Psalm 45 Publications

The term “theology” comes from the Greek words for “God” (theos) and “word,” or “body of knowledge” (logos); hence, it means, literally, “the body of knowledge about God,” or, more simply, “the study of God”. Therefore, in its strict sense, theology has to do only with the knowledge of the Godhead, and not with the other doctrines found in the bible. However, for many centuries, the term “theology” has had a broader connotation, and is often used to refer to the entire body of knowledge related to the Christian worldview, including all the various truths that are found in the scriptures, and the Christian doctrines which the Church has derived from the study of the scriptures over the course of her history. Continue Reading

From the dawn of human history, every people group across the world has been struggling with the great questions of human existence: “Who am I? Why am I here? What am I doing? How do I find meaning and happiness?”. Different civilizations and different persons have formulated different answers to these questions, ranging from the ultra-hedonistic principles of Cyrenaicism to the ultra-ascetic principles of the Hindu Jainists. However, both of these extremes, and every other human philosophy that lies somewhere in between, is insufficient to answer these questions. Continue Reading

If we would learn about God, then we must ultimately go to where God revealed himself. We cannot learn about God from our own thoughts and reasoning any more than we could learn about the character of some stranger across the seas without first going to converse with him. Continue Reading

The bible gives an overview of world history from God’s own perspective, with its doxological (i.e. God-glorifying) purpose, divine superintendence, and victorious end, all minutely planned out before the creation of the world (Isa. 46:9-10; Mat. 25:34; 1 Pet. 1:20; Rev. 13:8); and according to this divine perspective on history, all things were designed to be brought together in Christ, who is the reason for world history and the one in whom all things are summed up (Eph. 1:9-12; Col. 1:13-20). Thus, when he was on the earth, Jesus taught that the entire bible, from the first books of Moses to the last books of the prophets, was written to testify of him and his redemptive work alone (Jn. 5:39-40; Luk. 24:25-27, 44-48). Continue Reading

The bible is unique in that it is the only book that is fully human and also eminently divine. As a divine book, the bible is perfect, infallible, and inspired by God (II. Pet. 1:20,21; 2 Tim. 3:16,17; Lk. 21:33; Is. 55:11); it reveals God’s own plan, will, motives and agenda (Isaiah 45:21-23); and it cannot be truly understood by anyone who is not taught by the Holy Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:12-16). And yet, it is also a thoroughly human book, and was written by human authors, each displaying his own unique style and personality; moreover, it was written in human languages, within the context of human history, and to address human needs. As the bible’s great hero is Jesus Christ, who is eternally God and became fully human to reveal the nature of God to mankind (Jn. 1:14, 18), this dual nature of the bible is appropriate and necessary for the accurate portrayal of its great Protagonist. Continue Reading

The bible teaches that natural man will never be able to understand its truth on his own; for only the Spirit of God, who understands the mind of God, can reveal the truths of God, which are in direct opposition to the wisdom of the world (1 Cor. 2:10-16; cf. Acts 8:30-31). However, when the bible is read or heard, the Spirit works as he chooses, giving understanding and producing faith in many who hear (Jn. 3:4-12; 16:7-14; cf. Acts 16:14). Therefore, it is of great benefit for anyone who so desires to study the bible, knowing that “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17), and that God gives his wisdom liberally to all men who ask him in faith (James 1:5-6); indeed, no one who hungers and thirsts for God’s truth will be turned away, if he cries out to the Savior and applies himself to study the bible, for Jesus has invited us all with these words, “If anyone thirst, let him come unto me and drink” (John 7:37). Continue Reading

In this era of redemptive history, God has chosen to preserve his truth within the universal Church that he established with his blood; and hence he calls the Church “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), and exhorts believers to obey the Church’s elders who labor in the word and doctrine (1 Timothy 5:17; Hebrews 13:17); however, the bible also indicates that it is necessary and honorable for individual believers to be studying the scriptures daily, to see if the things taught by the Church leaders, no matter how prominent they might be, are according to the bible (Acts 17:11). Continue Reading

If we desire to study the bible, we must realize from the outset that there are certain rules or principles that we must keep in mind, if we would understand it accurately, and so be able to apply it appropriately. The study of the principles of interpretation that we use to help us understand the bible is called “hermeneutics”; and the hermeneutic that we have when we approach the text is of paramount concern, because it will shape our understanding of everything we read. Continue Reading

In 1515 AD, Martin Luther rejected the elaborate four-fold hermeneutic that had been predominant throughout the Medieval centuries, and which led to some very far-fetched allegorizing of the bible, leaving scriptural interpretation in the hands of the experts, who alone were capable of figuring out the secret things that bible passages really meant. This would eventually lead to the great Protestant Reformation, which is therefore, most fundamentally, a hermeneutically-driven struggle. In place of this allegorical hermeneutic, Luther proposed what he termed a “grammatical-historical” hermeneutic. Continue Reading

According to Martin Luther, who led the return to a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, there was no difference whatsoever between that and the “hermeneutic of Christ”; in fact, his grammatical-historical hermeneutic was, in his own words, simply the interpretation that “drives home Christ”. Or, as he elsewhere expressed it, “He who would read the Bible must simply take heed that he does not err, for the Scripture may permit itself to be stretched and led, but let no one lead it according to his own inclinations but let him lead it to its source, that is, the cross of Christ. Then he will surely strike the center.” In other words, all the teaching of the bible is intended to point the way to the Cross of Calvary, which is its great climax, and that apart from which nothing makes sense or can be understood. Continue Reading

According to the New Testament, and to Christ himself, the entire corpus of Old Testament scriptures teach of Christ in every part; thus, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for failing to see him in the Old Testament (John 5:39-40); he calls his own disciples fools and slow of heart not to see how, from the first books of Moses to the last of the prophets, the Old Testament taught of Christ’s passion and victorious ascension (Luke 24:25-27); and then, he opens their hearts to understand that everything in the Law, Psalms, and Prophets (shorthand for the entire Old Testament scriptures) taught of his suffering, death, resurrection, and the resultant spread of the gospel to all the nations (Luke 24:44-48). Continue Reading

The fact that the message of Christ crucified and exalted is whispered on every page of the Old Testament is argued for throughout the New Testament, and may be clearly discerned in how the first apostles interpreted and applied various Old Testament passages in their sermons and writings (e.g. Acts 2:22-36; 15:12-21; 1 Cor. 10:1-13, to name but a very few). A good exemplary passage would be Hebrews 8:5, which refers to the Old Testament tabernacle and priestly duties as “types and shadows”. Then, after expressing this hermeneutical principle of typology, the author goes on for several chapters to show how this part of the Old Testament finds its perfect fulfillment in Christ. And furthermore, he is not content to speak merely of the sacrificial system, but finds in historical persons, such as Melchizedek (Hebrews 7), in prophecies written to the House of Israel, such as Jeremiah 31:33 (Hebrews 8), and in various psalms, written in different times and contexts (e.g. Hebrews 1:5-14; 2:5-18; 10:5-10, etc.) clear references both to Christ, who fulfills everything written, and to the Church, for whom everything was fulfilled, and who is the true heir of all the Old Testament promises. Continue Reading

The Old Testament was written particularly to the Jews, whom God called out from all the nations to be his special people (e.g. Deuteronomy 7:6); and so, Paul speaks of the privilege of the Jews as being very great, and consisting most especially in this, that they were given the oracles of God (Romans 3:1-2). Elsewhere, Paul consistently speaks of the Jews as having a definite temporal priority in God’s redemptive design (just as Christ had taught before him, cf. Matthew 15:24), declaring that the gospel was for the Jew first, and only afterwards for the Gentile (Romans 1:16-17). Continue Reading

“Sensus plenior” is a Latin term which means, literally, “fuller sense,” or “deeper meaning”. The term “sensus plenior” is used to refer to those passages which, at their most obvious level speak of one person or event, but which also have a deeper meaning hinted at through that specific event in question. In other words, “sensus plenior” is the term which acknowledges that some historical persons and events in the Old Testament are really “types,” and that the passages treating of those persons and events speak not just of themselves alone, but also of the “antitypes” (i.e., the fulfillments of the types) which they foreshadow. Continue Reading

Although it is a common sentiment today to deny that a literal, grammatical-historical hermeneutic could allow for any sensus plenior in the text of scriptures, because it would violate the principle of each text having only one meaning, the simple fact is that this understanding is based more upon a naturalistic, or literalizing hermeneutic, than the grammatical-historical hermeneutic of the Church Fathers and Reformers. But more to the point, this denial of sensus plenior is in direct contradiction to the testimony of the scriptures themselves, as to how they should be read and understood. Throughout the Old Testament, the bible gives explicit indication that the historical events and persons recorded, although they must be read “literally” as actual events in time and space, very often signify something deeper, that has to do with God’s eternal design; for instance, Jacob and Esau’s struggling together in the womb, although a real historical occurrence, is expressly said to indicate the future struggle of the nations of Israel and Edom (Gen. 25:22-23); and so also with many other things. Continue Reading

The “analogy of faith” is a reformed hermeneutical principle which states that, since all scriptures are harmoniously united with no essential contradictions, therefore, every proposed interpretation of any passage must be compared with what the other parts of the bible teach. In other words, the “faith,” or body of doctrine, which the scriptures as a whole proclaim will not be contradicted in any way by any passage. Therefore, if two or three different interpretations of a verse are equally possible, any interpretation that contradicts the clear teaching of any other scriptures must be ruled out from the beginning. Continue Reading

Dispensationalism is a relatively modern hermeneutic, or way of interpreting the scriptures, that has roots in the teachings of John Darby, was greatly popularized by C. I. Scofield, through the notes in his study bible, became influential through the establishment of Dallas Theological Seminary and many of its professors, including Lewis Sperry Chafer and Charles Ryrie, and has been greatly sensationalized and made influential at a popular level through the fiction and dramatic predictions and interpretations of authors such as Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye. Today, Dispensationalism is hugely influential worldwide, having a significant impact not just on the doctrine of the Church, but even on global politics, as the Dispensationally-driven Christian Zionist movement, championed by such men as John Hagee, has largely shaped America’s Middle Eastern policies for many years. Continue Reading

According to influential author Charles Ryrie, whose views are perhaps the most representative of popular Dispensationalism, there are three “sine qua non,” (i.e. non-negotiables) of what constitutes Dispensationalism: a doxological view of history (i.e., with the ultimate purpose of glorifying God), a literal hermeneutic (i.e. method of interpreting the bible), and an ongoing distinction between the two peoples of God, Israel and the Church. A doxological purpose for all of history is certainly not unique to Dispensationalism, however, and is affirmed by many non-Dispensational theologians; so the question of whether or not Dispensationalism is biblical must hinge on what the bible says about the latter two points: its “literal” way of understanding the bible, particularly as it relates to Old Testament prophecies; and its insistence on two peoples of God. Continue Reading

The doctrine of a pre-tribulational rapture is not clearly taught anywhere in the scriptures, but is an inference based upon several Dispensational premises: first, that the second coming of Christ is imminent (that is, that there are no prophetic events which must precede it); second, that the “Church Age” is a parenthetical part of God’s redemptive sign, and that he will one day revert to dealing with his earthly people, the Jews; and third, that the time in which he will deal with these Jews will be a seven-year period known as the Great Tribulation, which is yet to come. So then, if Christ could come back at any time, and yet, there are still at least seven years of tribulation to come in world history, then he must be coming back before those seven years, to take away his Church, so that he can focus again on Israel. Continue Reading

In the Old Testament, the bible does indeed prophesy that Israel will be restored and a more glorious temple will be rebuilt (e.g. Amos 9:11-12; Ezekiel 40-48). The preliminary fulfillment of this prophecy came with the return from exile, and the rebuilding of the temple under Nehemiah and Ezra; however, this was just a taste, or down payment, of the ultimate fulfillment. Continue Reading

Not only does the bible not teach that there are two distinct peoples of God, Israel and the Church, but it is very explicitly opposed to this idea. For one thing, the Church existed in the Old Testament, long before the outpouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (see Acts 7:38); and furthermore, the clear teaching of the New Testament is that the modern day Church is really just the expansion of God’s people Israel. According to Paul, being an Israelite has never been based merely on outward ethnicity (Rom. 2:28-29; 9:6-8); but those who have been called according to God’s promise are Abraham’s true seed (Rom. 9:8). Hence, all who have faith are Abraham’s children, and the true Israel of God (Rom. 4:11-17; Galatians 3:6-9, 26-29; 4:21-31; 6:16; Phil. 3:3; 1 Pet. 2:9-10; Rev. 2:9). Continue Reading

“Amillennialism” comes from a term that means, literally, “no thousand years”. Thus, it is essentially a way of interpreting Revelation 20, which six times mentions a period of a thousand years, during which Satan is bound and believers reign with Christ. Amillennialists believe that there will be no future thousand-year period of time when the Kingdom of God will be visibly flourishing in the world, and the whole earth will be fruitful and at peace. Instead, Revelation 20 is one of a series of visions, each of which describes the entire period of time between Christ’s first and second comings in a different manner. The millennial Kingdom is taking place now, for Satan has been bound by Christ’s work on the cross, so that he can no longer hold all the nations in deception; and believers, who seem to be persecuted and afflicted, are really reigning with Christ, and causing his Kingdom, which does not now come visibly, to spread to every corner of the earth. There is a difference of opinion in amillennial interpretation over whether those who reign with Christ are believers who are still alive, or those who have died in the Lord, and are now in his presence. Continue Reading

“Postmillennialism” comes from a term that means, literally, “after the thousand years”. Thus, it is essentially a way of interpreting Revelation 20, which six times mentions a period of a thousand years, during which Satan is bound and believers reign with Christ. Postmillennialists believe that Christ will return after a future golden age of prosperity on the earth, during which time the gospel will have been fruitful in all the world, bringing peace and security to all. Postmillennialists look to the many prophecies in the Old Testament which speak of a coming time of great blessing and prosperity (e.g. Psalm 22:25-31; Psalm 72; Isaiah 2:1-5), and see those passages as demanding a future period of gospel success that will be vastly greater and fundamentally different from what Church history has displayed so far, of the Kingdom spreading in the midst of much affliction and persecution. In the Postmillennial interpretation, Revelation 20 is a passage which describes this future period of blessing that the Old Testament prophets look ahead to. Continue Reading

“Premillennialism comes from a term that means, literally, “before the thousand years”. Thus, it is essentially a way of interpreting Revelation 20, which six times mentions a period of a thousand years, during which Satan is bound and believers reign with Christ. Premillennialists believe that Christ will return and establish his Kingdom on earth, and that he will be visibly present for a thousand years, reigning over all the earth in an age of peace and prosperity. Then, after this thousand-year visible reign of Christ on earth, he will quell a final rebellion, enter into his last judgment, and finally usher in the eternal state, with its new heavens and new earth. Continue Reading

Although premillennialism is often seen as a dispensational way of understanding Revelation 20, and while many premillennialists are in fact dispensationalists, there is nevertheless nothing about premillennialism in itself that demands dispensationalism. In fact, in early Church history, more than a thousand years before the development of dispensational theology, there was a group called the Chiliasts (from the Greek word for “thousand years”), which held to a premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20. In recent history, there have still been some premillennialists who are not dispensational, most notably George Ladd. Many of these prefer to distance themselves from dispensational theology by using the term “historic premillennialism,” as opposed to “dispensational premillennialism”. Continue Reading

While the bible does clearly teach against the Dispensational variety of premillennialism (see questions 18-21 above), it is much more open to historic premillenialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. Both premillennialists and postmillennialists will look to Old Testament prophecies of a golden age of gospel success on the earth (e.g. Psalm 22:25-31; Psalm 72; Isaiah 2:1-5), and say that the nature of these prophecies requires a time in which the earth will not be in its eternal state, when no one marries or dies any more, but vastly more prosperous than it is now, when the Church is always afflicted and persecuted. Amillennialists, on the other hand, look to the many New Testament passages that suggest that, when Christ returns, he will at once raise the wicked and righteous dead, enact his final judgment, dissolve the old heavens and earth, and bring in the new, eternal state. When he comes, the Church will still have her enemies and persecutors, and evil men and imposters will be waxing worse and worse (see Dan. 12:1-2; Mat. 24:29-31; 25:31-46; John 5:28-29; 2 Thes. 1:6-10; 1 Cor. 15:51-57; 2 Pet. 3:3-14). All of the Old Testament prophecies they would see as having either a spiritual fulfillment, so that the prophecy of a lion’s lying down with a lamb, for instance, could be fulfilled by the gospel’s bringing together in peace and love representatives of two different tribes that had historically hated and killed each other. Of course, this sort of thing is happening all over the world, wherever the gospel is going out. And then, amillennialists see the nature of some of those prophecies employed by post- and premillennialists as demanding a final fulfillment in the eternal state. Today in the Church, we receive a foretaste of those prophecies; but we will not see them perfectly fulfilled until God creates the new heavens and the new earth, where righteousness dwell. Continue Reading

Biblical theology and systematic theology are two different manners of arranging the teaching of the scriptures. Biblical theology seeks to understand the progressive unfolding of God’s special revelation throughout history, whereas systematic theology seeks to present the entire scriptural teaching on certain specific truths, or doctrines, one at a time. Biblical theology is thus historical and chronological in its design; and in fact, a close synonym for biblical theology, at least in its wide-angle task of accounting for all of special revelation, is the term “redemptive history”. Biblical theology is not always pursued in so broad a fashion, however; sometimes, certain themes are approached in a biblical theological manner. For instance, a biblical theology of holy space in worship would seek to understand how that specific motif unfolded in redemptive history, from the beginning of revelation until the end. Another narrower application of biblical theology would be the study of the unfolding of revelation during a specific time period (for example, post-exilic biblical theology); or the study of the development of themes in a particular author (for example, Johannine biblical theology); but ultimately, even these narrower applications are truly biblical-theological in nature only as they seek to advance an understanding of the progression of redemptive history as a whole. Continue Reading

Biblical theology is an important discipline for several reasons; first, it helps us to determine what themes and truths of scriptures are really important, and why. As we seek to understand how the scriptures naturally unfold, and how its themes are developed and grow ever more mature, we start to realize what’s truly being emphasized. If we relied on systematic theology alone, we might come to know many truths about angels and men and sin and redemption, but which of those truths are the most important? Which are the most emphasized and developed in the history of special revelation? Is it as important to know about cherubim and seraphim as it is to know about justification and redemption? Continue Reading

Although systematic theology has its potential weaknesses and pitfalls, to which biblical theology may serve as a helpful corrective, it also has its strengths, and may prove to be the remedy to certain possible shortcomings of biblical theology. For instance, systematic theology ensures that all the doctrines of the bible find a place in the Christian’s understanding; every doctrine is treated exhaustively, from the entire testimony of the scriptures, so that nothing “falls through the cracks,” or is overlooked. Also, systematic theology ensures that one’s understanding of a given doctrine is the most developed and up-to-date that it can possibly be. Systematic theology demands the fullest and most final expression of a doctrine that revelatory history has made possible, so that there is no overlooking or forgetting any later clarification in the scriptures. Continue Reading

Covenant Theology is a framework for understanding the overarching storyline of the bible, which emphasizes that God’s redemptive plan and his dealings with mankind are without exception worked out in accordance with the covenants that he has sovereignly established. Although the importance of the divine covenants has been realized since the time of the earliest church fathers, Covenant Theology was not articulated as a thoroughly developed system, taking into account the entire extent of biblical revelation, until the days of the sixteenth and seventeenth century reformers, such as the influential Johannes Cocceius and Herman Witsius. The Westminster Confession of Faith is a landmark seventeenth century document that displays a robust, fully-developed Covenant Theology throughout. Continue Reading

If Covenant Theology is what it claims to be, that is, if it is the framework laying out the biblical understanding of the only manner in which the God of history has ever dealt with his people or revealed himself to them, then its importance should be obvious. If we are not in covenant with God, we will never know him at all. And if we do not understand the importance of the covenants, we will not be able to make much sense of vast portions of the bible. What was it, in the simplest mode of expression, that Jesus shed his blood to accomplish? According to his own words at the last Supper, the significance of his death was summed up in one term, “New Covenant” (Matthew 26:28). If we do not understand covenant terminology, this will leave us at best with a very fuzzy understanding of the benefits of Christ’s death; and if we do not understand the unity and organic connectedness of the divine covenants, we will miss the coherence of the bible, the unity of God’s redemptive design, and the centrality of the Christ of the covenants, who is the bible’s great hero. Continue Reading

It is not uncommon today to hear the argument advanced that Covenant Theology is anti-semitic, because it teaches that the New Testament Church replaces God’s Old Testament people, ethnic Israel. Some of these critics of Covenant Theology use the pejorative term “Replacement Theology” to describe what they believe Covenant Theology teaches. Continue Reading

Covenant Theology sees three basic, comprehensive covenants which structure all of redemptive history from eternity past to eternity future. All of these covenants, though each one is distinct, are very closely interconnected. The most fundamental of these three covenants is what theologians call the “Covenant of Redemption”. This refers to the inter-trinitarian pact made in eternity past, in which the Father designed, the Son agreed to undertake, and the Spirit agreed to apply the results of redemption. In this first divine covenant, every person whom Christ would redeem, and whom he would be given as the reward for his sufferings, was chosen by the Father before the worlds were ever created. Continue Reading

Although the term “Covenant of Works” is not a biblical designation, and although the word “covenant” is not used to describe God’s relationship with Adam in the Garden, there are several reasons for believing that the idea is eminently biblical, even if the precise term is not. First, creation itself is portrayed in the scriptures as existing in a covenantal relationship with God (Jeremiah 33:20-26); and if creation in general is established in covenant with God, how much more must the climactic figure of creation, the man created in God’s own image, necessarily be in covenant with God from his very creation? Second, the account of man’s creation in Genesis very clearly displays all the elements that characterize later covenants: first, a preamble emphasizing the greatness of God as seen in his prior works (1:1-27; 2:5-9); second, particular stipulations placed upon those with whom God is entering into relationship (1:28; 2:15-17); third, the negative sanction of death, in the case of disobedience (2:18); which gives warrant for understanding, fourth, an implied positive sanction of eternal life for obedience (analysis above taken largely from Peter Golding, Covenant Theology, Mentor 2008, p. 118). Third, the creation account provides a description of what appears to be functioning as a covenant sign, or sacrament, in the Tree of Life. Fourth, the most likely translation of Hosea 6:7, “They like Adam have transgressed the covenant,” gives a definite indication that a covenant was made with Adam at the time of his creation. Fifth, and most importantly, the language and teaching of Romans 5:12-21 demands an understanding of Adam as our federal head, or covenant representative. In this passage, which is monumentally important for Covenant Theology, Adam is depicted as our first federal head, whose failure rendered us all guilty before God; but in contrast to Adam, Christ, our second federal head, rendered to God a perfect righteousness, and his success established us as righteous before God. If, therefore, Christ was accomplishing our salvation as a federal champion in the Covenant of Grace, whose terms he fulfilled for us; then this passage indisputably casts Adam in the same role, that is, as our federal head undertaking (but failing) to fulfill the terms of a covenant for us. Hence, his failure in the Garden was manifestly a transgression of a covenant; and this covenant has long been called the Covenant of Works. Continue Reading

Although the term “Covenant of Grace” is not a biblical designation, the concept, emphasizing the unity and coherence of God’s covenanted promise to redeem a people for the sake of his name, is most certainly biblical. The existence of one unified Covenant of Grace is indicated by the nature of God’s first gospel-promise in Genesis 3:15, which promises a coming Redeemer that will be born of the woman’s seed. The rest of the bible unfolds and makes ever more clear and specific the way in which this promise will come to fruition; and each successive covenant that God makes with his people is another step taken toward the fulfillment of that original covenant promise. The covenants in history, therefore, do not replace or abrogate the first covenant made with Adam after the Fall, but build upon and preserve it. If, as Paul so adamantly argued, the Covenant made on Mount Sinai could not abrogate the Abrahamic Promise (Gal. 3:15-24), then how could any later covenant abrogate the first gospel promise made to Adam? Continue Reading

Although the term “Covenant of Redemption” is not a biblical designation, the teaching that, from before the creation of the world, the persons of the Trinity entered into a solemn pact to accomplish the work of redemption, the Father promising to give a people to the Son as his inheritance, the Son undertaking to accomplish their redemption, and the Spirit covenanting to testify to Christ, and apply his redemption to his people’s hearts, is most evidently biblical. Thus, according to the divine testimony, the Lamb was already considered as “slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8) so certainly was the agreement to accomplish redemption established before history. Continue Reading

“Reformation Theology” is a term designating the theological doctrines and convictions held in common by the great sixteenth century Protestant reformers, including Martin Luther, Philip Melancthon, Uldrich Zwingli, John Calvin, and others. Although some of these reformers had widely varying beliefs in certain areas, they were nevertheless firmly united against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in some very foundational doctrines. They all believed that the scriptures alone were sufficient to govern all believers in matters of faith and practice, and that the scriptures taught that justification was by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Likewise, they stressed a robust federal, or covenant theology (see questions 31 ff. above), and they held that man’s will is wholly bound in sin, and that only the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit could give the faith that results in justification. Continue Reading

The “five solas” is a term used to designate five great foundational rallying cries of the Protestant reformers. They are as follows: “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone); “Sola Gratia” (Grace Alone); “Sola Fide” (Faith Alone); “Solus Christus” (Christ Alone); and “Soli Deo Gloria” (To God Alone Be Glory). Continue Reading

Although it is a very common conception in contemporary Evangelicalism that we’re “born again” through faith, the bible actually teaches the very opposite: that we have faith by being born again. Being “born again,” or being given a new, spiritual life, is a concept that comes from the Old Testament book of Ezekiel, where God promises to give new, living hearts of flesh to those who were stone dead, with the result that they would then believe in him, obey him, delight in his laws (Ezek. 36:26-27). Then, in the New Testament, Jesus expands on this theme: in John 3:1-21, he tells Nicodemus that he cannot “see” the Kingdom of God, that is, he will have no understanding of spiritual things, unless he is first “born again”. This is why John had said earlier that everyone who “received” Jesus, that is, embraced him in faith, had not been born of their own will or efforts, but of God (John 1:11-13). In other words, when God gives us a new birth, then we immediately respond by believing and embracing Christ. Regeneration (the new birth) logically and causally precedes faith, which is the instrumental cause of justification, or being declared righteous in God’s sight. Continue Reading

It is common in contemporary Evangelicalism to hear the terms “saved” and “born again” as catch-all terms for becoming a Christian. In the bible, the teaching about man’s being brought out of the kingdom of darkness and transferred into the Kingdom of his Son reflects a much more detailed and nuanced understanding. Being “saved” is seen sometimes as a past event, sometimes as an ongoing reality, and sometimes as a future deliverance we have to look forward to. We were saved from our sin and guilt in the past (e.g. Luk. 7:50; Eph. 2:5, 8), we are being saved from this present evil world and the remaining corruption in our hearts in the present (e.g. 1 Cor. 1:18), and we will be saved from God’s wrath on the Day of Judgment, and brought into his eternal New Jerusalem (e.g. Rom. 5:9). Continue Reading

“Ordo salutis” is a Latin term which means “the order of salvation”. It speaks of a way of organizing all the events and realities in the process of salvation, in the order that they show up in an individual’s life. This order is sometimes temporal (e.g., we are justified a certain amount of time before we are glorified in the eternal state); but sometimes it is just logical, or causal (e.g., we exercise faith as soon as God gives us a new birth, but his regeneration is the cause of our faith). The “ordo salutis” is a very important concept because the doctrine of salvation is so rich and nuanced, and involves so many different realities, that we will not understand it the way that we should if we do not define all of its elements very carefully. We grow in sanctification and holiness as we grow in our understanding of the gospel, and realize all the spiritual blessings that we have in Christ; and so, if we are unclear on the many precious things that God’s Word has to say about the order of events which his salvation brings about in our lives, we will remain immature in our faith and conduct. Continue Reading

To many Christians, the idea of God’s absolute sovereignty over every event that takes place, no matter how minute, seems laughable. The conception of God as a dignified old gentleman, who only concerns himself with the “big” matters, and would not get his hands dirty in minor affairs, or else as a cosmic “watchmaker,” who wound up the universe and lets it keep on ticking, is common. Others would say that, while God is somehow “sovereign” over everything, he does not actively exercise that sovereignty in directing the actions of men, for to do so would violate the principle of free will, and make people mere robots. But instead of dwelling on these philosophical ideas and objections, we ought instead to examine the scriptures, and see what they have to say on the subject. Continue Reading

The question of how God can be sovereign and man still free to do as he chooses, and responsible for his actions, is very often discussed among Christians and theologians. However, the more fundamental question is, “Does the bible teach that God is sovereign and that man chooses things without external coercion, for which he is responsible?”. If God has spoken in his word, our first duty is to believe, whether or not we can reconcile what he has said in our finite minds. To those tempted to cavil against God’s absolute sovereignty, or to charge him with evil, the first and fundamental response is only this, “On the contrary, who are you to reply back to God?” (Rom 9:20). However, having said this, we must also believe that there is indeed a logical reconciliation of these two strains of clearly biblical truth. God does not contradict himself, and so these things cannot ultimately be incompatible. Continue Reading

“Compatibilism” is a term which describes the concurrent non-contradictory existence of the two truths we have been discussing above: God’s active sovereignty and governance over every event that takes place on earth, and man’s responsibility for his actions and freedom to follow his natural desires (which since the fall are wholly corrupt) apart from external coercion. These concepts are both true and biblical, and hence, they are not at odds with each other, but are fully “compatible”. Continue Reading

When the question of free will arises, it is imperative that we define our terms very carefully. By “free,” do we simply mean that we make real choices apart from external coercion, or do we mean that we can choose any theoretically possible option, without being necessarily constrained by our natural inclinations, prejudices, and desires? If we mean the former, then the term “free” is unnecessary and misleading, for real choice without external coercion is part of the very definition of “will”. If I make any choice at all, I do so willingly, because it is what I want to do; I am not constrained from the outside, and therefore, I cannot say in my defense, “Something took control of my body and forced me to do what I didn’t want to do – I’m not to blame!”. No, whatever I have done, I have done willingly, and I am responsible to God for my actions. Continue Reading

Strictly speaking, “Calvinism” refers to the theological teachings of the great sixteenth-century Geneva reformer, John Calvin. In his magnum opus, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, which is one of the most important works produced in the past five hundred years, he outlines the principles of the Christian faith in great detail. One of the outstanding emphases of this work is his concern to demonstrate and argue for the absolute sovereignty of God, and his predetermination of all that takes place on the earth, particularly as it relates to the salvation of man; and this emphasis is usually what is primarily intended when one speaks of “Calvinism,” or “Calvinistic theology”. Continue Reading

The terms “Pelagianism,” “Semi-Pelagianism,” and “Arminianism” have in common that they all present a form of synergistic theology; that is, the beginning of man’s salvation, in regeneration, is not accomplished by the sole and unilateral act of God, but is produced by God and man “working together,” in some sense. Each of these synergistic systems is in opposition to “Calvinism” or “Augustinianism,” which teaches that God sovereignly gives to each of his elect a new, living heart which cannot do otherwise than believe in Christ, and so be justified and eternally saved. Continue Reading

“Prevenient Grace” is a term that was used in the Remonstrance, a seventeenth-century document formulated by Jacobus Arminius and others, to protest the Calvinistic soteriology of the Reformers. The term itself simply means “grace that comes before”; but the Remonstrance cast it in terms of the grace of God given to all mankind without exception, which enables all men to respond to God’s invitation and believe in the gospel. Whether or not anyone in particular does believe in the gospel, then, is conditioned upon whether he chooses to improve upon the grace which has been given indiscriminately to all. Prevenient grace, therefore, is not irresistible for the elect; it is merely persuasive and enabling, but may freely be accepted or rejected by the arbitrary choice of its subjects. This doctrine of resistible, indiscriminate prevenient grace for all men is held today in many Arminian/Wesleyan theologies and denominations throughout Christianity. Continue Reading

Although total depravity does not mean that all men will display evil to the fullest extent possible, or that one man may never be good relative to another, or “in the right” when it comes to a particular situation; yet it does mean that no man can ever do anything whatsoever that is completely acceptable in the sight of God. The very best acts of fallen man are tainted and imperfect, and thus loathsome before the altogether holy God of creation. Basically, the doctrine of total depravity, in a calvinistic soteriology, intends two things: first, that no act of man is ultimately good or perfectly acceptable to God; and second, that man is so corrupted by sin, that he is utterly unable to contribute anything to his regeneration, even the simplest act of seeking God, believing in him, or coming to him. Continue Reading

Although Arminians object against the doctrines of Pelagius, the fifth-century British monk who taught that man was not corrupted in Adam, so that each person has the innate capacity to do righteous acts; yet they still like to maintain that man still has at least one tiny “island of righteousness” left in the sea of depravity; and that is, that all men can at least respond to God’s offer in the gospel, and come to him in faith. Continue Reading

The term “unconditional election” simply means that God’s election or choice of those who would be saved is not conditioned upon or influenced by anything outside of God himself. The doctrine of unconditional election was formulated in response to the teaching of the Remonstrance, composed by Jacobus Arminius and others, that God’s election of individuals to salvation was conditioned upon the faith which he foresaw that they would come to in time. In reaction to this teaching, the Synod of Dort affirmed the historic teaching of the Church that God elects us, not in response to any good or willingness to believe that he foresees in us, but according to his own good purposes alone. Continue Reading

Many Arminians believe the bible teaches that God elects those whose faith he foresees, based primarily upon two passages: Romans 8:30 and 1 Peter 1:1-2. Both of these passages speak of God’s election or calling of those whom he foreknew. However, neither of these passages teach what Arminianism claims. God chooses the people whom he foreknows, not the people whose faith or works he foresees. But what does it mean to “foreknow” a people? Does it mean that God did not know anything about any of the non-elect, that their sudden appearance in history was a surprise to him? Of course not: the terminology of “knowing” someone, throughout the scriptures, means having an intimate personal relationship with that person, which is different from his relationship with anyone else (see Genesis 4:1, for example). Hence, God tells Israel that he has “known” them alone of all the families on the earth – not that he was unaware that other tribes existed, but because he had a unique, special relationship with them (Amos 3:2). In the same vein, Christ declared that he would one day tell all religious imposters, “I never knew you,” which means, not that he was intellectually unaware of them, but that he did not have a relationship with them (Mat. 7:22-23). Thus, biblically, God’s foreknowledge of the elect simply means that he loved and desired them uniquely, and considered them different from all others, before they were ever born or had done anything good or bad. Continue Reading

In Romans 9, when Paul is speaking very clearly of God’s unconditional election of some, and not others, to eternal salvation, a hypothetical objector to this doctrine raises that very question: “If it is as you say, Paul, and God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were born, or had done anything good or bad, just so that his own purposes might stand in election, does that not mean he is arbitrary and unjust?” (see Rom. 9:14). Paul’s response to this is a resounding, “Of course not! May it never be!” God is not arbitrary or unjust – but he does elect individuals to mercy and hardens others as he sees fit, and for no good will or exertion that he sees in anyone (Rom. 9:15-16). He hardened Pharaoh according to his purpose of displaying his glory in all the earth, and he sovereignly chooses to have mercy on whomever he will, to display the glory of his grace (Rom. 9:17; cf. Rom. 9:22-24). In sum, “Therefore, he has mercy on whom he will and he hardens whom he will” (Rom. 9:18). Continue Reading

In Romans 9, when Paul is declaring very certainly and indisputably the sovereign choice of God in election, according to his own good pleasure and purposes alone, he raises up a hypothetical objection: If it is as you say, and salvation depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who elects, then how can he hold anyone responsible? Or in other words, “Why does he still find fault? for who has resisted his will?” (Rom. 9:19). Paul’s response is very simple: “On the contrary, who are you, O man, to reply back to God? Shall the thing formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why have you made me thus’? Or does not the Potter have authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make one a vessel for honor and another a vessel for dishonor?” (Rom. 9:20-21). In other words, the God who made us has the right to use us either for the display of his just wrath or the display of his free mercy, and we have no grounds to object. He is our Creator and he does hold us responsible, whether we like it or not. Continue Reading

The objection that God’s absolute sovereignty in his choice of individuals for salvation or condemnation makes them into mere robots misunderstands and minimizes the glory of his power. God does not need to “put a gun to someone’s head” or truss someone up with puppet strings to get his will done. He is so glorious a Creator and so wise in his providence that, as difficult a time as we have comprehending it, he can work all of his flawless and righteous designs through the willful choices of the wicked; and he can likewise perform his powerful work of sanctification through the freed and re-created wills of weak and sinful recipients of mercy. Continue Reading

Another objection that is often raised against the doctrine of unconditional election is that it hinders evangelism and missions. After all, if only the elect will come to faith, why should we evangelize everyone? In fact, if we cannot change anyone’s heart, why evangelize at all? Should we not just repeat what John Ryland supposedly said to the zealous (and Calvinistic!) missionary Wlliam Carey: “Sit down, young man; when God wants to convert the heathen, he’ll do it without your help and mine.”? Continue Reading

The term “double predestination” simply means that, just as God predestines some, but not all, to eternal salvation, so he predestines others to eternal punishment; this second part of “double” predestination, God’s appointment of all but the elect unto eternal destruction, is sometimes called “reprobation”; and those who are not the elect are thus called the “reprobate”. Logically, the doctrine of reprobation is necessarily true if the following premises can be established: 1) God sovereignly chooses some men for salvation; 2) God does not choose all men for salvation; 3) there is no possibility of obtaining salvation apart from God’s sovereign election thereunto. In other words, if God has chosen infallibly to save some, and has cut off any other means of salvation for all others, he has effectively made a choice concerning every person that has lived; he has chosen either to save him or to cut him off from all hope of salvation. Each of these premises may certainly be found in the bible; and so, it is manifest that God’s eternal choice involves the salvation of some and the damnation of others. Continue Reading

The terms“supralapsarianism,” and “infralapsarianism” (sometimes called “sublapsarianism”) have to do with the logical order of God’s eternal decrees of salvation. The question, basically, is this: did God’s decree to save a certain people come before (supra) or after (infra) his decree to permit the fall (laps). Infralapsarians argue that, in order not to charge God with injustice or sin, it is necessary that God’s election of men to salvation be made from a field of men who are sinners already; hence, the decree to ordain the fall must logically come before the decree to elect men to salvation. Otherwise, in ordaining to destruction men who had not yet fallen, the charge could be made against God that he was responsible for their sin and rebellion, which his eternal plan demanded of them. But no, the supralapsarian responds, God’s eternal plan to redeem some and not others from the outset, while requiring sin and the Fall, does not logically make God culpable, and furthermore, it better fits the biblical evidence of God’s prerogative to use evil for the accomplishment of his prior designs. God’s ultimate purpose for creation and redemptive history is the triumph of the Lamb both in the destruction of his enemies and the salvation of his people; and this plan logically requires the existence of sin, and also of God’s triumph over that sin through righteous judgment and sovereign mercy. If God’s ultimate purpose in history is the display of his glory in the person and work of Christ; and if the manifold glory of Christ includes righteous wrath against sin; then God’s eternal purpose of redemption necessitated the Fall, and did not just respond to it. Continue Reading

The term “limited atonement,” in its broadest sense, simply means the view that the atonement Christ provided for sins is in some way limited from the greatest possible extent it could have in theory; however, virtually every theologian believes in an atonement which is limited in some manner – all except those who believe that every person who ever lived will be finally saved and glorified. So in reality, it is an unhelpful and misleading term. In common parlance, however, it is a term used to describe the Calvinistic belief that Christ’s atonement was fully effective to accomplish its design of redemption for all those for whom it was intended; but its intention was limited to the elect. This point of view is in opposition to what is commonly called “unlimited atonement,” which teaches that the intention of Christ’s death was to provide redemption for everyone without exception; but the efficacy of his redemptive act is limited in its power to ensure everyone’s final salvation. Christ’s death, in other words, provided everything necessary for anyone’s salvation besides the one conditional element of faith; but this faith was not provided by his death for anyone at all. Continue Reading

Proponents of what is (misleadingly) called “unlimited atonement” are quick to point out the many passages that speak of Christ’s death as being for “all the world,” and other similar phrases. The bible is, in fact, clear that Christ’s death was intended to save “all” in a variety of contexts: it was intended to save “all” who believe (John 3:16); it was intended to save people from “all” kindreds, tribes, tongues, and nations (Rev. 5:9); it was intended to save persons from “all” classes, rich or poor, slave or free, king or peasant, man or woman, Jew or Greek (Gal. 3:28; 1 Tim. 2:1-6). Thus, his death is spoken of in a variety of places as being intended for “all,” or “the world”. For example, John 1:29; Tit 2:11-14 [in the context of “all men” is the delimiting concept of a peculiar people, zealous of good works]; Heb 2:9-10 [notice that the many sons whom Christ brings to glory gives a contextual delimiter to the term “every”]; 2Pe 3:9 [note that this desire is explicitly limited to “us” (Peter was writing to fellow-believers) in the context]; 1Jo 2:2 [propitiation means “appeasement of wrath”; either Jesus appeases God's wrath against all, and therefore hell (which is the place where God's wrath resides) is non-existent; or the “whole world” means something different than “every individual who ever lived”. See John 11:51-52 for a clear verbal parallel that gives strong support of the Johannine emphasis on Christ's death being, not just for ethnic Jews, but for people across the whole world]. Continue Reading