On Tuesday we began a short series on assurance of salvation, a series that was rudely interrupted by my site crashing. I sought to show that, in many ways, contemporary evangelicalism can create an atmosphere in which many who consider themselves may have false assurance of their salvation. A decision-based system of conversion and regeneration has been historically proven to create many who believe they are Christians, yet who show little evidence of conversion. I looked in particular at assurance given to people based on their sincerity such as in an appeal that says “If you just prayed that prayer and meant it with all your heart, then God will know you as one of His own.” Such an appeal is dependent upon at least one human factor: sincerity.

Today I will begin to tie this into assurance of salvation, beginning with three affirmations.

It is possible and even normal for the Christian to experience assurance of salvation.

John MacArthur calls assurance of salvation “the birthright and privilege of every true believer in Christ.” This assurance is not only possible but should be the normal experience for any believer in Christ. Romans 8:16 teaches that assurance of salvation is part of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God…” Matthew Henry says the following about this verse: “But those that are sanctified have God’s Spirit witnessing with their spirits, which is to be understood not of any immediate extraordinary revelation, but an ordinary work of the Spirit, in and by the means of comfort, speaking peace to the soul. This testimony is always agreeable to the written word, and is therefore always grounded upon sanctification; for the Spirit in the heart cannot contradict the Spirit in the word.” 2 Peter 1:10 goes so far as to command us to pursue this assurance. “Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.”

Yet even more clear than these verses is 1 John 5:13. As John wraps up this epistle he reveals his purpose in writing it. “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” God has seen fit to provide us an entire book in the Bible that will teach us to know that we have eternal life. Surely, then, we can agree that God intends that we have assurance that we are His children.

Having seen that it is both possible and normal for the Christian to experience assurance of salvation, we now turn to a second point which seems nearly contradictory:

It is possible and even normal for the non-Christian to experience a false assurance of salvation.

A foreshadowing of one of the most terrifying scenes the world will ever experience unfolds in Matthew 7, in a section often titled “I Never Knew You.” “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’” When the final judgment comes, there will be many who will be shocked to learn that they are not true believers. They will go to the grave confident that they are saved, but come to the judgment and find that they are to be cast out of Jesus’ presence. This ought to be sobering for all who consider themselves Christians. No wonder that Paul sought confidence in his salvation, declaring 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.”

It is educational, of course, to look at the grounds for assurance of those who only think they are true believers. We will look at this in more detail in our next article, but for now notice the short phrase, “Did we not…” There is much we can learn from those few short words. Those who have false assurance have placed their hope in themselves and in their own efforts. They appeal to their own work rather than Christ’s.

We’ll now turn to our third affirmation, which should provide great comfort to those who struggle in this area.

It is possible and even normal for Christians to have doubts about their salvation

There is nothing unusual about occasionally doubting one’s salvation. The only thing unusual about doubt would be to experience it and not deal with it, wrestling with it, until it has been quelled by the power of the Spirit. A survey of many of the great believers of our day or of days past would prove that it is common to deal with some level of doubt. This is usually not a consuming doubt that drives a person to constant depression and despair, but a more occasional doubt that can be overcome by the ministry of the Spirit.

Don Whitney lists several important understandings about this type of doubt. First, doubting assurance is not the same as experiencing unbelief. A person can have a strong, vibrant faith in Jesus Christ while still feeling some level of doubt. We must not make doubt and unbelief synonymous terms, lest a person feel that his brief periods of doubt indicate serious unbelief in his heart. Unbelief presupposes a denial of many important points of doctrine where as doubt is mere uncertainty about them. Second, there are many causes of doubt. We can doubt because of the attacks of Satan, because of trials or difficult circumstances, because of sin in our lives or even a mental or physical condition. Doubt is not necessarily brought about by overwhelming sin in our lives. Third, spiritual immaturity may contribute to doubt. With greater maturity comes a greater understanding of God and our position before Him through Jesus’ atoning death. Thus we would generally expect doubts to decrease as a person grows in spiritual maturity. Fourth, sensitivity to sin may cause confusion about assurance. Believers, through their reborn hearts, are blessed with a greater sensitivity to sin. This heightened understanding of the gravity of sin may lead young Christians to doubt. Yet it should be noted that this increased understanding of sin is actually a mark of the Spirit’s work with a person’s heart. Fifth, comparisons with other believers may cloud assurance. Comparing oneself to other believers may emphasize the immaturity of a person’s faith. We must understand that people mature only with great effort and over a great amount of time. It is often unrealistic to compare oneself with a believer who is far more mature. Finally, childhood conversion may affect assurance. A person who was converted as a child may feel that he was deceived when he made the decision. He may feel that his decision is somehow less meaningful because Christianity is all he has ever known.

We see, then, that there are many possible reasons that may lead Christians to lose their assurance of salvation. Some of these are internal factors and some are external. Some of them may, in fact, be given by God Himself to test and sharpen us. So the believer can have confidence that some doubt is common to the Christian life and that, while doubt is a symptom of living in a sinful world, it is not necessarily sinful to struggle with it.

By way of brief review, we have seen that assurance of salvation is possible for the believer, that false assurance of salvation is possible for the unbeliever and that it is normal for Christians, from time to time, to experience doubt about salvation.

We will conclude tomorrow by looking to the basis of true assurance.

If I were to ask you, “How do you know that you are a Christian?” how would you respond? Where do you look for your assurance of salvation? Do you look inside yourself? Do you look to the past - perhaps to an act or decision you made? Or do you look outside of yourself? I have written in the past about the doctrine of assurance of salvation, a belief John MacArthur rightly calls “the birthright and privilege of every true believer in Christ.” Today I want to tie it in to another topic that is a concern of mine. I speak of “Decisional Regeneration,” a term that describes much of what we understand by conversion in modern evangelicalism.

Before we turn to decisional regeneration we must first define regeneration. J.I. Packer thoroughly defines regeneration as “…the spiritual change wrought in the heart of man by the Holy Spirit in which his/her inherently sinful nature is changed so that he/she can respond to God in Faith, and live in accordance with His Will (Matt. 19:28; John 3:3,5,7; Titus 3:5). It is an inner re-creating of fallen human nature by the gracious sovereign action of the Holy Spirit (John 3:5-8). This change is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. It originates not with man but with God (John 1:12, 13; 1 John 2:29; 5:1, 4). It extends to the whole nature of man, altering his governing disposition, illuminating his mind, freeing his will, and renewing his nature.” Regeneration, said simply, is the Spirit’s act whereby He gives to man a new nature which frees his will and gives him a disposition towards God. This definition is thoroughly Reformed, and thus thoroughly Biblical.

A survey of Christian doctrine would find three predominant views on when regeneration occurs. Do note that each tradition would have a slightly different definition for the term.

The first is known as baptismal regeneration. The Roman Catholic tradition, as well as that held by Anglican, and Lutheran groups, believe that regeneration occurs at the moment of baptism. When a child is baptized, the Holy Spirit immediately regenerates that person. The Catholic Catechism typifies this view: “Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte ‘a new creature,’ an adopted son of God, who has become a ‘partaker of the divine nature,’ member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.” (Pg.354, #1265) This view has been deemed false by the vast majority of Protestants who believe it undermines the plain teaching of the Scriptures.

The second view is that the Holy Spirit regenerates a person at a time of God’s choosing. We could call it “monergistic regeneration” to indicate that it depends solely on God. This regeneration does not depend on man or on any desire or decision on his part. The Spirit moves in the person, giving him a new nature and allowing him the capacity to express faith and a desire to know and trust God. This view is closely associated with Calvinism and the Reformed faith and its high view of God’s sovereignty.

The third view is the one we are concerned with and it emphasizes a decision, hence the term decisional regeneration. This view, quite a late addition to Christianity, was popularized by Charles Finney and is now the majority view in evangelicalism. In this view man has been wooed by the Spirit to the point that is now able to have faith in God and he then expresses that faith in a decision to follow the Lord. When he makes this decision he is immediately regenerated. While the decision is internal, it is often expressed in a prayer, a physical action such as raising a hand or walking to an altar or even in something as simple as marking a decision card.

Jay Adams writes “The great theological difference between modern evangelism and biblical evangelism hinges on this basic question whether true religion is the work of God or of man. At best, the doctrine of ‘Decisional Regeneration’ attributes the new birth partly to man and partly to God.” When God and man cooperate in salvation, it becomes important to appeal to human emotion and desires and to secure a human response to what the Bible tells us is God’s work. We allow man to play the role of God and decide for his own salvation. Man allows the Spirit to enter his heart through an act of decision rather than believing that the Spirit does a work apart from the will of man. Decisional regeneration, then, suppresses the teaching that God alone is active in salvation, in giving life, and that man is utterly helpless apart from Him.

The risk we take in telling people that they have been saved after they have marked a card or raised their hand, is that we know only that they have made some type of decision. This decision may be sincere and well-intentioned, but it does not necessarily indicate that the Spirit has regenerated the person. The legacy of Charles Finney in church history is largely one of failure, of creating masses of people who believed they were Christians, but most of whom showed no evidence. They were assured by their decision which they could always regard as a milestone in their lives, but while they had raised their hand, and no doubt felt sincere when they did so, they had never turned to Christ. Why had they not done this? Because the Spirit had not done any work in them and they were, thus, unregenerate. They had attempted to make themselves believers, a task which can only be done by God. The same problem prevails today. When we tell people that their decision is indicative of their salvation, we may give them false hope. We may give them assurance that is not ours to give. The biblical reality is that God gives salvation to whom He wishes. “For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.” (John 5:21)

In the past I have focused on the outward sign of a person’s belief that he or she has been saved, whether this sign be marking a decision card or raising a hand. Recently I have become concerned with another facet of evangelical conversions. While I have struggled with this for some time, a web site I visited yesterday spurred me to write about it. To further my research on a topic I will soon be writing about I was visiting the site raptureletters.com and noted the letter the site contains that exhorts people to turn to the Lord. It climaxes with 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.”

What struck me in that letter, which is quite typical for the content of an evangelical altar call (and, in fact, I have heard many, many similar appeals) is that there is an undeniably clear human requirement for salvation. The prayer will only be effective, we may note, if the person means it with all his heart.

Now while all Protestants affirm, at least in theory, that salvation is wholly an act of God, it must be admitted that in such an appeal for salvation there is added a human requirement: sincerity. And so I return to the question with which I opened this article. When you seek assurance of your salvation, where do you look? Will you take refuge in the sincerity of your prayer? Will you comfort yourself by saying, “I meant it with all my heart”? If you take refuge in your own sincerity or in the passion you felt years ago when you prayed a prayer, you are building your assurance on shakey ground.

I will continue this discussion tomorrow with some suggestions on how we can build assurance on the solid truths of God’s Word.

I want to take a little break today from our regularly-scheduled programming (a series about profanity) to discuss something that has been on my mind a lot over the past few days. It stems from a few things I’ve read and a few discussions I’ve had, so I wanted to write about it while it is still fresh in my mind. Be warned that I am writing this by way of stream-of-consciousness so it may wander a little bit!

The Westminister Shorter Catechism asks the question, “What is the chief end of man?” Many of us know the answer. “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” While this is not a phrase drawn directly from Scripture, the wisdom behind it surely is. The Bible tells us with great clarity that man was created in order to bring glory to God. Thus the chief end of Christians and of the church is to bring glory to God. There is no higher calling. And as John Piper has told us repeatedly in his books and teaching ministry, we do so by enjoying Him forever. “The great business of life is to glorify God by enjoying him forever.”

I believe, though, that many evangelical churches would disagree with this. They might not say so, but their actions would prove that they feel man has a higher calling. It seems to me that many churches would say, “Man’s chief end is to evangelize the lost.” For many Christians and for many local churches there is no higher aim than to bring others to the Lord.

Before I continue I will affirm that I place great value in evangelism and regard it as a Christian duty. A church that does not care to evangelize cannot be a healthy church and likewise, a Christian who never shares his faith is, in all likelihood, spiritually ill. Evangelism is a privilege and an honor and I admire those who have dedicated their lives to sharing the good news with others.

But I do not believe that evangelism should be our highest goal.

A few years ago I spoke to a pastor of a small church that had been formed largely on the basis of Purpose Driven principles. I asked what their discipleship process involved. I was shocked when the pastor told me, without any remorse, that “if you are really looking to grow as a Christian this isn’t the church for you.” He went on to explain that his church was geared almost entirely towards evangelism. The Sunday morning services were stripped of almost anything that might offend: congregational prayer, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper and so on. The music was done in the style of what was most popular in the town and the preaching always presupposed almost no knowledge of biblical principles. There was a small amount of discipleship training, but only on a very basic level. In other words, this church was driven by unbelievers. Their tastes, their likes and dislikes and their desires were considered the foundation for all the church was and did.

My current church likes to use the motif of a journey to describe the Christian life. The journey begins somewhere and ends somewhere and along the way there should be continual growth. But according to the pastor I spoke to, he would lead people into the fledgling stages of this Christian life and then abandon them in order to focus on people who were still on the other side of that starting line. He would lovingly take people from point 0 to point 1, but then turn his back on them to look for others. This pastor showed that, in his opinion, there was nothing greater than evangelism. He could not honor God more than if he was leading people to recite a sinner’s prayer.

A person like this pastor tends to interpret everything in the Christian life through this false assumption of man’s chief end and applies guilt to those who do not constantly evangelize. He may regard theology as something evil - something that detracts from the ability to witness. I have often had discussions with people who feel that theology is actually opposed to evangelism. If we are learning theology, they might say, we are missing opportunities to evangelize.

I believe that, to a great extent, this belief is based on Arminian assumption - that *we* are ultimately responsible for the spiritual state of our fellow man. It fits well with the oft-repeated warning that “there are people in hell right now who are there because you did not preach to them.” It assumes too much of our responsibility and our ability (and the ability of the one who hears). It speaks too little to the work of God in predestining some to eternal life and certainly speaks too little to the fact that until the Spirit opens hearts, every person is blind. “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4).

Theology, if it is an end in itself, can be bad. It sounds strange but it is true. Theology is not intended to be an end in itself. Rather, our theology should drive and motivate our lives. Our theology informs our evangelism. I have little doubt that, having studied theology over the past couple of years, I am better equipped to evangelize now than I was two years ago. I know more of God, more of His character and more of His Word. I have come to see the mistakes I used to make when I evangelized and know how to correct them in the future.

In speaking to people like the aforementioned pastor I have often been told, implicitly at least, that God holds a giant clipboard on which he takes notes on the amount of time we spend learning about Him and compares it to the amount of time we spend teaching others about Him. If we do not maintain the proper balance (as defined by these people) God is displeased with us. I have come to realize that this is simply not the case. We are responsible to take opportunities presented to us in which to evangelize and are even responsible to work towards creating such opportunities, but I see no reason to believe that these need to be equal pursuits in terms of time and attention. Our primary responsibility is to ensure that we are bringing glory to God through our lives as we use the gifts and talents God has given us and that we constantly submit our time and our talents to Him.

I grew up in a Christian culture in which very little evangelism took place. How little? Well, the first adult I ever witnessed getting baptized was my wife (she was my girlfriend at the time) and that was when we were nineteen or so. I believe it was also the first time our church had ever baptized an adult. And what’s more, it was the first time most of the people who attended that church had ever seen an adult get baptized. While it is not necessarily so, it seems that there is bound to be something amiss with the evangelistic focus of churches that never, ever see any outside converts through their ministry.

A few years after my wife’s baptism we moved away from the town we had grown up in so we could be closer to my place of business. After several months of visiting different churches around the area, we found ourselves a home at the church we attend now. It is a church that, while it is not seeker-friendly, is very outward focused. We have seen many, many people come to faith, including several who are now our closest friends. We have seen lives be altered dramatically and have seen more baptisms than we can count - baptisms in rivers, pools, hot tubs and a really big, ugly aluminum tank. Of course I will have to grant that this is a Baptist church and they insist on baptizing people who were baptized as children or, as in my wife’s case, were not immersed but sprinkled when baptized as adults. So some of the baptisms we have witnessed would be considered “re-baptisms” in a standard Reformed or Presbyterian setting. But the fact is that we have seen a vast number of people get saved in one of the most unchurched parts of North American through this church’s ministry.

Over the years I began to reflect (and I’ve been using that word quite a bit lately, I believe) on what made the churches I attended as a child and teenager so ineffective at evangelism. I have to be careful here because I know several people from the churches of my youth who read this site and I want to be careful that I accurately characterize these churches. While there are several reasons I could provide, and they are of varying importance, there is one that I believe stands at the foundation of the rest: These churches regarded the unbeliever as the enemy. Of course the church would never have articulated that belief, but it seemed to be deeply rooted.

This attitude manifested itself in many ways. One of the clearest ways was among the children of church members. They would rarely, if ever, be allowed or encouraged to play with the unsaved children in the neighbourhood. I knew a man who was an “urban missionary” whose children were confined to their backyard and were never, ever allowed to play with the other children in the area. My father used to joke that a man could become rich by selling fencing supplies to people in these churches. The churched children were not allowed to play with other children lest they become corrupted by their worldliness.

My observation was that this approach failed badly. First, the church was not faithful to its calling to take the gospel throughout the world (and the world begins just outside the front door). Second, the children developed a fascination with worldliness simply because any access to the world had been denied to them and they had never seen the pain and heartbreak that are the inevitable result of forsaking God. The world looks awfully attractive until a person sees the results of giving himself over to it. Third, the parents ignored worldliness in their own children. I know that I saw more drugs, more drinking, more disrespect and more awful behavior in the Christian schools I attended than I did in the public schools. This isolation simply did not work.

The attitude that was modeled to me was far different. My family took the opposite approach and we were always encouraged to make friends with the children in the neighbourhoods we lived in. My parents saw this as a stepping-stone to meeting the parents and having opportunity to share the gospel with them. And we saw many children and parents come to faith in this way. Many others may not have become believers, but they received a clear presentation of the gospel so that they are now without excuse. Mom and dad did not do this because they regarded the folks in the neighbourhood as a project, but out of a genuine love, concern and appreciation for these people. The person next door was not an enemy, but a person who was as unsaved as they were not too many years before, and was thus someone in desperate need of a Savior. And they intended to give everyone the opportunity to meet the Savior through them.

Sometimes worlds clashed. There were a couple of times when my sisters brought friends to church, friends who were unsaved but were showing interest in the gospel, only to have them mocked or scorned. One little girl was scolded and had her ear “flicked” by the woman in the pew behind her because she was not able to sit still throughout the service. A friend my sister brought to church was openly mocked by the children in the church (children who later had a surprise “encounter” with myself behind the church, but I digress) because he had dyed-blond hair and an earing. He never returned, and as far as I know, never expressed any openness to the gospel after that time.

I truly believe, after many years of reflection, that the real problem in these churches was in their attitude towards the unbeliever. The person next door was the enemy, a person to be feared for what he might do to the family, and the children in particular, and thus someone to be regarded with distrust and suspicion rather than with love.

Sometimes I think it is little wonder that the Emerging Church crowd rebels against evangelism metaphors that make the unbeliever sound like an enemy. Perhaps these metaphors do cause us to regard unbelievers as a rebel army that we need to fear. It occurs to me that when we sing “Onward Christian Soliders” we are not singing a battlecry that will lead us out to battle against the unbeliever next door. No, we are not waging war “against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12).

The real enemy is not next door. He is not human flesh and blood. The real enemy has been given temporary rule over this world and seeks to destroy us by leading us to rebel against the Creator. And he extends his rule when he convinces us that rather than battling against him, we battle against the enemy next door.

John Calvin is a man loved and respected by some, despised and reviled by others. Those who dislike Calvin and his theology are likely to protest on many grounds, but the most common are his view of predestination and an understanding of Calvin as something of a dictator over the town of Geneva. It is not unusual to find people who villify Calvin as nothing short of tyrannical - a despot who let no one and nothing stand in his way. Calvin is most notorious for the situation regarding Servetus, a man who was found guilty of heresy and executed for this belief. Here are a few quotes I found regarding Servetus:

• “On October 27, 1553 John Calvin, the founder of Calvinism, had Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake just outside of Geneva for his doctrinal heresies!”
• “He was seized the day after his arrival, condemned as a heretic when he refused to recant, and burned in 1553 with the apparent tacit approval of Calvin.” [Do note that this is taken from the same article as the first quote. I’m not sure how the author reconciles his assertion that Calvin had Servetus burned at the stake with his second assertion that Calvin merely gave tacit approval!]
• “Calvin had him [Servetus] arrested as a heretic. Convicted and burned to death.”
• “Calvin killed Servetus because he disagreed with him.”

In speaking to people about the doctrines of grace I have often had to address their assertions, usually made without any real understanding of the situation, that John Calvin was a heartless dictator. So today I would like to address the Servetus problem.

Michael Servetus

Michael Servetus was a Spanish theologian and physician who lived from 1511-1553. In his early years he came into contact with many leading Reformers and while he broke with the Roman Catholic Church and became at least nominally Protestant, he adopted a particularly heretical belief, denying that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. He also denied paedo-baptism, a belief which further alienated him from Protestant and Catholic alike. His books on Christian doctrine were read and examined by the Catholic Church and he was condemned as a heretic. He was arrested, tried and sentenced to death, but managed to escape from his captors. He fled towards Italy, but for an unknown reason decided to pass through Geneva.

Geneva, of course, was the home of John Calvin and the very center of Reformed doctrine. Servetus’ decision to stop in Geneva was in no way innocent. Some have suggested that he arrived in Geneva almost by accident, but this is not true. He was clearly hoping to exert influence over Calvin and to convert him to his errant understanding of the Trinity. It seems that Servetus was a strange combination of genius and lunatic.

Servetus’ reputation preceded him and Calvin and the other Reformers knew of his heresies. Calvin had earlier written a now infamous letter to Farel, dated February 13th, 1546, where he said, “Servetus wrote to me a short time ago, and sent a huge volume of his dreamings and pompous triflings with his letter. I was to find among them wonderful things, and such as I had never before seen; and if I wished, he would himself come. But I am by no means inclined to be responsible for him; and if he come, I will never allow him, supposing my influence worth anything, to depart alive.” When Servetus, at last, arrived in the city, Calvin was left with the unenviable position of having to decide whether to allow the heretic to continue his teaching in Geneva, which would inevitably lead people to believe that the Reformed church was lenient towards heresy (softer even that the Roman Catholic Church that had already condemned this man to death), or to attempt to take action.

Calvin found that he had little choice but to ask the civil authorities to intervene. Historian Francis Higman correctly says “there was a sort of horrid inevitability about the whole thing.” Calvin had no political authority whatsoever, and was not even a citizen of Geneva until six years later. Calvin did what he could, which was to ask the civil authorities to investigate the matter and to take action. They consulted churches in Geneva and elsewhere in Switzerland and found that this was a matter worthy of trial. The trial was lengthy and deliberate. Servetus was eventually found guilty and was condemned to be burned at the stake, despite Calvin’s request that he be executed painlessly by being beheaded. Michael Servetus was put to death on October 27, 1553. Several months later the Catholic Inquisition in France executed him once more, this time in effigy.

Answering the Critics

Here are several pointers you may wish to consider when answering critics.

• Motives - Some non-Reformed Christians hail Servetus almost as a hero, for no other reason than he casts a shadow over John Calvin. They would do well to remember, though, that Servetus was a heretic who denied a doctrine of absolute foundational importance. There can be no salvation for one who denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. We must ensure that people are researching Servetus out of pure motives and not merely in an attempt to villify Calvin.
• Historical Context - Do remember that we are not dealing here with modern day Western nations where there was a clear separation between church and state. Religion was inseperable from politics. Church and state were mingled and both rulers and the common man felt that a common religion was absolutely critical to the maintenance of order. In the sixteenth century heresy was a common charge and heresy of the magnitude expressed by Michael Servetus was almost always punishable by death. It may be helpful to draw people’s attention to the Old Testament where God not only approved of, but commanded, the destruction of entire nations. Surely this would seem atrocious to modern readers, and surely God would no longer command it today, yet at the time it happened it was common practice. The times change. We see evidence of this as well in the New and Old Testaments where believers owned slaves, another practice we would consider abominable and unfitting for Christians.

  Paul Henry, a notable historian, writes: “Calvin here appears in his real character; and a nearer consideration of the proceeding, examined from the point of view furnished by the age in which he lived, will completely exonerate him from all blame. His conduct was not determined by personal feeling; it was the consequence of a struggle which this great man had carried on for years against tendencies to a corruption of doctrine which threatened the church with ruin. Every age must be judged according to its prevailing laws; and Calvin cannot be fairly accused of any greater offence than that with which we may be charged for punishing certain crimes with death.” Calvin was right to take action. The horrid inevitability was that in this time and place heresy was a civil offense and one punishable by death.

• Calvin’s Authority - Critics of John Calvin like to suggest that John Calvin ordered the execution and that he murdered Servetus. Remember the quotes from the beginning of this article. It is important to note that John Calvin had no authority in the town of Geneva. He was not even a citizen until six years after this happened! Those who would have us believe that Calvin had the authority to have this man murdered would do well to note that he did not have the power to lessen the sentence. Calvin requested action and testified at Servertus’ trial, but it was the civil courts that sentenced the man to death.
• Calvin’s Compassion - Calvin’s critics have often suggested that Calvin delighted in the death of Servetus. This is difficult, and likely impossible, to prove. It should be noted that Calvin was the only person who suggested a lighter sentence, asking the court to allow Servetus to die painlessly by beheading. Calvin prayed with and for Servetus and earlier in his life had sent Servetus a copy of his Institutes. Interestingly, Servetus returned the book with many abusive and insulting comments written in the margins. Despite this offense, Calvin showed clear pastoral concern for this man’s soul. But Servetus died clinging to his heretical beliefs.
• Expiation - Three hundred and fifty years after the death of Servetus, a monument of expiation was erected at the place where Servetus was executed. On one side of this monument are recorded the dates of the birth and death of Servetus. On the opposite side is this inscription:

  “Dutiful and grateful followers of Calvin our great Reformer, yet condemning an error which was that of his age, and strongly attached to liberty of conscience, according to the true principles of the Reformation and of the Gospel, we have erected this expiatory monument. October 27th, 1903.”

  While such a monument can hardly atone for the death of a man, it does express a post-Reformation understanding that such an act was unacceptable and an unfortunate product of the times.

Conclusion

Perhaps it is also helpful to note that while Calvinists are called after John Calvin, they identify more with his theology than with the man himself. Many, and no doubt most Calvinists have never read a word of John Calvin. Instead they reluctantly call themselves Calvinists because they feel John Calvin was gifted by God to understand and interpret the Scriptures and that he restored to the church doctrine that had been lost for hundreds of years. His gift to the church was not himself, but the doctrines of grace illumined to him by the Holy Spirit. The death of Servetus, and the role played by John Calvin, stand as proof that he was in no way perfect and was as much in need of grace as any of us.

In the first article of this brief series we examined Total Depravity, as a prerequisite to evaluating the following statement: “Those who believe in total depravity have more confidence in the possibility of humans having divine knowledge- detailed, down to the footnotes knowledge- than many who don’t call themselves Calvinists.” I indicated that I did not wish to debate Total Depravity at that time, but instead merely wanted to define it. After ninety eight posts (and counting) in the forums I have to conclude that Total Depravity is quite the hotly-debated topic and is one I will have to return to in more detail in a later series. I do not think it is a topic that can be covered sufficiently in only a few paragraphs. With the promise to return to Total Depravity at a later date, let’s move on through this series and examine the clarity of Scripture.

The clarity of Scripture (also known as the perspicuity of Scripture) is a critical doctrine and one that was hotly debated at the time of the Reformation. During the Reformation the Protestant leaders affirmed their belief that the Bible was not a book that had to be kept only in the hands of the religious authorities, for with the Spirit’s guidance any Christian could read and understand it. They pointed to passages in the Bible that seemed to affirm this doctrine, insisting that Scripture testifies that it is clear.

Perhaps the best-known affirmation is in Deuteronomy 6:6-7, a passage that was of utmost importance to the Israelites. “And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” God expressly commanded that the Bible was to be taught to children and thus it was assumed that they could understand it. He expected that every person would know, discuss and understand His Word.

David, in Psalm 19, goes so far as to say that the Word of God will make the simple wise. “The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (Psalm 19:7). He expresses this again in Psalm 119. “The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple” (Psalm 119:130). Surely David would not have suggested that the Scripture can make the simple wise if it was too difficult for them to understand!

Jesus never gave reason for us to believe that the Scriptures are too difficult to understand. He repeatedly expressed surprise and disgust that the religious authorities did not accept what was so obvious. He often chastised them with words similar to, “Have you not read…” The reason they did not understand the Scriptures was not due to any fault within the Word, but because of the hardness of their hearts which kept them from seeing what was so clear.

Before we proceed, let us clarify what we mean by the clarity of Scripture. Wayne Grudem defines it in this way: “The clarity of Scripture means that the Bible is written in such a way that its teachings are able to be understood by all who will read it seeking God’s help and being willing to follow it.”

As is often the case, it is also useful to examine what we do not mean by the clarity of Scripture. The clarity of Scripture does not mean to say that all parts of Scripture are equally clear. There are some parts that are clearly more difficult to understand than others. Even the apostle Peter had to admit that “There are some things … that are hard to understand” within Paul’s writings (2 Peter 3:16). Anyone who has sought to understand the books of prophecy can also attest to the abundance of difficult passages. However, the basic message of Scripture is crystal clear within the Bible and can be known and understood by even a person with no prior religious knowledge. The Bible is sufficient, with the Spirit’s help, to bring a person to an understanding of the basic message and thus a saving knowledge of Christ.

Last year I attended a conference in Toronto that featured James White. He spoke of a man he met who had previously lived in Afghanistan. At one time this man had never met another Christian in his life, nor did he have access to any books or commentaries, yet had found a Bible and by reading it had become a believer, not knowing if he was the only Christian in the world. Clearly the Scriptures were sufficiently clear for this man.

It is important to note that it is precisely because of the Bible’s clarity and simplicity that many people find it offensive. The Bible teaches with great clarity that we are sinners and stand condemned before God. With equal clarity it teaches that only through Jesus can we have a restored relationship with the Father. This, the very heart of the message of Scripture, is offensive to unregenerate human beings, particularly those who suffer from what R.C. Sproul calls “intellectual arrogance.” In Knowing Scripture he relates an encounter he had with a young man who told him that Christianity is “primitive and obscene”. What this man meant as an insult was absolutely correct! Sproul asks rhetorically, “What kind of a God would reveal his love and redemption in terms so technical and concepts so profound that only an elite corps of professional scholars could understand them? (page 16).” Certainly not the God of the Bible, who revealed his love and redemption with the utmost of clarity.

What we learn from examining Scripture is that the qualifications for understanding the Bible are not primarily intellectual, but moral and spiritual. Though written simply, only those who are humble spiritually and morally can understand the deep things of God. Any unbeliever who opens the pages of Scripture earnestly seeking salvation will find it and any Christian who goes to the Word, seeking God’s help, will understand it, for this is the ministry of the Holy Spirit. He illumines the Scripture.

This doctrine is one of great encouragement to the believer, for we can have confidence that if we approach the Scriptures, the very Words of God, asking the Spirit for His help, we will be able to know and understand them. God has given His Word so that all might have access to Him through them.

So what of the correlation of Total Depravity and the revelation of truth? We will examine this in our next article.

The bulk of this article was published on this site in November of 2004, but I am going to repost much of it in response to discussion about my article from earlier today entitled, Total Depravity and Divine Knowledge. There has been discussion about whether the act of regeneration - the act whereby those who are spiritually dead are made alive - precedes or follows a person’s expression of faith. While there are many proof-texts that can be offered, I find John 11 to be one of the most poignant.

The story of Lazarus, found in John 11, is one of the most moving stories we find in the Bible and surely portrays one of the most significant acts of our Lord. There is so much depth in this short story - so much we can meditate upon. It seems each time I read it something new jumps out at me. Having read the story several times this week, I want to share some of what I have learned. Naturally it would aid your understanding if you were to read the story before you read this article, so you can do so here.

Love is Patient - The difference a word makes

When Lazarus was taken ill, messengers were immediately dispatched to summon the Lord. Jesus was known to be a healer and his close friends Mary and Martha had every reason to believe that He could save their brother. They probably had little doubt that He would immediately hurry to them and heal Lazarus. The messengers told Jesus "Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick." It is important to note that the word translated "love" here is in the Greek phileo which denotes a strong affection. Mary and Martha knew that Jesus had a deep affection for their brother, and it is evident that they were close friends.

It must have puzzled the sisters that Jesus did not do what was expected of Him. He did not rush to his friend's side, but rather stayed two days longer at the place he was. Cryptically he told the disciples "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it." They probably assumed He meant that He would arrive in time to heal His friend. In verse 5 we read "Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus." The next verse says "So when He heard that he was sick, He stayed two more days in the place where He was." (my emphasis) "So" could also be translated as "therefore." Are we to believe that because He loved them He did not hurry to comfort and support them?

We learn why He chose to do this when we examine the meaning of the word "love" in verse 5. In this verse the word is agapao which speaks of dedication. Jesus was dedicated to His friends. Read what Ralph Earle has to say about this: "The highest motivation for love is not our feelings or affections, but rather an honest, intelligent facing of the question: 'What is best for the one I love?' This is how God acts" (Word Meanings in the New Testament, page 89). Jesus was more interested in their faith, in their dedication, than their affection. Or as my pastor tells us, "God was more interested in their character than their comfort."

And so it was that after waiting for two days, Jesus went to meet Mary and Martha, knowing already that Lazarus had died, and indeed had already been in the grave for four days. He anticipated being able to share a lesson with Mary and Martha - those for whom he felt deep devotion. And in this we see a picture of how God works with us today. Because he is devoted to us He wants what is best for us, even if what is best hurts. He is far more concerned with making us like Himself than in giving us quick and easy happiness.

Realistic Expectations - Dead men stink

Martha had realistic expectations for her brother, didn't she? When Jesus commanded that the stone be rolled away from the entrance to the tomb Martha said, "Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days." She knew what to expect from someone who is dead. A dead man is incapable of doing anything other than rot, decay, putrefy and stink. Martha did not expect that her brother might be waiting for them in the tomb or that he may have decided to get up and leave. Dead men can do nothing to make themselves alive or even to stop their decay.

But there is One who can bring dead men to life. In this case He did not do so by coercion or force - He merely extended a life-giving call to a dead man. "Lazarus, come forth!" He called to the dead man and life once again coursed through his veins. Having proven that He could do other miracles - turning one person's meal into enough to feed thousands and healing so many sick people that sickness was nearly unknown in the area, He now proved that He could also bring the dead to life.

And therein was the lesson for Mary and Martha. They knew Jesus could heal the sick and they had confidence that Jesus would want to do that for a dear friend. But Jesus, with great concern for them and for their character, made them wait, made them experience the death of one dear to them, so He could then prove that He has power over death.

God continues to extend that life-giving call today. As with Lazarus, there is no force or coercion, He merely provides life where before there was only death and decay. And like Lazarus, men and women continue to come alive and to emerge from the tombs in which they sat, rotting. In this story we see a beautiful picture of God's work of salvation. We see a perfect picture of how He extends the call that brings life from death.

A Reputation - Rethinking Martha

It strikes me as tragic that we often remember people, even Biblical characters, for their faults more than the great things they did. We speak of a "doubting Thomas," for example, remembering Thomas primarily for his lack of faith. We often think of Peter primarily as the one who denied Jesus. When we think of Martha, we generally remember her as the one who complained that her sister was spending too much time listening to Jesus rather than helping her prepare food. Jesus scolded her for being too concerned with temporal matters and ignoring what was more important. Perhaps we should honor Martha by remembering her for the faith and understanding she shows in this chapter. In verse 27 she says "I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world." Could she have said anything better? Anything more grand? She bore testimony to knowing who Jesus was long before most other people had grasped just who He was and what He had come to do.

Conclusions

There is so much more I could have spoken about - so much more that God has taught me through these verses. But the point I want to make today is this: we are dead and dead men do not desire life. Dead men are not able to express even the desire for life. Martha had a realistic expectation of a dead man - “there will be a stench!” That is all dead men can do, isn’t it? Dead men can rot, stink and putrefy, but they cannot desire life, nor can they even extend an arm to grasp the outstretched hand of God. To raise Lazarus, Jesus extended His call, which brought life to death. That is what He continues to do in the souls of those to whom He gives eternal life.

Following the article I posted on Saturday, which you can read here, Michael Spencer posted a link to it on Boars Head Tavern and included the following comment, which I would like to address today: Those who believe in total depravity have more confidence in the possibility of humans having divine knowledge- detailed, down to the footnotes knowledge- than many who don’t call themselves Calvinists.

For some time I have been intending to write an article on the clarity of Scripture (also known as the “perspicuity of Scripture”) and I believe this affords an opportunity to include that topic. Since this could become a lengthy topic, and since most people cease reading shortly after the 1,000 word mark, I will divide this into a three-part series. In the first part I will define and examine Total Depravity, in the second I will define and examine the clarity of Scripture, and in the third I will put it together to respond to Spencer's comment.

We would be remiss to discuss this topic without first adequately defining “total depravity” so we will begin with that today. But first, I would like to indicate that this article is not meant as an opportunity to debate whether Total Depravity is a biblical doctrine. We will define it and move forward with the assumption that it is true, since it forms the basis for Spencer's comments.

Total Depravity is the first of the points of doctrine that have come to be known as the Five Points of Calvinism or The Doctrines of Grace. These doctrines were defined in response to the teachings of Jacobus Arminius, who denied Calvin's understanding of Divine sovereignty and human depravity. The Doctrines of Grace are built upon Calvin's understanding of God's complete and overwhelming sovereignty in everything, including saving a people for Himself. Directly related to God's sovereignty is human inability, for when man fell into sin, his very nature became corrupt to the greatest extent.

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,” 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 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 2:1-3 and 2 Timothy 2:25 and 26.

In any discussion of Total Depravity, it is crucial that we carefully define the difference between extend and degree. To affirm that fallen human beings are totally depraved in extent is to say that the fallenness of man extends to every part of his being. There is no part of man that has escaped the Fall, for mind, body and spirit all fell with our first parents. Thus we are all totally corrupt in extent.

Total Depravity in Degree refers to something being exactly as depraved as it could possibly be. This is an effective illustration of the differences between extent and degree:

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. What a terrifying thought this ought to be!

Thankfully God gives His grace to all men so that while we are all totally depraved in extent, none are totally depraved in degree. But for His grace and His restraining hand, the world would be uninhabitable due to the degree of man's corruption.

In an article I wrote a few months ago, I provided a reflection on Total Depravity and indicated that it 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) The extent of our depravity is what condemns even the best of men to hell - not the degree. Allow me to quote Rebecca Stark who wrote, “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 for the least of sinners as for the greatest.

In summary, then, we can say that man’s will is in complete bondage to his nature. Man is free to choose for or against God according to the way his nature dictates, but his nature is so wholly corrupt that he could never choose for good. He is free to choose, but he cannot contradict his nature. With a sinful nature it is impossible to take an action that would be anything other than sinful and rebellious. It is impossible to choose a righteous or pleasing work capable of pleasing a holy God. Similarly God is able to choose according to His free will, but cannot contradict his nature, which is perfect. Therefore God could never take an action that was anything but perfect and holy.

In the next article we will turn to the clarity of Scripture.

This article represents the fourth in a series I’ve entitled Five Things Every Christian Needs To Know. The first article served as an introduction to the topic and the next two discussed The First Thing Every Christian Needs To Know. This was identified as “The Bible alone is the infallible rule of faith for the church” and we discussed many of the ramifications of that belief as well as some of the ways it has come under attack in the church.

If you would like to get caught up, here are the previous articles:

• Five Things Every Christian Needs To Know
• The First Thing Every Christian Needs To Know
• The First Thing Every Christian Needs To Know (Part 2)

The final four things every Christian needs to know flow naturally from the first. If we truly acknowledge that Scripture is the infallible rule of faith for the church, it stands to reason that this same Scripture will tell us what we must do and know to be followers of Jesus. As we learned in the second article in this series “The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.” Thus by examining the Bible we can discover the emphases of Scripture and determine the other core doctrines of the faith. Today we will turn to the second thing every Christian needs to know: “Our salvation has been accomplished soley and fully through Christ.” In theology we know this as Solus Christus or Christ Alone. As with our previous discussion, this may seem like an obvious doctrine, yet it is one we would do well to study, to determine if we truly understand it and the ramifications it ought to have on our lives. A consistent study of the Word will soon prove it to be true that Christ alone has fully and soley accomplished our salvation. This is a theme of the Scripture from beginning to end - Scriptures written before Christ’s death prophetically speak of this and Scriptures written after rejoice in it.

We will turn to a brief examination of some of the Scripture passages that form the foundation for this doctrine.

We find the first reference to Christ’s work immediately after Adam and Eve have committed the first sin. Genesis 3:15 reads “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” So soon after our first parents sinner we see that God already speaks of the death of Christ in which He would crush the head of the serpent, defeating the one who brought sin into the world.

While we cannot contain it to a single passage, the Old Testament system of sacrifices was meant to foreshadow the sacrifice of Christ. Blood had to poured out in order to satisfy the justice of God. Similarly, the sins of the people were symbolically laid on a goat (the scapegoat) that was then driven into the wilderness. All of this pointed forward in time to the work of Christ.

From the moment of Christ’s conception God began to reveal first to His parents and then to others that He was the Christ. In Matthew 1:21 Joseph is told that his wife “will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” When John the Baptist first met his cousin, Jesus, he said “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29) Through Jesus’ life God began to reveal to more and more people just who Jesus was and what He would accomplish. Years later Peter began to realize who Christ was, affirming “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16)

In the years following His death the apostles wrote about Jesus’ work and what it meant. The author of Hebrews writes, “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time…” (Hebrews 9:27-28a) Peter writes, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.” (1 Peter 2:24)

These are only a few of the many verses which could be offered as proof of this doctrine. Solus Christus, then, is built from the testimony of the entire Scripture, and not merely on a few chapters or verses. To understand it adequately, one must look through a wide lens that allows him to see the whole scope of Scripture’s revealtion of redemptive history, from the first sin to the resurrection.

At the time of the Reformation when this doctrine was first clearly defined, the Reformers meant to indicate by it that they rejected many Roman Catholic beliefs that they felt were contradictory to Scripture. In this doctrine they indicated that we do not need to invoke or venerate saints or Mary, that we do not need to venerate relics and that purgatory does not exist as a place where believers must be further purified before coming into God’s presence. In short, they felt all of these were Catholic additions to Christ’s work that had no basis in Scripture and served only to remove the emphasis on the finality and completeness of His work. Today we fight different battles in regards to the completeness of Christ’s work. We will turn to this tomorrow, but first will examine the work of Christ under three headings: satisfaction, sacrifice and substitution.

This is the third article in the series “Five Things Every Christian Needs To Know.” Yesterday we examined the doctrine of Sola Scriptura or Scripture Alone. We saw that the first thing every Christian needs to know is that the Bible alone is the infallible rule of faith for the church. We further defined the doctrine, saw why it was known as the formal principle of the Reformation and examined what Scripture says about Scripture. Today we will examine the practical implications of this doctrine.

It seems that most Christians go through their lives feeling some measure of guilt that they do not love the Bible more. So often we take time to do devotions out of guilt and not because we truly desire to study the Word, learn about God and have Him challenge us. More often, perhaps, we do not read the Bible at all. In the past men and women have died to defend our right to read the Scriptures and even today people are dying for their devotion to the Word. Many more would give all they have for the ability to feed on the Words of God, yet so often we who have unlimited access to the Bible see it as a burden and not a delight. Ben Merkle wrote critically of today’s Christians when he said:

“We have created a culture that sees regular Bible study as a pain and not a blessing. We refuse to put effort into our Bible study, insisting on having our Bible studies livened up to entertain us. Instead of regularly reading our Bibles, we take a quick read of the uninspired, inspirational paragraph of our daily devotion book. Our Bibles are marketed by adding footnotes and short stories that are supposed to make the Bible relevant to today’s youth, the working mother, or nicotine patch users. Our eschatologies are shaped more by tabloids and TV, than by the study of Scripture. We are bored of our Bibles and truly need to reform our view of Scripture. What a joy it should be to read the Word of our Lord.”

Protestant churches continue to pay lip service to Sola Scriptura. Almost every church has within its statement of beliefs an affirmation of Scripture Alone. “The Holy Bible is…the supreme standard by which all human conduct creeds and religious opinions should be tried,” reads one. Another reads “We believe in the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament as verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing. We believe the 66 books of the Old Testament and New Testament are God’s completed and sufficient revelation for the total well-being of mankind.” It would be a rare (and probably heretical) evangelical church that did not profess such a belief. But, as we know, professing a doctrine does not necessarily mean we truly believe or understand it. Many Christians inadvertently and out of ignorance, violate this precious doctrine that they profess to believe.

In the previous article I suggested that the primary concern facing believers today as it pertains to Sola Scriptura is the sufficiency of the Scriptures and that will be our focus for today. Thus I am presuming a belief in the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, issues that confronted Protestantism at different times in her history. Here is a statement about scripture’s sufficiency, taken from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology:

The sufficiency of Scripture means that Scripture contained all the words of God he intended his people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it now contains all the words of God we need for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly.

We will turn now to the practical applications of this doctrine.

Scripture tells us how we are to behave and what we are to believe

If we believe that Scripture contains all the words of God he wants us to have at this stage in the history of the redemption of His people, we can with certainty believe that it instructs us today what we are to do and to think. This does not mean that it will provide direct answers for any question that may confront us, but that it will shed God’s light on any issue of genuine importance. While God does not tell us whether the carpets in our home should be grey or black, the Bible will certainly instruct us as to how we should choose a country, city or house to live in. If Scripture is silent on an issue, we can safely assume that that God does not require us to act in a certain way or believe a certain thing in that situation.

The primary application for this is that we should carefully search the Scriptures on an ongoing basis so that we know what God tells us through them. How are we to know whether the Scriptures provide guidance on an issue if we do not know the Bible? Christians are duty-bound to know the Scriptures, so we can believe what God demands we believe and act in the ways He would have us act. We have no excuse for ignorance.

God does not require us to believe anything about Him or His redemptive work that is not found in Scripture

Everything we need to know about the life and work of Jesus in order to trust and obey him perfectly is contained in the Scriptures. This is not to say that everything Jesus ever said and did is recorded in the Bible, nor that it is impossible that some words and deeds of Jesus are recorded elsewhere. However, even if we found other teachings of Jesus, they would have no direct value to us in what we should believe or how we should live our lives. They certainly would not be needed to formulate doctrines and teachings, for everything we need is already recorded for us.

This tells us that we do not need to search outside of Scripture for what we should believe or how we should act. We do not need other Scriptures, nor tradition, nor the authority of a church to tell us these things.

God does not forbid anything that is not explicity or implicitly forbidden in Scripture

The first verse of Psalm 119 tells us that they are blessed “whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the LORD!” Nothing is to be considered sin that is not implicitly or explicitly forbidden by God in the Scriptures, for if a man were to adhere perfectly to what the Scriptures teach, he would be blameless before God. This is exactly what Jesus did on our behalf. Humans are adept at adding to Scripture all sorts of traditions that violate this rule. We add rules about alcohol, types of food, birth control and other legalistic “sins” that are not forbidden in Scripture.

It requires care to know what is sin and what is not, as the Pharisees found time and again when they attempted to test and chastise Jesus. A believer is to derive delight from obedience to God, but we can take no true pleasure and cannot bring God glory through obeying rules that we have created and elevated to the status of Scripture. Many believers live in constant guilt and worry about sins that are not sins at all!

God does require anything of us that is not explicity or implicitly commanded in Scripture

Just as nothing is sin that is not forbidden by Scripture, so God does not require of us anything that He does not demand of us in the Bible. This is perhaps the most relevant of all applications to today’s believer. So many Christians constantly search outside of the Scriptures to find God’s will. They look for external situations that they declare to be God’s leading. They search for inner peace or strong feelings that they call the Spirit’s guiding. There can be no absolute assurance when we search subjective means to find God’s will. Instead we are to dedicate ourselves to searching the Scriptures where God has already revealed His will for us. A most damaging teaching that arises in the church is that God has a secret will for our lives that we need to search out and find, less we live a second-rate Christian life. This is not so! God has revealed in His Word all we need to know to live before Him in joy and victory, bringing constant glory to His name.

God reveals to use what we should emphasize in our teaching and actions

A defining mark of cults is that they major on the minors, raising to prominence things that God does not emphasize. An example of this is the Mormon belief in baptism for the dead, a doctrine based on just one verse of the Bible and refuted by many more. By diligently searching the Scriptures we can gain knowledge of what God emphasizes and base our lives on what He considers most important. More often than not, an emphasis on the minor points of doctrine reveals human pride rather than a heartfelt desire for God’s glory.

Wrapping It up

Sola Scriptura was known as the formal principle of the Reformation and it continues to be of foundational importance to the church today. We, as the church of Christ, need to recover a biblical view of the Scriptures, not merely professing adherence to this doctrine, but truly living and believing it. Each of the practical implications of this doctrine centered around one thing: we need to know, honor and love the Word of God. We need to believe that it is authoritative, trust that it is inerrant and prove with our lives that we believe it is sufficient. I will close with some words written by John MacArthur:

This book contains: the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers.

Its doctrine is holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable. Read it to be wise, believe it to be saved, and practice it to be holy.

It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you. It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword, and the Christian’s charter. Here heaven is open, and the gates of hell are disclosed.

Read it slowly, frequently, and prayerfully. It is a mine of wealth, health to the soul, and a river of pleasure. It is given to you here in this life, will be opened at the judgment, and is established forever.

It involves the highest responsibility, will reward the greatest labor, and condemn all who trifle with its contents.

Read it, learn it, love it, live it.

Suggested Resources:

• Scripture Alone by James White is an excellent and readable introduction to this doctrine. I have previously read and reviewed it here.
• Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem devotes chapters two through eight to The Bible.
• Whatever Happened To the Gospel of Grace by James Boice contains a great introduction to this doctrine as well as the other four solas. I have read and reviewed this book here.