By all accounts it would seem that evangelicalism is currently in the midst of a resurgence of interest in Reformed theology. At conferences and in publications all sorts of people are noting the growing interest in Calvinistic theology, especially (though certainly not exclusively) among younger people. Collin Hansen captured some of this interest in an article he wrote for “Christianity Today” called “Young, Restless, Reformed.” Now certainly simply saying something is happening does not make it so. But I am in agreement that this surge of interest does seem to be genuine and does seem to be widespread (and growing).

I am interested in asking questions of those who are quite new to an understanding of the Reformed faith or who are perhaps simply new to the “banner” of Reformed, even if they have always understand these doctrines of God’s sovereign grace. In particular, I am interested in knowing about how you came to understand the Reformed faith and what resources you depended on to teach you about them. Questions like these come to mind:

As you began to understand Reformed principles, what were your greatest and most pressing questions about this system of theology?

What aspects of Reformed theology most troubled you and were the most difficult to reconcile in your mind?

What resources did you turn to to help you explore the Reformed faith? Was it only Bible study that led you to Reformed beliefs or did you rely on secondary sources as well? Which were the most helpful resources (teachers, books, web sites, etc)?

Are there still questions that remain? Are there certain aspects of Reformed theology that you continue to wrestle with or that you simply do not understand?

How confident are you now in your ability to understand, defend and apply the principles of the Reformed faith?

If there are some people who would be willing to share their experiences, either in a comment or in an email, I’d be grateful.

This is the long-awaited third part of a series I began quite some time ago, a series which I am writing not primarily to rehash the theology of each of the points or to provide an exhaustive apologetic of Calvinism, but to draw some fresh application and to show what these doctrines mean to me as I ponder them and attempt to live in light of them. I hope to show that these doctrines of grace are more than “mere theology,” but can be integral in living out the Christian faith. I am assuming that my readers are, by and large, familiar with the Points of Calvinism. Still, I will provide a brief explanation of the doctrine before drawing application.

The “L” in the TULIP acronym refers to Limited Atonement, though, like many people, I prefer to speak of Particular Redemption (or, with Michael Horton, to speak of “Mission Accomplished”). Just as the “Total” in “Total Depravity” and the “Unconditional” in “Unconditional Election” can cause people to immediately draw wrong conclusions about the theology, so they “Limited” in “Limited Atonement” can make it seem that the work of Christ is somehow limited in a way that is outside of God’s control. This is, of course, impossible and just plain wrong. The doctrine of Particular Redemption says something like this:

Christ took only the sins of the elect upon Himself on the cross, providing a full and effectual (fully adequate) atonement for their sins. He did not provide only the potential for atonement, but actually provided the effectual atonement. His death secured everything necessary for salvation and this includes faith, which the Spirit graciously applies to the lives of the elect. Though Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for the entire human race, it is only imputed (or given) to the elect and hence the atonement is not limited in its power, but in its extent. The reason for this limited or particular nature of the atonement is that were Christ to sacrifice and die for someone and then that person did not choose to be saved, it would make Christ’s work a failure. Thus, by way of short summary, the scope of Christ’s atonement is limited to those who are predestined to salvation and the primary benefits of this work is given only to those who believe.

Here is a way of illustrating the doctrine.

This is a picture of a bridge. To elaborate a little bit, we could say that it is a partial bridge. It doesn’t look broken, as if a piece of it fell away, but rather looks like it was built that far and then work simply ceased. It spans about half of what appears to be a pretty sizable river and then just ends (or begins, depending which direction you approach it from). I have no idea where this bridge is, what the circumstances are surrounding it’s state or if it has a name (though it would be interesting to know, wouldn’t it?).

Consider this river for a moment and let it represent the chasm between God and man - the chasm created by man’s fall into sin. On the bank of the river stands a man who represents humans in their fallen state, living on this earth. He gazes across the gap to the far side where he can glimpse God, and glimpse heaven. Now how will he get to heaven? This bridge can serve as an illustration of a doctrine known as “unlimited atonement” or “conditional universalism.” This is a doctrine that is the very opposite of Particular Redemption and in effect it states that it was never God’s will to save any specific person. Rather, it was God’s will to do all He could to save all men, provided they would do the little bit that He could not. In other words, the death of Christ erected this bridge which extends across part of the chasm. Man need only swim out into the current and hoist himself onto the bridge. From there he can walk safely into heaven. And if you look again you will see that this is a wide bridge, able to carry many people. This bridge is wide enough for anyone, but extends only part of the way.

Now consider a second bridge that looks like this:

This bridge is quite a bit different from the last. Notice that rather than extending only halfway, this one extends from one bank to the other. Notice also that it is narrow, much narrower than the other. This bridge represents the doctrine associated with Calvinism that we know as Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption. This bridge spans the entire gap between God and man, though is not so wide as to carry all men, but only some. Where the first bridge was able to carry all men part of the way, this bridge carries some men the entire way.

Hebrews 12:2 tells us that Jesus is the “founder and perfecter of our faith.” He not only began but also finished the bridge. With His blood He “ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,” (Revelation 5:9) not merely providing the potential for their redemption, but effectually redeeming them when He cried out “It is finished!”

Limited Atonement: Confidence

When I wrote about the “T” in TULIP I said that the doctrine of Total Depravity stands as the great equalizer and when I wrote about the “U” in TULIP I said that it stands as the great humbler. When I ponder the doctrine of Limited Atonement and think about how it must be more than mere doctrine and how it must impact my life, I am continually drawn to the word “confidence.” This is not a confidence in myself, my own ability or even in my own status as a Christian, but a confidence in the Father and in the person and work of Jesus Christ. I like how Michael Horton in his book Putting Amazing Back into Grace describes this doctrine as “Mission Accomplished.” The Arminian understanding of this doctrine presents a Savior who did a great work of redemption but who did it for all men, both those who would be redeemed and those who would not. This is really conditional universalism, as Christ died for all men universally, the condition being that people must use their free will to embrace and accept Him. But the Reformed, biblical understanding of this doctrine presents a Savior who did the work of redemption for those whom the Father had chosen. He did not just do a work that had great potential to save, but a work that effectually saved.

Because Jesus Christ died for those who are His, and from the perspective of eternity, died for those who were already His—who had been chosen from before the foundations of the world—He accomplished what He set out to do. This doctrine gives me confidence that God will always and ever do exactly what He says. It gives me confidence that the promises of the Bible are not dependent on my initiative or my response, but are dependent on the very nature of God. What God says will surely come to pass because He provides the power to accomplish what needs to be done. Jesus Christ did not die for all men and then await my response to His work. Rather, He died for me and waited only for the time that the Spirit would begin to stir my heart and would call me to Himself. This gives me such confidence in God for it speaks so strongly of the way He works. It tells me that God acts sovereignty and depends upon no one but Himself. This stirs my heart, for I know that if He left the choice to me, I would reject Him every time. My heart swells with gratitude when I think that He died specifically and knowingly not for the mass of humanity, all of whom would willingly reject Him, but for the ones He had known from all eternity and the ones that He would draw to Himself.

We’ll continue this series (hopefully without as big a gap between entries) with the “I” from TULIP.

This is the second part of a series I am writing dealing with the doctrines of grace (otherwise known as the five points of Calvinism). I am writing these articles not primarily to rehash the theology of each of the points or to provide an exhaustive apologetic of Calvinism, but to draw some fresh application and to show what these doctrines mean to me as I ponder them and attempt to live in light of them. I hope to show that these doctrines of grace are more than “mere theology,” but can be integral in living out the Christian faith. I am assuming that my readers are, by and large, familiar with the Points of Calvinism. Still, I will provide a brief explanation of the doctrine before drawing application.

Today we will look at the “U” in TULIP. This doctrine is known as unconditional election, though some theologians have begun using other terms that are a little bit more precise. For example, R.C. Sproul and Steve Lawson speak of sovereign election while Michael Horton chooses to speak of grace before time. But of greater importance than the phrase are the definition and the application. We will turn to those now.

Unconditional election is one of the more contentious doctrines and the one that causes the most difficulty, for it deals with the touchy subjects of election and predestination. It is premised on several of the doctrines of God. Most notably, it is premised on God’s omnipotence and omniscience (which is to say that God is all powerful and knows everything). This doctrine teaches that God’s election of some to salvation and some to reprobation is entirely unconditional. God, in His sovereignty, makes the ultimate choice of who will be saved and who will not.

When we say that God’s choice is without conditions, it does not mean that His choice is random or haphazard but rather, to borrow the words of R.C. Sproul, that there are “no conditions attached, either foreseen or otherwise.” It is this word, unconditional, that distinguishes the Calvinistic understanding of election from other theologies. Because election is made clear in Scripture, every system of theology founded on the Bible must have some concept of it. Most teach that there are conditions to election, and most often, that the condition is God’s ability to foresee a person’s faith. In other words, on the basis of God’s knowledge that a particular person will exercise faith, He then sovereignty elects that person as His own. He knows this person will meet the conditions for election and elects him on that basis.

There are two objections to conditional election. The first is simply that by basing election on foresight we are destroying the very meaning of the word “elect.” As James Boice says, “It actually means that men and women elect themselves, and God is reduced to a bystander who responds to their free choice. Logically and causally, even if not chronologically, God’s choice follows man’s choice.” The second objection is that it would be impossible for God to foresee faith in the heart of a person who is spiritually dead. If people are radically depraved (as we discussed under the “T” in TULIP) it is impossible for them to display any kind of faith without the prior work of God. All God would see in the hearts of humans would be deadness and enmity towards Him.

And so Calvinism teaches that election is unconditional. God foreknows who will be His elect and his choice is based on His decree, plan and purpose. He chooses people for His good pleasure and does not make known to us why He has chosen some and not others. We do not know why He has set His love on only some. But we do know that God’s act of election brings His chosen people, through the Spirit, to a willing acceptance of Christ. They are not forced to love God against their wills, but have their hearts changed and renewed so that they desire God and willingly embrace Him. Those who are not elect never undergo this change of heart and so never truly desire God (and we will have more to say about this under the “I” in TULIP).

There are many facets to this doctrine that merit discussion. Is God just to elect only some? Is God active in reprobation or does God only choose the elect while those who are not elect choose their own fate? Why would God choose some and not others? But because my purpose in these articles is not to provide a thorough defense of the doctrines of grace, I will stop here and turn now to application.

Unconditional Election: The Great Humbler

When discussing the “T” in TULIP I said that it is the “great equalizer” — the doctrine that makes us all equal before God in our depravity. If total depravity is the great equalizer, unconditional election is the great humbler. Ephesians 2:8-9 cautions Christians against using their privilege of being among God’s elect as a point of pride. In fact, it suggests that if salvation were not all of God, we would be filled with pride. “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” When we acknowledge that salvation is all of God — He is the one who chose us, who provided the means of salvation through Christ, and who now gives us faith as a gift — we have no possible reason or cause to boast. We are humbled and brought low. We are undone.

And, like the two sides of a balance, as we are brought low, God is brought high. As we understand that salvation is all of God, as we understand that we could not possibly meet any conditions for election, we come to see God in His mercy and sovereignty. We see that God is gracious to those whom He loves and we see how and why we are in need of this grace. We see in unconditional election that the doctrines of grace are systematic theology, each depending on the others. When we look back to our radical depravity, depravity that extends to every aspect of our being, we understand why we are incapable of electing ourselves. When we understand how sinful we are and see that our natural hearts are wholly opposed to God, we realize that for anyone to be saved, He must be chosen and regenerated by God.

And so the doctrine of unconditional election is the great humbler. We are humbled when we see that we must rest not in the person who wills to be saved, but in God who elects and who has the power to save. We remove all trace of pride, all trace of self-confidence, and rest in the sovereignty of God. We allow this humility to filter to all areas of our lives, for only by God and through God are we saved. We lower ourselves and lift God high. We are humbled, so God may be magnified and glorified. And we live in service to God out of gratitude that His amazing grace extends even to sinners like us — sinners who would never and could never have chosen Him, but for His gracious and unfathomable choice.

We will continue this series in the future with a discussion of limited atonement, the “L” in TULIP.

Here are the first two entries in this series: The “T” in TULIP Part 1 and Part 2.

This is the second article in a series dealing with the Five Points of Calvinism and attempting to draw some fresh application from them. I anticipate that each of the five points will merit two articles.

The first article dealing with the T in TULIP can be found here. Today we will seek personal application for this doctrine.

Total Depravity: The Great Equalizer

I often feel that I have a boring or even uninspiring testimony. Like most believers, I have sat through (and sometimes endured) courses, seminars and Bible studies that have taught the value of a good testimony in evangelizing the lost. Many of these have taught evangelistic techniques that begin and end with a riveting testimony, as if God can only save through such a testimony. Of course, like any long-time believer, I have heard some incredible and inspiring testimonies. I have heard about women who were prostitutes giving their lives to the Lord and becoming active in ministry to women. I have met men who were drug dealers, living lives that would cause the most hardened of us to pale, but who were convicted of their sin and, through God’s grace, were saved. Compared to these, my testimony seems bland. It seems boring.

My testimony goes something like this: I was born into a Christian home. I was a pretty good kid and never got into any real trouble. Sure I lied a little bit and stole some pocket change from my mother on occasion, but I never did anything really bad. At some point during my teenage years I became a Christian. I do not have a crystal-clear idea of when this happened, but I do know that by the time I graduated high school I was a committed Christian. The end. Not surprisingly, no one has ever offered me a book deal or a spot on the speaking circuit to share that testimony with others.

Rebecca of “Rebecca Writes” fame, once expressed a similar sentiment in an article on her blog. “I came to Christ when I was very young. For almost as long as I can remember, I have been a crooked arrow being made straight rather than a crooked arrow spinning wildly. My testimony doesn’t start with ‘I was a teenaged prostitute drug-dealing felon, but God saved me.’ Nope. ‘I was a naughty five-year-old’ is about the worst I can do.”

In the article Rebecca expresses a belief that I share - Total Depravity is the great equalizer of believers before God. Even when we compare the most sinful man to the young boy who was saved long before he even knew how to get into serious trouble, we see that all men are equal before this law. After all, the Scriptures teach that we are not sinners merely because of the degree of our depravity, but because of the extent. As we saw in the first article on this topic, if we were to speak of a person who was totally depraved in degree, we would mean that the person was exactly as sinful as he could possibly be. Every thought of his heart and every action he undertook would be wholly, completely evil. Clearly there are some people in the world who are more depraved in degree than others and thus the degree of human depravity varies from person to person. This is why we need to distinguish between degree and extent. When we speak of a person who is totally depraved in extent, we mean that every part of that person has been affected by sin. His mind, body, spirit, motives, and thoughts are all corrupt and imperfect. In this measure, all men are equal.

The extent of my depravity is just as great as that of the worst sinner the world has ever known. The thoughts of his heart were continually evil, and so were mine. He hated God, and so did I. I had little opportunity to express this hatred and resentment, yet the Bible teaches that it was there all along. Titus 3:3 tells us that “For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.” These words are as true of a child as they are of an adult. Even a young child passes her days in foolishness, disobedience and malice towards both God and men. There are none who are truly innocent before God.

Ephesians 2:1-3 reads, “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” Rebecca writes, “Yep, there I was, in the evil band of those marching along the wrong path. I looked innocent enough, with my ringlets and ruffly dress and patent leather shoes, but what you couldn’t see is that I, too, was being energized by a spirit ruled by the prince of the power of the air. Yet God, in his mercy, reached down and plucked me from the power of darkness and transferred me to the kingdom of the Son.”

Were it not for Scripture’s clear teaching on Total Depravity, I may have cause to boast or to consider myself somehow more innocent than a person who instigated and endured much pain and suffering before being drawn to the Lord. Yet the Bible teaches me that my depravity, even as a child, was as great in extent as anyone’s. It was only His grace that kept me from being as corrupt in degree. If God delights in saving us, who are depraved in extent, we know also that God can save anyone despite the degree of his sin. If I compare myself to another and find him more in need of a Savior than I, I have made the mistake of comparing my sin to his, instead of comparing my sin to God’s perfection. God does not judge us by comparing one to the other, but against His perfect Law.

Before I close, I want to return briefly to those of us with what we perceive to be boring testimonies. It is amazing - shocking really - that the miracle of being delivered from death to life can be considered bland by myself or anyone else. Yet we all love a good story, and my story does not seem particularly exciting. But in reality, I think the testimony of a person, raised in a Christian home, who was saved in childhood is the most exciting testimony we can be privileged to hear. Is it not immeasurably beautiful that God is, indeed, faithful from one generation to the next? He promised the Israelites that He would show “steadfast love to thousands [of generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus 20:6). Perhaps this is best-expressed (as the footnote in the ESV says) as “showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation” of those who love Him. When the child of believing parents is given the gift of eternal life, we can marvel in God’s faithfulness to His promises. We can marvel also in His grace, that there are some whom He so blesses so that they do not need to experience such a degree of sin. Truly God is merciful. I pray and plead that He will extend such grace to my children, that they, too, may have testimonies of being drawn to Him while they are still young.

Total Depravity is not mere doctrine, but is truth that should and must impact the believer’s life. This truth is the great equalizer, for it shows that the best and worst of men are all equally corrupt in light of God’s perfect standard. “The man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it-he will be blessed in what he does.” (James 1:23) Rebecca writes, “Total depravity is both the nastiest and loveliest of truths, because it’s only by seeing exactly what I was that I can understand what has been done for me. Knowing the depth of God’s love comes only as I fathom how far he had to stoop to grasp me.” God had to stoop just as far to grab me as He did the lowliest criminal, for we were equally dead, equally depraved and equally in need of His grace, His life. We are equal as we fall to our faces before the cross.

We will continue this discussion in the future, as we move to the “U” in TULIP.

Yesterday morning my pastor preached on Romans 12-13 under the heading of “Cross-Centered Authenticity.” Though I missed much of the first half of the sermon walking the halls with a fussy baby, I returned in time to hear the end of the first (and longest) point and the final four points. I am glad I heard at least the summary of the first point, for it is a critical one. The pastor spoke of how the cross is the great leveller. “All of us have the same disease. All of us have the same problem. So I say the cross levels us. It makes us all equal. We all come to Christ dead in sin; no one is in less need of grace than anybody else and if we feel a kind of clinical detachment from other sinners…then I say to you that you don’t understand your own sin.”

This fit well with something I have been pondering in recent days. I have felt the desire to write a short series of articles on the Five Points of Calvinism (also known as TULIP), not primarily to rehash the theology of each of the points or to provide an apologetic of Calvinism, but to draw some fresh application as well. I hope to show that these doctrines of grace are more than “mere theology,” but can be integral in living out the Christian faith. I am assuming that my readers are, by and large, familiar with the Points of Calvinism. If this proves not to be the case, I will gladly step back and defend them from Scripture. But for now, we will assume at least some knowledge of them.

So let’s begin this series (which, unlike several other series I’ve embarked upon, I hope to actually complete) by discussing Total Depravity, the T of TULIP.

The term “total depravity” has fallen out of favor in recent days, in large part because “total” seems to be a word that confuses, rather than clarifies the doctrine. James Boice and Philip Ryken suggest “Radical Depravity,” as does Steve Lawson; R.C. Sproul suggests “Radical Corruption” and Michael Horton goes with “Rebels Without A Cause.” Regardless of the terms used, the doctrine reads something like this:

“Total Depravity is a theological term primarily associated with Calvinism, which interprets the Bible to teach that, as a consequence of the Fall of man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. In other words, a person is not by nature inclined to love God with his heart or mind or strength, rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor. Put another way, even with all circumstances in his favor a man without God can do nothing but work for his own destruction; and even his religion and philanthropy are destructive, to the extent that these originate from his own imagination, passions and will” (Wikipedia).

There is a sense in which Total Depravity undergirds the doctrines which follow it (Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints). Without Total Depravity, for example, it is possible for God to base election on the condition of a free will choice, thus rendering Unconditional Election invalid.

There is a bounty of biblical support for this doctrine. Genesis 6:5 tells us that “God saw that the intent of every heart was only continual evil.” Just two chapters later we read of man that “The intent of every heart is evil from its youth” (Genesis 8:21). Romans 3:10-18 tells us that there is none righteous. There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside. Other passages include Isaiah 64:6-7, Jeremiah 17:9, John 3:19, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 2:1-3 and 2 Timothy 2:25 and 26. Because the purpose of this article is not to defend this doctrine, I will make no further comment by way of defense.

When we say that mankind fell in Adam, we affirm that as our federal head, Adam’s sin was passed on to all of us. Adam represented the human race, and when he decided to forsake God, he did so on behalf of all of us. This is similar to a head of state declaring war on another nation - his declaration means that each person within his nation, each person that he represents, is now at war with the foreign country. Job laments “Or how can he be pure who is born of a woman?” (Job 25:4) No one who has been born of man can escape this radically sinful nature. Nature tells us that like begets like; a dog can only give birth to dogs, not to cats or frogs or birds. Similarly a sinful person can only bring forth other sinful people.

Another affirmation we make in the Christian view of the fall is that there is a sense in which the first sin is ours in the same way in which it was Adam’s. While we did not actually take the piece of fruit and eat it, God foreordained our relationship to Adam long before Adam fell so that from the moment of our conception we are sinful. We are not innocent until we commit our first sin, but are condemned, sinful people from the moment our lives begin. Psalm 58:3 tells us that “the wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” Before we are even born we are already sinful, and deliberately go astray as soon as we are able.

And so it is that humans are sinful from the moment life begins. But how sinful are they? We will turn to this now.

As we have seen, many Calvinists are uncomfortable with the term “Total Depravity.” Like others, I am convinced that a term such as Radical Depravity or Radical Corruption is superior. I believe these issues contribute to clarifying the matter, for by total depravity we do not mean that people are as depraved as they could possibly be—they are totally corrupt in some ways but not in others. It is here that it is helpful to distinguish between extent and degree.

When we say humans are totally depraved in extent, we mean that their depravity has reached every part of their being. It extends to every part of them - their mind, body and spirit are all corrupt. When we speak of a total degree of depravity, we indicate that something is exactly as bad as it could possibly be so that there is not even a tiny bit of good left.

Consider the illustration of three glasses of water. The first glass contains clean, pure water and represents Adam in his perfect state before the Fall. Now consider a second glass which contains this same clean, pure water. We can put one drop of deadly poison in that glass and it renders that entire glass poisonous so that if you were to drink it, you would quickly drop dead. That one drop extended to every part of the glass even though the entire vessel is not filled with poison. This represents humans after the Fall. While they are not wholly corrupt, the corruption they do have extends to every part. And finally consider a third glass which is filled entirely with poison. From top to bottom there is nothing but deadly poison. This represents Satan, who the Bible portrays as being absolutely corrupt so there is no good left whatsoever, but this does not represent humans here on earth. Humans are not as depraved as they could possibly be. We must note that sinful men who have been cast into hell will also be in this state where they are wholly depraved.

One might ask, then, why God has allowed men who are corrupt in extent not to be corrupt in degree. The reason we find in Scripture is simply that God is merciful. Had He not intervened every human would indeed be corrupt in both extent and degree. If every person in the world were as filled with sin as he could be, the world would be uninhabitable, filled with murderers, thieves and all manner of evil. Thankfully God has allowed even sinful men to avoid being wholly corrupt. There are several means He has given to do this.

Conscience - Every human being has been given a conscience, an inner working which helps restrain the desire to do evil. Paul writes in Romans 2 “…their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them.” (verse 15)

Government - God has put civil authorities in place to restrain men from evil. Furthermore, He has given them the authority to dispense justice and punishment. Romans 13 verses 1 through 5 speak to this. “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.”

Fear of Death - Humans have a natural fear of death. Every man-made religion emphasizes the necessity of doing good so that we can store up a treasure of good deeds to supposedly sustain us in the life after death. Hebrews 2:14-15 reads “[Jesus] likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”

Society - People are also restrained by the desire to appear good before their friends, families and society in general. Doing good is generally valued highly enough that people seek to attain to some degree of goodness.

That is the Christian view on depravity. All humans are corrupt in extent - every part of us testifies to our imperfection, but thanks be to God, not in degree. And before us lies a decision. God tells us that when we die we can anticipate either becoming perfected, so once again we will be like that glass of water that is crystal clear, free from any poison of corruption or being cast out of His presence where we will become like that glass of poison, as corrupt and evil and filled with hate as we could possibly be.

In our next article, I’d like to make an application for this doctrine.

October 31, just two weeks from now, will mark the 489th anniversary of the day that Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the church at Wittenburg. In so doing he struck a match, beginning a fire that quickly spread throughout Europe and throughout the world. Having become increasingly disillusioned with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and in particular the sale of indulgences, Luther wrote his Theses to try to begin the process of reform. While he was unable to bring reform to the church, he did trigger the Protestant Reformation by rediscovering the Gospel - the good news of salvation by grace through faith. The Reformation had profound influence in politics, art, literature and theology - while it was at its heart a Christian movement, it impacted all areas of society. That seemingly insignificant act is, in reality, one of the defining points of history. It is a shame that the day has largely been forgotten in favor of what is now the year’s most popular day, Halloween (Halloween is, after all, one of the few holidays that our society can celebrate without shame and without feeling politically incorrect).

Last year, Jollyblogger reflected on the day, saying:

But even the vast majority of those from protestant traditions, who believe that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone, have little, if any, appreciation for the Reformation. Here in America these same folks will celebrate national holidays like the 4th of July or Memorial Day or Veterans Day with the gusto they deserve while neglecting to remember the Reformation. This is a shame because the things that transpired at the time of the Reformation were world shaping events, whereas the national holidays that people from countries around the world usually have particular significance to particular nations and peoples. The Reformation has a significance that transcends national concerns.

But more importantly, the Reformation has a spiritual significance which transcends these lesser matters of life, like the affairs of nations. This is because the Reformation marked the recovery of the doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, to the glory of God alone. It marked the recovery of the gospel. While it is true that these things are taught in the Scriptures and that no reformer or other human being should be given credit for the doctrines themselves, it is also true that these precious truths had been all but lost before the time of the Reformation. In His providence, God chose certain men at a certain time in history to recover the very gospel itself. It is this gospel by which we are saved. And we who confess the evangelical faith in our day are remiss in forgetting this important aspect of our history.

We all ought to be exceedingly grateful that we were born in a time where the gospel is freely preached, freely shared, and freely heeded. It was not always this way. For the better part of a millennium, the gospel was largely forgotten. Let us not forget that, but for the grace of God, we may have been born in those dark ages, where the Bible was almost unknown, and when the church had little to offer but senseless, gospel-free tradition and superstition.

In recognition of the significance of this day, I would like to suggest that Christian bloggers mark October 31 with reflections on Reformation Day. You may want to reflect on a person, an event, or a particular point of theology. The topic is wide open, so long as it somehow ties in to Reformation Day. And remember, you do not need to be Reformed to appreciate the Reformation and all it stood for. If you do not have a blog of your own, but would still like to participate, why not ask another blogger if you can “guest” on his site that day (which is not to say that I am offering my blog for this purpose!).

I will gladly allow my site to serve as a repository for whatever links are provided to me. So, if you write an article, send me the link on October 31 and I will list it on my site.

In an attempt to make things even more interesting, I’ll kick in a prize to the article that is determined to be “best” (as judged by myself and likely a couple of other judges, and based on whatever subjective criteria we come up with).

For a prize I’ll offer:

• One print of your choice from Reformation Art.
• A copy of Steve Lawson’s book Foundations of Grace, the first in his series “A Long Line of Godly Men.”

So start thinking, start writing, and prepare to post your articles on October 31.

I thought it would be interesting to contrast two books I have received in the past weeks. The first quote is from Steve Lawson’s Foundations of Grace which I wrote about a couple of days ago. In this quote he contrasts Calvinism and Arminianism:

Never have two systems of thought been more polarized. The first system, Calvinism, is a God-centered, Christ-exalting way of viewing salvation. God alone is the Savior and, thus, God alone is the object of praise. In the other system, Arminianism, a completely opposite perspective is presented. Arminianism, also known historically as Semi-Pelagianism and Wesleyanism, divides the glory between God and man in the salvation of the human race. As a result, it diminishes the glory given to God. In the first system, that of the doctrines of grace, salvation is completely of the Lord. God alone supplies all that is necessary, both the grace and the faith. But in the latter scheme, salvation is partly of God and partly of man. Here God supplies the grace and man supplies the faith. Man becomes his own co-savior. In the first system, all glory goes to God alone. But in the latter, praise is shared by God and man. The only problem is, God will not share His glory with another.

In his recently published work Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, Roger E. Olson says that typifying Arminianism as being Semi-Pelagian is unfair. He distinguishes between Arminianism of the heart and Arminianism of the head.

Arminianism of the head is an Enlightenment-based emphasis on free will that is most often found in liberal Protestant circles (even among liberalized Reformed people). Its hallmark is an optimistic anthropology that denies total depravity and the absolute necessity of supernatural grace for salvation. It is optimistic about the ability of autonomous human beings to exercise a good will toward God and their fellow creatures without supernatural previent (enabling, assisting) grace; that is, it is Pelagian or at least semi-Pelagian.

Olson distinguishes himself and other “true” Arminians from the charges of Semi-Pelagianism that have often been held against those who hold to Arminian theology. He speaks of “Arminians of the heart:”

Arminianism of the heart—the subject of this book—is the original Arminianism of Arminius, Wesley and their evangelical heirs. Arminians of the heart emphatically do not deny total depravity (even if they prefer another term to denote human spiritual helplessness) or the absolute necessity of supernatural grace for even the first exercise of a good will toward God. Arminians of the heart are true Arminians because they are faithful to the basic impulses of Arminius and his first followers as opposed to later Remonstrants (who wandered away from Arminius’s teachings into early liberal theology) and modern Arminians of the head who glorify reason and freedom over divine revelation and supernatural grace.

In distinguishing between Arminians of the heart and Arminians of the head he seems to fall into an all-too-common practice among Christians, setting himself apart as a member of a select group who “get it.” According to Olson’s definitions, the vast majority of those who consider themselves non-Reformed Christians would be Semi-Pelagian. However, there is a small group that have held to the true principals of Arminius. “When conservative theologians declare that synergism is a heresy, they are usually referring to these two Pelagian forms of synergism. Classical Arminians agree. This is a major theme of this book. Contrary to confused critics, classical Arminianism is neither Pelagian nor semi-Pelagian! But it is synergistic. Arminianism is evangelical synergism as opposed to heretical, humanistic synergism.”

Such claims always make me nervous. Much like those who hold to Open Theism or the New Perspective on Paul, their claims depend on suggesting that other theologians of the past and present just haven’t properly understood. When Steve Lawson, R.C. Sproul and countless others have examined Arminianism and declared it to be Semi-Pelagian, they just haven’t quite understood the details. They unfairly typified Arminianism, confusing it with Semi-Pelagianism. Or so men like Olson have to conclude. Careful and skilled researchers that they are, I think this is unfair and uncharitable to the large number of Reformed scholars who, based on honest assessment, have reached such a conclusion. To redefine Arminianism before defending it seems more than a little disingenuous.

According to Olson’s definition, I’m sure he could, in many ways, agree with Lawson’s comments. He would simply state that Lawson is reacting against the Arminianism of the head that has become predominant in evangelicalism. But I doubt Lawson and most other Reformed scholars would care to make such a distinction.

Every year or so I find myself crawling back to a definition of the word Reformed that I first wrote up a couple of years ago. I find it worthwhile to revisit this every twelve months or so. With the amount of reading and studying I do in a year, I feel it is interesting to turn to this definition to see what I would change and what I would refine. I also find it humbling to see which parts of the definition I may have emphasized at the expense of others. And so today I thought I would define the word Reformed, trusting that the readers of this site will find it helpful. While Calvinism and Reformed are not fully synonymous, most people understand them to be so. Because the differences between them are subtle, I will use them synonymously.

It is important to understand that because the Reformed tradition arose from the Protestant Reformation, the term Reformed was not defined from within a void. Rather, it was defined as a biblical response to the excesses and perversions of the Roman Catholic Church. The Reformers, having returned to Scripture, attempted to carefully and faithfully rebuild the church upon the teachings of the New Testament. Thus by affirming Reformed theology, a person is implicitly denying certain other theologies, such as Catholic theology (which Reformed theology rose in opposition to) and Arminian theology (which later rose in opposition to Reformed theology). While Calvinism predates Arminianism, it was only codified in the five points after the rise of Arminianism. There is a sense in which Calvinism is both a cause of and the reaction to Arminianism. Or perhaps we could say that Arminianism is a response to Reformed theology, and the codification of Calvinism is a response to Arminianism.

There are many expressions of the Christian faith that are based at least partially on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible. These are separated into four main divisions: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant and Cults. Protestantism can be fairly readily divided into two camps: Arminian and Reformed. The vast majority of Protestants hold to Arminian doctrine. We will concern ourselves today with the minority who consider themselves Reformed. These tend to be people who attend Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist Churches, though they may be found in other churches as well. Sadly, there are many churches that were once Reformed and may still use the title, even if they have long since abandoned the theology.

It is surprisingly difficult to find a worthwhile definition of Reformed. While many people claim to understand the Reformed faith and are eager to provide a definition, few seem to be both fair and adequate. Here are a couple of examples culled from a Google search:

1. A term used to refer to a tradition of theology which draws inspiration from the writings of John Calvin (1510-64) and his successors. The term is generally used in preference to “Calvinist.”
2. Referring to the Reformation, it’s theology, and/or those subscribing to it. Also used to differentiate a,) Calvinism from Lutheranism, or b.) Continental European Calvinism from Scottish Calvinism, aka Presbyterianism.

Those are both concise definitions but ones that do not capture the full sense of the word. A far better and more complete definition is found at Five Solas. There Professor Byron Curtis, a professor at Geneva College breaks the definition into four parts which I will expound in some detail. The first two parts define foundational Protestant beliefs and the second two are exclusively Reformed. According to Curtis, to be Reformed is:

1. To confess the consensus of the five first centuries of the church:
   • Classic theism: One omnipotent, benevolent God, distinct from creation.
   • Nicene and Chalcedonian Trinitarianism: one God in three eternally existent persons, equal in power and glory.
   • Christ, the God-Man, the one mediator between God & the human race, incarnate, crucified, resurrected, ascended, & coming again.
   • Humanity created in the image of God, yet tragically fallen & profoundly in need of restoration to God through Christ.
   • The Visible Church: the community of the redeemed, indwelt by the Holy Spirit; the mystical body of Christ on earth.
   • The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
   • The Sacraments: visible signs and seals of the grace of God, ministering Christ’s love to us in our deep need.
   • The Christian life: characterized by the prime theological virtues of faith, hope, and love.

   It would be correct to say that, to this point, we are dealing with a statement of the Protestant faith more than a statement of the Reformed faith. From this list we see that Reformed Christians adhere to all the foundational beliefs taught in the Bible. These beliefs were the foundation of the early church and are based on the teachings of the Bible as interpreted by the apostles and early church fathers. Many of these beliefs were changed or lost as the Catholic Church grew in power and authority from the fifth century onwards. Throughout history there were isolated and often-persecuted pockets of non-Catholic believers who held to many or all of these points of doctrine, but they were largely lost until their rediscovery at the time of the Reformation.

   We will find that Professor Curtis’ definition is based largely upon a Presbyterian understanding of several doctrines. Reformed Baptists may take issue with the sacraments being signs and seals. I would suggest that Reformed believers will have a high view of two sacraments, though they may differ somewhat on just how they are to understood and how they are to be administered.

2. To confess the four solas:
   • The authority of Scripture: sola scriptura (Scripture alone)
   • the basis of salvation: Sola Gratia (Grace alone)
   • the means of salvation: Sola Fide (Faith alone)
   • the merit of salvation: Solus Christus (Christ alone)

   Again, these form the basis for Protestantism as much as they do for the Reformed tradition, though sadly the majority of Protestants will never encounter the terms. These are the principles that drove the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century and separated it from the Roman Catholic Church. These four points of doctrine are based entirely on the Bible and were the theological driving force behind the newly formed Protestant movement.

3. To confess the distinctives of the Reformed faith:
   • In salvation: monergism not synergism. God alone saves. Such monergism implies T.U.L.I.P., the Five Points of Calvinism from the Synod of Dordt:
     T = Total Depravity U = Unconditional Election L = Limited Atonement, or, better, Particular Redemption I = Irresistible Grace P = Perseverence and Preservation of the Saints

   These five distinct points of doctrine are also known as the five points of Calvinism as they were first articulated by John Calvin after the Reformation was in full-swing. They are based entirely on the Bible. When people speak of being Reformed these five points of doctrine are most often what they are referring to. Most evangelical (non-Reformed) churches do not hold to all of these points. Some hold to two or three (and occasionally even four), but most reject them in favor of Arminian theology which is, at heart, synergistic, relying on a cooperative effort between man and God.

4. Other Reformed Distinctives:

   Professor Curtis goes on to list other points of doctrine he believes are Reformed distinctives. They include: The Regulative Principle of Worship, Covenant theology (The Church is the New Israel - we most often see an expression of this theology in infant baptism, but it also impacts eschatology and many other doctrines) and Life is religion (Christians have neither jobs nor careers; they have vocations (callings)). I would not consider adherence to these principles necessary to consider oneself Reformed and I suspect the majority of Reformed Christians would agree with me. It is these distinctions that provide some of the differences between Calvinist and Reformed.

5. Finally: in everything, Soli Deo Gloria - to God alone be the glory in all things.

   This is, once more, something all Christians would claim, either explicitly or implicitly. In all areas of life we are to give glory to God alone.

So what does this all mean? To be Reformed is to adhere to the purist teachings of the Bible - to affirm the doctrine taught by Jesus, Paul and the apostles. Scripture is considered the ultimate authority in matters of life and faith and all Reformed doctrine is founded on the Bible. I am convinced that Reformed doctrine is nothing more than the teachings of Jesus, the Apostles and the totality of the Scriptures. Were it not for human sin we would have to make no distinction between biblical Christianity and the Reformed faith.

If you are interested in learning more about the Reformed tradition, there are many excellent resources availble to you. Here are a few favorites:

• Christian Handbook by Peter Jeffery - an excellent little book I reviewed here that introduces Christian beliefs from a Reformed perspective (A very brief review).
• Putting Amazing Back Into Grace by Michael Horton. This is an excellent, fun introduction to the Five Points (my review).
• Desiring God by John Piper - not for the faint-of-heart but does a great job of explaining Reformed principles (Discerning Reader reviews).
• What Is Reformed Theology? by R.C. Sproul (Discerning Reader reviews).
• The Doctrines of Grace by James Boice (Discerning Reader reviews).

There has been a good bit of talk in the blogosphere over the past couple of weeks about the election of a new President of the Southern Baptist Convention. As you no-doubt know, there are many who have been seeking to build bridges between the Calvinist and Arminian factions within the Convention. Monday’s “debate” between Paige Patterson and Al Mohler was an indication of the willingness of men on both sides of the divide to affirm their mutual respect and admiration.

As is so often the case, much of the discussion between the two factions deals with the subject of evangelism. It is a common charge levelled against Calvinists that Reformed doctrine somehow reduces the desire to share the gospel with the lost. Whether fairly or unfairly, Calvinists are notorious for their lack of evangelism.

This is not a fair charge and I believe that, in many ways, Arminian churches can be every bit as lax in their efforts to evangelize. I would go so far as to say that millions of Americans, sitting in Evangelical churches week after week, have never been evangelized. The reason for this is that too many believers do not understand the difference between outreach and evangelism. Efforts have been made to reach out to unbelievers and they may even have been drawn in to a church, but without ever hearing the gospel message.

Every Christian should agree on the necessity of reaching out to the world with the Good News of Jesus Christ. Through history some Christians and some groups of Christians have placed more emphasis on this than others, but nearly all have agreed on its importance. In the English language we have two terms that are often used synonymously to describe the sharing of the Good News - evangelism and outreach. In this article I would like to address the difference between outreach and evangelism, for I believe we often confuse the terms. We often feel that we have fulfilled the Lord’s command to preach the gospel through evangelism, when in reality we have been involved in outreach. While both are noble pursuits and can bring honor to God, it is evangelism that best fulfills His command to take the Good News to all the world.

Evangelism
e-van-gel ( -v n j l)

n.

1. The Christian gospel.

2. An evangelist.

[Middle English evaungel, from Late Latin vangelium, from Greek euangelion, good news, from euangelos, bringing good news : eu-, eu- + angelos, messenger.]

The root of the word evangelism, evangel, is derived from the Greek word euangelion which is translated good news. From that same word, we derive the word gospel. We find also that many words we use in English are in reality synonymous - evangel(ism), gospel and good news all speak of the same thing and find their root in the same word. They speak of the act of spreading the gospel and to the content of the message that is given. This is an important point to note - they refer both to the method and the message.

The word euangelion is found in many places throughout the New Testament. “The term is often used to express collectively the gospel doctrines; and ‘preaching the gospel’ is often used to include not only the proclaiming of the good tidings, but the teaching men how to avail themselves of the offer of salvation, the declaring of all the truths, precepts, promises, and threatenings of Christianity.” It is termed “the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24), “the gospel of the kingdom” (Matt. 4:23), “the gospel of Christ” (Rom. 1:16), “the gospel of peace (Eph. 6:15), “the glorious gospel,” “the everlasting gospel,” “the gospel of salvation” (Eph. 1:13).” (Easton Illustrated Dictionary)

In the Elwell Evangelical Dictionary we read specifically about Paul’s application of the term which he used over 60 times and is found in every one of his letters except for Titus. “Paul’s ministry was distinctively that of the propagation of the gospel. Unto this gospel he was set apart (Rom. 1:1) and made a minister according to the grace of God (Eph. 3:7). His special sphere of action was the Gentile world (Rom. 16:16; Gal. 2:7). Since Paul accepted the gospel as a sacred trust (Gal. 2:7), it was necessary that in the discharge of this obligation he speak so as to please God rather than man (I Tim. 2:4). The divine commission had created a sense of urgency that made him cry out, “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel” (I Cor. 9:16). For the sake of the gospel Paul was willing to become all things to all men (I Cor. 9:22-23). No sacrifice was too great. Eternal issues were at stake. Those whose minds were blinded and did not obey the gospel were perishing and would ultimately reap the vengeance of divine wrath (II Cor. 4:3; II Thess. 1:9). On the other hand, to those who believed, the gospel had effectively become the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16).”

We can find insight into what the gospel means to Christians through the words of William Tyndale, who was a great English Reformer and Bible translator. To him it signified “good, mery, glad and ioyfull tydinge, that maketh a mannes hert glad, and maketh hym synge, daunce, and leepe for ioye.” It truly is Good News!

Evangelism is more than telling people that Jesus loves them or that He died for them. It is telling people that they have offended a Holy God and stand before Him as condemned sinners. It is sharing with them that the good news, the best news of all, is that Jesus died for that very type of person. Jesus died to reconcile those condemned individuals to this God of justice. It is sharing with people that through faith they can be saved and can avoid an eternity of suffering for their offense to God. The Good News can only be understood in context of the bad news. If people do not understand the bad, if they do not realize that they are repugnant to God, befouled by their sin, they can not understand just how good the Good News is!

Outreach

Unlike evangel, the term outreach is not found in the Bible, though the idea certainly is. Outreach implies action more than message. Perhaps it is best defined as a business term: “an act of reaching out, bringing an organization’s services or products out into the community.” When a church engages in outreach, it is reaching out to the community in order to meet needs or to let people know of its existence. The Salvation Army is an excellent example. When tragedy strikes, especially in the case of natural disasters, the Salvation Army is often on the scene, providing food, clothing and other necessities. The Southern Baptist Convention does much the same as we saw in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Local churches in my hometown have some excellent outreach programs. For example, every year our town has a festival in a park down on the shores of Lake Ontario and one church brings in a climbing wall and allows all the children to scale the wall for no cost. This is an act of love by the church and allows people to make a connection with the church - a connection they hope will eventually draw people into fellowship. They see this as a selfless act and an act of grace as they give people something for nothing. So often people are shocked that a church would do this, for this activity usually represents the only activity in the entire festival that costs nothing. And so the church reaches out to people to give them an opportunity to see Christians in action and to learn about the church.

This is outreach. Unbelievers are given a glimpse of the love of Christ through believers. Believers take their love for the lost into the community and allow them to see changed hearts in action. There is usually nothing offensive about outreach, and it is often regarded as noble, even by those who are opposed to Christ.

The Great Commission

Jesus’ final words to His disciples, the foundation upon which His church would be built, were “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” This “Great Commission” was given by our Lord to direct the actions of His church from the moment of its birth until He comes again to bring it to Himself. Jesus’ words imply not outreach, but evangelism. We are to go to all nations and share this awe-inspiring message with people of every nation, race and creed. We are to share the full truth of the gospel. Needless to say, we can only share such news with our words. Our actions are important and should not be under-emphasized, but people are not saved by actions - they are saved by this message which holds the power to convict men’s hearts.

1 Corinthians 1:21 tells us “it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” This speaks both of the method, which is preaching, and the message, which is the Gospel. When we share the Gospel, then, we share a message that is offensive to the natural human mind. No human likes to be told that he has offended God and stands before Him as a condemned man. No human, in and of himself, would humble himself before this God and seek repentance. It is only through the power of God through the message of the Gospel that people can be saved, for God has ordained that He will work through this message to save His people. God uses this seemingly foolish and offensive message to reach people’s hearts and turn them to Him.

When we evangelize, we share this message in all its offense, for in the offense of the Gospel there is power! When we remove the offense, we remove the power.

Outreach vs. Evangelism

There is clearly a significant difference between outreach and evangelism. They are both noble actions and bring honor to God. It is important to realize, and this should be clear through the descriptions, that they are not synonymous. The greatest difference is that evangelism is primarily a message while outreach is primarily an action.

We should note that there may be an important link between outreach and evangelism. Often times we reach out to people to draw them into a place where we can evangelize to them. We may provide children with an opportunity to have fun so that we can invite their parents to come to our church where we will take the opportunity to share the Good News with them. It is the hope of any believer that his actions will cause others to realize he is somehow different and convict that person so he can ask what makes the believer different.

Conclusion

It is important that we do not confuse outreach with evangelism. Jesus gave His church, the body that He valued so highly He gave His life for it, a commission to go to the world and share the Good News of what He did. Every believer is responsible before God to do this - we are to tell others of their condition and to share with them God’s remedy. This can only be done through evangelism, through sharing the evangel which God uses to draw His people to Himself.

Don Whitney likens the evangelist to a mailman. The mailman has fulfilled the obligation of his job when he has delivered the mail to me. The measure of success in his job is to carefully and accurately deliver the message. How I respond to the letters I receive is none of his business. And the same is true of the evangelist. We have successfully evangelized when we have shared the Gospel. When we have carefully and accurately delivered the message of God, we can trust that we have pleased our Father. The message is delivered not through outreach, but through evangelism. It is simple enough to attract people to a message through outreach, and we can gather a large group of people through simple outreach, but we may not have evangelized them, even if they fill the pews of our churches.

Do you wish to fulfill our Lord’s great commission? Then go boldly, sharing this foolish, offensive gospel message, knowing that it carries in it the very power of God. Trust and believe that in so doing you are bringing honor to our Lord and Savior and doing your part to build His Kingdom. Reach out to the lost, but ensure that you always leave them with the message of the gospel. Actions may draw them, but words are necessary to convey the message through which God saves His people.

Today we will conclude this short three-part series dealing with assurance of salvation by discussing first the basis of assurance and then some marks of salvation.

We have all known people who think they are saved when all the evidence points elsewhere. It is a sad fact, and one we examined in the second part of this series, that many who think themselves Christians are not. At the final judgment many will approach Jesus convinced that they are saved only to be told that Jesus never knew them (and hence that they never knew Him). We can often discern these people today simply by asking others how they know they will be given entrance into heaven. The answer to this question reveals a great deal about a person’s understanding of the gospel.

Far too many people depend ultimately upon themselves for assurance. This applies, I suspect, equally to believers and unbelievers. A person may be truly saved yet look to himself for assurance of this salvation. This is dangerous ground to tread for when a person experiences a time of doubt he may drive himself to despair because of his misplaced assurance. In an article I wrote a year or two ago I warned against statements of assurance that begin with, “Because I…” When our assurance rests on something we have done, a promise we have made or a prayer we have prayed, we have placed our assurance on shaky ground.

Let’s turn to the Bible to discover the true basis for our assurance.

Assurance of salvation rests on God’s character

In the last article I quoted the words of the Apostle Paul as we find them in 2 Timothy 1:12 “I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me.” What was the basis of Paul’s assurance? He rested in the character of God. He knew whom he had believed and trusted that God was good and would preserve him. He trusted in the goodness of God and in God’s desire to save His people. He rested in the words of Jesus that “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” He knew that Jesus would never reject anyone who came to Him with humility and sincerity.

Assurance of salvation rests on God’s promises

We must not allow our assurance to rest on the basis of the words of any mere human. It is God who saves us and thus we must hear His heart on the matter. Hear some of the promises of God regarding salvation.

• “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved…” (Acts 16:31).
• “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
• “And this is the promise that he made to us -eternal life” (1 John 2:25)
• “whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” (John 5:24).
• “Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21).

God’s promises are sure. In recent days I have been reading a new book by Mark Dever which is a survey of the New Testament with one chapter dedicated to each book. The book’s title is The Message of the New Testament and the subtitle is “Promises Kept.” The title is telling for the New Testament is a book of fulfilled promises. We should need and require no greater proof that God keeps promises than the New Testament where we witness God fulfilling promise after promise after promise. If God assures us that He accepts us on the basis of the work of Jesus Christ, how can we argue? How can we doubt? If the Bible is trustworthy in telling us how we can be saved it must also be trustworthy in how it prescribes assurance of that salvation. If we will not trust the Scripture what can we trust?

Assurance of salvation rests on the completed work of Jesus Christ.

Before the birth of Jesus, while Joseph pondered Mary’s pregnancy and formulated a plan to be rid of her, he was visited by an angel who assured him that this child was of the Holy Spirit. The angel also told Joseph what Jesus’ life would accomplish. “…He will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). Three decades later, as Jesus prepared to draw His last breath He cried out, “It is finished!” He cried out for all the world to hear that He had accomplished the purpose for which the Father had sent Him. When Jesus died He did not merely make salvation a possibility for those who would grab ahold of it, but He fully and effectually saved those who believe in Him.

We can build our assurance on the fact that Jesus Christ died having accomplished our salvation. His work was finished. And so the question we face as believers is, “Do we believe this?” Do we believe that Jesus actually accomplished His mission? In his first letter to Timothy Paul writes, “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners…” Did Jesus accomplish what He came to do or did He merely allow the possibility of that work being accomplished?

And so we see that the basis of our salvation is God Himself. We can have great confidence that God does wish for us to have assurance and that He is ready, willing and able to provide it to us.

Marks of Salvation

This is an area, that for some reason, I feel woefully inadequate to discuss. I am going to turn to Don Whitney, whose work on this subject has done much to shape my understanding of assurance. I will provide an outline of the marks of salvation that he provides. He begins with a discussion of the inner confirmation from the Spirit. He shows that the Holy Spirit ministers to us through the Word of God to open our hearts and minds to the Bible in ways that give us assurance. He then teaches that assurance may be experienced partly through the attitudes and actions the Bible says will accompany salvation. Here are several questions which can guide us as we seek assurance:

• Do you share the intimacies of the Christian life with other believers?
• Do you have a deep awareness of your sin against the Word and love of God?
• Do you live in conscious obedience to the Word of God?
• Do you despise the world and its ways?
• Do you long for the return of Jesus Christ and to be made like Him?
• Do you habitually do what is right more and sin less?
• Do you love Christians sacrificially and want to be with them?
• Do you discern the presence of the Holy Spirit within you?
• Do you enjoy listening to the doctrines of the apostles taught today?
• Do you believe what the Bible teaches about Jesus Christ?

These biblical principals, taken as a whole, will do much to assure the believer that God is working in his life.

Ending at the Beginning

The impetus for this series was a web site I read where a Christian encouraged unbelievers to pray the following prayer. “Father I admit I am a sinner, and I will turn from my sin and do good. I believe that Jesus was your son and that He came here to die for me so that my sins would be forgiven. I ask you to forgive me and I will repent of my sins. In Jesus name I pray.” The author of the site then writes, “If you just prayed that prayer and meant it with all your heart, then God will know you as one of His own.” But is that necessarily true? This man has made the sincerity of the person praying the mark of a true conversion. It may well be that a person praying that prayer has become a believer. But I hope he will look beyond his sincerity and look to God for his assurance.

Conclusion

There is a great deal more we could discuss about this topic, but I am going to close this series nonetheless. I trust, though, that you have come to understand that assurance of salvation is the privilege of the Christian and that we are blessed to be able to seek after it. I trust that you have come to see that our assurance of salvation must not rest in our sincerity or in anything we have done. Rather, our assurance rests entirely in the character of God, the promises of God and the completed work of Jesus Christ. We can have assurance and I pray that both you and I will find and experience it to God’s glory.

If this is a topic that would you like to study, I would point you to Don Whitney’s excellent book on the subject, How Can I Be Sure I’m A Christian?.