caprice, who shall be a lackey to their will, who shall be under their control. They have no objection to such a being as that." "But a God who speaks and it is done, who commands and it stands fast, a God who has no respect for their persons, but doeth as He wills among the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, such a God as this they cannot endure." I want you to understand that the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is not simply one of emphasis. I've heard all my life. "Well, here's the difference. The Calvinists emphasize the sovereignty of God and the Arminians emphasize the responsibility of man." Calvinists emphasize the responsibility of man as well. The difference is not one of emphasis, the difference is one of content. Either salvation is by God or salvation is by man. It cannot be both.

Spurgeon said, "The doctrine of justification itself as preached by an Arminian is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works."

Further, he said, "There is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. The nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works, nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God and His dispensation of grace, nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah, nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross, nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called and suffers the children of God to be burned in fires of damnation." Wow. Then he said this, "I do not serve the God of the Arminians at all. I have nothing to do with them or with Him."

"I do not bow before the Baal they have set up. He is not my God, nor shall He ever be. I fear Him not, nor tremble at His presence. The God that saith the day and denieth the morrow, that justifieth the day and condemns the next, is no relation to my God in the least degree. He may be a relation to Asherah or Baal, but Jehovah never was nor can be His name." And that's true. The problem is this. Arminianism appears as the gospel of Christ, but in reality, it is another gospel. It is a heresy, deadly, and soul-ruining, and all the more so because it is subtle, plausible and popular.

Now you're going to ask me, how can you prove everything that you've just said from the Scripture? And what really were the conclusions of the Synod of Dort? To that I respond, you're going to have to wait until next Sunday to find out. But I will show you from the scripture how God saves sinners. And it is the work of God and not the work of man. God saves sinners.

When you hear someone detract and talk about and denounce the five points, you remind them the reason they're said in negative terms is because the Arminians presented the five points positively. And therefore, the five points soteriologically had to be presented negatively because it's refuting the false teachings of the remonstrants and the Arminians. Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we bow to Thee this day. We thank You for Your grace, for Your mercy, for Your love. We pray, Father, that You would help us as we fellowship around a meal together today. And, Father, that we would indeed bring honor and glorify Your name. In Christ's name we pray. Amen.

Study Guide

Major Themes

Theology must be based on divine revelation

Summary: True theology relies solely on God's self-revelation in Scripture and Christ, not human speculation.

Evidence: Weaver states, 'In order to know God, we must study that which He has revealed concerning Himself.'

God-centered vs. man-centered theology

Summary: Calvinism exalts God as the center of all things, while Arminianism exalts man's role and ability.

Evidence: Weaver contrasts the definitions: Calvinism is 'distinguished by its view of God and His relationship to man,' Arminianism by 'its view of man and his relationship to God.'

Historical continuity of Calvinism

Summary: Calvinism is not new but rooted in Scripture, taught by Paul, Augustine, and the prophets.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'The history of Calvinism is the history of God's plan to create man for his own glory.'

The sovereignty of God in salvation

Summary: Salvation originates with God, not man; man cannot move toward God unless God first moves toward man.

Evidence: Weaver uses the tabernacle illustration: 'Man could not move toward God until God had first moved toward man.'

The five points as a response to error

Summary: The five points of Calvinism were formulated at Dort to refute Arminian errors, not as a complete system.

Evidence: Weaver explains, 'The reason there are five points is because the Arminians raised those five points.'

Arminianism as a heresy

Summary: Arminianism is traced to Pelagius and semi-Pelagianism, and is denounced as another gospel.

Evidence: Weaver quotes Spurgeon: 'Arminianism appears as the gospel of Christ, but in reality, it is another gospel.'

Key Arguments

Man cannot know God apart from revelation

Summary: Human searching cannot discover God; knowledge of God comes only through His self-disclosure in Christ and Scripture.

Evidence: Weaver cites Job 11:7 and Matthew 11:27 to show that no one knows the Father except through the Son.

Jesus Christ is the full and final revelation

Summary: Hebrews 1:1-2 teaches that God has spoken finally through His Son, making additional revelations unnecessary and heretical.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'When you try to add to revelation... you're trying to say... Jesus Christ is not the full and final revelation of God.'

Calvinism is biblical, not Calvin's invention

Summary: Calvinism existed before Calvin; he merely systematized truths already in Scripture, like Columbus discovering America.

Evidence: Weaver states, 'Calvin did not invent a new teaching any more than Columbus invented America, or Newton invented the law of gravity.'

The chief doctrine of Calvinism is God, not predestination

Summary: Predestination is a secondary doctrine; the central focus is God's glory and sovereignty, as seen in Romans 11:36.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'The emphasis in Calvinism is on God. God deserves all honor, power, and glory.'

Arminianism is rooted in Pelagian heresy

Summary: Arminius based his teachings on Pelagius, who denied original sin and taught man's natural ability to choose God.

Evidence: Weaver lists Pelagius's seven points, including 'Adam's fall injured himself alone and not the human race.'

The Synod of Dort refuted Arminianism biblically

Summary: The Synod examined the Remonstrance using Scripture alone and rejected the Arminian five articles as unbiblical.

Evidence: Weaver describes the vow taken: 'I will use no human writing, but only the Word of God.'

Salvation is entirely of God, not man

Summary: The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is content: either salvation is by God or by man; it cannot be both.

Evidence: Weaver asserts, 'Either salvation is by God or salvation is by man. It cannot be both.'

Scripture References

Romans 11:36

Context: Weaver uses this as the foundational text, emphasizing that all things are of, through, and to God.

Job 11:7

Context: Cited to show that man cannot by searching find out God.

Matthew 11:27

Context: Jesus teaches that no one knows the Father except through the Son's revelation.

Colossians 2:9

Context: In Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, affirming His deity.

Hebrews 1:1-3

Context: God has spoken finally through His Son, who is the express image of His person.

John 5:23

Context: All should honor the Son as they honor the Father; not honoring the Son dishonors the Father.

Exodus 25-26

Context: Illustrates God's pattern: God began with the ark inside, working outward; man approaches from outside in.

Romans 8:29-30

Context: Mentioned as containing the five points of Calvinistic soteriology.

Isaiah 53:11

Context: Weaver references this to argue that Christ's death ensures salvation, not just possibility.

Historical References

Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Context: Quoted extensively on the study of God and his strong opposition to Arminianism.

John Calvin

Context: Born 1509, died 1564; systematized biblical truths but did not originate Calvinism.

Pelagius

Context: 5th-century heretic who denied original sin; his teachings were refuted by Augustine.

Augustine

Context: Early church father who defended biblical doctrines against Pelagius.

Cassian

Context: Taught semi-Pelagianism, combining elements of Augustine and Pelagius.

Jacob Arminius (Jacob Hermanson)

Context: Lived 1560-1609; defined Arminianism but did not originate it; his followers presented the Remonstrance.

Synod of Dort (1618-1619)

Context: National synod that refuted the Arminian Remonstrance and formulated the five points of Calvinism.

Remonstrance of 1610

Context: Document by Arminians protesting the Reformed faith, presenting five articles.

Guido de Bray

Context: Reformed pastor who wrote the Belgic Confession of Faith; died as a martyr in 1567.

Simon Episcopius

Context: Arminian spokesman at the Synod of Dort who refused to submit to its authority.

Important Quotes

For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Significance: Foundational verse for the God-centered theology Weaver expounds.

Theology is the science concerning God. Since theology is the science concerning God, it follows that in order for it to be true, it must be based upon divine revelation.

Significance: Establishes the premise that true theology requires divine revelation.

Calvinism is a comprehensive theological system chiefly distinguished by its view of God and His relationship to man.

Significance: Key definition contrasting Calvinism with Arminianism.

Arminianism is a theological system chiefly distinguished by its view of man and his relationship to God.

Significance: Key definition highlighting the man-centered nature of Arminianism.

Calvin did not invent a new teaching any more than Columbus invented America, or Newton invented the law of gravity.

Significance: Illustrates that Calvinism is a discovery of biblical truth, not a human invention.

Arminianism appears as the gospel of Christ, but in reality, it is another gospel. It is a heresy, deadly, and soul-ruining, and all the more so because it is subtle, plausible and popular.

Significance: Strong denunciation of Arminianism as a false gospel.

Discussion Questions

Why is it essential that theology be based on divine revelation rather than human speculation?

Context: Weaver argues that man cannot know God apart from His self-revelation in Scripture and Christ.

How does the tabernacle pattern (Exodus 25-26) illustrate the God-centered approach to salvation?

Context: Weaver uses the tabernacle to show that God initiates and man responds.

What are the practical implications of believing that Jesus Christ is the full and final revelation of God?

Context: Weaver warns against adding new revelations, which insults Christ.

In what ways does Arminianism exalt man at God's expense, according to Weaver?

Context: Weaver contrasts the definitions and traces Arminianism to Pelagianism.

Why does Weaver insist that the chief doctrine of Calvinism is God and not predestination?

Context: He explains that predestination is a fruit of the doctrine of God, not the center.

How does the history of the Synod of Dort demonstrate the importance of sola scriptura in resolving theological disputes?

Context: The Synod's vow and process focused solely on Scripture to refute the Remonstrance.

What does Spurgeon mean when he says, 'I do not serve the God of the Arminians at all'?

Context: Spurgeon rejects the Arminian concept of a changeable God who is subject to man's will.

How should we respond when we encounter teachings that add to or contradict the finality of Christ's revelation?

Context: Weaver implies that such teachings should be rejected as heretical.

Applications

Base your theology on Scripture alone

Summary: Believers must reject speculation and private interpretations, grounding their knowledge of God solely in the Bible.

Evidence: Weaver states, 'Speculation, superstition, private interpretations, have no place in the study of theology.'

Honor Christ as the full revelation of God

Summary: Recognize that Jesus Christ is the complete and final revelation; do not seek or accept additional revelations.

Evidence: Weaver warns that adding to revelation insults Christ and the Father.

Adopt a God-centered worldview

Summary: In all things, acknowledge that all is of, through, and to God, giving Him all glory.

Evidence: Weaver expounds Romans 11:36 as the central tenet of Calvinism.

Reject man-centered theology

Summary: Be discerning of teachings that exalt man's role in salvation, recognizing them as rooted in Pelagian heresy.

Evidence: Weaver traces Arminianism to Pelagius and semi-Pelagianism, calling it another gospel.

Study theology humbly

Summary: Approach the study of God with humility, recognizing that it humbles the mind and expands the soul.

Evidence: Weaver quotes Spurgeon on how contemplating God humbles and enlarges the mind.

Test all teachings by Scripture

Summary: Like the Synod of Dort, use only the Word of God as the infallible rule of faith to evaluate doctrines.

Evidence: Weaver highlights the Synod's vow to use no human writing, only Scripture.

Understand the historical roots of theology

Summary: Be aware of the historical development of doctrines to discern truth from error.

Evidence: Weaver provides detailed history of Calvinism and Arminianism to equip believers.

Rest in God's sovereignty in salvation

Summary: Trust that salvation is entirely God's work, not dependent on human effort or decision.

Evidence: Weaver asserts that salvation is either by God or by man, and it cannot be both.

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-05T14:49:01Z

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T03:39:05Z

Clean Transcript

True Theology Part 1 of 2

Clean readable transcript. This view follows the Commentary.net cleaned segment text while preserving timestamps for audio follow-along.

Romans 11, and notice if you would please, verse 36. Romans 11, verse 36. As you turn there, let me state that the message that I began today, I will not finish until next Sunday. And I am planning an additional two messages after this for further explanation and edification. So I would encourage you to do everything you can to be back here next Sunday because the majority of the message, the main point of the message, will be next Sunday.
#1 | 0:12 to 0:49 | cleaned
I have been asked repeatedly to deal with this subject by numerous people, and I'm going to do so. The title of the message is True Theology. So I want you to look in Romans 11 in verse 36, one verse. The scripture says, "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." Theology is the science concerning God. Since theology is the science concerning God, it follows that in order for it to be true, it must be based upon divine revelation. Speculation, superstition, private interpretations, have no place in the study of theology. In order to know God, we must study that which He has revealed concerning Himself. If God had not made a revelation concerning Himself, then it would have been absolutely impossible to know God. Now there are several questions that are asked in Job 11 and verse 7, and let me read that for you. Here are the questions. "Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?" And the answer to both of those questions is absolutely no.
#2 | 0:50 to 2:20 | cleaned
Man cannot find out God by himself. Man cannot search out God. If God had not been pleased to give us a revelation of Himself, we would know absolutely nothing about God.
#3 | 2:21 to 2:36 | cleaned
Now our Lord said it like this in Matthew 11 and verse 27. He said, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father." Now listen. "And no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." So even Jesus Christ said it's impossible to know God apart from Himself. Thankfully, God has revealed Himself in the Bible, which is the written Word of God, but He's also fully revealed Himself in the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the living Word of God. The Bible says in the book of Colossians 2 and verse 9, "For in him," that is in Christ, "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." So Jesus Christ is God.
#4 | 2:37 to 3:31 | cleaned
If you would turn in your Bibles, and look, please, at Hebrews chapter 1, beginning there with verse 1. Hebrews chapter 1, verse 1. Notice what is said. "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."
#5 | 3:31 to 4:01 | cleaned
"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." Now go back to verse 2 and look. The Bible says that God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son. When you look at verse 1, you understand that in times past, God did speak to the fathers by the prophets in different ways. In the Old Testament, there were dreams, there were trances that God gave to those prophets and those prophets heard the Word of God and they preached those truths unto the people. However, all of that is over, it is past, it is done with because God in these last days has spoken to us by His Son.
#6 | 4:02 to 4:53 | cleaned
In other words, Jesus Christ is the full and final revelation of God. There is no need for anything else. When you try to add to revelation, when you try to say that there have been new or additional revelations since Jesus Christ, such as the Book of Mormon, or Judge Rutherford's works, or someone else, then what you're trying to say is this, that Jesus Christ is not the full and final revelation of God, which would be an insult, not only to Christ, but also to the Father who sent Him. In fact, the Bible says this in John 5 and verse 23, "That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." So when you try to say that there have been newer revelations and additional revelations since Jesus Christ, that is an absolute denial of Hebrews chapter 1 verse 2 where the Bible teaches us that God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.
#7 | 4:54 to 6:10 | cleaned
Now let me tell you something about theology because some of the things I'm going to be telling you today will be new. Some of the things I hope that you already know. But I want to give you a quote by Spurgeon on theology. Charles Haddon Spurgeon has been called the prince of preachers as well as John Owen and some of the other great expositors in time past. But listen to what Spurgeon said concerning theology.
#8 | 6:11 to 6:39 | cleaned
It has been said that the proper study of mankind is man. I believe it is equally true that the proper study of God's elect is God. The proper study of a Christian is the Godhead. The highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy which can ever engage the attention of a child of God is the name, nature, the person, the work, the doings, and the existence of the great God whom he calls his Father.
#9 | 6:40 to 7:11 | cleaned
There is something exceedingly improving to the mind in a contemplation of the divinity. It is a subject so vast that all of our thoughts are lost in its immensity, so deep that our pride is drowned in its infinity. Other subjects we can grapple with, in them we feel a kind of self-content, and we go our way with the thought, "Behold, I am wise." But when we come to this master science, finding that our plumb line cannot sound its depth, that our eagle eye cannot see its height, we turn away with a thought that vain man would be wise, but he is like a wild ass's colt with this solemn exclamation, "I am but of yesterday and know nothing." No subject of contemplation will tend more to humble the mind than the thoughts of God. But while the subject humbles the mind, it also expands it. He who often thinks of God will have a larger mind than the man who simply plods along this narrow globe.
#10 | 7:11 to 8:15 | cleaned
"The most excellent study for expanding the soul is the science of Christ and Him crucified, and the knowledge of the Godhead and the glorious Trinity. Nothing will so enlarge the intellect, nothing so magnify the whole soul of man as a devout, earnest, continued investigation of the great subject of the deity." And that is true. I can look at some things and say, "I can do that. I know that. I understand that," but when you start trying to delve into the knowledge of God, you come to the realization that you know absolutely nothing and can do nothing. As you begin to study theology, when you begin to study the doctrine of God, it will not be long before you take note of the fact that historically, there have been two approaches to the study of theology. One is a God-centered approach, and the second one is a man-centered approach. The God-centered approach tends to exalt God, and the man-centered approach always tends to exalt man.
#11 | 8:16 to 9:37 | cleaned
It seems that many people cannot distinguish between man's duty and responsibility and obligations with the work of God, in its origination and its initiation. Now, let me just point something out to show you how God works. If you would examine, and this is based upon what I'm telling you earlier, we can know nothing of God except the fact that God has revealed Himself. If you were to examine Exodus 25 and 26 carefully, you will note, don't turn there now, but you will note when God gave the directions to Moses, for the tabernacle, God began with the ark inside the Holy of Holies. God began with everything on the inside and worked His way out. In chapters 28 and 29, He gave the duties of the priests and the offerings. So here's a picture of everything beginning with God and going outward toward man. You will also notice, as you read the book of Exodus, when Moses set up the tabernacle, he began with the external, with the outside, and then worked his way in to the Ark and the Holy of Holies.
#12 | 9:37 to 11:05 | cleaned
So here's the picture then of man moving toward God. But now I want you to watch something. Man could not move toward God until God had first moved toward man. So let me ask you a few questions. Do you think that any Old Testament believer would be bold enough and foolish enough to say, "It is my salvation, I decided to bring an offering"? Do you think any Israelite would think that somehow he approached God first? If God had not ordained the tabernacle, if God had not ordained the priesthood, if God had not ordained the offerings, then no one would have come to Him because no one would have known the way of approach, nor would they have known the offerings, nor would they have known anything that would be acceptable unto God. The movement of God first was absolutely necessary. If God had not moved outward in grace, man could have never ever approached God. So here's what I'm going to do today. I'm going to discuss these two differing theologies. And I want you to see, and I hope by the time we get through next week, you're going to see that one is absolutely biblical and it exalts God, and the other is unbiblical and basically it exalts man at God's expense.
#13 | 11:06 to 12:39 | cleaned
So I'm going to be using some names. I'm going to be using some terms because I want you to be familiar with these. I'm going to be using the name Calvin and Calvinism. And I'm going to be using the name Arminius and Arminianism. However, I want you to understand something. It is not the men or the movements that I wish to focus upon, but rather their differing theologies.
#14 | 12:39 to 13:03 | cleaned
Obviously, both of them cannot be right. One is right and one is wrong. If I am right, I want to stay right. If I am wrong, I want to repent and be right.
#15 | 13:04 to 13:19 | cleaned
Now let me tell you something about these terms. A lot of people do not like the terms, but let me explain them. The terms Calvinism and Arminianism are mere handles to pick up a system or a body of thought or theology. A pot and a handle may be inseparably connected but they're not one and the same. What is a handle? A handle is merely a convenient way to pick up a pot. So the term Calvinism or the term Arminianism is merely a simple way to pick up a whole system or a whole body of thought or a whole theology. So the handle Calvinism then identifies a theology or a body or a system of thought. And the term Arminianism also identifies another system or another body of thought.
#16 | 13:19 to 14:18 | cleaned
So let me begin by giving you some definitions today. First of all, let's talk about Calvinism. I want you to listen carefully to this definition because I'm immediately going to give you the definition of Arminianism afterwards. Here it is. Calvinism is a comprehensive theological system chiefly distinguished by its view of God and His relationship to man.
#17 | 14:19 to 14:48 | cleaned
Now, the name of the system is indeed derived from John Calvin. Not because Calvin was the founder of this system, he was not. But he was one of the few men who was a chief exponent of this body of thought.
#18 | 14:49 to 15:08 | cleaned
Now listen to the definition of Arminianism. Arminianism is a theological system chiefly distinguished by its view of man and his relationship to God. Did anybody see the difference between those two definitions? Calvinism is a comprehensive theological system chiefly distinguished by its view of God and His relationship to man. Arminianism is the theological system, chiefly distinguished by its view of man and his relationship to God.
#19 | 15:09 to 15:46 | cleaned
Now, the name of the system bears the name of Jacob Arminius, not because he was the founder of it, he was not, but because he was one of the chief exponents of this body of thought. Let me put it like this, this is going to be a summary of everything I'm going to tell you in one sentence. Arminianism began in the proud heart of fallen man. It was espoused by Pelagius, modified by Cassian, defended by Erasmus, defined by Arminius, and popularized by John Wesley. Okay?
#20 | 15:46 to 16:21 | cleaned
Now, let me give some histories and some facts. Here we go. Calvinism did not begin with John Calvin. Calvin was born on July the 10th, 1509, and he died May the 27th, 1564. If John Calvin had never been born, there would still have been the doctrines collectively referred to as Calvinism. Those doctrines would still be among us. Why? Because the history of Calvinism is the history of God's plan to create man for his own glory. In short, not only have these doctrines of grace known as Calvinism been around since the days of John Calvin, they were previously known as Augustinianism in the 4th century. And prior to that, they were known as Paulinism in the 1st century from the writings of the Apostle Paul.
#21 | 16:22 to 17:19 | cleaned
Moreover, these same doctrines were taught and preached by the Old Testament prophets. Now, I'm trying to give you some facts. First of all, Calvinists do not see themselves as followers of John Calvin. Rather, they see themselves as Christians in the fullest sense of the word. They are men who reject man-made philosophies and seek to discover and declare the grand view of God and His relationship to man as it is set forth in the Scriptures. Those who are referred to as Calvinists do not follow any man blindly, even John Calvin. They set themselves to follow the clear teachings of the Word of God. Wherever the Scriptures are, there is where Calvinists are.
#22 | 17:20 to 18:10 | cleaned
When the Scripture is silent, they are silent. When the Scripture speaks, they speak. True Calvinists are exegetes and expositors of the Word of God. They're never pontiffs or libertines. They adhere only to the Word of God.
#23 | 18:11 to 18:27 | cleaned
Now let me just point something out. If you have not done this, I invite you to my library and you can search this out for yourself. But I want you to take note as you begin to study theology. I don't care if you're talking about systematic theology, historical theology, biblical theology, there are all kinds of theologies. But whenever you begin to study, especially systematic theology, I want you to take note of the fact that most of the theological books are written by Calvinists. If you come to my library, you will probably find 25, 30, or 40 books just on theology. And out of those books, only two of them were written by Arminians. And I didn't just particularly pick all those that were written by Calvinists. No, the fact is that it's the Calvinists who do the studying and set forth true theology. It was the Calvinists of the 15th and 16th centuries that produced the great expositors of the 17th and 18th centuries.
#24 | 18:27 to 19:34 | cleaned
Now, let me give you some facts. First of all, I've already said this, but I'm going to say it again. Fact number one, Calvin is not the author, the originator, or the founder of Calvinism. Calvin simply systematized the truths that he expounded from the Bible. Calvin did not invent a new teaching any more than Columbus invented America, or Newton invented the law of gravity. Columbus and Newton simply discovered what was already there all along. Likewise, Calvin just simply uncovered truths that had been in the Bible all along. He was not the first to uncover these truths, and he will not be the last to uncover these truths. So Calvin is not the author, originator, or founder of Calvinism.
#25 | 19:35 to 20:27 | cleaned
That's interesting since it bears his name. Fact number two. The chief doctrine of Calvinism is not predestination. Anytime you hear the word Calvinist, someone will say, "Well, you believe in predestination." Well, sure, I believe in predestination because the Bible teaches predestination. But the chief doctrine of Calvinism is not predestination. In the first catechism that Calvin drew up in 1537, predestination is barely mentioned. In his Confession of Faith that was drawn up the same year in 1537, there is no mention of predestination at all. In another catechism and four other confessions attributed to Calvin, the doctrine is mentioned only in passing. And when you get to the first edition of the Institutes, and by the way, the Institutes, if you've never read them, you should. If you've never seen them, you should. The Institutes were the first systematic theology ever published, and they were written by John Calvin. But in the Institutes, which was the first systematic theology, the doctrine is given hardly any place at all. It was only later, in the later editions, when the doctrine of God's grace was that he enlarged upon the doctrine of predestination.
#26 | 20:28 to 21:52 | cleaned
Now let me tell you why the primary doctrine of Calvinism is not predestination. And the answer is this. Because predestination deals primarily with man and other events. And especially fallen man. The emphasis in Calvinism is on God. God deserves all honor, power, and glory. And for the Calvinist, God is the center of all things and His name, His glory, His doctrine is a central tenet of Calvinism. Now it is true that predestination may be a fruit or logical scriptural conclusion from the doctrine of God, yet the main doctrine of Calvinism is God.
#27 | 21:52 to 22:43 | cleaned
Now, I want you to look back at Romans 11 again, and verse 36. And I want you to see this in this light. Romans 11 and verse 36, we read it earlier, where the Bible says, "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever." Now watch this. "For of him," that is originally, "and through him," that is providentially, "and to him," that is ultimately are all things.
#28 | 22:43 to 23:19 | cleaned
So the person of God, his attributes, his creation, his redemption, his providence, his eternal purpose, which he purposed in Christ Jesus, is the center or the central point of Calvinism. Henry Meador said it like this. He said, "Calvinism has been defined as that system in which God is most highly glorified, and man most deeply abased." Here's fact number three. Calvinism is not restricted to the five points. If you don't know what the five points are, I'll tell you just momentarily. But let me just say this, Calvinism has an unlimited number of points.
#29 | 23:20 to 24:09 | cleaned
I never will forget when I was in graduate school, we were studying the sovereignty of God, and I would imagine there was at least 100, 150 students in that room. The instructor was a Presbyterian, and supposedly a Calvinist. We were talking about the sovereignty of God, and this one preacher boy in the back said this. He said, "I believe that God is sovereign over all the big things, but not the little things."
#30 | 24:10 to 24:49 | cleaned
And when he said that, before I could stop myself, I said out loud, I did not intend to do it, but I said out loud, "Oh, what utter blasphemy!" And everybody looked at me, including the professor. And I looked at Dr. Neal and I said, "Dr. Neal, I'm sorry, I did not mean to make that expression vocal, but if you don't correct that young man, I will."
#31 | 24:50 to 25:21 | cleaned
I said, "Because you know that every big thing is made up of series of little things, and if there's anything over which God is not sovereign, God is not God." Dr. Neal looked around and he said, "I'm afraid Mr. Weaver is right." Those were his exact words, "I'm afraid." And then he said, "Well I suppose if there were 20 points to Calvinism, Mr. Weaver would believe them all." I looked at him and I said, "Dr. Neal, you know there are only five points to Calvinistic soteriology, that is the doctrine of salvation. But there are multitudinous points to Calvinism because Calvinists speak only when the Bible speaks. So does the Bible speak of the deity of Christ? Yes. Does the Bible speak of justification by faith alone? Yes. Does the Bible speak of sanctification? Yes. Does the Bible speak of the second coming of Christ? Yes. Therefore, Calvinism would have a point on all of those things." So Calvinism is not just simply limited to the five points. And it may surprise you to learn that Calvin had nothing to do with the five points, which are commonly given as Calvinism.
#32 | 25:23 to 26:44 | cleaned
Calvin's goal, and every Christian's goal, should be to expound and exegete the Word of God in its entirety. There were two cries that were very prominent during the Reformation. One of them was, Sola Scriptura, that is the Scriptures alone, and Tota Scriptura, the Scriptures in total or fully and complete.
#33 | 26:46 to 27:12 | cleaned
Now, there are five points in Calvinistic soteriology. Soteriology is the doctrine of salvation. But those five points are the exact same five points that you find listed in Romans 8, 29 through 30. So, I'm not going to go there right now, but they are exactly the same five points. And remember, these only relate to the doctrine of salvation. Okay, fact four. Calvin had nothing to do with the five points which are known as Calvinism. Calvin was born in 1509, he died in 1564. The five points did not come into existence as we know them until 1619. Calvin died in 1564.
#34 | 27:13 to 28:00 | cleaned
Well, if Calvin did not originate the five points, who did? Where and why were they formulated? Now, here are the five points. They're usually given under the acronym TULIP, T-U-L-I-P. They refer to total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. Now, I think there are a few better terms for some of those points, but that is how they are usually given under the acronym TULIP. So let's ask, how did these points come into existence?
#35 | 28:09 to 28:49 | cleaned
In order to understand that, you've got to understand Arminianism. Jacob Hermanson lived from 1560 to 1609. This is the man who defined Arminianism for us. His name was Latinized to Jacobus or Jacob Arminius. Arminius was four years old when Calvin died. So they never met. Okay? Fact number one. Arminius is not the founder of Arminianism. William Cunningham in his historical theology wrote this. "As there was nothing new in the substance in the Calvinism of Calvin, so there was nothing new in the Arminianism of Arminius. The doctrines of Arminius can be traced back as far as the time of Clemens Alexandrinus and seem to have been held by some of the church fathers of the 3rd and 4th centuries having been diffused in the church through the corrupting influence of pagan philosophy. Pelagius and his followers in the 5th century were as decidedly opposed to Calvinism as Arminius was, though they deviated much further from sound doctrine than he did." Here's fact two. Arminius based his teachings upon the teaching and philosophy of Pelagius.
#36 | 28:49 to 30:21 | cleaned
And Cassian, who I will mention, who came around a little bit later and taught a modified Pelagianism. Now, let me tell you how awful Pelagius was. What a horrible heretic. Here are seven points that Pelagius espoused. And I got these from Philip Schaff's Church History, Volume 3, page 787-788. Here it is. Here are the seven points that were prominent in the teaching of Pelagius. I do not have to offer scriptural refutation for these points. If you cannot see the total absolute error of these points, we need to go back to step one. Here we go. Here's what Pelagius taught.
#37 | 30:22 to 31:18 | cleaned
Adam was created mortal and would have died even if he had not sinned. Number two, Adam's fall injured himself alone and not the human race. Number three, children that come into this world come into the same condition in which Adam was before the fall. By the way, that point is very prevalent in today's educational realm. Tabula rasa, like a blank tablet. In other words, they think every child comes in this world with a blank tablet. That's straight from Pelagius. Number four, here's what Pelagius taught, the human race neither dies in consequence of Adam's fall, nor rises again in consequence of Christ's resurrection. Number five, unbaptized children as well as others are saved. Number six, listen to this, the law as well as the gospel leads to the kingdom of heaven. Well, that would be true if you could obey the law. But nobody can obey the law. Number seven, even before Christ, there were sinless men. Now Pelagius taught all of these. Augustine, one of the early church fathers, defended the biblical positions against Pelagius and so devastated Pelagius' teachings that no one wanted to identify with him.
#38 | 31:18 to 32:55 | cleaned
George Smeaton wrote, "Augustine's unanswerable polemic or argument had so fully discredited Pelagianism in the field of argument, that it could no longer be made plausible to the Christian mind. It collapsed. But a new system soon presented itself, teaching that man with his own natural powers is able to take the first step toward his conversion, and that this obtains or merits the Spirit's assistance." So, here's what happened. Pelagius was defeated. He was exposed as an absolute heretic by Augustine. So Cassian came along and what he wanted to do was take some from Augustine and take some from Pelagius and combine them. So Cassian then came on the scene and he then taught a modified or a semi-Pelagian system where he combines from Augustine and from Pelagius.
#39 | 32:56 to 34:05 | cleaned
Cassian acknowledged that Adam's sin extended to his posterity, and that human nature was corrupted by original sin. But, on the other hand, he held to a system of universal grace for all men alike, making the final decision in the case of every individual dependent upon the exercise of free will. Speaking of those who followed, Cassian Smeaton continues, he says, "They held that the first movement of the will and the assent of faith must be ascribed to the natural powers of the human mind. Their maxim was this, it is mine to be willing and it is on the part of God's grace to assist." I hope you're listening. They asserted the sufficiency of God's grace for all and that everyone according to his own will obeyed or rejected the invitation while God equally wished and equally aided all men to be saved.
#40 | 34:06 to 35:15 | cleaned
So the entire system basically was a halfway house containing elements of error and elements of truth and not at all really differing from Pelagian in the final result. We have the same theology being preached and taught today. Whenever you hear a preacher say, "God has done all that He can for you, now it's up to you. You must take the first step." That's semi-Pelagianism. That's Cassianism. It is saying that you must be willing, and once you are willing, God then is obligated to assist you and to help you.
#41 | 35:15 to 36:02 | cleaned
So what starts with man ends with man, and it ends up being for man's honor and man's glory. If God only assists in man's salvation, it is still man's salvation. Man is not dead. Man is not impotent. He is alive and has some ability and only needs a little help, according to semi-Pelagianism.
#42 | 36:04 to 36:30 | cleaned
Now, you're going to ask, what has all this got to do with true theology? And what has all this got to do with the five points? Well, let me try to pull it together for you. In 1610, one year after the death of Arminius, his followers objected to the Belgic Confession of Faith, which was a Reformed or Calvinistic Confession of Faith, and they objected to the Heidelberg Catechism, which was written in Heidelberg, Germany, which of course would have been Reformed or Calvinistic Confession or Catechism as well. And so, since they were against the Belgic Confession of Faith, and against John Calvin, and against Theodore Beza, and any of the followers, or those reformers, they published their objections in a document called the Remonstrance of 1610.
#43 | 36:31 to 37:34 | cleaned
Now the word remonstrance just simply means to protest, okay? So they were protesting the Reformed faith. So here's this document now, the Remonstrance of 1610, that they drew up. So therefore the Arminians are sometimes called Arminians, sometimes called Remonstrants. So they were protesting then the Reformed faith. What they wanted was to change the Belgic Confession of Faith, to which all of the Reformed churches in Holland and in Europe at that particular time had ascribed to. The Belgic Confession of Faith was written mainly by a preacher by the name of Guido de Bray. He was a Reformed pastor.
#44 | 37:34 to 38:26 | cleaned
He died as a martyr, by the way, in 1567. So, what they did in this remonstrance of 1610, the Arminians presented five articles to the Dutch Reformed Church of Holland, in the form of this remonstrance or protest and they wanted the churches of Holland to adopt these articles as their standard of faith. Here are the five articles they wanted the church to adopt. Number one, that each person is not spiritually helpless. Each one has a free will and can choose to be saved, which is a denial of total depravity, by the way. Number two, that God chose the elect on the basis of His foreknowledge of who would respond and be saved.
#45 | 38:27 to 39:33 | cleaned
The election is based upon man's choice and not upon God's choice. The election, therefore, would be conditional and not unconditional. Number three, Christ died for everyone, but the person must choose to accept salvation, a universal atonement, and a denial of effectual atonement. Number four, man can resist God. In essence, man is stronger than God, and God does not have the power or the right to go against man's will. Number five, whether or not man can lose his salvation is not clear. Later this point was changed to definitely teach the possibility of a truly regenerate believer losing his faith in salvation.
#46 | 39:34 to 40:21 | cleaned
Now I hope you're beginning to see where the five points came from because the Arminians now are presenting these five points and they are saying we want the churches of Holland to adopt this as their standard faith. Now let me explain this a little further. Here is basically what the Arminians were maintaining. They were maintaining that the scripture must be interpreted to teach the following. Number one, that man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot believe the gospel when it is placed before him. Number two, that man is never so controlled by God that he cannot reject the gospel. Number three, God's election of those who shall be saved is prompted by His foreseeing that they will believe based upon their own will and accord. By the way, that's not an election, that's a ratification. Number four, Christ's death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone. There is no such gift. What He died was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe.
#47 | 40:22 to 41:39 | cleaned
My own comment here is this, I suppose that there would be a possibility that no one would believe therefore. And Isaiah 53 verse 11 would be wrong when he said in Christ you'll see the travail of his soul and be satisfied. Number five, they said this, it rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith. Those who fail here and fall away are lost.
#48 | 41:41 to 42:10 | cleaned
So that's basically what they wanted the Dutch Reformed Church to accept. Here's what the church did. They called for a national synod. The synod met in Dordrecht, Holland on November the 13th, 1618. Hence it is referred to, if you want to look it up, as the Synod of Dort, D-O-R-T. The synod consisted of 84 members and 18 secular commissioners. Out of the 84 scholars, 58 were Dutch and the rest were foreigners, that is from England and other parts of Europe. And the Synod conducted 154 sessions and finally ended on May 9, 1619. Now, let me tell you something about this Synod. The interesting thing is, it didn't matter if you were a biblical scholar or if you were a secular commissioner who happened to have been there. And you will understand why a little bit later some of those commissioners were there.
#49 | 42:11 to 43:17 | cleaned
Every individual had to take a vow who sat in this synod. I want you to listen to this vow. "I promise before God in whom I believe and whom I worship, as being present in this place, and as being the searcher of all hearts, that during the course of the proceedings of this synod, which will examine and decide not only the five points," that is, of the remonstrance, "and all the differences resulting from them, but also any other doctrine, I will use no human writing, but only the Word of God, which is the infallible rule of faith. And during all these discussions, I will only aim at the glory of God, the peace of the church, and especially the preservation of the purity of doctrine."
#50 | 43:18 to 44:13 | cleaned
"So help me, my Savior, Jesus Christ. I beseech Him to assist me by His Holy Spirit." All I can say is, wow! If scholars and theologians believed that and would take a vow like that today and do it in search only of the Scriptures, I tend to believe we'd see a change in our country. So here are all these biblical scholars gathering together to consider the five points that the Arminians have presented.
#51 | 44:14 to 44:47 | cleaned
Now I want you to listen. What happened in the Synod? Well, one of the remonstrants by the name of Simon Episcopius, was one of the spokesmen. And he was summoned to the Synod in 1618, and he really wanted to speak. But here's what he insisted upon. Listen. "Episcopius insisted on being permitted to begin with a refutation of the Calvinistic doctrines, especially that of reprobation, hoping that by placing his objection to this doctrine in front of all the rest, he might excite such prejudice against all the other doctrines of the system as to secure the popular voice in his favor." Now, here's what the Synod did. The Synod very promptly reminded him that as the remonstrants were accused of departing from the Reformed faith, they were bound first to justify themselves by giving scriptural proof in support of their opinions.
#52 | 44:47 to 46:00 | cleaned
The Arminians refused to do this. Did you hear that? They refused to give what they considered scriptural proof for their opinions. And thus, when the Synod would not allow them, therefore, to just go in and try to raise a disturbance, they withdrew.
#53 | 46:02 to 46:33 | cleaned
Now I want to tell you something. Here are people that have presented five points that they want the Synod to consider. But I want you to listen. They refused, the Arminians refused to answer questions. They refused to submit studies. They refused to submit copies of their positions. And they even denied the authority of the Synod. It was a long and tiresome struggle. So the Synod said, "Look, just put your objections to the confession of faith in writing." They refused.
#54 | 46:33 to 47:13 | cleaned
When one of the leaders by the name of Bogerman asked the Arminians if they acknowledged the remonstrance of 1610 as truth, remember, they wrote it. It was their desire that this be accepted. When he asked them if they acknowledged that the remonstrance of 1610 was truth, they all remained silent.
#55 | 47:16 to 47:42 | cleaned
Finally, on January 14, 1619, the remonstrants were asked again to respond, and they replied that they would not submit to the authority of the synod. One of the leaders of the Synod arose, Bogerman again, and he said this, "The foreign delegates," that is those from Europe and England, "the foreign delegates are now of the opinion that you are unworthy to appear before the Synod. You have refused to acknowledge it as your lawful judge and regarded it as an opposing party."
#56 | 47:46 to 48:26 | cleaned
"You've tried in everything to have your own way. You have despised the decision of the Synod and of the political commissioners. You refused to answer questions. You declared the credentials to be invalid. Synod has treated you with gentleness, but you have been lying from the beginning to the end, as one of our foreign theologians has remarked. With this eulogy, we will let you go. God will keep His Word, and He will bless the Synod."
#57 | 48:26 to 48:52 | cleaned
"In order that we will not be delayed any longer, you will be sent out. Depart! Go!" And thus they were kicked out. They were kicked out of the Synod. And the Synod proceeded without them. And so what the Synod then did, they considered each of these five points in detail. It was not that they just considered them. They then took them and refuted them with the Word of God. Thus, the five points that are commonly referred to as Calvinism.
#58 | 48:52 to 49:30 | cleaned
were brought into existence long after Calvin was dead. And the reason there are five points is because the Arminians raised those five points. And therefore, the synod came out and said, "No, you are wrong, and here is where you are wrong." And they gave forth the five points as documented by scriptures. Now, one scholar, John Zardewitt, is very, very adamant in his judgment on the Arminians. He says this, "Arminius and his successors were oath breakers."
#59 | 49:34 to 50:11 | cleaned
"And to avoid the consequence of this offense, they in effect withdrew themselves from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts while claiming to continue as faithful members of the church and place themselves under the protection of the secular power." He goes on to say that a man is rarely honest enough to withdraw himself if his views become incompatible with the confessions of the church, but instead attempts by means of a strange line of reasoning to convert the church to his own understanding of truth. Isn't that true?
#60 | 50:12 to 50:46 | cleaned
I had one man get upset with me one time at my preaching. I can't understand that. Can you not go and have anybody be upset by my preaching? He told me where I was pastoring at that time, I ought to leave the church. He disagreed with what the scripture said and what I was preaching. And I told him very kindly and lovingly, I said, "You know, it would be a whole lot easier for you to leave. If I left, I'd have to move my whole family."
#61 | 50:55 to 51:26 | cleaned
"All you've got to do is walk across the street." And that's true. The amazing thing is this. People, instead of wanting to find out truth and submit to truth, if they differ, they want you to change to them regardless. So the Arminians then were thoroughly and completely refuted and basically denounced as heretical. And I want you to note something. Isn't it amazing, that in 1619, if you were an Arminian, you were a heretic. In 2012, if you're a Calvinist, you're a heretic.
#62 | 51:26 to 52:13 | cleaned
Because Arminianism has become the standard of the norm. Spurgeon said this. In fact, I'm going to give you several things that Spurgeon said. Spurgeon said, "I've heard it asserted most positively, that those high doctrines which we love, and which we find in the Scriptures are licentious ones. I do not know who has the hardihood to make that assertion, when they consider that the holiest of men have been believers in them."
#63 | 52:14 to 52:41 | cleaned
"I ask the man who dares to say that Calvinism is a licentious religion, what he thinks of the character of Augustine, or Calvin, or Whitefield, or in successive ages, were the great exponents of the system of grace. What will he say of those Puritans whose works are full of them? Had a man been an Arminian in those days, he would have been accounted the vilest heretic breathing."
#64 | 52:42 to 53:04 | cleaned
"But now we are looked upon as the heretics and they are orthodox." Spurgeon said, "Opposition to divine sovereignty is essentially atheism. Men have no objection to a God who is really no God. I mean, by this, a God who shall be the subject of their caprice, who shall be a lackey to their will, who shall be under their control. They have no objection to such a being as that."
#65 | 53:04 to 53:35 | cleaned
"But a God who speaks and it is done, who commands and it stands fast, a God who has no respect for their persons, but doeth as He wills among the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, such a God as this they cannot endure." I want you to understand that the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is not simply one of emphasis. I've heard all my life. "Well, here's the difference. The Calvinists emphasize the sovereignty of God and the Arminians emphasize the responsibility of man." Calvinists emphasize the responsibility of man as well. The difference is not one of emphasis, the difference is one of content. Either salvation is by God or salvation is by man. It cannot be both.
#66 | 53:36 to 54:37 | cleaned
Spurgeon said, "The doctrine of justification itself as preached by an Arminian is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works."
#67 | 54:41 to 54:48 | cleaned
Further, he said, "There is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. The nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works, nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God and His dispensation of grace, nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah, nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross, nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called and suffers the children of God to be burned in fires of damnation." Wow. Then he said this, "I do not serve the God of the Arminians at all. I have nothing to do with them or with Him."
#68 | 54:56 to 55:51 | cleaned
"I do not bow before the Baal they have set up. He is not my God, nor shall He ever be. I fear Him not, nor tremble at His presence. The God that saith the day and denieth the morrow, that justifieth the day and condemns the next, is no relation to my God in the least degree. He may be a relation to Asherah or Baal, but Jehovah never was nor can be His name." And that's true. The problem is this.
#69 | 55:52 to 56:17 | cleaned
Arminianism appears as the gospel of Christ, but in reality, it is another gospel. It is a heresy, deadly, and soul-ruining, and all the more so because it is subtle, plausible and popular.
#70 | 56:17 to 56:32 | cleaned
Now you're going to ask me, how can you prove everything that you've just said from the Scripture? And what really were the conclusions of the Synod of Dort? To that I respond, you're going to have to wait until next Sunday to find out. But I will show you from the scripture how God saves sinners. And it is the work of God and not the work of man. God saves sinners.
#71 | 56:35 to 57:22 | cleaned
When you hear someone detract and talk about and denounce the five points, you remind them the reason they're said in negative terms is because the Arminians presented the five points positively. And therefore, the five points soteriologically had to be presented negatively because it's refuting the false teachings of the remonstrants and the Arminians. Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we bow to Thee this day. We thank You for Your grace, for Your mercy, for Your love. We pray, Father, that You would help us as we fellowship around a meal together today. And, Father, that we would indeed bring honor and glorify Your name. In Christ's name we pray. Amen.
#72 | 57:29 to 58:23 | cleaned

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-05T14:49:01Z

True Theology Part 1 of 2

John Weaver | Freedom Ministries

In this sermon, Pastor John Weaver introduces the topic of true theology, emphasizing that it must be based on divine revelation rather than human speculation. He contrasts two theological systems: Calvinism, which is God-centered and exalts God, and Arminianism, which is man-centered and exalts man. Weaver provides historical background, explaining that Calvinism did not originate with John Calvin but is rooted in Scripture, while Arminianism traces back to Pelagius and semi-Pelagianism. He recounts the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), where the five points of Calvinism were formulated in response to the Arminian Remonstrance. The sermon sets the stage for a detailed scriptural examination in the following week.

Introduction and Purpose

Weaver announces a multi-part series on true theology, prompted by requests, and reads Romans 11:36 as the foundational text.

Scripture Reading — Romans 11:36

"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."

The Necessity of Divine Revelation

Theology must be based on God's revelation; man cannot know God apart from Scripture and Jesus Christ, the full and final revelation.

Scripture Reading — Romans 11:36

"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."

Scripture Reading — Matthew 11:27

"All things are delivered unto me of my Father."

Now listen.

Scripture Reading — Matthew 11:27

"And no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."

If you would turn in your Bibles, and look, please, at Hebrews chapter 1, beginning there with verse 1. Hebrews chapter 1, verse 1. Notice what is said.

Scripture Reading — Hebrews 1:1-3

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."

Spurgeon on the Study of God

Weaver quotes Spurgeon to emphasize that the proper study of a Christian is God, which humbles and expands the mind.

Two Approaches to Theology

Historically, theology has a God-centered approach (exalting God) and a man-centered approach (exalting man), illustrated by the tabernacle pattern.

Defining Calvinism and Arminianism

Calvinism is distinguished by its view of God and His relationship to man; Arminianism by its view of man and his relationship to God.

Historical Roots of Calvinism

Calvinism predates Calvin, tracing through Augustine and Paul to the Old Testament; Calvin merely systematized biblical truths.

The Chief Doctrine of Calvinism

The primary doctrine is God Himself, not predestination; predestination is a logical conclusion from the doctrine of God.

Calvinism Beyond Five Points

Calvinism encompasses all biblical doctrines; the five points relate only to soteriology and were formulated after Calvin's death.

Origins of Arminianism and Pelagianism

Arminianism traces to Pelagius and semi-Pelagianism; Pelagius taught heretical views like denying original sin, refuted by Augustine.

The Remonstrance and Synod of Dort

In 1610, Arminians presented five articles; the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) refuted them, producing the five points of Calvinism.

Spurgeon's Assessment and Conclusion

Spurgeon declared Calvinism as the gospel and Arminianism as heresy; Weaver promises scriptural proof next week.

Spurgeon said, "The doctrine of justification itself as preached by an Arminian is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works."

True Theology Part 1 of 2

John Weaver | YouTube

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	YouTube
Media ID	JDuaTmPv8Rg
Subject	New Testament Studies
Course	Romans-Related Topical Applications
Genre	Sermon
Date	2012-06-19
Dictation Name
Book	Book 151: True Theology — Chapter 1
Source Timed Segments	72

Lecture Guide

Outline

Introduction and Purpose: Weaver announces a multi-part series on true theology, prompted by requests, and reads Romans 11:36 as the foundational text.
The Necessity of Divine Revelation: Theology must be based on God's revelation; man cannot know God apart from Scripture and Jesus Christ, the full and final revelation.
Spurgeon on the Study of God: Weaver quotes Spurgeon to emphasize that the proper study of a Christian is God, which humbles and expands the mind.
Two Approaches to Theology: Historically, theology has a God-centered approach (exalting God) and a man-centered approach (exalting man), illustrated by the tabernacle pattern.
Defining Calvinism and Arminianism: Calvinism is distinguished by its view of God and His relationship to man; Arminianism by its view of man and his relationship to God.
Historical Roots of Calvinism: Calvinism predates Calvin, tracing through Augustine and Paul to the Old Testament; Calvin merely systematized biblical truths.
The Chief Doctrine of Calvinism: The primary doctrine is God Himself, not predestination; predestination is a logical conclusion from the doctrine of God.
Calvinism Beyond Five Points: Calvinism encompasses all biblical doctrines; the five points relate only to soteriology and were formulated after Calvin's death.
Origins of Arminianism and Pelagianism: Arminianism traces to Pelagius and semi-Pelagianism; Pelagius taught heretical views like denying original sin, refuted by Augustine.
The Remonstrance and Synod of Dort: In 1610, Arminians presented five articles; the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) refuted them, producing the five points of Calvinism.
Spurgeon's Assessment and Conclusion: Spurgeon declared Calvinism as the gospel and Arminianism as heresy; Weaver promises scriptural proof next week.

Major Themes

Key Arguments

Man cannot know God apart from revelation

Human searching cannot discover God; knowledge of God comes only through His self-disclosure in Christ and Scripture.

Weaver cites Job 11:7 and Matthew 11:27 to show that no one knows the Father except through the Son.

Jesus Christ is the full and final revelation

Hebrews 1:1-2 teaches that God has spoken finally through His Son, making additional revelations unnecessary and heretical.

Weaver says, 'When you try to add to revelation... you're trying to say... Jesus Christ is not the full and final revelation of God.'

Calvinism is biblical, not Calvin's invention

Calvinism existed before Calvin; he merely systematized truths already in Scripture, like Columbus discovering America.

Weaver states, 'Calvin did not invent a new teaching any more than Columbus invented America, or Newton invented the law of gravity.'

The chief doctrine of Calvinism is God, not predestination

Predestination is a secondary doctrine; the central focus is God's glory and sovereignty, as seen in Romans 11:36.

Weaver says, 'The emphasis in Calvinism is on God. God deserves all honor, power, and glory.'

Arminianism is rooted in Pelagian heresy

Arminius based his teachings on Pelagius, who denied original sin and taught man's natural ability to choose God.

Weaver lists Pelagius's seven points, including 'Adam's fall injured himself alone and not the human race.'

The Synod of Dort refuted Arminianism biblically

The Synod examined the Remonstrance using Scripture alone and rejected the Arminian five articles as unbiblical.

Weaver describes the vow taken: 'I will use no human writing, but only the Word of God.'

Salvation is entirely of God, not man

The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is content: either salvation is by God or by man; it cannot be both.

Weaver asserts, 'Either salvation is by God or salvation is by man. It cannot be both.'

Scripture References

Romans 11:36: Weaver uses this as the foundational text, emphasizing that all things are of, through, and to God.
Job 11:7: Cited to show that man cannot by searching find out God.
Matthew 11:27: Jesus teaches that no one knows the Father except through the Son's revelation.
Colossians 2:9: In Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, affirming His deity.
Hebrews 1:1-3: God has spoken finally through His Son, who is the express image of His person.
John 5:23: All should honor the Son as they honor the Father; not honoring the Son dishonors the Father.
Exodus 25-26: Illustrates God's pattern: God began with the ark inside, working outward; man approaches from outside in.
Romans 8:29-30: Mentioned as containing the five points of Calvinistic soteriology.
Isaiah 53:11: Weaver references this to argue that Christ's death ensures salvation, not just possibility.

Historical References

Charles Haddon Spurgeon: Quoted extensively on the study of God and his strong opposition to Arminianism.
John Calvin: Born 1509, died 1564; systematized biblical truths but did not originate Calvinism.
Pelagius: 5th-century heretic who denied original sin; his teachings were refuted by Augustine.
Augustine: Early church father who defended biblical doctrines against Pelagius.
Cassian: Taught semi-Pelagianism, combining elements of Augustine and Pelagius.
Jacob Arminius (Jacob Hermanson): Lived 1560-1609; defined Arminianism but did not originate it; his followers presented the Remonstrance.
Synod of Dort (1618-1619): National synod that refuted the Arminian Remonstrance and formulated the five points of Calvinism.
Remonstrance of 1610: Document by Arminians protesting the Reformed faith, presenting five articles.
Guido de Bray: Reformed pastor who wrote the Belgic Confession of Faith; died as a martyr in 1567.
Simon Episcopius: Arminian spokesman at the Synod of Dort who refused to submit to its authority.

Important Quotes

For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Foundational verse for the God-centered theology Weaver expounds.

Theology is the science concerning God. Since theology is the science concerning God, it follows that in order for it to be true, it must be based upon divine revelation.

Establishes the premise that true theology requires divine revelation.

Calvinism is a comprehensive theological system chiefly distinguished by its view of God and His relationship to man.

Key definition contrasting Calvinism with Arminianism.

Arminianism is a theological system chiefly distinguished by its view of man and his relationship to God.

Key definition highlighting the man-centered nature of Arminianism.

Calvin did not invent a new teaching any more than Columbus invented America, or Newton invented the law of gravity.

Illustrates that Calvinism is a discovery of biblical truth, not a human invention.

Arminianism appears as the gospel of Christ, but in reality, it is another gospel. It is a heresy, deadly, and soul-ruining, and all the more so because it is subtle, plausible and popular.

Strong denunciation of Arminianism as a false gospel.

Discussion Questions

[Question]

Why is it essential that theology be based on divine revelation rather than human speculation?

[Context]

Weaver argues that man cannot know God apart from His self-revelation in Scripture and Christ.

[Question]

How does the tabernacle pattern (Exodus 25-26) illustrate the God-centered approach to salvation?

[Context]

Weaver uses the tabernacle to show that God initiates and man responds.

[Question]

What are the practical implications of believing that Jesus Christ is the full and final revelation of God?

[Context]

Weaver warns against adding new revelations, which insults Christ.

[Question]

In what ways does Arminianism exalt man at God's expense, according to Weaver?

[Context]

Weaver contrasts the definitions and traces Arminianism to Pelagianism.

[Question]

Why does Weaver insist that the chief doctrine of Calvinism is God and not predestination?

[Context]

He explains that predestination is a fruit of the doctrine of God, not the center.

[Question]

How does the history of the Synod of Dort demonstrate the importance of sola scriptura in resolving theological disputes?

[Context]

The Synod's vow and process focused solely on Scripture to refute the Remonstrance.

[Question]

What does Spurgeon mean when he says, 'I do not serve the God of the Arminians at all'?

[Context]

Spurgeon rejects the Arminian concept of a changeable God who is subject to man's will.

[Question]

How should we respond when we encounter teachings that add to or contradict the finality of Christ's revelation?

[Context]

Weaver implies that such teachings should be rejected as heretical.

Applications

Format deepseek deepseek-v4-pro structured study JSON | Source Commentary.net transcript enrichment

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T03:39:05Z