Last week we looked at the question “What is theology?”. This week we are going to look at the Doctrine of Scripture. When we think of the Bible, what should we think about it? What is the proper way to understand its authority? What does it mean when somebody says the “Bible is divinely inspired?” These are all important questions and it’s equally important how we answer them.
The Bible is the foundation for all proper and true theology about God. The Bible is what gives us true knowledge about God. So, if the Bible is in error, then our doctrine and beliefs about God are in error. When a person says that the Bible is divinely inspired, it is said to mean that the Bible, although written by men, the men who wrote it were “Carried along in the Spirit.”. God directly and actively inspired the words the the men would write down. This inspiration was compatible with each of the authors different personalities and cultural upbringing, and at the same time, was exactly what God intended to communicate to His people through all time.
It has been stated like this: The Spirit of God sovereignly directed the human authors of Scripture so that their writings can be considered divinely inspired. A simple way to think of this is “What the Bible says, God says.” For that was Jesus’ view of scripture itself.
Scripture as a Foundation for Theology
When dealing with the issue of how do God’s people recognize God’s inspired words, Dr. Michael J. Kruger may have said it best when he stated:
“The people of God, through the indwelling of the spirit of God, recognized the voice of God, speaking in the word of God.”
What Kruger is getting at here is that man himself is not the authority that determines what texts are God’s word. Rather is it God Himself working in the Christian causing the Christian to recognize God’s voice though darkness that exists by all the other so called “inspired holy texts”. The Christian’s knowledge that the Bible is the word of God is foundationally revelational in nature. Man did not come to this conclusion by his own efforts. God told men that the Bible is His word. Councils who voted on which books of the Bible were inspired by God, were not voting on the books with authority in the sense that they decided themselves, rather, the votes were votes that recognized the inherent voice of God as found in the text. The votes were not authoritative votes, they were votes of recognition.
Now that we have laid a firm foundation for what Scripture is and how its recognized, let’s examine some functions of scripture itself:
Through all these different aspects, we are blessed. The Bible teaches us who God is, the Bible then provides us with God’s commands upon our lives and also provides rebukes against sin and self-righteousness. The Bible all encourages us in our despair and expresses to us God’s unwavering love for His children. The Bible also warns of wrath and judgment to come to those who reject its admonitions. The Bible is the ultimate and only source of comfort for the Christian in this world.
We must have Jesus’ view of the Bible
If we call ourselves Christians, followers of Christ, we must have Christ’s view of the Bible. What was His view? There are several passages of the Bible that demonstrate what Jesus thought of the “Bible” (The Old Testament in His day). The list below is not by any means exhaustive, rather it is to illustrate the points made by Christ:
Conclusion: Jesus Christ believed and held the position that “What the Scripture Says, God says”.
As Christians who follow Jesus Christ and claim Him as our savior and way of salvation, we are required to hold to the same standard as Christ when it comes to our view of the Bible. Even Peter recognized Jesus words were “life”. Jesus words tell us that the Bible is God’s word. The Bible is God speaking to humanity.
Jesus’ usage of the Bible: Reasoning from the Scriptures
Throughout the Bible we find Jesus arguing with logic making inference for theological application from the text of the Bible. In several places Christ demonstrated that the Bible is sufficient for the Christian to come to theological conclusions and truths:
Jesus believed that what Scripture implies, Scripture teaches. This logically means then that when the Bible makes an implication, it is itself a Biblical teaching. Possibly the greatest example of this is when Jesus said “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”. This is a reiteration of a Levitical passage, which when considered, carries a lot of implications. If I love myself, I don’t steal from myself. If I love myself, I do not lie to myself. These applications are to be made to our neighbors. How we love ourselves, is how we are to love our neighbors. We feed and provide for ourselves every day. Christ is telling us we should treat our neighbors likewise.
I leave you with this last thought: What is the Bible? How do you view the Bible? Do you have the same view of the Bible as Jesus? If not why not? Comment at the bottom of this blog and let us know your thoughts.
If this type of content is interesting to you and you desire to be edified in Reformed Theology and related content, then be sure to subscribe to this blog!
You can do that by signing up for our email list (scroll down to bottom of the page and sign up) also be sure to follow the RSS feed for this blog here and follow us on Facebook here, Instagram here, and if you have Pinterest here.
]]>
We have all heard the question, "What is Theology?" It is such a basic question that often it goes without much thought. As a Christian, we spend much of our time dealing with theological terms and concepts. Theology is second nature to us. But when was the last time you stopped an asked yourself “what are the different types of theology?”
In this article we will examine a few different types of theology and their applications. Applying these theologies can be so very seamless to the point that a transition from one to the next often goes unnoticed when speaking of theological concepts or living them out in our communities.
Applications of Theology:
Theology has been defined by some as “the quest to understand God”, while others have defined it as “the study of God”. Theology is a term from the late Middle English (originally applying only to Christianity). The first half of the word comes from Greek: theos ‘god’ + -logia which means basically “the study of”. Abraham Kuyper called it “the knowledge of God”. John Frame has stated it this way, theology is “the application of God’s Word by persons to all areas of human life.”
We are going to look at many different aspects of theology. We need to think of theology beyond merely just the study of God. Theology has many different applications. When we undertake the study God, it naturally leads us to take that knowledge and apply it to our lives and those around us. When you review this list, I want you think though the different applications theology can have.
Theology is:
There are many different aspects of theology. Taking the study of God and applying it to the many realms of our lives is what we are called to do as Christians. We cannot afford to be ignorant of the way theology not only impacts us, but how it can be harnessed in service to God and His kingdom. From pastoral theology when you need that comfort and a word of peace from your pastoral during a very difficult trial to that theologically authoritative proclamation of the Gospel over all men when you are street witnessing. Theology is done in all aspects of life.
Now that we have briefly examined what theology different expressions of theology there are, let’s look at some categories of theology:
Theology is also:
I leave you with this last thought: What is theology? How do you take theology and apply it to your life? Has God granted us theology to just be head knowledge and kept within the church? The great commission is more than just preaching the gospel and baptizing believers. For within the great commission is inherently theology. This theology of God affects so much of our lives. We must strive to bring it from the head to the heart then to our hands and feet.
If this type of content is interesting to you and you desire to be edified in Reformed Theology and related content, then be sure to subscribe to this blog!
You can do that by signing up for our email list (scroll down to bottom of the page and sign up) also be sure to follow the RSS feed for this blog here and follow us on Facebook here, Instagram here, and if you have Pinterest here.
]]>
You have persevered and now are at the last blog post in our series on TULIP. As this final post ends the series so it will also end our contrast and comparison of Protestant Arminian Soteriology and Roman Catholic Soteriology, which in basic terms, provides roughly the same ending point. The question posed in the title of this post is extremely important. We will examine if Christ is a liar and Rome is true. There is no middle ground on this issue, Rome and Christ are directly opposed to one another at this point as you will see.
In this series we have seen how in both systems God must exercise a type of grace to bring the spiritually dead sinner to the point of decision. We have also looked at each system and how God’s election of man finds its origin in man’s election of God. In other words, God would not choose you if He knew you would not have chosen Him. From there we examined how both systems have the intention of God as having Christ atone for the sins of every single human who ever lived. There is not a single human who was not atoned for, this would include Judas (think for a moment of the multitude of problems with that). Finally, this brings us to where we left off last week when we brought out the similarities of resistible grace in each system. God can desire to save you and even try; however, it is within man to deny God His desire and thus be the one who determines salvation.
All that remains in our series is if Jesus lied. Were the words spoken by Jesus about His sheep true? Or did Jesus say things about them that were false. Could Jesus have been mistaken when He said that no Christian could lose His salvation? Where you land on the issue of Perseverance of the Saints, will determine if you make the Shepard a liar or not. Were His words true? Or is the tradition you were raised with truer than the words of Him who is “the truth”?
Perseverance of the Saints:
The concept is simple: Christians cannot lose their salvation. Put more clearly, the elect of God, those whom He predestined unto salvation as vessels of mercy, are in no danger of ever losing their status and falling away from the faith for it is God Himself that causes them to persevere unto the end.
If you were raised and taught that you or other Christians could lose your salvation, how distant are you from Rome on this issue? Rome makes it very clear that a Christian can lose her salvation. Rome makes distinctions between mortal sins, sins that cause one to fall from the state of grace, and venial sins, those which one can commit, but that do not cause the Christian to fall from the state of grace.
Rome puts it this way:
With these doctrines that Christians can commit certain sins and possibly lose salvation, salvation is never guaranteed. According to Roman Catholicism, after receiving initial justification in baptism, which removes original sin, grace is also infused into a person However, with each sin a person commits after baptism, there is a loss of justifying grace. The more a person sins, the more grace he loses. Venial sins (lesser sins) result in incremental losses of this grace, but mortal sins (greater sins) bring an instantaneous loss of all grace--if a person dies after committing mortal sin, he goes to hell. In order to replace the grace that was lost, he must participate in the sacraments (mainly penance) administered by a properly ordained priest in the Roman Catholic Church. This regaining of grace enables him to do good works and keep himself in a state of justification before God. This is how the Roman Catholic maintains his salvation. (Source)
The Roman system is more complex than the Arminian system, however the key point to recognize is that Rome certainly teaches that the salvation of Christians can and is lost by people everyday as they commit mortal sins. In contrast to this you may have heard it stated: “You cannot lose your salvation, but you can walk away.” The question is then posed, is that not basically the same as committing mortal sins in the Catholic system such that one loses their salvation? The end result is the same, both are a walking way from the Biblical ordinances which the Christian is called to live by. Is it true then that you can “walk away” or “fall away”? The very honor of Christ is at stake in this discussion as Jesus made direct statements on this issue.
What is the Reformed and Biblical position on whether or not Christians can lose their salvation? Allow me to present Scripture for your consideration:
I’d like to address in detail one verse as primary to this discussion. Let’s look at John 10:27-28:
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
In these two verses Christ makes very clear, His sheep, the elect, Christians, cannot lose their salvation. Notice a few things about this verse:
Thus, in the final analysis we see that to say that Christians can fall away, or lose their salvation, is to make the statement of Christ in John 10:27-28 fictitious. The Bible says we were bought with a price, that we are slaves of Christ and His sheep. We do not have ownership of ourselves, nor are we free to just leave the Shepard. What shepherd who, upon noticing a sheep has wandered away, does not go and retrieve Him. The ability to be kept or lost is not dependent upon the sheep, it’s wholly dependent upon the Shepard. The Bible calls Christ the “good” Shepard. A good shepherd gets their sheep and bring them back. They fight off attackers and protect their property.
To say then that Christians can lose their salvation is a fundamental misunderstanding of who the sheep really are and what their capabilities truly are. Rome errors when it teaches that a Christian can lose their salvation. Rome provides a system that must be worked, that must be redone, again and again. The typical Arminian puts it in terms of “a re-commitment to Christ” some even go so far as to receive multiple baptisms over the course of their lives when they make the re-commitments. It should not be. All these works are based on the underlying concept that Christ’s work, was not enough and that we must somehow do something to maintain our status as Christiansg. The questions are then asked, how much must you do to remain in fellowship with Christ? How much sin does it take before you lose the salvation you once had? How many times can you lose your salvation and regain it? The answers to these questions simply cannot be determined by Rome or by any person who says that salvation can be lost and regained. Bluntly: It is a fool’s errand, as Scripture emphatically states, that Jesus gives His sheep eternal life and they will not perish.
I leave you with these last thoughts: Was Christ wrong? Can His sheep actually perish? And if so, what force in the created realms is stronger and mightier than Christ’s intercessory prayers to the Father for His elect? What would cause Christ’s prayers on behalf of the elect to fail to such a degree to cause the very ones He is praying for to fall away into hell? Lastly, jumping back into the topic of the atonement, (as these five points are interconnected) what could possibly make His work on the cross fail? For His atonement before the Father was perfect. What could possibly cause His sacrifice to fail to achieve that for which it was intended? The answer to all these: a resounding NOTHING.
Do you, as a Protestant, find yourself agreeing with Rome on this point or with your fellow Reformed believers? If you find yourself at a distance with Rome on this topic now that you have seen an example of why Christians losing their salvation is in error, I implore you to reach out to your Pastor/elders to discuss this and any of the topics we have covered in this series. After that, our Facebook page is full of resources for you to study and Reformed believers willing to walk with you through these studies on Calvinism and the Doctrines of Grace.
If this type of content is interesting to you and you desire to be edified in Reformed Theology and related content, then be sure to subscribe to this blog!
You can do that by signing up for our email list (scroll down to bottom of the page and sign up) also be sure to follow the RSS feed for this blog here and follow us on Facebook here, Instagram here, and if you have Pinterest here.
Welcome to blog #4, “Has the Atheist made God a failure?” This week we are again looking at TULIP, specifically the Doctrine of Irresistible Grace. By this point you will have understood how the very foundation of Calvinism starts with God, and that salvation comes only from God. Man is unable to do anything to prepare himself for salvation, nor is man willing. Irresistible grace is built upon the foundation of Total Depravity, Unconditional Election and Limited/Particular Atonement.
For when it comes to the concept of resisting God and His will, that a particular person be saved, where do you land? Is man able to resist the will and call of God and undo the plans of God? Has God granted man this freedom to choose, and with that the ability and right, to resist God? If man is able to resist that call, was God ever really wanting that person saved to begin with? And if God knew the call would be resisted, why even offer the choice?
How you answer these questions will determine what your foundation is, is it the Bible, or something outside the Bible. Rome places its “Tradition” (with a capital T) over the Bible. For Rome has stated it alone has the authority to interpret the Bible for all Christians[1]. What does Rome say on this issue? Can man frustrate the plans of God?
Irresistible Grace:
Rome would tell you that man is ultimately free to reject the offer of salvation that is placed before them. God places no coercion upon His creatures and that in fact God pleads with them to repent and take Christ as their savior. For Rome, man is the deciding factor if Christ work on the cross was successful, if the convicting ministry of the Holy Ghost is successful and if the entire plan and actions of redemption are a failure or a success. This leaves nothing for God. The glory has shifted from God to man.
Rome would tell you that:
The Catholic teaching tells you that God presents man a possibility, an option from which to choose. That while God intends and desires for all humanity to be saved, man can disrupt the plan of God and shatter His plan of salvation by rejecting the work of God in Christ. This renders the entire mission of the cross pointless for those who reject the Gospel, leading back to the L in TULIP, and why would Christ have suffered and died for those whom He knew would resist His call to repentance, and why would He atone for the sins of those He knew would reject that very atonement.
Having looked at the views of man’s lack of ability and desire to repent (Total Depravity), how God elects man based upon His own will and not anything in them (unconditional Election) and most recently how Christ died only for the elect and not all mankind (Limited/Particular Atonement), it then makes sense considering the Monergistic (one actor) work of God at this point, to not fail in all that He does. God will effectively call His elect to Himself.
The Bible makes a very strong and clear case that God’s will never fails, that God has an elect group of people He is going to save, and who these people are, is outside of their say and desire. Let’s look at some scripture that makes the case for Irresistible Grace:
Daniel 4:35
for his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
and among the inhabitants of the earth;
and none can stay his hand
or say to him, “What have you done?”
Martyn Lloyd-Jones in Romans Assurance said this: “Not only is grace irresistible, it must be irresistible. For if grace were not irresistible no one would ever have been saved… The idea that grace presents itself to us, but that the final choice remains with us as to whether we are going to take advantage of it or not, is not only a contradiction of the verse we are considering, it is a contradiction of the entire biblical teaching concerning the way of salvation.”
All the points of TULIP work together. For God only effectively calls His elect. The Bible shows us a distinction between the call that goes out to the non-elect, without the power of the Holy Spirit, and the call that goes out to the elect empowered by the Holy Spirit. You can preach the truth of the Gospel to an atheist friend in the car on the way to the airport, but unless the Holy Spirit brings to bear the power of God upon his dead stony heart, those words will have no effect. However, when those words are empowered by the Holy Spirit, that conviction brought to bear through the Gospel will not fail to bring about the new birth of the rebel sinner.
Keep this in mind: No atheist is angry with God for refusing to let him repent. And have you ever met a Christian who is angry with God for forcing her to repent and believe? You never have.
This is because when that irresistible grace acts upon a sinner, the free desire in accordance with their fallen nature to hate God and deny His very existence is removed as the heart of stone is taken out. With the gift of a heart of flesh and a rebirth, comes a new nature. One that is free to love God in accordance with its holy desires. In both instances God allows the person to act freely within the confines of their natures. There is no violence done to the creature, nor is there any coercion. Merely a setting free from the slavery and bondage of sin to freedom and joy to seek after the God who created them.
In the final analysis, if grace can be resisted, then God can fail. Even if it is only one person who resisted it in all time, it still meant that God’s will to save that person failed. In contrast, the Bible never suggests God could ever fail to fulfill His will. Rather as Jesus said: All the Father gives me, will come to me.
If this type of content is interesting to you and you desire to be edified in Reformed Theology and related content, then be sure to subscribe to this blog!
You can do that by signing up for our email list (scroll down to bottom of the page and sign up) also be sure to follow the RSS feed for this blog here and follow us on Facebook here, Instagram here, and if you have Pinterest here.
____________________________
[1] " . . . no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,--wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold," (Trent, Session 4, "Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books")
]]>The third blog post in our series titled: “Hey Protestant, what are you actually Protesting?” we now come to the L of TULIP, the Doctrine of Limited Atonement. (Read last week's article here regarding the U in TULIP here) This Doctrine may be better labeled Particular Atonement as we will explain later. But for now, lets think about what you may have been taught growing up… “That Jesus died for you”, that “Jesus died for everybody because God loves everybody.” I know I was raised on statements like these, but are they actually statements from the Bible? I humbly suggest to you, they are not.
Like me, growing up in America, the average evangelical Christian of the Arminian flavor is taught the “facts of the faith” that God loves everybody and that He sent Jesus Christ down to die for them all. You may call to memory the familiar Sunday School song that goes like this:
“Jesus loves the little children. All the children of the world. Red, brown, yellow, black and white. They are precious in His sight…”
While it is certainly true that Jesus loves little Children, and loves children of all different colors, what is not true however, is that Jesus loves “all the children of the world” in exactly the same way. This is where the bible makes distinctions in God’s love. Let me give you this to think about as an example:
We are commanded to love our wives in the same way that Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it; therefore, if Christ loved and gave Himself for all people in the same way, we are commanded to love all women in the same way that we love our wives. We know this is not Biblical, so why do some believe God loves every single human in the same way?
As a Protestant you make many distinctions between yourself and the Roman Catholic Church on many things. For example you do not partake in mass, you do not pray to Mary, but do you have the same view of God’s love and the atonement as the Catholic Church? If so why? And why as a Protestant do you not have the same view of God’s special love for His elect like your Reformed Protestant brethren, from whom the basis of your Protestant theology derived from? Why is it that being detached from Rome, you have a Roman view of the atonement?
Limited Atonement:
The Roman Catholic Church has this to say about the atonement of Jesus Christ:
Let’s compare the views of the atonement of Rome and that of Reformers and see where you land. Catholics view the atonement as primarily a “self-sacrificial love offering” from Christ to God more so than a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. As far as its effect, that’s basically it. The sacrifice did not actually save anybody, just made people “save-able”. Man must now do the rest of the required work to save himself. And this is the task set before every man without distinction. So the question remains, when Christ said “it is finished.” What exactly did He finish if man is made only saveble and not saved?
Roman Catholicism openly teaches that Jesus Christ “atoned and made satisfaction” for all the sins of every single human and that this atonement is for all men and offered to “all men”. Thus all humanity really and truly has salvation available to them because Christ died on their behalf and satisfied God. All they have to do, is repent and believe to be saved.
The is in direct contrast of the Reformed view, which I would contend is the Biblical view. Here is the famous dilemma put forth by John Owen:
John Owen presents to you only three options here. Options one and three are discounted logically and I will demonstrate why they are discounted Biblically by showing how the second option is the correct option in a similar fashion to Dr. John Owen.
The Catholic Position is that Christ has atoned for all men, and God in fact has been satisfied with this atonement. John Owen’s logic here is quite clear, why then is anybody in hell? Since Christ atoned and satisfied God, why is God angry with anybody anymore? Why doesn’t everybody get a free pass into heaven since the payment for sin was made and accepted?
The answer is clear… because Jesus did not atone for every single human. This answer can be found in many locations, but let’s focus on a verse that I’m sure you have heard before in previous discussions of the atonement: 1 John 2:2. It reads “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” (ESV) This verse is often used to tell us that Christ atoned for not just our sins (the Christians) but for the sins of the entire world! This includes all past, present and future sins you could ever commit.
The key to understanding if this is the case and if this is what the verse is actually telling us, is the word “propitiation”. That word single handedly narrows and confines the scope of the atonement to only the elect. Here is why: Propitiation means simply “to please and make calm a god or person who is annoyed with you.” Source Obviously we know that God is not simply annoyed, but is dreadfully and woefully enraged at the wicked.
So, the question as Owen pointed out, if God has been appeased why is God still angry with anybody? The Apostle John told us directly that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the “whole world”. Knowing now that the definition of propitiation literally means that God has been appeased, “whole world” therefore cannot mean every single human, for we know people go to hell (atheists for example rejecting and denying the existence of God) every minute awaiting final judgment in the lake of fire.
This leaves us with the atonement being particular. Particular to the elect. The atonement was specifically designed for those people Jesus was sent to save. Jesus told us in John 6 that “All that the Father gives me will come to me” meaning that certain people were given by God to Jesus to save. Let us now look at some scripture references that point us to the reality of Limited/Particular Atonement:
This is not an exhaustive list, if you want to see a full list of atonement related verses and see where we pull our list from click here.
In the final analysis the question remains for you to answer, do you affirm the Roman view that Christ died for every single person appeased/satisfied God and yet then punishes a portion of humanity in hell forever? Or do you take a step away from Rome, going closer to Biblical truth and welcomed by your fellow protestant brothers and sisters in the Reformed community in recognizing that Christ died only for the elect?
I leave you with this last thought: If Christ died for anyone else besides the elect, His purpose in dying to save them failed. For the purpose in which He was sent, to save all humanity failed miserably. Do you have a victorious Christ who is able to save all those given to Him by the Father? Or a failed Christ who was sent to save all, but could only save some?
What do you think? Did this article convince you one way or the other? Do you feel something may have been left out that is important to mention? Let us know in the comments below!
If this type of content is interesting to you and you desire to be edified in Reformed Theology and related content, then be sure to subscribe to this blog!
You can do that by signing up for our email list (scroll down to bottom of the page and sign up) also be sure to follow the RSS feed for this blog here and follow us on Facebook here, Instagram here, and if you have Pinterest here.
]]>
Continuing in our series on “Hey Protestant, what are you actually Protesting?” comparing and contesting Roman Catholic teaching on soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) with that of the typical evangelical and Reformed theology, we arrive at the Doctrine of Election. In Reformed circles this is commonly referred to as the Doctrine of Unconditional Election. This is the U in TULIP that we detailed last week. (Read last week's article here)
Unconditional Election:
As a run of the mill evangelical you were probably told that God “looked down through time and saw that you would accept His offer of salvation.” And because of your positive response, God elected you. Your direct response to this offer is the reason you have been elected for salvation. This places man in control of salvation. Your choice, which God saw, is what saved you. It's what determined before you were born that you would, at the end of your days, arrive in heaven. So common is this understanding of election, that it is held by virtually all visible expressions of the Christian faith.
In the United States people are told from their very first days that they are free. They are the ones who determine what they will do and where they will go in life. In fact, you are only limited by your own action or inaction. Freedom and the power of your personal choices are at the heart of Americanism.
It’s no wonder then that the idea of God being dependent upon your choice to accept or reject the gospel, being The Who determines your eternal address, is so pervasive in the evangelical church. This belief even transcends the Protestant/Catholic divide. Roman Catholics also share this belief about election. The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it like this: “To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace…” Source
In the Roman system, God cannot save you without your input. This is simply how God set it up and He now requires your cooperation with His will to save you. Election is therefore a combined effort on your's and God's part. God would not have elected you had He not seen that you would have accepted His offer. Fundamentally then, election is based on you.
In direct contrast, the classical Reformed position simply stated is: God elected you without regard to any response or good works that He knew you would do in response to His command to you to repent. Simply stated: God chose you, and you did not influence His choice in anyway.
Where do we see the Reformed Doctrine of Election in scripture where God’s election is not based on man in any way?
God's motivation in election is:
God's motivation in election is not:
In the final analysis, we see that the Roman Catholic Church has once again strayed from Scripture and holds to an understanding of election, that God Himself has not revealed. Rome teaches that God’s election is based upon man’s cooperation. This is in stark contrast with scripture where the infinite and ultimate Sovereign over all creation is not dependent upon man’s response to bring about His will to elect anyone to salvation.
Even the famous Catholic philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, in quoting Augustine, disagreed with the Church of Rome (and sided with who would later arise as the Reformers) wrote, "God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others.... Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will. Hence Augustine says, 'Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.'" (ST I:23:5, citing Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John 26:2.)
If you find yourself holding to the same position of the Catholic Church, that God, looking down through time needed your cooperation before you could be saved, and yet call yourself a Protestant, I would ask… why?
If this type of content is interesting to you and you desire to be edified in Reformed Theology and related content, then be sure to subscribe to this blog!
You can do that by signing up for our email list (scroll down to bottom of the page and sign up) also be sure to follow the RSS feed for this blog here and follow us on Facebook here, Instagram here, and if you have Pinterest here.
]]>Five Hundred and One years later, as a Protestant, what are you Protesting? If you grew up in church and at some point in your life realized it was not a Catholic church, do you know why? Martin Luther is known for starting the Protestant Reformation when he nailed his 95 Thesis to the Castle Church in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. Though at the time he did not plan on creating a schism from Rome later called “Protestant”, he did in fact initiate through God’s divine providence a movement away from unbiblical doctrines and back to the teachings of Scripture.
Let’s first examine some of the key theological doctrines you may hold to as a Protestant and contrast them against Catholicism. (This article assumes you are not a Calvinist, and not Reformed or new to those concepts. So, if that is the case, share this blog post with the intended audience to aid their growth in the conformity to the image of Christ [Romans 8:29])
In the next few blog posts we are going to look at the opposing points of view to the Doctrines of Grace, also know as the Five Points of Calvinism. These five points are:
These are summed up in the acrostic TULIP. Now, if you are not a Calvinist, you may find yourself believing just the opposite of those five points. We will walk through each one together and see how by rejecting these five points, you are in fact no longer protesting Rome as your name would imply, but rather are in agreement with her over and against your Reformed brethren in affirming non-biblical teachings.
Let us now turn our focus to the first doctrine that opposes the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity….
Free Will:
Having grown up in a typical church, you have more than likely been told that man has “free will”. For the purpose of this article I define free will to mean the following: the ability of the natural man aided or unaided by God, to positively respond to the command to repent and believe the Gospel. Further, man is able, if he so chooses, to do so and repent or free to reject the offer of salvation. After this repentance, man would then be born again. In other words, faith precedes regeneration.
If you find yourself holding to this doctrinal position, the question must be asked, how are you different than a Roman Catholic? For Rome teaches in its Catechism of the Catholic Church: “God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us. To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults.” "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Source
In this section, Rome is saying that God’s will is that in order to save man, man must work with Him. Man must agree to cooperate with the work done by God, commonly known as “synergism”. What we see here is a clear rejection and denial of Paul’s words in Romans 8:7-8 where under inspiration of the Holy Spirit he wrote the following: “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
Taking Rome at its word, it would imply that Paul was wrong, man can please God, and in fact God planned for man to please Him by repenting and accepting the offer that has been out stretched to him.
Maybe by this point you are thinking that the above reference from the Roman Catechism is cursory and doesn’t really deal with the issue at hand here. Allow me to present to you another clear example from Rome which utterly rejects what Paul taught and what the Reformers were trying to awaken Christendom to. Canon 9 of the Council of Trent from 1545-1563 states: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema." Source
This Canon has never been rescinded by Rome and is in effect as you are reading this. So strongly held is this belief by Rome that the very last word states that all who reject their position are accursed. At this point I will provide you with scripture documentation that refutes these claims of Rome, then I pray you are challenged to look deeper into the Bible and see why the Reformers rejected the doctrine of free will and stood in direct opposition to Rome.
These are a few of the clearest verses where Paul makes the case that the natural man cannot please God, hates God, and cannot understand the things of God. This is the Doctrine of Total Depravity worked out. Unlike Roman theology, the Bible is telling us that man is dead in sin, utterly unable to respond to the command to repent. In other words, total depravity leads to total inability.
This is why the Reformers believed that regeneration or being “born again” must be “monergistic”, or the work of God alone. In Jesus’ own words we find the answer to this dilemma. Man is commanded to repent and yet is unable and unwilling. Christ provides the remedy here in John 6:65: And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
Jesus directly states, no one can, or, is able, to come to Him unless that ability is granted to them by the Father. This statement of Christ stands in direct and overwhelming opposition to Roman Theology, which you may find yourself affirming.
Now at this point one must ask, what are you Protesting? For if you also reject these scriptures regarding man’s inability to respond to the call of the Gospel, then why are you not a Catholic?
If this type of content is interesting to you and you desire to be edified in Reformed Theology and related content, then be sure to subscribe to this blog!
You can do that by signing up for our email list (scroll down to bottom of the page and sign up) also be sure to follow the RSS feed for this blog here and follow us on Facebook here, Instagram here, and if you have Pinterest here.
Welcome to our new blog titled: Lux et Veritas with The Reformed Sage.
Why write a blog? I thought to myself, what is the point of attending Seminary if that knowledge is not put to use? I decided to write a blog about my studies at Seminary, what I learn about Reformed Theology and other closely related topics. This will not be about my daily activities, this will be a blog about the topics I study and the information gleaned from expert authors and wise professors along the way as well as topics that are related and impactful on Reformed Theology.
Since I already spend much time on social media defending Calvinism and Reformed Theology in general, a more formal platform for topical posts, I feel, will be helpful. One of the goals here on this blog is to rise past funny memes and surface level posts for those who are hungry for deeper reflection on the historic Reformed position.
Some of the courses we will study through together are: History of Christianity I & II, Introduction to Pastoral and Theological Studies, Systematic Theology: Scripture, Theology Proper, Anthropology, Genesis – Joshua, History of Christianity I & II, Systematic Theology: Christology, Soteriology, Eschatology, History of Philosophy, Christian Thought and many more.
Some of the things we will look at are textual criticism issues and how they impact the church today, the foundations of the reformation as well as a fair amount of defending reformed theology and critiquing synergistic models of salvation. Additionally, feel free to write in with theologically related topics you would like to see covered, and we may get to them.
My goal is to edify and strengthen readers of this blog in their faith and that all glory may be given to God alone. The frequency of posts on this blog will be weekly as I balance the demands of work, seminary, a marriage, church, and two kids is going to be a full, but blessed, plate.
If this type of content is interesting to you and you desire to be edified in Reformed Theology and related content, then be sure to subscribe to this blog!
You can do that by signing up for our email list (scroll down to bottom of the page and sign up) also be sure to follow us on Facebook here, Instagram here, and if you have Pinterest here.
]]>