The Five Solas of the Reformation

September 9, 2010 · Posted in Reformation, Theology

1. Scripture alone. When the Reformers used the words sola Scriptura they were expressing their concern for the Bible’s authority, and what they meant is that the Bible alone is our ultimate authority—not the pope, not the church, not the traditions of the church or church councils, still less personal intimations or subjective feelings, but Scripture only. Other sources of authority may have an important role to play. Some are even established by God—such as the authority of church elders, the authority of the state, or the authority of parents over children. But Scripture alone is truly ultimate. Therefore, if any of these other authorities depart from Bible teaching, they are to be judged by the Bible and rejected.

2. Christ alone. The church of the Middle Ages spoke about Christ. A church that failed to do that could hardly claim to be Christian. But the medieval church had added many human achievements to Christ’s work, so that it was no longer possible to say that salvation was entirely by Christ and his atonement. This was the most basic of all heresies, as the Reformers rightly perceived. It was the work of God plus our own righteousness. The Reformation motto solus Christus was formed to repudiate this error. It affirmed that salvation has been accomplished once for all by the mediatorial work of the historical Jesus Christ alone. His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification, and any ‘gospel’ that fails to acknowledge that or denies it is a false gospel that will save no one.

3. Grace alone. The words sola gratia mean that human beings have no claim upon God. That is, God owes us nothing except just punishment for our many and very willful sins. Therefore, if he does save sinners, which he does in the case of some but not all, it is only because it pleases him to do it. Indeed, apart from this grace and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit that flows from it, no one would be saved, since in our lost condition, human beings are not capable of winning, seeking out, or even cooperating with God’s grace. By insisting on ‘grace alone’ the Reformers were denying that human methods, techniques, or strategies in themselves could ever bring anyone to faith. It is grace alone expressed through the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ, releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from death to spiritual life.

4. Faith alone. The Reformers never tired of saying that ‘justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone.’ When put into theological shorthand the doctrine was expressed as “justification by faith alone,” the article by which the church stands or falls, according to Martin Luther. The Reformers called justification by faith Christianity’s “material principle,” because it involves the very matter or substance of what a person must understand and believe to be saved. Justification is a declaration of God based on the work of Christ. It flows from God’s grace and it comes to the individual not by anything he or she might do but by ‘faith alone’ (sola fide). We may state the full doctrine as: Justification is the act of God by which he declares sinners to be righteous because of Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone.

5. Glory to God alone. Each of the great solas is summed up in the fifth Reformation motto: soli Deo gloria, meaning ‘to God alone be the glory.’ It is what the apostle Paul expressed in Romans 11:36 when he wrote, ‘to Him be the glory forever! Amen.’ These words follow naturally from the preceding words, “For from him and through him and to him are all things” (v. 36), since it is because all things really are from God, and to God, that we say, ‘to God alone be the glory.’

—James Montgomery Boice
Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace?

Via: Reformation Theology

Resources: Printable Version | Short URL

Redemption Accomplished and Applied

September 8, 2010 · Posted in Atonement, Life

This image was part of a larger post over at A Puritan At Heart, a wonderful website run by an amazingly courageous woman.

Michael Horton - Why Substitutionary Atonement Remains Crucial

Via: A Puritan At Heart

Resources: Printable Version | Short URL

Meet Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

September 7, 2010 · Posted in Lloyd-Jones, Video

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones is considered by many to be the greatest preacher of the 20th Century. He was born in Wales in 1899 and was a surgeon before being called to the ministry. He served as the minister of Westminster Chapel in London for almost 30 years and died in 1981. This video biography lasts a little over 10 minutes but is well worth the investment.

Via: Reformation Theology

Resources: Printable Version | Short URL

The Most Important Thing About Us

September 6, 2010 · Posted in Life, Theology

What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us. . . . For this reason the gravest question before the Church is always God himself, and the most portentous fact about any man is not what he at a given time may say or do but what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like. . . . Our real idea of God may lie buried under the rubbish of conventional religious notions and may require an intelligent and vigorous search before it is finally unearthed and exposed for what it is.  Only after an ordeal of painful self-probing are we likely to discover what we actually believe about God.

—A.W. Tozer
The Knowledge of the Holy

Via: Ray Ortlund

Resources: Printable Version | Short URL

For God So Loved the World

September 5, 2010 · Posted in Atonement

This article, which appeared in TableTalk Magazine, was written by Pastor Tom Ascol, Executive Diretor of Founders Ministries. It presents a clear explanation and distinction of how Calvinists and Arminians view the death of Christ differently. The original article can be found here.

Every Christian believes in limited atonement. That may sound ludicrous to my Arminian friends because it has long been assumed that only Calvinists hold to the dreaded “L” in TULIP. But if the death of Jesus Christ is recognized as an actual atonement (and not merely a potential one), then the question of limitation cannot be escaped, unless you believe the lie of universalism.

It is the recognition that Christ’s death actually atoned for sins that governs our interpretation of those wonderful texts that speak of the great breadth of His saving work. For example, John writes that Jesus is “the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). The choice here is not between Calvinism and Arminianism. It is between Calvinism and universalism. If “world” means “each and every person who ever lived or will live” then everyone will be saved because of the objective nature of propitiation. No sin would be left unpaid for — including the sin of unbelief.

No one who takes seriously the Bible’s teachings on hell and judgment would ever affirm universalism, which means that John uses “world” here to mean something other than each and every person who will ever live (as he often does; see John 14:19; 16:8; 18:20; 1 John 2:15,). John’s concern is to assert that Jesus is the only Savior the world has. His death redeems people not just from among the Jews or Americans or from any one group, but from among the whole world.

Calvinism protects from the heresy of universalism on the one hand and the error of reducing the objective nature of the atonement on the other. The Calvinist recognizes that the death of Jesus saves everyone for whom it was designed. In other words, the atonement is viewed as limited in its scope and purpose. All for whom Christ died will be saved.

Arminianism, however, cannot successfully guard against such mistakes. The Arminian claims that the death of Jesus was designed to save each and every person in history without actually doing so. As such, the atonement did not save everyone for whom it was intended. In other words, the Arminian view, while claiming that the atonement is unlimited in its extent, is forced to conclude that it is limited in its efficacy. It failed to accomplish its universal purpose.

The difference between these two views is like the difference between a narrow bridge that extends all the way across a valley and a wider one that only goes halfway. Who cares how broad it is if it does not get you to the other side?

This difference is what made Charles Spurgeon argue that Arminianism, much more than Calvinism, limits the atonement of Christ. The Arminian says, “‘Christ has died that any man may be saved if’ — and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, ‘No, my dear sire, it is you that do it.’ We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it” (Spurgeon’s Sermons, vol. 4, p. 228).

Well, what is “our” view of the atonement that Spurgeon so passionately defended? Specifically, it is the understanding that Jesus actually redeemed everyone He intended to redeem when He shed His blood on the cross. Just as the high priest under the old covenant wore the names of the twelve tribes of Israel on his breastplate when he performed his sacrificial service, so our great High Priest under the new covenant had the names of His people inscribed on His heart as He offered up Himself as a sacrifice for their sins.

In John 10, Jesus clearly announces the particular focus of His atoning death. He calls Himself the “Good Shepherd” who “lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). Shortly after this, He describes His sheep as those who have been given to Him by His Father. Furthermore, He bluntly declares to some unbelieving Israelites, “you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep” (John 10:26–29 NKJV).

Our Lord’s high priestly prayer in John 17 shows the same kind of limited scope. As He braces for His sacrificial death for His people, He prays specifically — indeed, exclusively — for them. They are the ones whom the Father had given Him out of the world (v. 6). Consequently, His priestly intercession was limited to them: “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours” (v. 9). It is inconceivable that Jesus would fail to pray for those for whom He was about to die as a substitutionary sacrifice. The ones for whom He prayed are the same ones for whom He died.

The doctrine of limited atonement, or particular redemption, does not suggest any inadequacy in the death of Christ. Because of who it is that suffered, the death of Jesus is of infinite worth. The Canons of Dort go to great lengths to establish this point and declare plainly that “the death of the Son of God … is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world” (2.3).

The limitation in the atonement stems from the intention and purpose of God in sending Jesus to the cross. Christ’s redemptive work was designed to be a particular atonement for His own people — those whom the Father had given Him. His death was intended to save the elect.

Jesus teaches that His whole redemptive ministry was carried out in fulfillment of a divinely prearranged plan. This is what He means in John 6:38–39: “For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.”

Theologians refer to this arrangement as the covenant of redemption in which, before history began, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit pledged to bring about the salvation of fallen people. Out of sheer mercy and grace, the Father chose individuals to be saved (Rom. 9:11–13; Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13). These chosen ones He gave to His Son (John 6:37, 39; 17:6, 9, 24) who committed Himself to accomplish their salvation through His incarnate, redemptive mission (Mark 10:45; John 10:11). In keeping with this divine agenda, the Spirit is sent into the world by the Father and the Son (John 15:26; 16:5–15) to apply the work of Christ to those whom the Father gave the Son and for whom the Son died.

This view of the atonement guarantees the success of evangelism. God has a people who will be saved infallibly through the preaching of the Gospel. He has chosen them. Christ has died for them. And the Spirit will regenerate them through the message of salvation. This truth kept Paul going in the face of discouragement at Corinth (Acts 18:9–10), and it will keep us going on in our evangelistic efforts today — not only locally, but globally (Rev. 5:9).

—Tom Ascol
TableTalk Magazine, September 1, 2005

Via: Twitter

Resources: Printable Version | Short URL

Church Planter

September 2, 2010 · Posted in Books, Video

The Acts 29 Network and Re:Lit have released a powerful video for Darrin Patrick’s new book Church Planter, which is now available.

Via: Justin Taylor

Resources: Printable Version | Short URL

Video: The Gospel Song

August 24, 2010 · Posted in Gospel, Hymns, Video

Via: Justin Taylor

Resources: Printable Version | Short URL

The Gospel According to Jesus

August 21, 2010 · Posted in Books, Gospel

The gospel in vogue today holds forth a false hope to sinners. It promises them that they can have eternal life yet continue to live in rebellion against God. Indeed, it encourages people to claim Jesus as Savior yet defer until later the commitment to obey Him as Lord. It promises salvation from hell but not necessarily freedom from iniquity. It offers false security to people who revel in the sins of the flesh and spurn the way of holiness. By separating faith from faithfulness, it teaches that intellectual assent is as valid as a wholehearted obedience to the truth.

Thus the good news of Christ has given way to the bad news of an insidious easy-believism that makes no moral demands on the lives of sinners. It is not the same message Jesus proclaimed.

—John MacArthur
The Gospel According to Jesus

Resources: Printable Version | Short URL

The Theology of B. B. Warfield

August 20, 2010 · Posted in Theology, Warfield

Christianity did not come into the world to proclaim a new morality and, sweeping away all the supernatural props by which men were wont to support their trembling, guilt-stricken souls, to throw them back on their own strong right arms to conquer a standing before God for themselves. It came to proclaim the real sacrifice for sin which God had provided in order to supersede all the poor fumbling efforts which men had made and were making to provide a sacrifice for sin for themselves; and, planting men’s feet on this, to bid them go forward. It was in this sign that Christianity conquered, and it is in this sign alone that it continues to conquer. We may think what we will of such a religion. What cannot be denied is that Christianity is such a religion.

—Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield
quoted by Fred G. Zaspel in the forthcoming book
The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary

Via: Tony Reinke

Resources: Printable Version | Short URL

The Ring and the Cross

August 19, 2010 · Posted in Books, Cross, Tolkien

The most fundamental Christian symbol is the Cross. This also is perfectly opposite to the Ring. The Cross gives life; the Ring takes it. The Cross gives you death, not power; the Ring gives you power even over death. The Ring squeezes everything into its inner emptiness; the Cross expands in all four directions, gives itself to the emptiness, filling it with its blood, its life. The Ring is Dracula’s tooth. The Cross is God’s sword, held at the hilt by the hand of Heaven and plunged into the world not to take our blood but to give us His. The Cross is Christ’s hypodermic; the Ring is Dracula’s bite. The Cross saves other wills; the Ring dominates other wills. The Cross liberates; the Ring enslaves.

—Peter Kreeft
The Philosophy of Tolkien: The Worldview Behind The Lord of the Rings

Via: Tony Reinke

Resources: Printable Version | Short URL