In the first article of this series I indicated that there are five things every Christian needs to know. These five things are distinctives which divide Christianity from every other religion. Further, they divide true Christianity, Protestantism, from Catholicism and cults and all other attempts to combine the wisdom of men with the wisdom of God. Today we will turn to the first of these five important points.

Here is the first thing every believer needs to know: The Bible alone is the infallible rule of faith for the church. This is known in theological circles as the doctrine of Sola Scriptura or Scripture Alone. This may seem to be quite an obvious doctrine to some, yet I would encourage you to keep reading to examine if you really do believe this, to see how an improper view of this doctrine can taint your walk with Christ, and to learn how a strong view of the Scripture’s authority is necessary for a strong and living faith.

At the time of the Reformation, when this doctrine was formulated, the church was just barely emerging from hundreds of years of rule by the Roman Catholic Church. For the Reformers, this doctrine had to do with the Bible being the final authority for Christians over against the authority of tradition, popes and church councils. The Reformers were convinced that the Bible claimed for itself the place of ultimate authority - an authority it could and would not share with anyone else. Martin Luther summarized this beautifully and courageously when, before the Diet of Worms, he said “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God…God help me! Here I stand.” In more recent times, the emphasis of this doctrine has shifted. This is not to say that the content of the doctrine changed, but rather that it came under attack from a different angle and Scripture’s authority needed to be defended from a different attack. In the last century Sola Scriptura became the battlecry of those who sought to defend the Bible’s inerrancy under the attacks of liberals who taught that the Bible was merely a flawed human book. These people tried seperate the Jesus of the Bible from the real Jesus. This battle was fought and won twenty years ago. In the contemporary church we find the emphasis shifting again. Having defended the Bible’s authority and inerrancy, today we fight to reestablish the sufficiency of Scripture.

Defining Sola Scriptura

Before we go any further, let’s further define this doctrine. Sometimes it is best to establish what something is not before we define what it is, so here are three things this doctrine does not teach:

• The Bible is the only place where truth may be found and is the only way God has revealed Himself.
• The Bible is equally clear to everyone.
• We do not need the authority or instruction of the local church.

All three of these are erroneous views. God has revealed Himself in many ways, and Scripture is but one of these. The Bible is not equally clear to all people, as some are more easily able to grasp certain concepts than others. And finally, the Bible does not nullify the authority of the local church or the necessity of proper instruction.

I have earlier defined Sola Scriptura as meaning “The Bible alone is the infallible rule of faith for the church.” The Cambridge Declaration, formulated by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals provides a more detailed but still succinct definition:

We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation, which alone can bind the conscience. 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.

We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian’s conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.

The Formal Principle

The Reformers referred the Scripture Alone as being the formal principle of the Reformation. They used this phrase to express that this doctrine was the one that formed and shaped the rest. They would have been unable to formulate any other doctrines were it not for this one, for all depended on the source of Divine authority. Had the Reformers determined that the Roman Church was, as she claimed, the ultimate authority, the Reformation would have ended then and there. But when they found that the Bible reserved this position for itself, they were able to look to it to determine what else it said about the faith. Where the Bible contradicted the Church, they deferred to Scripture’s authority.

The Bible derives its authority from its very nature of being God-breathed revelation. It has often been argued that Protestants use circular argumentation to establish and prove this authority. After all, when asked how we know the Bible is the ultimate authority, we can only claim that the Bible tells us so. We are left with the question of how the Bible can claim for itself this authority. The answer is suprisingly simple. If the Bible is the highest authority, to what higher authority can it refer to prove this claim? Think of a soldier who has been promoted to the rank of colonel. How would you or I be able to verify that this man was, indeed, a colonel and not a sergeant or a private? We would ask a higher source of authority, perhaps a general, to verify this. The Bible has no higher authority to which it can appeal, so it appeals to itself. Anyone who claims authority over Scripture must first invalidate the claims Scripture makes about itself. We will now turn to some of those claims.

What Scripture Says About Scripture

There are many passages of Scripture we can refer to that will show us the Bible’s view of itself. We will turn to a few of these and see what they tell us about Scripture.

It is infallible in its totality. “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy,making wise the simple.” (Psalm 19:7)

It is inerrant in its parts. “Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5,6)

It is complete. “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” (Revelation 22:18,19)

It is authoritative. “Your word, O LORD , is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.” (Psalm 119:89)

It is sufficient. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

It will accomplish what it promises. “so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11)

These are no small claims. The Bible clearly claims for itself a position of supreme authority over the Christian, binding his conscience and giving assurance that the Scripture alone is the final authority. Furthermore, it condemns anyone who would claim this authority for himself or seek to add to or take away from it.

In our next article we will examine the implications of this doctrine on the Christian life and show why this truly is something every Christian needs to know.

Over a short series of articles, I am going to introduce five things I believe every Christian needs to know. This is not to say that one cannot be saved if from ignorance he does not know these, but that these five things are of foundational importance to the faith. One may be a Christian without knowing them, but one’s walk with Christ will be greatly enhanced by understanding, applying and treasuring them. To deny them, however, is to undermine the very bedrock of the faith.

If you have been a Christian for any length of time, and especially if you have been part of a Reformed tradition, you may well know of these five things. While their origin is the Bible, they were not formulated as doctrines until the time of the Protestant Reformation. This is often the way God has revealed truths about Himself. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity was not formulated until several hundred years after the death of Christ, though it was clearly revealted in the Bible all along. For the Reformers these five things defined what it meant to be a Protestant. The Roman Catholic Church could not and still cannot abide by these five things and has declared them to be anathema - false doctrines. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons along with other cultic groups cannot hold to them. These five things define Protestantism, even crossing the boundaries between Calvinism and Arminianism, and hence define a biblical view of the Christian faith. It is sad, then, that they are not better-known among believers. Very few churches today invest the time and effort to teach and defend these fundamental doctrines.

Yet whether we are aware of them or not, these five things continue to define us as Protestant even to this day. When we lose sight of and deny these distinctives, it could be argued that we are no longer Protestant at all, and hence are no longer a church that is truly grounded in the Scripture. These things tell us how we can know about God and define our relationship with Him and His relationship with us. These five things will enrich our walk with God, will ensure that we have a proper view of ourselves in relation to God, and ultimately impact every area of our lives. They are of critical importance to the Christian life.

Here are the five things, then, that every Christian needs to know:

1. The Bible alone is the infallible rule of faith for the church.
2. Our salvation has been accomplished soley and fully by Christ.
3. It is only by God’s grace that we are given salvation.
4. While we are saved by God’s grace, He does this only through the instrument of faith.
5. Because of who He is and what He has done, we owe all glory to God alone.

You may also know these five distinctives as the five solas of the Reformation. The Reformers formulated five doctrines which defined their disagreements with the Roman Catholic Church. They defined these as Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), Solus Christus (Christ Alone), Sola Gratia (Grace Alone), Sola Fide (Faith Alone) and Soli Deo Gloria (Glory to God Alone). Over time the emphases of these doctrines has changed. For example, at the time of the Reformation the emphasis on Scripture Alone was to defend against the Papal claims that the church was the ultimate authority in matters of life and faith. Later the emphasis changed so that the innerancy of Scripture became the focus of Protestant apologists. Today the emphasis has shifted again as we will see in our next article. But while the emphases may have changed, the doctrines themselves, being firmly rooted in the Bible, remain unwavering.

When I say that we need to know these five things, I do not merely mean that we need to have some knowledge of them, much as I may know that the capital of Ontario is Toronto or that George W. Bush is President of the United States. In the abstract, these five things will have little impact on my life. Instead I need to know them in a deep, personal, spiritual way, searching for them in the Scriptures and asking the Holy Spirit to help me apply them to my life. I need to regard them as foundational to my faith because they are foundationally important to God. When speaking of faith, the Reformers drew a distinction between ascientia, a Latin word which indicated mere mental assent to a fact, and fiducia, which involves trust, acceptance and giving oneself over. We need to have that sort of regard for these doctrines. Having been convinced that they are fully biblical, we need to give ourselves over to them.

Through this series I will introduce the five topics, provide their historical and contemporary contexts, show their biblical bases, and provide some ideas of how they can and should impact the lives of believers today.

Last weekend Billy Graham preached at what may be his final crusade, preaching before up to 82,000 people at a time. A headline at Pastors.com proclaimed the crusade a great success, indicating that some 12,000 people made decisions for Christ. In a previous article I expressed concerns with Graham's ecumenism and the fact that Roman Catholic counselors would be present at the event and any people who made decisions and indicated they were from a Catholic background would be directed back to their Catholic churches. Today I'd like to examine the idea of the "decision" that weights so heavily at these crusades.

If you were to do a survey of church history, reading books and documents from the first century all the way to the early nineteenth century, you would find no mention of "decisions for Christ." Similarly one would find no reference to the altar calls which are the culmination of every modern evangelistic crusade. Those elements, which are found in nearly every evangelical church today, were inventions generally attributed to evangelist Charles Finney who lived from 1792 to 1875. He emphasized the need for a decision, usually made by "coming forward" to approach the altar. Becoming a believer became synonymous with making a decision and proving that decision by taking physical action. It is important to note that this system is entirely foreign to the Scriptures.

We might wonder what the emphasis of preachers was in the time before altar calls. What was it that preachers asked of their flock before anyone had considered calling people to make decisions and then make a movement to the front of the church? One finds that preachers emphasized coming to Christ. Charles Spurgeon whose ministry was contemporary with Finney's was converted by just such a call, a call to come to Christ, and later emphasized that same call in his messages. At the conclusion of one message he said "Go to your God at once, even where you now are. Cast yourself on Christ, at once, ere you stir an inch." He made no call to come to the front of the room or to mark a decision on a piece of paper - he emphasized only the importance of casting oneself on Christ.

Clearly decisions for Christ are a late addition to Christian practice. To understand the issues at stake, let's examine what regeneration is, what various traditions teach about regeneration and what the Bible teaches.

Before we begin I would like to indicate that I do not wish to discredit the 12,000 people who made decisions at the Billy Graham crusade or to cast doubt on their conversion, for that is a matter between them and the Lord. I also do not wish to vilify those who practice such forms of crusades. I wish merely to examine the concept of decision and altar calls in light of the Scripture.

We will 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 wholly Reformed, and thus wholly Biblical.

A survey of Christian doctrine would find three predominant views on when regeneration occurs.

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 what the Scriptures plainly teach.

The second view is that the Holy Spirit regenerates a person at a time of His choosing. I suppose 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. 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.

We now need to ask what the dangers are in a decisional form of regeneration, or is it merely a theological nuance that has no bearing on the Christian life?

The answer is clear - there is a significant danger in this theology. Finney departed radically from orthodox doctrine when in Lectures on Revivals of Religion he said "Religion is the work of man." 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. Finney's legacy 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, 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)

What then should be our response? We must encourage people to turn to Christ, to repent of their sins and to beg Him for mercy. We must preach the gospel that they are sinners, but that Christ has come to save sinners just like them. We must not deviate from the Scriptures in order to win more bodies while we give false assurance to souls.

If you would like to study this issue in more depth, I recommend John Murray's short book Redemption Accomplished and Applied as well as Jay Adam's excellent article entitled Decisional Regeneration.

Banner of Truth features many excellent articles, but one that grabbed my attention recently is entitled simply Apostasy. The author makes a distinction between two terms that I had never stopped to differentiate - apostasy and heresy. Apostasy he defines as a rejection of truth that one once believed. So I would be apostate if I rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine I now hold dearly. Heresy is the addition of foreign doctrines, so that I would be heretical if I added the worship of some foreign deity to my beliefs.

The first apostasy, then, was when man rejected God. Having once held that God was perfectly trustworthy, man rejected this and attempted to thrust himself into God's role. In so doing he dragged himself and the rest of Creation into this state of horrible sin. This first apostasy is the source of all further apostasy.

The author then turns to the Church of Rome to show an example of a church that is both apostate and heretical, for she has both rejected doctrines she once believed and has added unbiblical beliefs to them. He calls Catholicism "wickedness under a form of godliness cunningly managed" and with Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones and many other eminent Protestant theologians, considers Catholicism Satan's masterpiece. Catholicism seeks to undermine Christianity not with an obvious frontal assault, but with careful, deliberate and veiled attacks. Francis Turrentin wrote:

“Christ wills that sola Scriptura, inspired by God be received by us as the perfect rule of faith and morals. The Pope denies Scripture alone is an adequate rule of faith, unwritten traditions must be attached. These traditions, together with Scripture, are to be equally adopted and venerated. They are to be held alike as the means of influencing godliness.

“Christ wishes His Word to be believed on its own, because it does not take its authority from man. In our estimation, the Pope wishes the authority of the Word to be derived from his Church. Christ wishes no supreme judge to be acknowledged in ruling on controversies other than God speaking through Scripture. The Pope sacrilegiously claims this prerogative for himself.

“Furthermore, Christ teaches that He alone is the Mediator, appointed by the Father, who alone is the way, the truth and the life, without whom no man can Conic to the Father. Yet the Pope forces innumerable mediators upon us. Mediators who, he says, are to reveal the way to heaven for us. Also, Christ testifies that there is no other sacrifice apart from His own; no other satisfaction by which we may obtain remission of sins and the reward of salvation. But the Pope insists on human punishments and satisfactions, while demanding a new propitiatory sacrifice called the Mass.

“Though Christ established that men are to be saved by grace through faith alone. the Pope includes works as well. Whereas Christ institutes only two sacraments, the Pope decrees seven. Christ ordains that no one but God be the object of cult and adoration, yet the Pope worships creatures as well. Christ declared Himself the sole Head and Groom of the Church, but the Pope grants this to himself as well. Christ subjects Himself to the magistrates, ordering His servants to be likewise subject. Nevertheless, the Pope subjects the magistrates, rulers and emperors to himself.

“Can it truly be said that those who teach such doctrines and defend such dogmas keep the faith of Christ? Or are they not adjudged guilty by the deserts of defection and the fact of apostasy?

Doctrine after important doctrine is discarded in the Roman system, only to be replaced with something that is more appeal to man's sinful nature. Words are changed, meanings slightly altered, so that it seems so very close to the truth.

All this leads to the author's assessment of the evangelical churches. "The Protestant Churches, having largely abandoned the biblical doctrines of the Reformation, which were their raison d’tre, are capitulating to the leadership of the papacy and to Roman Catholic doctrine. There are, indeed, other ways that men and Churches may apostatize from the faith - into liberalism, for example, or other faiths - but Rome remains the great threat to the Protestant churches, Satan’s great masterpiece, his counterfeit Christianity by which he deceives the nations."

I have often bemoaned the fact that the contemporary church has so little identity with its Reformation roots. Each year Americans celebrate Thanksgiving and Independence Day, days that hearken back to their roots as a nation. They celebrate Memorial Day and Veterans Day which also look to the great victories of the past. All nations celebrate similar days - here in Canada we celebrate the anniversary of our confederation on Canada Day, remembering each year the events of the past. Yet Christians have little identity with the Reformation, the event which gave birth to the church as we know it. Along with the loss of the historical view has fallen the loss of the historical doctrines. The beliefs that gave birth to Protestantism are rarely articulated or taught to evangelicals. Is it any wonder, then, that many churches have capitulated "to the leadership of the papacy and to Roman Catholic doctrine?" And many who have not capitulated have developed apathy towards, a respect of, or even an envy of Catholic doctrine.

A few paragraphs later, in a discussion of the causes of idolatry (which he identifies as: enmity against God in spiritual matters, spiritual darkness and ignorance), the author writes about the critical difference between dialogue and controversy.

I think this explains the ease with which many in recent years have been able to enter into dialogue with Roman Catholics and even Muslims and Hindus. It demands a certain detachment from the truth to be able to do that. You are obliged to put a question mark over it, otherwise you are not genuinely engaging in dialogue, which means, at least in principle, you are prepared to change and qualify your beliefs. I think we must be very careful to distinguish between dialogue and controversy. Dialogue carries with it implicitly this assumption, that you will be prepared to modify and change your position, in the light of the debate, if it so requires you. But controversy, in which all the Reformers engaged, is quite a different thing. You start from what you know and believe to be the truth, and your object is to expose the error and confusion of the opponent’s position and, if possible, persuade him of the truth. It was dialogue in which Satan engaged Eve in the garden. She would have been safe if she had insisted on controversy. When men have not a fervent love of the truth and no sense of abhorrence of error they are in the anteroom of apostasy. It is said that the apostle John fled from the public baths, where Cerinthus the heretic appeared, lest they should fall on him. Today some evangelicals would be glad to stay and engage in friendly dialogue.

He is correct that dialogue carries with it the assumption that there is a question mark hovering over my beliefs. It is very postmodern, in that I acknowledge that though I believe what I believe quite strongly, it might just be all wrong. Those who dialogue enter into their dialogue with that attitude and it is no wonder that they are often persuaded that they are indeed wrong.

Perhaps the most important part of the article is the author's wisdom, culled from John Owens, about how we can avoid apostasy. He lays out several important steps:

• A preeminent concern with God's glory. Meditating upon God's glory and the current state of the church may well lead us to mourn.
• Continual prayer. We are to continually pray for the restoration of the primacy of proper doctrine in the church.
• Constant testimony. An open and avowed profession of, and contending for the faith and the truth of the Gospel.
• Keep careful watch over your heart. We must remember that our hearts are deceitful and wicked and will seek to lead us from the inerrant and holy word of God.
• Beware of the world. We must be careful not to allow the customs and habits of the time to indiscriminately infiltrate the church.

The article, then, provides a brief overview of apostasy and provides the most prevalent example of apostasy in the Roman Catholic Church. But best of all, it instructs us how we can guard ourselves against falling into such error. I recommend the article which you can read for yourself here.

This morning I decided that today I was going to write about man’s sinful condition, or as we says as Calvinists, man’s total depravity. Doing my rounds of other blogs this morning I noticed that Jollyblogger had written about this topic yesterday, so I thought I would take a slightly different approach and write about two types of depravity - depravity in extent and depravity in degree.

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.

Calvinists speak of Total Depravity, a term that has often led people to confuse the issue. R.C. Sproul speaks today of radical corruption and others speak of radical depravity. I believe these issues clarify the matter, for by total depravity we do not mean that people are as depraved as they could possibly be. It is here that it is helpful to differentiate 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 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.” (emphasis mine)

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. Which will you choose?

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. I may write in the future about Jesus weeping, as that verse, the shortest in the Bible, is profoundly moving. I could write also of how Jesus' incredible miracle made those who hate Him hate Him even more, but I will end it here. If you so desire, read this story, meditate on it, and share with us what God has taught you through His Holy Word.

This morning I was reading a book by a very well-known Christian pastor and author (and no, his initials were not R.W.) which discusses Christian leadership. In one section he speaks about a friend of his who has dedicated his retirement years to helping his local church, volunteering on a continual basis and delighting in his ability to do work for God's Kingdom. The author relates how he once watched the man looking over a crowd of new converts with tears in his eyes, taking joy in God's work through that local body of believers. What made me stop was how the author described this, for he said that the man looked over a crowd of "the newly redeemed." That may not sound unusual, but it is speaks of a serious theological misunderstanding, for it assumes that those people were redeemed at that very moment - that their redemption flowed from their decision to follow Christ - that when they believed, Christ extended redemption to them.

The Bible tells us a different story. The Bible tells us of "…that great Savior, who, after such preparation, actually accomplished the purchase of redemption, and who, after he had spent three or four and thirty years in poverty, labor, and contempt, in purchasing redemption, at last finished the purchase by closing his life under such extreme sufferings as you have heard, and so by his death, and continuing for a time under the power of death, completed the whole." (Jonathan Edwards, History of the Work of Redemption) The Bible tells us of a Savior who did not die to make redemption possible in the lives of those who would place their trust in Him, but of a Savior who actually and finally redeemed His people with His death. When Christ cried out "It is finished!" he indicated that His work of atonement was complete. He did not make atonement possible, but actually accomplished it.

When this author and his friend looked upon the crowd of new believers, they did not look upon a crowd who had been newly redeemed. No, for if these people were true believers, they were redeemed at the same moment and through the same act as the rest of the saints; Christ's blood purchased their pardon long before they were even born. Instead, they looked upon a crowd to whom God had extended the application of this great act of redemption. We must not confuse the accomplishment with the application.

When we suppose that Christ's redemption depends on our display of faith, we make a grievous error, exalting ourselves above our lowly station and making light of the work of Christ.

If you would like to read more about the application of redemption to believers, I wrote an article about that which you can read here. If you struggle with this, I would recommend John Murray's short but thorough treatment of the subject, Redemption Accomplished and Applied.

When it comes to evangelism, it seems that Calvinists have quite a poor reputation in the church today. Most of the largest and seemingly most successful mission organizations were founded by Arminians and continue to be based around Arminian theology. Arminian churches seem to grow much faster than churches based on Calvinist principles. It seems that part of the reason for this is that Calvinists have such a high view of God's sovereignty that it is easy for them to assume that there is no reason for Christians to evangelize. After all, if God truly is sovereign, if He does control absolutely everything, what reason is there to evangelize? If God has ordained someone will be saved, they reason, that person will be saved regardless of my efforts. Perhaps evangelism is even sinful, for is it possible that it actually denies God's sovereignty?

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 Lords command to preach the gospel through evangelism, when in reality we have been involved in outreach. While both are noble pursuits and bring honor to God, only evangelism fulfills his command to take the Good News to all the world.

Evangelism

evangel ( -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 Pauls 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. My local church has some excellent and exciting outreach programs. For example, every year our town has a festival in a park down on the shores of Lake Ontario and our 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 we hope will eventually draw them into our fellowship. We see this as a selfless act and an act of grace as we give people something for nothing. So often people are shocked that we would do this, for we usually represent the only activity in the entire festival that costs nothing. And so we reach out to people to give them an opportunity to see Christians in action and to learn about our 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 underemphasized, but people are not saved by actions they are saved by this message which holds the power to convict mens 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 peoples 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

We must 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 Gods remedy. This can only be done through evangelism, through sharing the evangel which God uses to draw His people to Himself.

Would you fulfill our Lords great commission? Then go boldly, sharing this foolish, offensive 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.

For the second time in the past year I am turning to J.I. Packer’s small but powerful book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Having read several books on the doctrines of grace, I wanted to make firm in my mind how human responsibility and divine sovereignty interact in the process of evangelism and conversion. I know of no better resource for this than Packer’s book. I would like to provide a lengthy quote that speaks of the danger of having an improper view of this relationship. If we have an exclusive belief in God’s sovereignty and ignore human responsibility we will find ourselves believing the worst type of hyper-Calvinism (which is poorly named, for it does not represent Calvinism at all). On the other hand, if we ignore divine sovereignty, here is the danger we face (this is a lengthy quote but I encourage you to read it and ponder it - it will be well worth your time):

“If we forget that it is God’s prerogative to give results when the gospel is preached, we shall start to think that it is our responsibility to secure them. And if we forget that only God can give faith, we shall start to think that the making of converts depends, in the last analysis, not on God, but on us, and that the decisive factor is the way in which we evangelize. And this line of thought, consistently followed through, will lead us far astray.

Let us work this out. If we regarded it as our job, not simply to present Christ, but actually to produce converts--to evangelize, not only faithfully, but also successfully --our approach to evangelism would become pragmatic and calculating. We should conclude that our basic equipment, both for personal dealing and for public preaching, must be twofold. We must have, not merely a clear grasp of the meaning and application of the gospel, but also an irresistible technique for inducing a response. We should, therefore, make it our business to try and develop such a technique. And we should evaluate all evangelism, our own and other people’s, by the criterion, not only of the message preached, but also the visible results. If our own efforts were not bearing fruit, we should conclude that our technique still needed improving. If they were bearing fruit, we should conclude that this justified the technique we had been using. We should regard evangelism as an activity involving a battle of wills between ourselves and those to whom we go, a battle in which victory depends on our firing off a heavy enough barrage of calculated effects. Thus our philosophy of evangelism would become terrifyingly similar to the philosophy of brainwashing. And we would not longer be able to argue, when such a similarity is asserted to be fact, that this is not a proper conception of evangelism…

…It is right to recognize our responsibility to engage in aggressive evangelism. It is our right to desire the conversion unbelievers. It is right to want one’s presentation of the gospel to be as clear and forcible as possible. If we preferred that converts should be few and far between, and did not care whether our proclaiming of Christ went home or not, there would be something wrong with us. But it is not right when we take it on us to do more than God has given us to do. It is not right when we regard ourselves as responsible for securing converts, and look to our own enterprise and techniques to accomplish what only God can accomplish…only by letting our knowledge of God’s sovereignty control the way in which we plan, and pray, and work in His service, can we avoid becoming guilty of this fault.”

I believe every Christian has succumbed at one time or another to the mistaken belief that we are somehow responsible for the results of our evangelistic efforts. When we speak with a friend for hours and share our faith with that person but are able to secure no prayer of faith and repentance, we assume that we have done something wrong. We assume, perhaps, that our arguments are not persuasive enough or that we do not believe strongly enough what we claim to believe. But, thankfully, this is not the case. We are responsible to present the gospel faithfully and forcibly, but are not responsible for the result. When we have finished our task, we are to rejoice regardless of any result - we should rejoice as much if we have seen no conversion than if we have. In either case we should rejoice in the opportunity God gave us to share the awesome truths of His Word and to be faithful servants. We can rest in the confidence that we were faithful and can know that His will will be done.

The one area that continues to trouble me is why we need to give an effective (or, as Packer says, clear and forcible) presentation of the gospel when we acknowledge that the clarity and foribleness of the presentation have nothing to do with the end result. Or do they? I hope to have more to say about this in a later article.