Doctrine of Revelation: Christ and the Apostles

We only know God because He graciously reveals Himself to us. Otherwise we would never discover Him in our fallen state. God’s revelation of Himself has been progressive. All of the previous installments of God’s revelation of Himself have pointed forward to the greatest revelation of all: Jesus Christ.

God’s Revelation in Jesus Christ.  Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1, Hebrews 1:1-3).  Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament (OT) Scripture (John 5:39).  Jesus quoted and expounded upon the OT Scriptures (Matthew 5-7, Luke 24:27).  Jesus is the perfect human image of the Father.  He told Phillip (and us), "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” (John 14:9; see also Colossians 1:18, Hebrews 1:3).

Jesus testified to the veracity (truthfulness) of the OT revelation: John 5:39. John 6:45 quotes the OT to prove its endorsement of His ministry, using the technical term, “it is written.”  In Matthew 4:4 Jesus appeals to every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. 

Jesus testified to the necessity of the OT revelation, that He is the fulfillment of it (Luke 4:21), and that other events will happen so that the Scriptures will be fulfilled (John 13:18-19).  Jesus testified that Moses and the prophets spoke of Him (Luke 24:27).

Jesus testified of the integrity of OT revelation.  Jesus appealed to the integrity of the whole OT Scripture (John 10:35, Matthew 24:35, John 17:14).  Jesus appealed to the integrity of a single word of OT Scripture (Matthew 22:29-32, 42-45).  Jesus appealed to the integrity of a single letter of OT Scripture (Luke 16:17, Matthew 5:18).  Jesus testified of the integrity of the coming New Testament (NT) Scripture (Matthew 28:20, John 17:17, John 14:26).

Jesus’ ministry and claims concerning Himself were confirmed by His miracles (John 10:25).

God’s revelation of Himself in Jesus is recorded and explained by the Apostles in the NT.[1]  Two key NT passages that summarize the witness of the Apostles concerning the inspiration of Scripture are 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:19-21.  Both of these affirm that the OT Scriptures are not the writings of men, but of God.  We might say that while men were the secondary writers, God is the Author. 

That the Scriptures are inspired by God means they must be inerrant [2] since God is inerrant.  That the Scriptures are inerrant means they must be authoritative because God is supremely authoritative (Psalm 115:3).

Notes:
[1] The New Testament is not uniquely new, but is the completion of what the Old Testament spoke of prophetically.
[2] Inerrancy means the Scriptures are “without error.”  Infallibility means the Scriptures are “incapable of error.”  Both are true of all the Bible, but it is commonly accepted to use the word inerrant to refer to both inerrant and infallible.

Doctrine of Revelation: Law, Prophets, and a lengthy pause

The only way we know anything about God is through His gracious revelation of Himself. Last time we ended with how God revealed Himself between Creation and the giving of the Law. The next installment is through:

The Law.  This is the beginning of recording God’s revelation of Himself in written form (Exodus 34:27).  This revelation is based on commands, which when obeyed, would result in God’s pleasure and man’s blessing, and when disobeyed, would result in God’s displeasure and man’s punishment.  The Law was never intended as a path to forgiveness and salvation. Rather, the Law condemns sinners because despite one’s best efforts, no one has ever, or will ever, keep God’s law perfectly—except Jesus, of course. When one is aware of his hopeless condition of sinfulness before God and His law, the correct response is to cry out to God for mercy. This cry for mercy is mixed with faith in God’s promise to send a Deliverer, who was yet to come.

The next installment of God’s revelation of Himself was through the Prophets. Many, but not all of the messages given to man from God by prophets were recorded in writing.  The prophets instructed God’s people, called them to repent, warned them of Judgment—and most importantly, foretold the promised Deliverer, Jesus Christ.

All that the prophets said or wrote had to be consistent with everything God had revealed earlier, or else the prophet had to be judged as a fraud (Deut. 13:1-5, 18:18-22, 1 John 4:1-6).

Then God’s Revelation through the prophets fell silent at the conclusion of Malachi’s prophecy.  This pause lasted four hundred years, during which some were desperately expectant of the Messiah’s appearance.  This silence was broken by the message of John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Messiah (John 1:6-8).

The next installment of God’s revelation is Jesus, the promised Deliverer.

Doctrine of Revelation: Creation and between the Fall and the Law

Having introduced God’s progressive revelation of Himself in Adam, let’s consider God’s revelation of Himself in creation. Psalms 19:1-4 states:

1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. 2 Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. 4 Their line has gone out through all the earth…

These words inform us that all of creation declares some things about God to every human being, everywhere, at all times. This revelation is rich, but incomplete, especially concerning Christ and the Gospel. This creation revelation reveals the supreme intelligence, creativity, power, and glory of God. This revelation is only sufficient to reveal that God is, but it contains nothing about His holiness, our sin, and salvation through Jesus Christ.

Next, God revealed Himself between the fall and the giving of the Law in Exodus 20.  God revealed Himself at various times and in different ways.  They included actions (such as the Flood and the confusion of man’s language), dreams, visions, visitations of the Angel of the Lord, which are theophanies, or pre-incarnation visitations from Jesus Christ.

Each of God’s progressive revelation of Himself reveals a little more, all leading to God’s revelation of Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ, the only begotten, incarnate Son of God—in whom salvation is completed.

Next Time: God’s revelation of Himself in the Law and the Prophets.

Doctrine of Revelation: Intro

In Systematic Theology, the Doctrine of Revelation frequently comes before the doctrine of God Himself. Why? Because we need to know how and why we know anything about God. This answers the epistemological question: “How do we know what we know?”

The answer is God. More completely, we only know what we know about God because God has been pleased to reveal Himself to we who are created in His image. If God did not reveal Himself, we would never know Him. The revelation of Himself that God has given is enough, though it is not complete. In other words, we know enough about God to know Him, while we do not know everything about Him.

It has been said that God cannot be discovered by human beings, so to make Himself known to us, He has “discovered Himself” to us. That self-disclosure is called revelation. (And for the sake of clarity, we are considering the Doctrine of Revelation, not the Book of the Revelation.)

God’s revelation of Himself has been progressive. 

1.   God’s initial revelation of Himself is three-fold. (1) In Creation.  God has revealed Himself through creation.  In Creation God reveals something of His power, creativity, majesty, wisdom, and authority. (Romans1:20, Ps.19:1-6).  (2) In Man.  Man reveals God as God’s image bearer.  Man does not merely have or carry the image of God; man is the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27, Ps.8). (3)  In His Word  (Ps. 33:6).  God created all by the power of His Word (Genesis 1:3-25).

God is revealed in man, His image bearer.  Before the Fall, the image of God in man, though not complete[1], was untainted by sin.  After the Fall, the image of God in man was marred by sin.  In this fallen state, man suppresses the knowledge of God[2] (Romans 1:18).  Immediately upon being confronted with his sin, Adam was given another revelation of God through the first evangel, or first proclamation of God’s plan of redemption through Christ (Genesis 3:15).

There were four attributes of God’s revelation to Adam: (1) It was clear, understandable.  (2) It was authoritative.  Only God has the authority to give this revelation. (3) It was necessary.  Without revelation, God is undiscoverable. (4) It was sufficient.  The revelation God was pleased to give included all that Adam needed to know.  It did not include everything there is to know, or even what God has been pleased to reveal since, but it did include everything that man needed to know at that time.

Next Time: More about God’s progressive revelation of Himself.

Notes:
[1] The image of God in man is not complete because God is infinite and man is not.
[2] Why? Because rebellious mankind does not want to submit to God and so he erroneously believes that if he can get rid of God, he will not have to submit to Him.

Church Polity (3): Associationalism

Just as individual Christians need to be members of a local church, every local church needs to belong to something outside of itself—and for the same (similar) reasons: Accountability, encouragement, counsel, shared ministry, etc. Proverbs 18:1 says:

A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; He rages against all wise judgment.

That is true for individuals as well as for churches.

To what should a local church belong? Denominations are a choice. So are Associations. What is the difference? It can be summed up in one word: Jurisdiction. There is more to it, but there is not less! Denominations have greater jurisdiction over their member churches. Associations have less jurisdiction. Denominations can micromanage details of their member churches. Associations give their member churches more freedom in the details of their local churches.

That is not to say there is no jurisdiction of an association over its member churches. The association defines the guidelines more loosely, but when a member church departs from the essentials as outlined by the association, the association can disfellowship a member church. This is similar to church discipline in local churches. The local church that micromanages the lives of its members and families can become “cult-like.” Note that I didn’t say it becomes “a cult,” in the sense of teaching false doctrine. Just as churches must not make this mistake with its members, associations, while having jurisdiction to dismiss errant churches, do not micromanage their member churches.

Associationalism is an historic mark of Baptist churches in the 1600s. Our church, which subscribes to the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, believes in being associated with a network of like-minded churches. We are associated with the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals (FIRE). Why? For the reasons mentioned above.

.

Systematic Theology: Church Polity (2)

What is polity? It is how the governance of a church takes place. You can see the word politics hiding in the word polity. Last time we gave a fly-over regarding various ways churches are governed. This time I’ll add a bit of commentary.

First, regarding the three basic models of polity (Hierarchical, Presbyterian, and Congregational), obviously, different kinds of churches prefer and defend different forms of church government. I would argue in favor of elder-led Congregationalism, believing it to be (a) the most biblical, and (b) the form that has the greatest accountability at every level. In addition, it enables the local church, led from within, to do what is best for that particular church, free from bureaucratic leadership from outside the local church.

Second, the most dangerous and most to be avoided is the pastor-ruled church. Why? Because there is (a) a built-in lack of accountability and (b) an elevation of one person into a sort of pope-like role.

Third, I grew up in a Democratically Congregational church. The membership voted on everything. Besides the fact that there are inevitably members of any church who are not truly saved who have a vote in church matters. Every time there is a vote, a disgruntled minority is created. This causes disunity—something God hates! (Proverbs 6:19, Titus 3:9-11)

Fourth, regardless of which form of polity we may prefer, let us remember that Jesus is the Head of the Church (Ephesians 1:22-23, Matthew 16:18). So whatever form of governance one’s church subscribes to, let us look to, and trust in the Lord Jesus—praying for His perfect will to prevail in our churches. This includes praying diligently for our leaders (Romans 15:30-33).

All that said, I freely acknowledge that God has, and continues, to use churches in all three main categories. So while we may differ, this issue must not be allowed to divide the Church of Jesus Christ. While we make allowances regarding differing convictions regarding polity, we are wise to look for and join as members of a church that is governed in a way in which we are in agreement, or at least are willing to abide by.

Next time: Associationalism

Systematic Theology: Church Polity (1)

What is polity? It is how the governance of a church takes place. You can see the word politics hiding in the word polity. There are several kinds of church polity. Here are the three most prominent:

(1) Hierarchical: Monarchical, top down. Examples include Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Methodism. Bodies outside the local church (e.g., bishops) have complete jurisdiction over their local churches.

(2) Presbyterian: Representative Republic. Leadership outside the local church has jurisdiction over the local churches, but the local churches choose their representatives in the Presbyteries. Obviously, this form of polity is practiced by Presbyterians.

(3) Congregational: Closer to, but not fully democratic. Local churches are autonomous and are not under the jurisdiction of any body beyond the local church. Congregationalism is practiced Baptists, and nondenominational churches. There are three main variations of congregationalism:

• Pastoral Rule. The local pastor is the final authority. Some look to Moses as the example. This model has an obvious built-in danger. No pastor is qualified to rule a church single-handedly. Many (not all) so-called nondenominational churches operate this way. I would strongly caution anyone against uniting with this kind of pastor-ruled church.

• Elder Rule or Elder Led. These churches have a plurality of elders who rule or lead the church. This is what appears most clearly in the New Testament. The differences between elder ruled and elder led churches have to do with (a) how absolute the elders’ control is; and (b) how much input the congregation has in selecting their elders.

• Congregationalism. Churches that are not under the jurisdiction of any governing body outside the local church are congregational in the general sense. There are congregational churches that are more profoundly democratic. In these churches the members vote on most (all?) decisions.

Next time: More on polity

Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (footnote #3)

Just as there are differences of opinion regarding eschatology, there are differences of opinion, particularly among Reformed churches, regarding baptism. The two views are held by those who baptize infants (paedo-baptism) and those who baptize only believers (credo-baptism).(1)

Before the Reformation, converts were baptized as believers, but Christians baptized their babies. The general idea was that the baby would be saved by baptism (wrong!).

When the Reformation happened (1500s), the Reformers rediscovered the gospel and Protestants started their own churches. For most of the Reformers, infant baptism continued. Some still mistakenly equated baptism with salvation. Most knew better and baptized their babies into the church family, trusting that they would be saved later when they understood and believed the gospel. Most Reformed churches today still baptize their babies.

There were some Reformed folks who were convinced by Scripture that only believers should be baptized. These did not baptize their babies, waiting for them to make a profession of faith. These “Reformed Baptists” also preferred baptizing believers by immersion, since the word baptize means dip or immerse.

To this day there are theologically Reformed believers who are paedo-baptist and those who are credo-baptist. There are more paedo-baptists than credo-baptists. Our church and the association of churches to which we belong are credo-baptist.(2)

Why Credo and not Paedo?

• The word baptize means to dip or immerse.

• Because baptism is an outward physical sign of an inward spiritual reality (salvation), the sign lacks validity unless the reality is true because one is saved before one is baptized.

• While the New Testament does not explicitly teach either way, Baptists only see believers being baptized in the book of Acts.

• Too many people who were baptized as infants (or as young children) have a false sense of security regarding salvation because they were baptized.

As we mentioned about differing views regarding eschatology, I would espouse the same loving toleration regarding the mode of baptism. While baptism is clearly commanded, the mode is not. One of my Baptist heroes, John Bunyan, wrote: “While I own believers’ baptism by immersion as the biblical way, I will not divide the body of Christ over it.” (3)

Notes:
(1) Paedo = infant, or child (baptism). Credo = belief, meaning a person must be old enough to have a credible profession of faith to be baptized.
(2) We are members of the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals (F.I.R.E.)
(3) John Bunyan was a 17th Century Baptist preacher who wrote the famous, The Pilgrim’s Progress.

Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (footnote #2)

Within the ranks of Christ’s Church there are differences of opinions regarding eschatology (last things). Some of the differences are vast, irreconcilable, and mutually exclusive. Thankfully, these differences need not divide the Church. Though we cannot all agree, we can disagree about the secondary details and continue to love and affirm each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Do not misunderstand! Eschatology matters! That Christ is coming again is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. To deny Christ’s second coming is to depart from the Christian faith. The details that lead up to His return, and exactly how He will return, however, are less clear and fall into the category of “doubtful things” (Romans 14).

How does Paul in Romans 14 instruct us to behave when it comes to doubtful things? Remain true to our convictions, and give those who hold opposing views the grace to remain true to theirs.

If we are both loving and mature, we can discuss our differences, and even engage in friendly intramural debate. But we must not condemn each other over these matters.

I would add that we should seek to learn all we can about other views. I was challenged by my former pastor who said to me, “You know everything about one view and are altogether ignorant that there even are other views.” He instructed me to learn what other Christians believe about eschatology. I took the challenge. And I changed my view, not once, but twice!

There happens to be four basic views about eschatology (that I’ll not expound here). If you want a little help to understand the important but not essential differences, click below:
Comparison between the four main views of the millennium in eschatology (CARM)

The Millennial Maze (Ligonier)

Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (footnote #1)

We have completed our survey of Reformed Theology, ending with a brief overview of Covenantalism. I would like to add three footnotes about Reformed Theology.

First, Covenantalism is not the majority position in our day. It was for several hundred years until the mid 1800s when a new idea about how to view the entire Bible emerged. Instead of defining the continuing revelation in the Bible, based on biblical covenants, the divisions were catalogued based on dispensations. One popular iteration of this view includes seven dispensations in which God dealt with people differently. Some who embrace this go so far as to say that people who lived in the Dispensation of Law were saved by keeping the Mosaic Law. Of course, this is false since no one has ever been justified by the works of the law (Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16). Some, in the very fringe of this way of thinking falsely, postulate that Jews are saved by being Jewish, even without Christ (Galatians 3:28).

The most important aspect of this theological debate centers on the notion that there is a difference between Israel and the Church and in how God relates to each. This not only has strong implications regarding eschatology (last things), but it changes how one reads and interprets the Bible (hermeneutics).

Many of those who follow the dispensational view insist that covenantalists espouse “replacement theology,” as though we believe God has broken His promises to Israel in favor of the New Testament Church. This is not so. Covenantalism is rather a theology of inclusion and completeness, not replacement. I say inclusion and completeness because, not only has it always been God’s plan to save people from every tongue, tribe, and nation (Revelation 7:9-10), but the wall of separation that divides Jew and Gentile has been torn down by Christ, and the two have been made one (Ephesians 2:11-22). Additionally, God has grafted the mostly Gentile Church into Israel (Romans 11:17-2,4).

Two closing thoughts: (1) Though covenantalism may be in the minority, I believe it to be much more biblical. (2) We dare not divide the Body of Christ over this as both views are strongly held by serious Christians. R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur were polar opposites on this issue, yet these two brothers were the best of friends.

Next: Eschatology and Baptism.

Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (6b)

We are in the midst of considering the tenets of Covenantalism. So far we have commented on the Covenant of Redemption between the members of the Trinity. Though there is no specific conversation of such a covenant expressly recorded in the Bible, there are numerous times in the Bible when reference is made to God’s plan of redemption existing in eternity past.

We commented on the Covenant of Works made with Adam, which was subsequently broken by Adam and Eve. There in the Garden of Eden, immediately after the Fall, we read of the first installment of the Covenant of Grace. We commented on the next installments of the Covenant of Grace with Noah, with Abraham, and with Moses.

That brings us to the next installment of the Covenant of Grace, with David. This is recorded primarily in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17. There are other aspects of this Covenant, but the two primary elements are that the Deliverer was to be (a) from the line of David, and therefore, (b) a King. Though there are some portions of the Davidic Covenant that refer to David’s son, Solomon, there are other details that most certainly do not refer to Solomon, but to David’s “Greater Son,” Jesus.

Likewise, many of the writings of the Old Testament prophets, in which God promised to restore Israel after their times of exile, point to their return recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah. But as it is with the Davidic Covenant and Solomon, many other aspects were not fulfilled in national Israel but in the Deliverer, Jesus, and spiritually, in His Church.

The next and final installment of the Covenant of Grace is in the Person and work of Jesus. This new and everlasting covenant is in Christ’s blood, as He clearly said when He established the Lord’s Supper. God’s people are now living in the New Covenant. This covenant is not with any nationality or ethnicity, but people of every tribe, tongue, and nation who believe in Him—because they have been born again by the Holy Spirit of God. 

Every covenant in scripture, in fact, every page of scripture, is about Jesus the Deliverer. Everything in the Old Testament looked forward and pointed to Him. And everything in the New Testament: (a) points to how He is the fulfillment of every OT covenant and prophecy; (b) instructs us how to live in light of God’s grace received through faith in Christ; and (c) points us to His Second Coming and the establishment of the New Heavens and the New Earth.

Next: Three last follow up items: (1) the most prominent differing view, (2) eschatology; and (3) baptism.

Systematic theology: Reformed Theology (6a)

To recap before moving forward, we have been considering Reformed Theology. We have said that Reformed Theology is Calvinistic, yet not all Calvinists are what might be more formally considered Reformed. We have pointed out two characteristics of Reformed Theology: Confessionalism and Covenantalism. The most recent post explained Confessionalism. This time we will give an overview of Covenantalism.

Covenantal theology views God’s dealings with His people based on “covenants.” Very simply stated, Covenantalism says that there are two basic covenants: Law (with Adam before the Fall), and Grace (with Adam and his descendants after the Fall.)  In each of the successive covenants God made in the Old Testament, the Covenant of Grace was unfolded further until it was completely revealed in the New Covenant in Christ’s blood.

There are slight variations held by different groups of Covenantalism, but I will not venture into these intramural variations of Covenentalism.

Covenantal theology rightly emphasizes continuity between the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.  An important aspect of this belief is the insistence that God has one people of faith made up of Israel and the Church. The one company of the redeemed comes from people of every tribe, tongue, and nation.  God’s one plan for His people began in eternity past in what theologians refer to as the Covenant of Redemption, when the Triune Godhead decreed to save some of fallen humanity by forgiving their sins, thereby putting God’s grace on display.

The next Covenant in time was with Adam. It is the Covenant of Works.  Adam was to obey God and live or disobey and die.  Adam and Eve broke the Covenant of Works in the Garden of Eden, after which death entered the human condition.

The Covenant of Grace was first revealed in Genesis 3:16, when God promised to provide a Deliverer to reverse the Fall and save His people.  That Deliverer is Jesus, the only begotten Son of God. This took place long before Israel existed as a people. 

The next installment of the Covenant of Grace involved Noah (Genesis 9). This too took place long before Israel existed as a people. 

The next installment of the Covenant of Grace was the promises made to Abraham (Genesis 13 & 15), in which God promised that the Deliverer would come from Abraham’s descendants. The Apostle Paul identified Abraham’s Seed as Jesus, not Israel (Galatians 3:16).

The next installment of the Covenant of Grace was given through the Law of Moses (Exodus 20). The Law was not given as a means of salvation, but as a means of revealing to sinful humanity the impossibility of earning salvation through obedience. The redeemed are those who, condemned by God’s Law, cry out to God to do for them what they are incapable of doing for themselves.

God’s Law also promised in Deuteronomy 28 that Israel would enjoy God’s blessing as the result of obedience, or God’s judgment and eventual abandonment as the result of disobedience. Israel disobeyed, and according to God’s promise, they were exiled to Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and eventually Rome. The promised Deliverer, Jesus, appeared during Israel’s subjugation to Rome.

Whew! This brief overview is getting long! I’ll continue next time…

Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (5)

We have been considering Reformed Theology, which is Calvinistic. At this point let’s consider the notion that, while all Reformed Theology is Calvinistic, not all Calvinists are Reformed. Though many Calvinistic Christians consider themselves to be Reformed, there are two other distinctives (that many Calvinists reject) that are part of what it means to be Reformed. They are Confessionalism and Covenantalism.

Confessionally Reformed Christians embrace the value of the historic Confessions written in the 16th and 17th Centuries. These confessions include, but are not limited to, the Westminster, the Belgic, and the London Baptist Confessions. Confessional Reformed Christians “subscribe” to one of the confessions, though some take exceptions to one or more points in a confession.

Why Confessionalism? There are two main reasons.

First, the Confessions unite like-minded Reformed Christians on specific doctrines that are either essential to the Christian faith, or to important secondary doctrines that those who subscribe to a particular confession agree on. Ironically, opponents of Confessionalism insist that confessions divide the body of Christ. Proponents of confessions argue that they do not divide the body (not all Christians must be confessional to be Christian!) but the confessions unite like-minded believers in local churches, associations of local churches, and denominations.

Second, confessions anchor modern Christians to our historic Reformational heritage. This is hugely important in an era such as ours in which some believers tend to think (though not consciously), that Christianity began when they were saved! It is important that believers not think we can make Christianity up as we go along.

Our church is Reformed, Calvinistic, and Confessional, subscribing to the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689.

Next time: What does it mean to be Covenantal?

Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (4)

Last time we gave a brief overview of the differences between the Arminian Remonstrance and the Five Points of Calvinism. Because the Calvinistic view was established first among the Reformed, but was objected to by the Arminians, and because our church is Calvinistic, I will provide a little more explanation on each of the Five Points of Calvinism. I will call them not by the more traditional terms (in parentheses), but by terms that are more accurately descriptive;

1.  Pervasive Evil  (Total Depravity)  All men are born sinners, and therefore under condemnation.  This does not mean men are as sinful as they could be, but rather that a) all mankind is sinful, and b) every area of every individual’s being has been adversely affected by sin.  All men are sinners, and therefore are sinful.  The sinful state of the lost is described in Ephesians 2:1-5 as being dead in sin unless God makes a spiritually dead person alive in Christ (Regeneration). (Is. 64:6; Ps. 14:1-3; Rom. 3:10-23)

This refutes the Arminian error that no one is so lost that he cannot believe savingly by an act of his will.

2.  Sovereign Election  (Unconditional Election) Those who are elected by God to be saved were not chosen on the basis of any personal merit, but by God’s sovereign will.  (Acts 13:48)

This refutes the Arminian error that God merely knows who will believe in Christ by an act of his will, and “elects” people to salvation based on their will to be saved and action of believing.

3.  Particular Redemption  (Limited Atonement) Christ came to save those God elected to salvation. All of the elect will be saved, and only the elect will be saved. This is not a limitation on the power of Christ’s atonement, but on the purpose—which is to save the elect. (Jn. 6:39-44; 10:26-28)

This refutes both universalism and the Arminian error that salvation is dependent on the choice of unregenerate people. 

4.  Effectual Calling  (Irresistible Grace)  The sinful nature of the elect is not greater than the grace of God. Those whom God has chosen to save will be saved. Those who die resisting God’s grace were not elect to salvation. God does not save the elect against their wills, rather He graciously overcomes their resistance, giving them the desire and ability to trust in and lovingly follow Christ. This does not mean human beings are not responsible to trust in and follow Christ. But left to ourselves, no one would ever do so except by God’s grace. (Jn. 6:39-44, 10:26-28; Acts 13:48)

This refutes the Arminian error that salvation is left to the choice of unregenerate men.

 5.  Faithfulness Of God (Perseverance of the Saints)  Those who are truly saved will persevere to the end—none of them will fall away—because God is faithful to keep those whom He has saved.  This is due to His faithfulness, not ours!  1 John 2:19, clearly states that those who fall away were never saved in the first place. (Jn. 6:40, 10:27-28; 1 Jn. 2:19)

This refutes the Arminian error that saved people can fall away from saving grace either due to sin, or by rejecting the faith they once claimed to have.

Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (3)

Both Calvinistic and Reformed Theology agree on the Five Solas and the Five Points of Calvinism. Last time we gave some background on the Five points of Calvinism, pointing out that the Five Points were an answer to the five Articles of the Arminian Remonstrance. This time let’s compare the two.

The Five Articles of the (Arminian) Remonstrance:

a.   Man is never so lost that he cannot choose to do good and to believe;

b.   Election is based on God foreseeing that some will believe in Christ for salvation;

c.   Christ died for all human beings, though only those who believe will be saved;

d.   The sovereign grace of God may be ultimately resisted by those who reject Christ in unbelief;

e.   Believers can fall away, rendering assurance uncertain. 

 The Five Points of Calvinism (in answer to the Arminian Remonstrance):

a.   Total Depravity. All men are sinners and every area of life is tainted by sin, although we are not as sinful as we could be;

b.   Unconditional Election. God elects people to salvation without respect to their merit;

c.   Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption). Christ died for the elect;

d.   Irresistible Grace. The elect will not ultimately reject grace;

e.   Perseverance of the Saints. The elect will be saved in the end.

Because the Calvinistic view was established first among the Reformed, but was objected to by the Arminians, and because our church is Calvinistic, I will provide a little more explanation on the Five Points of Calvinism in the next post.

Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (2)

We gave a brief introduction to Reformed Theology last time. This time we will begin with understanding the similarities and differences between Calvinistic and Reformed Theologies. The first similarity, as mentioned last time, is that both hold tightly (along with many other Protestants) to the Five Solas.

A second similarity is that both Calvinistic and Reformed theologies hold to the Five Points of Calvinism. What are the Five Points of Calvinism?

First, the Five Points were not the brainchild of, nor were they written by John Calvin. Calvinism predates John Calvin in that it is Augustinian (St. Augustine, 354-430). Before that, Calvinism is Pauline (the Apostle Paul).

Second, the Five Points were actually written after Calvin died in 1564. The tenets of Calvinism were fairly well known and embraced by Reformed Protestants, though not officially written. One opposing view was later championed by a Dutch theologian named Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609). After both Calvin and Arminius were deceased, a Synod (theological council) met in the Dutch city of Dort in 1618-1619, too consider the matter.

The students of Arminius wrote five articles opposing the standard Reformed/Protestant view of salvation. This document was called the Remonstrance, meaning opposition. The students of Calvin countered the five points of the Remonstrance, point by point, with what we now call the Five Points of Calvinism.

The decision of the Synod strongly favored the Calvinist views in opposition to the Arminian views. The council deemed the Arminian views as serious theological error, anathematizing the Remonstrants (the adherents of Arminianism).

So, what are the five articles of the Remonstrance and the five points of Calvinism? Next time.

Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (1)

Since the 1970s there has been a growing number of Christians and churches that are embracing Reformed Theology. That is not to say that Reformed Theology began in the 1970s. It did not. Reformed Theology was rediscovered in the 1500s at the time of the Protestant Reformation. It was a rediscovery of the 4th century theology of Saint Augustine, and the 1st century theology of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament.

Reformed Theology can be divided into a number of sub-categories. I will attempt to introduce the chief similarity and some of the the distinctions.

A major similarity is regarding the “Five Solas” of the Reformation, which are:

Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). The Bible is our only infallible authority for all matters of faith and practice.

Sola Gratia (Grace alone). Salvation is by God’s grace alone, not by any works or effort on our part.

Sola Fide (Faith alone). Salvation is received by faith alone, not by faith plus anything else whatsoever. And saving faith is by God’s grace, it does not originate in lost people.

Solus Christus (Christ alone). Saving faith is in Christ alone, that is, in His person and His finished work, not in faith plus anything or anyone else whatsoever.

Sole Deo Gloria (For God’s glory alone). Because Salvation is solely the work of God, God alone can receive glory for salvation.

Calvinistic and Reformed people and churches must embrace the Five Solas.

Next Time: Calvinism and Reformed—Similarity and differences.

Systematic Theology: Modern Evangelical Theologies (1)

Having considered several unbiblical liberal theologies of the 19th, 20th & 21st centuries, let us be encouraged that there have been several biblical theological schools of thought during the same time. I’ll call these Modern Evangelical Theologies.

Before getting started with the variety of so-called Evangelical theologies, let us understand that the word “evangelical,” though once a rich term, has devolved into an almost meaningless catch-all. Originally evangelical was used to describe Protestants because they were all about the gospel, the evangel. Evangelicals were “gospelers.”

Since the late 20th century, the word evangelical has been somewhat hijacked by just about everyone who is even remotely Christian. There are even Roman Catholics who claim to be evangelicals. The variety of “evangelical” theologies that I will mention will include true evangelicals, and some about which I use the word lightly because their main emphasis is arguably not the gospel.

Contemporary Lutheran Theology.  This embraces the Book of Concord, which contains the Augsburg Confession, the Formula of Concord, and Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms.  Lutheranism rightly opposes the Roman doctrine of the infusion of righteousness, and champions the biblical doctrine of imputation.  Lutherans strictly separate the Law and the Gospel.  Lutherans order salvation so that faith causes salvation, rather than the other way around.

But let us be reminded that Lutheran Theology changed rather quickly after Martin Luther died and was succeeded by Philip Melanchthon. Melanchthon’s theology and emphases were not aberrant, much less heretical. They were more about degrees and nuances that differed from Luther. Practically speaking, in a variety of ways, Contemporary Lutheranism is more influenced by Melanchthon, than by Luther.

There are many subcategories of Contemporary Lutheranism. The two strongest branches represent the polar ends of a spectrum, between which the many smaller and lesser known groups exist:

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)

• Founded in 1988 through the merger of several Lutheran denominations

• Does not hold to a strict doctrine of inerrancy

• Allows for same-sex marriage and ordination of LGBTQ+ individuals

• Focuses on social justice and ecumenical dialogue

• The ELC is really more liberal than evangelical

• The nearby Lutheran university is predominantly ELCA and far more liberal than evangelical

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS)

• Founded in 1847

• Emphasizes biblical inerrancy and a strict doctrine of justification by faith alone

• Opposes same-sex marriage and ordination of LGBTQ+ individuals

• Focuses on confessional orthodoxy and traditional Lutheran worship practices

• Though the LCMS is much more “formal” than most evangelicals, it is conservative and evangelical

Next time: Reformed / Calvinistic Theologies

Systematic Theology: Liberal Theologies

The nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw the birth (and disastrous consequences) of Liberal Theology. The simple definition of liberal theology is a departure from the authority of Scripture, and then from Scripture altogether. Liberal theology is the antithesis of Systematic Theology.

There are several branches of Liberal Theology, each of which has this in common: they focus too much attention on one point (that may or may not be correct), and in so doing, miss the whole point.  The following is a list and definition of four of the more popular variations, though other variations exist.

Liberation Theology is a Marxist political theology that seeks to overthrow the bourgeois “haves” and empower the oppressed “have nots.” This is “theological socialism.”  Denying numerous basic tenants of the Christian faith, these ideas are embraced mostly in Africa and Latin America, primarily among Roman Catholics and liberal main-line Protestants.

Process Theology, also known as Openness Theology, is based on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne.  The essence of this theology is that “God is becoming” rather than “being.”  It says that God is neither sovereign nor all-knowing.  He does not know the future or how things will turn out in the end. In some cases, everything is left to chance. Inevitably, the absolute free agency of individuals is more celebrated than God’s sovereignty.

Feminist Theology is based on the belief that the gospel has been distorted by the exclusion of women from ministry and insists that males have distorted the truth to subjugate women.  Feminist Theologians are committed to righting this wrong, usually by imposing a decidedly feminine bias in favor of the existing alleged male bias.  This rejects the obvious meaning of the Bible and basic logic.

Minority Group Orientated Theology is based on essentially the same premise upon which feminist theology is perched; except that the male v. female problem is recast in other forms that read the Bible through the eyes of any given minority group from African, to homosexual, and everything in between.  We must read the Bible from God’s perspective, not man’s, much less any particular minority (or “under-represented) group.  This false way of thinking is a variation of Marxism founded upon so-called “Critical [fill in the blank] Theory.”

These are all unbiblical and therefore heretical. BTW: Liberal is also known as progressive. Progressing away from scripture is not good progress. It is destructive!

Next up: we will begin considering several schools of modern Evangelical Theology.

Systematic Theology: Rationalism and Pietism

Having briefly considered the contribution by the English Puritans and the 17th century Confessions of faith, the next wave of theology was a Reaction to Protestant Orthodoxy (Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries). This era (18th Century) introduced Rationalism and Pietism.

Rationalism emphasized the supremacy of human reason, with no need for revelation. Deism, a form of Rationalism, teaches that God is impersonal and that all can be discovered through natural means without Scriptures.  This is an intellectual appeal to the human mind. It is opposed to the Bible.

Pietism emphasized personal religious experience.  Pietists continued to believe in Scripture and the importance of revelation.  Their emphasis on experience, however, tended to place experience ahead of Scripture.  This movement emphasized small groups apart from the larger church.  Pietism shunned doctrinal differences as less important.  Pietism sought to equip ministers apart from theological training, relying more heavily (if not exclusively) on Christian experience.  Pietistic ministers had to be good communicators, with messages relevant to the hearers, even if not terribly meaty in content (does this sound familiar in our day?). Pietism emphasized regeneration, but in a new way, through personal experiences like Finneyistic altar calls.[1]  Pietists emphasized the changed life and what salvation could do for people—experientially.  Pietism can be seen in some of the Puritans and then in Wesleyanism.  It evolved into rank experientialism and individualism—which is rampant in our day.

These two pursuits, while different, arrive at a common destination.  The great Benjamin Warfield wrote of these two: “Pietist and Rationalist have ever hunted in couples and dragged down their quarry together.  They may differ as to why they deem theology mere lumber, and would not have a prospective minister waste his time in acquiring it.  The one loves God so much, the other loves Him so little, that he does not care to know Him.” (Warfield, “Our Seminary Curriculum,” Selected Shorter Writings, I, 371)

Note:
[1] Charles Finney (1792-1875) introduced “decisionism,” based emotional appeals to people to “accept Christ” by responding to “altar calls.”  These measures, though considered standard procedure to many modern evangelicals, were unheard of until this time.