“Easy Believism.”  It is a big problem in American Christianity today.  What is “easy believism”?  It is a very prevalent but false understanding of saving faith which is rooted in the decisional theology of certain forms of American revivalism.

Easy-believism misinterprets the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone by reducing saving faith to a one-time decision of the will to “accept Jesus as personal Savior.”  Accepting Jesus as Lord is viewed as advisable but not necessary for salvation.  (To demand from sinners repentance from sin and the acceptance of Jesus as Lord in order to be saved is viewed as “works righteousness” by proponents of easy-believism.)  From the standpoint of easy-believism, if you’ve made that one-time “decision for Christ” (usually by praying a “sinner’s prayer” or going forward for the “altar call” in response to an evangelistic appeal), then you are eternally secure and bound for heaven, even if you live the rest of your life in wilfull, unrepentant sin.

Of course, from a biblical standpoint there are many things wrong with easy believism.  For example, easy believism is rooted in a very superficial view of human sin and of the human will.  Easy believism at root assumes an unbiblically low view of seriousness of human sin, and thus a much too high view of the power of the human will.  In the theology of easy believism, man has enough inherent goodness left in him to at least make a one-time decision for Christ without the assistance of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.  But the Bible teaches that man apart from Christ is dead in his trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1), and that those who are “in the flesh” (i.e., unconverted, devoid of the Holy Spirit) cannot please God (see Romans 8:5-8).  If the unconverted man (the man who is “in the flesh”) could make a genuine, saving “decision for Christ” by his own power, without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, then obviously such a saving decision would be pleasing to God.

But probably one of easy believism’s biggest errors is its misinterpretration of “faith”.  Easy believism equates saving faith with a one-time “decision” of the will to “accept Jesus as Savior”, while Scripture teaches that the faith by which we sinners receive salvation is an abiding in Christ (see, for example, John 15:1-7).  Saving faith is not a one-time “decision for Christ”; instead, it is an abiding, ongoing, confident trust in and reliance upon Christ alone for salvation from sin as He is offered in the gospel, a confident trust produced by the Spirit of God through the word of the gospel (John 1:12-13; Romans 10:17).  Saving faith doesn’t just “decide” for Christ once and then have done with Him.  No, saving faith clings to Christ daily, continually, as the only hope for salvation.

Any Bible-believing Christian who is familiar with the world of American Christianity knows that “easy believism” is a very common problem in this country.  How many there are in America today who rarely (if ever) darken the door of a church, who never read their Bibles and hardly ever pray (except when they want something from God, whom they conceive of as a “cosmic bellhop” who exists to make them happy and give them stuff), and who basically live lives of narcissistic self-indulgence, but who nontheless imagine that they are “saved” because they prayed some magic “sinner’s prayer” or walked an aisle once at a revival service in response to an “altar call.”  I say this is a problem because, from a biblical standpoint, such “Christians” have been sadly, dangerously deceived by a false, soul-damning gospel – the “gospel” of easy believism.  When taken to its logical extreme, easy-believism is quite simply a false gospel under the anathema of God (Galatians 1:8-9).

So, what is to be done about the problem of easy believism?  What is the solution to this problem?

Sadly, some Christian leaders (even some who would identify as Reformed) seem to think that the best way to combat “easy believism” is by what I would call “hard believism”.  In other words, they think that the way to win over those who have been deceived by the heresy of easy believism is to re-double their emphasis on the Law of God and on Christ’s call to discipleship, and to step up their calls for professing Christians to examine themselves as to whether or not they “really” believe.

Now, certainly God’s Law is good, righteous and holy (Romans 7:12), and it must be preached by the faithful pastor.  God’s Law not only provides us believers with an objective guide to our sanctification in showing us a life that is pleasing to God, but more important to the issue at hand it exposes our sin and our need for Christ.  And certainly the call to faith is closely connected to the call to follow Jesus as a learner (the meaning of “disciple”) of the kingdom way.  Likewise, there are certainly times and occasions when it is wise for professing Christians to examine themselves before the Lord (for example, Second Corinthians 13:5; First Corinthians 11:28).  But while these may help to address certain aspects of the heresy of easy believism, I do not believe they are the solution to the problem of easy believism.

What, then, is the “solution” to easy believism?  Not “hard believism.”  Not more emphasis on God’s Law.  Not more calls to “radical discipleship.”  Not by incessantly calling upon congregants to question the genuineness of their faith through soul-searching self-examination.  Instead, ironically, the solution to the heresy of easy believism is to proclaim the gospel of justification by faith alone in all of its fulness and freeness!

The Law of God is good, but it condemns us as sinners and law-breakers.  Christ’s call to discipleship is vital, but it (like the Law) reveals to us just how far short we fall when it comes to living up to Christ’s lofty call to “radical discipleship.”  And an over-emphasis on self-examination inevitably ends up ministering to doubt rather than to faith, thereby leading sensitive or overly-scrupulous believers down the pathway toward despair.  But the gospel of God’s free gift of forgiveness in Christ by faith alone inspires within us a love for the Savior who died for us and a deep desire to cast off sin and to live in grateful obedience to the One who loved us so!

After explaining the universal sinfulness of mankind and God’s solution to human sin through the justification of sinners in Christ, the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans addresses this question in response to the gospel he preached:  “What shall we say then?  Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” (Romans 6:1, ESV)  Apparently there were some in the early church who either misinterpreted Paul’s teaching on salvation by grace as a license to sin, or else Paul’s enemies slanderously misconstrued Paul’s teaching on grace as involving such a license to sin.  This was basically an ancient type of “easy believism”.

How does Paul respond to this ancient version of “easy believism” – this idea that God’s grace gives believers a license to sin?

Does Paul turn to emphasizing the demands of God’s holy Law?

No.

Does he launch into an exposition of Christ’s call to discipleship?

No.

Does he urge the duty of self-examination before the Lord?

Again, no.

What, then, does Paul do?  He takes his readers back to the implications of the gospel!

In answer to the question of verse 1, Paul responds as follows:

“By no means!  How can we who died to sin still live in it?  Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:2-4, ESV)

Paul takes his readers back to their union with Christ in His saving death and resurrection, a union signified and sealed to them in their baptism.  In other words, he reminds them of the gospel of their salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ, and he draws out for them the practical implications of their saving union with Christ.  Because they are “in Christ” (as signified and sealed to them in holy baptism), how can they imagine that the grace of God gives them a license to sin?  In Christ they have, in principle, “died to sin”.  The gospel of God’s free forgiveness in Christ does not give them a license to sin.  Instead, it summons them to “walk in newness of life” because of their union with Christ in His death and resurrection!

In conclusion, what is the solution to the prevailing problem of easy believism?  Certainly not “hard believism”.  Not law-preaching.  Not moralism.  Not more calls to “radical discipleship.”  Not piling more burdens upon lost souls to “do more, try harder” (thereby turning the “light” and “easy” burden of Christ’s yoke – Matthew 11:28-30 – into a heavy millstone about the sinner’s neck).  Instead, the solution to this heresy is ultimately the solution to all heresies:  the gospel of Jesus Christ in its biblical clarity and fulness!

If we in the church want to counteract the problem of easy believism, let us seek to proclaim and make known the biblical good news of free and full salvation in Christ with greater clarity and emphasis.  Moralism and law-preaching (minus the gospel) kill true holiness, but the biblical gospel inspires us believers to walk in newness of life, not out of a sense of guilt and duty, but out of love and gratitude toward the Savior who died for us.

The Scriptures contain repeated and frequent warnings to God’s people about the danger of false prophets and false teachers.  Satan uses false teaching to divide and corrupt the church and to destroy souls.  Due to the spiritual danger posed by false teaching, one of the duties that God calls His people to is the duty to exercise discernment, including the duty to recognize and avoid false teachers.  “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.  For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.” (Romans 16:17-18, ESV)  “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.  By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.  This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.” (First John 4:1-3, ESV)  “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8, ESV)

Given the danger that false teaching and false teachers pose to our spiritual health as individual believers and to the unity, purity and integrity of the church, what are some reliable indications of one who is likely to be a false teacher?  Here are five red flags for recognizing false teachers:

1.  A pastor or preacher who is not authorized by Holy Scripture to preach is likely to be a false teacher.

God’s Word teaches that Christ calls men to the pastoral office through His visible, organized church.  Those who would serve in church office (ministers, elders and deacons) are required by Scripture to meet certain personal and character qualifications (see First Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9).  Furthermore, such men are to be tested – meaning tested by the church – to see if they meet the doctrinal, personal and character qualifications requisite for serving Christ in the sacred offices (First Timothy 3:10).

In addition, one who would serve in the pastoral office in particular must have sufficient training to be able to rightly handle the “sword of the Spirit” (Ephesians 6:17, ESV), namely, the Word of God.  As the Apostle Paul writes to pastor Timothy:  “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” (Second Timothy 2:15, ESV; the King James Version translates this charge as “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”  Emphasis added.)  Those who are thus recognized by God’s people as being qualified and called to serve in the pastoral office (or any other church office) are to be solemnly set apart to such office by the act of ordination (Acts 14:23; First Timothy 4:14, 22).

Since pastors and elders in the church are called to be stewards and guardians of the sacred treasure of the gospel (First Timothy 2:2), those who would serve in such sacred office must be well trained and meticulously “vetted” and tested prior to being ordained and installed into such office.  (This is why historic, biblical Presbyterianism requires that men who would serve in the gospel ministry must, under ordinary circumstances, be college and seminary graduates, and why they must undergo “ordination trials” before the Presbytery prior to being approved for ordination.)

In view of the above, if a preacher is self-appointed and unordained, having never been tested or screened by a faithful church body, it is quite possible that he is a false teacher.  A man is not called to the gospel ministry simply because he “feels” a strong desire to serve in such office (though a strong desire to serve in the sacred office is an important subjective factor in such a calling – First Timothy 3:1).  If a man is truly called to the gospel ministry, then God’s people (the church) will recognize his character, gifts and calling.  If he is truly called to the gospel ministry, he will not be insubordinate and in rebellion against Christ’s Lordship by refusing accountability to the visible Body of Christ, but instead will be willing to be in subjection to his brethren in the Lord.  Self-appointed “pastors” and preachers whose only “calling” to ministry is their own personal, subjective “liver shiver” are in rebellion against God’s Word, and thus are likely to be false teachers.

Likewise, one big red flag for recognizing a false teacher is if the pastor or preacher is a woman.  God’s Word clearly commands that the pastoral office be restricted to qualified men (see First Corinthians 14:33-37, where this restriction is called “a command of the Lord”, ESV; First Timothy 3:2, which requires that an overseer in the church is to be “the husband of one wife” if he is married, not “the wife of one husband”; First Timothy 2:11-15).  This has nothing to do with sexism, for Scripture makes it clear that Christian women are equally God’s image bearers and spiritually equal in Christ (Genesis 1:27; Galatians 3:25-29), and the Scriptures often recognize the valuable contributions of believing women to the life of God’s covenant people.  However, this does have to do with God’s creation order and with the diverse roles God assigns to men and women in the church (again, First Timothy 2:11-15).  A woman who presumes to mount a pulpit and preach the Word is doing so in open defiance and rebellion against the clear commands of God’s Word, and in many cases it is likely that such a “pastrix” will be spewing forth false teaching.

2.  A pastor or preacher is likely to be a false teacher if the Bible is not the main source of his/her sermons.

A pastor’s main job as a “minister (i.e., servant) of the Word” is to preach God’s Word.  Period.  That means that when he mounts the pulpit his job is to exegete (explain) a text of Scripture and apply its truths to his congregants.  It is not his job or calling to be a “life coach”, a motivational speaker, a stand-up comedian, or a winsome storyteller.  It is his job and calling to “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (First Timothy 4:2, ESV).  He is to preach Law and Gospel.  He is to proclaim “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27).  He is to proclaim Christ crucified for the forgiveness of our sins, assuring believers and calling the unconverted to repentance and faith.

A preacher who mounts the pulpit and preaches politics (whether of a left or right wing variety), instead of preaching Christ and His Word, is a false teacher.  A preacher whose “sermons” primarily involve giving book reports or telling personal stories or offering commentary on the latest news reports is a false teacher.  And a preacher who claims direct revelation (apart from Scripture) and who preaches his own personal revelations or dreams or visions is especially a false teacher, since God has spoken His final Word for this present age in Jesus Christ, and we have that completed revelation in the apostolic and prophetic canonical writings of the New Testament Scriptures (Hebrews 1:1-2; Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 22:18-19).  If a preacher mounts the pulpit and begins his or her message with “I want to share with you what the Lord told me…” or something similar, claiming to have received a new, fresh revelation from God apart from the Scriptures, run and don’t go back!  There is no question that such a person is a false teacher, and such teachers should be shunned and avoided like the plague.

3.  If the “sermon” is all about you and your needs, instead of about Christ and His salvation, then the preacher is likely a false teacher.

As I stated above, a faithful pastor’s job is to teach “the whole counsel of God” as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.  He is to proclaim Law and Gospel.  Of course, the gospel meets our deepest need – namely, our need for the forgiveness of sins and salvation from the guilt, power and penalty of sin – but if a preacher is focused more on claims that God wants to bless you with mere temporal blessings (such as health, wealth and temporal happiness), then it is quite likely that he is a false teacher.  God’s Word is God-centered, and true believers hunger to know more about Him and His amazing plan of salvation.  As the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian Church:  “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (First Corinthians 2:2, ESV)

4.  If Jesus Christ and His saving work are sidelined and not central to the preaching, then it is possible that the preacher is a false teacher.

There are many professedly Bible-believing, evangelical churches which confess and even proclaim the basic gospel message, but which don’t make that message central to everything they are about as a church.  The preacher in such churches may quickly mention or refer to the gospel in passing at the end of a “life principle” style topical sermon, but the good news of salvation through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is not prominent or central in his sermon.  In my opinion, this is a very common problem in today’s “evangelical” preaching.  Preachers get up and preach “how to”, life-principle type sermons (“How to have a great marriage”; “Seven steps to dealing with anger”; “God’s guidelines for getting out of debt”; etc.), but a text of Scripture is never exegeted, and while the gospel might be mentioned, it is sidelined.

In a sense this kind of preaching is far more dangerous than straight-out false doctrine, since it sends the subtle message that the gospel is not all that important or central to our lives as Christians, even while it still mentions the gospel.  But the Scriptures make it clear that Christians need the gospel too and that the Christian life is grounded in the gospel!  “Life-principle” and other kinds of moralistic or therapeutic preaching is really law-preaching which often loads down God’s people will all kinds of new rules, as it burdens God’s people with multiple laundry lists of more things to do.  The basic thrust of such preaching is often “Do more!  Try harder!”  Whereas the gospel proclaims the good news that “Jesus paid it all!” and “It is finished!  The Lord has done it for you!”, thereby granting precious relief and rest to weary souls.  If a preacher sidelines the gospel in his sermons, then it is quite possible that he is a false teacher.

5.  If the sermon is ambiguous in its wording, it is quite possible that the preacher is a false teacher.

While there are some difficult portions of God’s Word, most of Holy Scripture is revealed in plain, clear language and is written for the ordinary, everyday reader.  Be wary of a preacher who regularly uses vague, ambiguous, elusive or evasive language.  A man who is incapable of explaining the basic message of the Scriptures with clarity and plain speaking is a man who is not qualified to rightly handle the word of truth (Second Timothy 2:15), and who therefore may be a false teacher.

There are many “wolves in sheep’s clothing”, many who disguise themselves as angels of light and who use godliness as a cloak for greed.  Let us learn from the Scriptures how to recognize the red flags of potential false teachers, and let us do our duty in exercising biblical discernment in evaluating the teachers out there in the Christian world who put themselves forward as reliable guides for God’s people.  Let us “test the spirits” (First John 4:1-6).  Amen.

“I really experienced the presence of God at that revival service!”

“As the worship band was playing that song I really felt God touch my soul.”

“God’s presence was so thick at that service that people were just falling over in the aisles!”

From what I have observed, statements like the above are extremely common among Christians today, especially in our American context.  They reflect a view of God’s presence with His people which is deeply rooted in mysticism and in a heresy that the Protestant Reformers identified as “enthusiasm” (literally, “God within-ism”).  It is the view that the manifestation of God’s special presence with His people can be measured by what I would call “the goosebump meter”.  The idea seems to be that the more goosebumps you get as a result of a religious experience, the more God is making His presence known to you.  Many contemporary churches implicitly buy into or promote the spirituality of the goosebump meter by re-labelling their worship service “the worship experience“.  (After all, in the man-centered, narcissistic, self-absorbed context of American Pop Christianity, worship is all about me and my experience rather than about God and His grace & glory manifested in the cross of Christ.)

Is this view of God’s presence biblical?  Is the “goosebump meter” a valid biblical way of knowing God’s presence and blessing?  Or does God’s Word point us to a better, more certain way of knowing and being assured of God’s presence?

Let me start by making a few important clarifications.  First of all, when talking about God’s presence and how we know or experience His presence, we must distinguish between God’s omnipresence (on the one hand), and His special, saving presence with His people (on the other hand).

The Bible teaches that the true and living God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is omnipresent.  This means that all of God is present everywhere, at all times.  God is the infinite, transcendent Creator and Providential Lord over heaven and earth.  Among other things, this means that He is not bound by creaturely limits, such as time, space, matter or any other creational factors.  In fact, it is impossible for God not to be present everywhere, for by definition God is everywhere present.  All people, even hardened atheists and skeptics who vigorously deny the existence of God, live and move and have their being in the God whose existence they deny (Acts 17:28), for God’s presence is inescapable in view of His attribute of omnipresence.  The Scriptures abundantly testify to the omnipresence of God, both by direct statement and by implication (for example, see First Kings 8:27; Psalm 139:7-10; Psalm 145:3; Psalm 14:2; Matthew 28:20; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:3; etc.).

On the other hand, the Scriptures also indicate that God is with His people in a special way, in a way that goes beyond His simple omnipresence.  God’s Word indicates that God is present with His believing people in a way that He is not present with unbelievers – namely, God is with His people in saving grace and covenant blessing.

The goal of God’s covenant of grace is God coming to dwell – to be present! – amongst His people in abiding grace, peace and blessing (see, for example, Genesis 17:7; Revelation 21:3-4, 22, etc.).  And God’s covenantal presence means shalom – God’s peace, grace and blessing, and the wholeness that results!

The Garden of Eden was the first temple of God, where Adam and Eve used to fellowship with their Creator before mankind’s fall into sin, a fellowship of life that was symbolized by the tree of life (Genesis 2:9).  After the fall, the first couple was cast out of the garden-temple, barred from the gracious presence of God (Genesis 3:22-24).  The rest of redemptive history is an inspired record of God’s plan in history to restore His gracious dwelling among mankind, initially through the covenant nation of Israel, and ultimately through the Person and work of His Son, Jesus Christ.  The Old Testament tabernacle and temple were pictures of God’s coming to dwell in the midst of His people.  Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh who came to dwell among us (John 1:1-3, 14), is the ultimate fulfillment of the temple symbolism, for He is the Living Temple, and in Him the church has become a dwelling place of God by His Spirit (Ephesians 2:22; see also First Peter 2:4-5, 9-10).

The point of all of this is that, if you are a Christian (i.e., if Jesus Christ is truly your Lord and Savior), then God’s special, gracious presence is always with you, whether or not you “feel” His presence in your personal goosebump meter.  Not only does God by His Spirit dwell in and with the believer; more significantly He dwells with His church corporate, for where two or more are gathered in the Name of Christ, He is there in their midst (Matthew 18:20, the context of which deals with the church’s exercise of church discipline, though I believe the principle taught in this passage can be applied beyond the matter of church discipline).

So how and where do we personally experience Gods’ presence, and what are the signs of God’s presence in our midst as His people?  Popular Christianity today would seem to teach that things like goosebumps arising from a powerful, emotional religious experience, often brought on by the emotional manipulation of hyper-repetitious worship songs, are to be understood as indicators of God’s presence with His people (i.e., the “goosebump meter” view I wrote about above).  But I would assert that the Bible nowhere teaches the “goosebump meter” view of God’s presence.  In fact, goosebumps and other subjectively induced factors can be deceptive, since Satan and our own sinful flesh can manufacture powerful religious experiences, as can time-tested techniques of crowd manipulation as practiced by many of today’s television evangelists and “vision casting” pastors (see the warning of Second Corinthians 11:12-15).  Instead, God’s Word indicates that God’s special presence with His people is known and experienced through objective, external means – namely, the Word and the sacraments, received with personal trust in Christ and His gospel promises.

Where do we today find signs of God’s dwelling among His people?  Wherever the Word of God is faithfully preached and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are administered according to Christ’s command, and in the Christian community of a faithful church gathered around the gospel word and sacraments, there God comes to dwell in the midst of His people in grace and blessing (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 2:42-47; Romans 6:3-4; 10:17; First Corinthians 10:16-22; Hebrews 10:24-25; etc.)!

Believer, if you are looking for a sign that God is present with you, you need not strive after a mountaintop emotional experience produced by hyped-up revivalistic fervor.  You simply need to open up the Bible sitting on your bookshelf.  God’s special presence comes to us in His word-revelation.  His Law exposes your sin and shows you your need for Christ.  His gospel reveals that all your sins have been forgiven through Christ, and that He will never leave you nor forsake you!  What more do you need than His Word to assure you of His presence?

But God knows that we are weak creatures of flesh, and that we need as much assurance as we can get of His shalom and presence.  So He has also given us the ministry of the Word and sacraments, which He has entrusted to the community of God’s people, the visible, organized church.  So, even more important than personal Bible reading and prayer, the public means of grace serve as powerful signs of God’s presence and Christ’s kingdom.  Christ is really present in word and sacraments, not in a physical and carnal manner, but by His Spirit.  However you might feel subjectively on a given Lord’s Day, when you gather with God’s people in the community of the church around God’s word and sacraments, God assures you of His peace and presence, even in the absence of goosebumps.  God’s Word is objective, unchanging and reliable, not subjective, ever-changing and unreliable (like our emotions), so we can bank on that word. And to us believers that word is a word of grace!

How do I know God is present with me in grace and blessing?  Not because my goosebump meter is reading high and I constantly experience an emotional-religious high, but because the Bible, God’s objective, outside-of-me Word, tells me so!  Because God has promised in His gospel that Jesus died for my sins and rose from the dead to earn for me the gift of eternal life, and therefore that all my sins are forgiven for Jesus’ sake!  Because in my baptism God has pledged that Jesus has washed me clean from my sins and renewed me by his Holy Spirit.  Because in the Lord’s Supper Jesus assures me that His body was broken “for you” (even me!) and His blood was shed “for you” (even me!).  All of these promises of grace are most certainly true, whether or not they happen to produce goosebumps.  What more could I want?  What more could I or anyone else need?

I’ll admit that sometimes the wonder of God’s Word does produce in me goosebumps, especially when I think about His amazing grace to me, an unworthy sinner.  The good news of salvation in Jesus does indeed bring joy and excitement to my soul when I consider it!  But I’ll take God’s objective, reliable Word any day over the subjective, unreliable “goosebump meter” approach to spirituality, especially on those “bummer” down days of life that we all inevitably face.  I encourage you, dear reader, to do the same.

One of the biggest obstacles that often prevents evangelical Christians of a Baptist persuasion who are attracted to Reformed theology from leaving the fold of broad evangelicalism in order to join the Reformed and Presbyterian fold is the issue of infant baptism.  There seem to be many evangelical believers today who have embraced the biblical truth of the “doctrines of grace” (otherwise known as “the five points of Calvinism”), and who appreciate the strong biblical emphasis in Reformed theology on truths such as the absolute sovereignty and holiness of God, but whose embrace of Reformed theology comes short of leading them to actually attend a Reformed church or pursue membership in such a church.  What is it that prevents these evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ from leaving their broadly evangelical churches in order to become part of a confessionally Reformed or Presbyterian church?  Again, I suspect that the obstacle that prevents many of them from committing to a biblically Reformed church is this issue of infant baptism.

For those of us who are members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church or other Bible-believing, confessionally Reformed churches, one of our biggest challenges in relating to our evangelical brothers and sisters of baptistic persuasion is the challenge of gently helping these dear brethren to see that the practice of applying the sign of the covenant (namely, baptism) to the children of professing believers is firmly grounded in the teachings of God’s inerrant Word.  In other words, helping them to come to understand that infant baptism is biblical and that that is why it was the near-universal practice of the historic Christian Church from the very beginnings of church history.  Contrary to the oft-repeated Baptist critique of infant baptism, it is not a “holdover from Roman Catholicism”, but rather a practice firmly grounded in the teachings of the Bible.

Of course, there are many excellent resources out there which lay out the biblical case for infant baptism.  (In my opinion, one of the best books to get into the hands of a Baptist believer is Robert R. Booth’s book, Children of the Promise:  The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism, which is published by P & R Publishing.)  However, when interacting with Baptist believers on the subject of infant baptism I think one of the best ways to help them re-think this issue is not to shove a bunch of books on the subject into their hands, but simply to ask them some good, probing questions.  Below are some suggested questions I would recommend that you ask your Baptist friends the next time you get into a conversation with them on the subject of infant baptism.

(1) Where in the New Testament does God explicitly command His church in this new covenant age to stop applying the sign of covenant initiation (which today is baptism) to the children of believers?

This question takes the common Baptist challenge to Paedobaptism (i.e., the practice of infant baptism), “Where does the New Testament explicitly tell us to baptize babies?” – a question obviously designed to put paedobaptists on the defensive – and turns it around in a way that puts the Baptist position on the defensive.

(2) All throughout redemptive history, up until the coming of Christ into this world, God has included the children of believers as members of His visible covenant community.  If the Baptist position is correct, then God no longer includes the children of believers as members of His visible covenant community, the church.  Why would this be the case?  Why would God be less gracious under the new covenant than He was under the old covenant?  Why would God be less gracious after the coming of Christ than He was before Christ’s advent?

(3) Doesn’t infant baptism picture God’s grace in a more powerful way than believers-only baptism?  After all, an infant is utterly helpless and dependent upon others for everything.  What a perfect picture of us sinners in our sins!  Before God saves us we are utterly powerless and helpless, utterly unable to lift a finger to save ourselves!  But then Christ comes to us in mercy through His word, takes us into His arms, and washes us clean from our sins through His blood.  He comes to us in sovereign grace even before we “decide” for Him!  Isn’t infant baptism a wonderful picture of the sovereign grace and Divine initiative of God in our lives?

(4) If the Baptist position is the correct biblical view, why does the evidence from the early church fathers seem to show that the practice of infant baptism goes all the way back to the very beginning of church history as an almost universally undisputed practice in the church?  If infant baptism is such a gross unbiblical error, how is it that the early church fell into such gross error in its teaching on baptism so soon after the death of the apostles?  Why do we not read of a vocal and vigorous Baptist movement rising in the early church in protest to such a seriously erroneous and un-apostolic practice?  Why do we not read of church fathers and great theologians and Bible scholars in the early church vigorously seeking to demonstrate from Scripture that the sacrament of baptism must only be applied to professing believers, and not to infants?  Did the Holy Spirit so cease from guiding the post-apostolic church into the truth that it was allowed to wander into such gross and dangerous error so quickly?

Do you have any additional ideas for good questions to ask our Baptist friends?  If so, why not share them in the comments below?

Who is worship for, anyway?  The common answer to that question from evangelicals, and even from many of the Reformed, is “Worship is for God, of course!”

Closely related to this view of worship is the oft-stated assertion that “We don’t come to worship for what we can get out of it; instead, we come to give to God our ‘sacrifice of praise’!”

In other words, worship isn’t designed to benefit man, but to benefit God.  As I’ve heard it said in various ways, “We don’t come to church for what we can get out of it; instead we come to church to give God our worship.”  The “service” in “worship service” is man serving God, not God serving man.

Such a view of worship, as common and pious-sounding as it may be, is utterly unbiblical, and even (when taken to its logical extreme) contrary to a Reformed understanding of worship.

Before I explain what I mean and make my case, let me make a few clarifications, lest the reader misunderstand me.

First of all, let the reader understand that I do indeed recognize and confess, along with our Shorter Catechism, that “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy  him forever.”  As the Scriptures teach, we were created and exist for God’s glory.  God is not a cosmic bellhop who exists to cater to our every wish and whim.  Rather, we exist for His good pleasure.

Let the reader also understand that I wholeheartedly affirm that we believers ought to approach worship with the desire and intention to glorify God in our worship, and with an attitude of reverence and awe.  Our goal in worship ought to be to see Christ magnified and God glorified in the assembly of His saints.  In this sense worship must indeed be God-centered, not man-centered.

At the same time, my basic point in this article is this:  God is most glorified when His people are most edified.

In other words, worship is ultimately designed for man’s benefit, not God’s.  In biblical, God-centered, Reformed worship, the direction and flow of worship is from God to man, not (as is common in evangelical worship)  from man to God.  In worship our Triune, covenant God graciously takes the initiative and condescends to serve, feed and edify His covenant people through His means of grace (the primary means being the Word and the sacraments) and by His Spirit, and His people respond to this Divine initiative with their prayers and praises and offerings.  All of this magnifies God’s glorious grace, and thus glorifies God.

“But is this view of worship biblical?”

You bet it is!

First of all, the true and living God, the God revealed in the Bible, is perfectly self-sufficient in and of Himself.  He is the great I AM, the Ever Blessed God who is perfectly self-sufficient and perfectly content within His own Triune Being.  He is already infinitely and unchangeably glorious in and of Himself, which means that He stands in need of nothing from His creatures, including their worship.  When we speak about “glorifying God” in our worship, this does not mean that we somehow add to God’s glory through our worship, for God is already infinitely glorious, and you cannot “add” to infinite, boundless glory!  While God is pleased to accept the heart-felt worship of His people, He doesn’t “need” our worship.  Our worship is not designed to somehow give God an “ego-boost” – as if the Creator of the universe had a low self-esteem and needed our affirmation in worship to feel good about Himself.  Rather, our worship “glorifies” God in the sense that it declares, manifests and publicly displays His glory through those elements of worship which He has prescribed for His holy worship.  (And as God’s glory is declared, manifested and displayed in worship, God’s people are edified in their faith!)

In the Bible-based words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, found at the beginning of chapter 2, section 2:  “God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them.” (Emphasis added.)

In other words, while God delights in the worship of His people, He does not “need” our worship.  Therefore, our worship is not ultimately for His benefit, but for ours.

Another biblical evidence for the view of worship that I am presenting here is found in the biblical emphasis on worship being for the believer’s edification and for the building up of their faith.  For example, in responding to the liturgical chaos and “charismania” exhibited in the Corinthian Church, the Apostle Paul urged the Corinthian believers to strive toward a more orderly worship practice (“But all things should be done decently and in order” – 1 Cor. 14:40, ESV).  Why?  So that the church might be built up and edified!  “Let all things be done for building up.” (First Corinthians 14:26, ESV)  Clearly, God’s primary goal in commanding His people to worship Him is that they might be edified and built up in Christ!  Again, God is most glorified when His people are most edified.

In holy worship our covenant God comes to us to commune with us and to feed our souls in Word and sacrament, and we respond with gratitude to His gracious initiative with our prayers, our praises, and our financial gifts.  This “dialogical principle” with its interplay of Divine initiative and human response is reflected in the “flow” of historic Reformed liturgical practice, such as we practice at Lake OPC.

For example, in our worship service God comes to us in grace and blessing through the apostolic salutation, and He calls us into His presence through the call to worship.  We respond with an opening hymn and a prayer of praise.  We then reaffirm our trust in the Lord through the recitation of one of the historic creeds of the church (usually the Nicene or Apostles’).  God’s presence confronts us with our sin, so we confess our sins, and then we hear God’s gracious word of forgiveness in a human voice through the mouthpiece of His ordained servant, the minister, who declares our sins to be forgiven for Christ’s sake.  God then continues to build us up by His Word through the Scripture readings.  We then respond to the reading of His Word with our hymn of faith, our prayers of intercession, our offerings, and our hymn of preparation for the sermon.  God then continues to feed our souls through the proclamation of His Word, the sermon, which is the highlight and center of our service, and once again we respond with our hymn of commitment.  (On Lord’s Days when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper God seals His word of grace proclaimed with the holy supper, which is the word of grace signified and sealed.)  Finally, God sends us forth into the world with His blessing through the benediction.  Thus a reformed worship service begins with God’s word of grace and blessing, ends with His word of grace and blessing, and is saturated throughout with His Word (read and preached), all to the edification and building up of God’s people!

In Divine worship God kills our pride and self-righteousness through His Law, raises us up and forgives our sins through His Gospel, and builds us up in our most holy faith, equipping us to go forth into the world to serve Christ in our daily callings.  In other words, worship is primarily for the benefit of His people!

“But doesn’t this make worship man-centered rather than God-centered?”

Not when we understand the truth that in worship we don’t ascend to God through our prayers and praises (as an evangelical theology of glory implies), but rather God comes to us in grace through Christ (as reflected in a theology of the cross).  Not when we understand that God is most glorified when His people are most edified!

For a helpful podcast related to this subject I would encourage the interested reader to listen to a recent “Issues Etc.” radio show podcast featuring the conservative Lutheran pastor Rev. Chris Rosebrough who speaks on the topic of “The Liturgy of Pop-American Christianity”.  Pastor Rosebrough hosts a program called “Fighting for the Faith” where he addresses heresies and trends within Pentecostalism, revivalism and broader evangelicalism, and is a regular guest on the confessional Lutheran “Issues Etc.” program.  As a biblically Reformed and Presbyterian Christian I would not necessarily endorse or agree with everything that Pastor Rosebrough says, as we differ with our Lutheran brethren on some significant points of doctrine and practice.  But, nonetheless, his perspective on worship is very thought-provoking and helpful.

You can listen to the podcast here:  http://issuesetc.org/2017/05/29/1532-the-liturgy-of-pop-american-christianity-pr-chris-rosebrough-6217/

“For whom did Christ die?”  Most Christians today would answer that question by saying, “For everyone!”

In other words, most Christians today hold to a view known as “universal atonement”, which is the view that Christ’s atoning death on the cross redeemed every single individual who ever has and who ever will live, thus making eternal salvation possible for all, yet guaranteed for none.  With the exception of those holding to a consistent universalist position (which is the view that in the end all human beings without exception will be eternally saved through Christ), most Christians who believe in some version of universal atonement also believe that many of those for whom Christ died will end up lost in hell due to their impenitence and unbelief.

In other words, Christ is believed to have paid for the sins of everyone without exception, but many of those for whom Christ died will still have to pay for their own sins in hell for eternity, because they rejected Christ.  Thus, in the case of the lost, their sins end up getting paid for twice (once by Christ on the cross, and again by the impenitent sinner in hell).

But does this view not imply an injustice on the part of God, who demands payment for human sin at the hands of His Son on the cross, only to demand payment for those same sins again by the impenitent in hell?  Thus, the position of universal atonement poses problems for the perfect justice of God.

And does it not also do a dishonor to Christ by implying that He failed in His saving work, since many for whom He died fail to be saved in the end?  And if the advocate of universal atonement objects by saying, “No, Christ did not fail in the case of those who die in their sins; instead, they failed to avail themselves of Christ’s ransom!”, may we not respond by asking:  Does not this view of “universal atonement” actually limit the power and efficacy of Christ’s atoning work on the cross by making it depend for its efficacy upon man’s response of faith?  Does this view not imply that man’s “free will” decision to reject Christ is more powerful and efficacious than Christ’s redeeming work to overcome human hardness of heart, thus making man’s unbelief stronger than God’s grace?  And does not this position, if carried out to its logical extreme, end up making the efficacy of Christ’s redeeming work dependent upon the “work” of man’s response of faith, thus making human salvation partially dependent upon God and partially dependent upon man (in other words, synergism), and thus denying the biblical truth of salvation by God’s grace in Christ alone?

In opposition to the popular and prevalent position of universal atonement, Bible-believing Presbyterian and Reformed Christians have historically held to a view which has come to be called “limited atonement” (or, to put it more positively, “definite atonement” or “particular redemption”).  This is the view that Christ’s atoning death on the cross, while certainly infinite in value and sufficient to save all without exception, was intended to benefit only a limited number of individuals; namely, the “elect”, those whom Scripture identifies as Christ’s “sheep”, those who (by God’s sovereign grace) come in due time to trust in Christ as their Savior (see, for example, John 10:11; compare with vv. 25-29).

In the historic Reformed understanding of the atonement, Christ did not die merely to make sinners savable.  Such a view denigrates the actual meaning of Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice by making it a mere hypothetical atonement, an atonement which might satisfy Divine justice if certain human conditions (namely, faith and repentance) are met.  But in the biblically Reforned understanding Christ did not die on the cross to offer the Father a mere hypothetical atonement for everyone without exception (i.e., an “atonement” which doesn’t actually atone without the help of human faith).  No, instead He died to actually secure the eternal salvation of all those whom the Father gave to Him, namely, His chosen ones – a great multitude from every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Revelation 5:9).

In other words, if Jesus died for you, your eternal salvation is absolutely certain and infallibly secure, for the Divine Son of God Incarnate has satisified the demands of Divine justice once-for-all and for all of your sins (past, present and future) – including your sins of unbelief and impenitence!

So, while the position of “universal atonement” actually limits the power and efficacy of Christ’s atonement (by teaching that it only makes sinners merely savable), the Reformed view only “limits” the atonement in the sense that it is designed by God and intended to benefit a limited number of human beings (namely, the elect, who in God’s timing become believers in Christ).  But, in the Reformed view, Jesus’ death actually saves (once and for all and forever!) those for whom He makes atonement!

“But what about the biblical requirement that sinners trust in Christ as their Savior and repent of their sins if they would be saved?”

Certainly the Reformed Faith affirms the necessity of repentance and faith.  The Reformed or “Calvinist” view of “limited atonement” offers no comfort to those who presume upon God’s grace and persist in the way of impenitence and unbelief.  We wholeheartedly affirm that the salvation Christ purchased for His people is received and experienced only in the way of true faith in Jesus Christ and repentance unto life.  And certainly we who are Reformed affirm the biblical truth that God commands all people everwhere to repent (Acts 17:30)!  Repentance and faith in Jesus Christ are universal duties enjoined upon all who are privileged to hear the gospel message.

At the same time, ultimately true saving faith and repentance are graces and gifts of God that God by His Spirit works within the souls of His elect in due time, and through the ordinary ministry of the Word.   Ultimately they are not works of man, but gifts of God, purchased by Christ for His elect (see Acts 11:18; 13:48; Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 1:29; etc.).  How could it be otherwise, since (as I explained in my blog article on Total Depravity) fallen man is spiritually dead in his trespasses and sins and thus incapable of converting himself by his own supposed “free will” (Ephesians 2:1; Romans 9:16; John 3:3; etc.).

What is the Reformed doctrine of “limited atonement” based upon?

First, it is based upon the nature of Christ’s death as a satisfaction for sin.

In the Bible, Christ’s atonement actually (not hypothetically) atones.  It is an atonement that actually secures the eternal redemption of God’s people.  A careful study of the Epistle to the Hebrews (especially, for example, chapter 9-10) will make this clear.  When we consider the fact that the Bible makes it abundantly clear that not all will be saved in the end (see, for example, Matthew 25:46; Second Thessalonians 1:8; Revelation 20:12-15; etc.), by logical necessity we can infer that not everyone’s sins have been atoned for by Christ.  Otherwise they would be saved.

Second, it is based upon explicit biblical teaching.

For example, in the good shepherd discourse in John chapter 10, the Lord Jesus explicitly states that He as the “good shepherd” lays down His life “for the sheep” (John 10:11, ESV).  Later in that passage He explains to the unbelieving Jews who rejected Him that the reason they do not believe in Him is “because you are not among my sheep” (v. 26, ESV).  If Christ laid down His life for His sheep, but these individuals are (by Christ’s own testimony) not among His sheep, then the clear implication is that Jesus Christ did not lay down His life for them – meaning that He did not die for them.  Later on, in John chapter 17, in our Lord’s “high priestly prayer”, Jesus makes it clear that He is praying to His Father for those whom the Father has given Him.  He explicitly says that He is not praying for the world (i.e., those not given to Him by the Father; see v. 9). This too implies that Jesus did not die for the purpose of saving them, since He refuses to pray for them as their high priest.  Futhermore, in Ephesians 5:25 the Apostle Paul states that Christ gave Himself up for the church (meaning, in this context, the “invisible church” – the elect of God).

“But what about all those passages that speak of God loving the world and Jesus dying for all?”

John 3:16 is a favorite among advocates of universal atonement.  And yet even that passage “limits” the benefits of Christ to those who believe in Him!  But in response to this kind of objection it should be pointed out that the terms, “world” and “all” and similar “universal” language, must be interpreted within their own contexts.  Often the terms “world” and “all” are used to indicate all without distinction (i.e., Jews and Gentiles, men and women, rich and poor, slave and free, etc.) rather than all without exception (i.e., every single human being without exception).

In addition, these words can often be used to make general statements which might have exceptions.  For example, if I make the statement that “Everyone knows that Donald Trump is the current President of the United States”, I am making a generic statement which is generally true, but to which there may be some exceptions.  Just as there is a semantic range of meanings to the words “all,” “everyone,” “world” and similar universal terms in the English language, so there is a similar range of meanings in the biblical languages.  Only a careful contextual study of each passage in question can make it clear how these words are being used in particular contexts, and I would make the case that there is no passage of Scripture which explicitly requires that we understand it to be teaching that Christ died for the purpose of saving each and every human being without exception.

The good news of “limited atonement” is that Jesus Christ died on the cross, not merely to make salvation possible, but to actually save sinners from their sins, and to infallibly secure for them their everlasting salvation!  While Christ’s atonement is effective only for His people, it is nonetheless sufficient for all.  Dear reader, do you recognize yourself to be a sinner in need of salvation?  Christ is offered to you in the gospel!  Repent and turn to Christ in faith.  Believe that Jesus’ death is sufficient to pay for your sins, and trust in Him as your very own Savior and Lord.  If, by God’s grace, you do, you can be assured that Jesus died, not merely to make your salvation a hypothetical possibility, but to actually save you from the guilt, the penalty and the power of your sin!  “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved…” (Acts 16:31, ESV).

If you are interested in digging deeper on this topic, I recommend that you read The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen (Edinburgh; Carlisle, PA:  The Banner of Truth Trust; Reprinted 1989)

Anyone who has ever attended a worship service at Lake OPC, or any other confessional Reformed and Presbyterian church, on a Sunday when the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is being observed, will notice that before administering the elements the minister will explain who may and who may not partake of the holy supper.  (This is a historic practice in the Reformed liturgy.)

While confessional Presbyterian churches like Lake OPC do not practice closed communion – which restricts communion only to those who belong in communicant membership to a particular church or denomination or family of denominations which share the same beliefs about the Lord’s Supper – at the same time neither do confessional Presbyterian churches practice open communion where everyone, without distinction or exception, is welcomed to participate.

Instead, confessionally Reformed and Presbyterian churches typically practice what could be described as restricted communion.  The practice is sometimes referred to as “fencing the table” (meaning that a verbal explanation and/or warning is given prior to administration of the sacrament).  This means that communion is restricted to those who meet certain criteria.  In the Orthodox Presbyterian Church these criteria include the following:

(1) You must be validly baptized in a professing Christian Church which upholds the biblical and historic Christian view of the Trinity.

Valid baptism with water, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in a church which (at least on paper) confesses the Holy Trinity, is the visible sign of initiation into the visible “catholic” (i.e., “universal”) church, and thus a prerequisite for participation in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.  Unitarian or “Jesus only” baptism, cultic baptism (for example, Jehovah’s Witness and Mormon baptisms), “gender-neutral” baptisms (which purge out reference to Father, Son and Holy Spirit and replace the Trinitarian Names with such designations as “Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer”) – all  such “baptisms” are in reality non-Christian baptisms, and thus invalid in the eyes of God.

(Please note that there is a difference between an invalid baptism – which is really no baptism at all – and an irregular baptism.  There are many examples of irregular baptisms – baptisms performed under less-than-ideal or extraordinary circumstances – which are nonetheless valid from a biblical standpoint.  For example, a baptism administered by a heretical or scandalously immoral pastor is still a valid baptism, so long as it is administered with water in the Name of the Trinity in a professedly Trinitarian church, even though such a baptism may be irregular with respect to the circumstances of its administration.)

(2) You must have made public confession of your faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in the presence of a congregation of God’s people.

Passages like Matthew 10:32-33 and Romans 10:9 make it clear that an open confession of faith in Jesus Christ as Son of God and as one’s Lord and Savior is ordinarily a requirement for salvation (since such open confession of Christ is a fruit and evidence of true saving faith), and by implication a prerequisite for communicant membership in Christ’s visible church.

Furthermore, the very act of participating in the Lord’s Supper implies a reaffirmation of one’s public confession of faith in Christ.  Therefore, those who reject Christ as the Divine Son of God Incarnate who was crucified for sinners and raised bodily from the dead, or who do not personally trust in Christ as their very own Lord and Savior and are not personally repentant for their sins, desecrate the sacrament and bring judgment upon themselves if they presume to come to the holy table.  In addition, participation in the Lord’s Supper by unbelievers is an act of supreme dishonesty and hypocrisy, since unbelievers reject the very gospel that is signified and sealed in the holy supper.  (See, for example, the warning about unworthy partaking that is given by the Apostle Paul in First Corinthians 11:17-32.)

(3) You must be a member in good standing of a biblical church which preaches the gospel.

Church membership implies accountability.  It implies that you are willing to be subject to the God-ordained authority that Christ has entrusted to His visible church.  To wilfully and knowingly reject the accountability of responsible church membership is to reject one very important aspect of Christ’s Lordship.

While it is true that the Bible does not, in proof-text fashion, have an explicit command that says “Thou shalt be a church member if thou wouldst take the Lord’s Supper”, responsible church membership involving submission to the elders and overseers of the church is clearly implied as a given in the New Testament Scriptures.  (See, for example, Hebrews 13:7 & 17; First Peter 5:1-5, etc.  Also note that almost all of the New Testament Epistles were written to local congregations with a definite membership, such as the church in Corinth, the churches of Galatia, the church of Thessolonica, etc.  In addition, the Book of Acts describes the three thousand baptized converts on the Day of Pentecost as “those who were added” – Acts 2:41 – meaning added to the visible church.)

What about the requirement of being a church member “in good standing”?  What does “good standing” mean?  It means that you are not under any kind of church censure or church discipline.  For example, let’s say you had belonged to a biblical church which excommunicated you for scandalous, unrepentant sin.  This means you have been excluded from taking communion (hence “ex-communication”) due to your impenitence.  Due to your persistent impenitence the church has judged you to be outside of saving communion with Christ.  In such circumstances you are not a “member in good standing”, and thus you have no right in such circumstances to receive the visible emblems of such communion.  In such circumstances you may not receive the Lord’s Supper until such time as you repent, make amends and are publicly restored to good standing in the fellowship of Christ’s church.

“But pastor, why such restrictions?  And why do I need to be an actual member in good standing before I can take holy communion?”  Allow me to offer some further arguments in favor of our communion practice.

The belief that communion is only for those who are church members in good standing of a biblical church is a legitimate inference from the fact that, like baptism, the Lord’s Supper is an ordinance for the church.  It makes no sense for someone to partake of an ordinance appointed by Christ for His church if he/she is not an actual member of the church.  Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper with His apostles on the night in which He was betrayed, and the apostles were themselves the foundation of the visible church (Ephesians 2:20).  So, clearly, Christ intended this ordinance to be for those within His church, not those outside of it.  (Indeed, one of the functions of the sacraments is to make a clear distinction before the world between those who belong to Christ and His church and those who do not.)

A similar argument for this practice can be seen when we compare the old covenant sacraments of circumcision and the passover with baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  Under the old covenant administration Gentile foreigners to the covenant community of Israel could not eat the passover meal until their males were first circumcised (see Exodus 12:43-49).  In other words, before a Gentile could celebrate the passover he first had to become a Jew.  Such Gentile converts had to become members of God’s visible covenant people, at the time called Israel, before they could receive the covenant meal of the passover.  Likewise, in this new covenant age, an outsider to God’s covenant community of the church may not partake of the Lord’s Supper until he/she is first baptized and becomes a member of God’s covenant people, the church.

Finally, the New Testament teaches that under the new covenant the old covenant sacrament of circumcision (a bloody rite pointing forward to Christ) has been replaced by baptism (an unbloody rite pointing us back to Christ).  Likewise the passover (again, a bloody rite involving the death of the passover lamb) has been replaced by the Lord’s Supper (an unbloody rite pointing us back to Christ’s bloody sacrifice on the cross).  (For example, see Colossians 2:1-12 and First Corinthians 10:1-4, and also consider the fact that the Lord Jesus insituted the Lord’s Supper in the midst of celebrating the passover with His disciples.)

What is the conclusion?  If God’s people under the old covenant had to be members in good standing of the covenant community before they could participate in the covenant meal of the passover, so likewise God’s people under the new covenant have to be members in good standing of the visible covenant community of the church before they are welcome to partake of the covenant meal of the Lord’s Supper.

Of course, at Lake OPC and at most other confessional Reformed and Presbyterian churches we don’t have “communion bouncers”.  The Lord’s Supper is not a “presbyterian” supper.  Rather, it is the Lord’s Supper, and thus it is for the Lord’s people, whatever their church affiliation may be.  Nevertheless, it is a serious ordinance in Christ’s church, and therefore we in the OPC seek to make it clear who may and who may not partake – for God’s glory and for the spiritual welfare of those who would partake.

During the celebration of the Supper the minister offers a “verbal fencing” of the table, and the elders will usually try to pass the elements over those who are not yet able to take communion (for example, the communion plate will be handed past young children who have not yet publicly professed their faith).  But, once the verbal warning has been issued, the ultimate responsibility for partaking or not partaking of the holy supper rests upon the shoulders of those in attendance, who are summoned by Scripture and through the pastor’s exhortation to examine themselves of their fitness to partake (again, see First Corinthians 11:17-34).  Let us all take this solemn responsibility seriously.

In the previous blog article on “Why Sing Hymns? Part 1” I offered three reasons why I believe the church would do well to retain the biblical Psalms and the classic hymns of the church as the predominant (though not necessarily exclusive) resources of the church’s worship song.  To review, these three reasons are as follows:

(1) Good hymns are theologically rich and feed the Christian soul.

Good hymns have biblical and theological substance, and thus they edify and feed the soul of the believer.

(2) The classic hymns of the church connect contemporary Christians with the historic church.

Singing the great hymns of the faith reminds us that the Holy Spirit has been at work in all ages of church history, and that our faith is a multi-generational faith for all ages.

(3) Good hymns serve a catechetical purpose in the church.

Good, Bible-based and doctrinally-sound hymns reinforce the biblical truths that are preached from the pulpit and taught in the Sunday School.  They “preach” the Word in song.

In this blog article I want to offer three additional reasons (reasons # 4-6) why the church today would do well to continue the practice of singing the biblical Psalms and the classic hymns of the faith.

Before I offer these reasons, let me again reiterate what I stated in Part 1:  Let the reader understand that I am not, in reactionary fashion, saying that “old” equals “good” and “new” equals “bad.”  There are some old hymns that are theologically bad and shallow, just as their are some newer hymns and praise songs that are biblically faithful and sound.  The church would do well to avoid singing the former and should be open to singing the latter.  But, again, I would commend the biblical Psalms and classic hymns of the church as the predominant content of worship song in Christ’s church for the reasons under consideration.

And now for reasons # 4-6:

(4) Good hymns can help to close the generation gap in the Body of Christ.

There is no doubt that we in the West (and especially in the United States) live in a predominantly youth-centered culture.  Our culture almost idolizes youth.  Older people strive to look younger and as younger people eventually start to age they often strive to do everything they can to put off and cover up the effects of the natural aging process for as long as possible.

This youth-centric mindset has infiltrated the church to such a degree that even middle-aged and older pastors have often put off the dignified attire of their clergy robes or dark business suits in an attempt to look and dress more “hip” and “cool” so that they can “be relevant” and “relate to the young people.”  (Things like skinny jeans, sandals, and a Star Wars t-shirt, along with a few tatoos and body piercings, may make an athletically fit 20-something year old “youth pastor” look “hip” and “with it” at the annual youth retreat, but these same “youthful” duds on a balding, middle-aged pastor with a prominent pot belly and jiggling love handles just make him look silly and pathetic, if not a bit creepy too.)

But this youth-centric mindset not only shows up in terms of the casual, youthful attire that many clergy and congregants have adopted in our uber-causal, youth-centric age.  It has also infiltrated, to a large extent, the contemporary church’s practice of worship song.  Many contemporary churches have abandoned the classic hymns in favor of an exclusive use of contemporary worship songs led by a “praise band” (i.e., basically a soft rock band that leads the worship).  All done in the name of attracting and/or retaining young people in the church.  If this upsets the older people in the church, well, that’s just too bad.  They’re just “set in their ways” anyway, and they need to “get with the (youth-centric) program” if they want their church to continue to be “relevant.”  If they don’t like it, let ’em leave.

In this way the generation gap between young and old in the church gets amplified and widens even further, so much so that many larger churches have basically split their congregation in two by offering two separate, distinct worship services – one called “traditional” (for those crusty old folks who just can’t let go of their hymnals), and the other called “contemporary” (for the hip young people and other youthful congregants aspiring after hip-dom and “relevance”).  So much for the gospel of Christ bringing the generations together into one Body!

The problem with all of this is that God’s Word is not youth-centric.  On the contrary, if anything the Bible stresses the importance of honoring our elders as a vital duty for all of God’s people.

Of course, it is true that the Apostle Paul counseled the young pastor Timothy not to let anyone despise him for his youth (First Timothy 4:12).  The elderly certainly ought not to despise those who are younger, whether they be younger in age or younger in the faith.  At the same time, I believe that one of the keys to closing the generation gap that we often find in the church today is by encouraging a culture in the church that seeks to biblically honor those “seasoned saints” who have more years under their belt and therefore (as a general rule) more wisdom, maturity and stability to offer the church.

In Leviticus 19:32 God says:  “You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God:  I am the LORD.” (ESV)  In the culture of Moses’ time, one of the ways that you showed respect for the elderly was to rise in their presence as a sign of that respect.  Showing honor to the elderly is closely connected to the reverent fear of God, and Israel’s covenant God reinforces this duty to show such honor with the solemn words, “I am the LORD” (“LORD” being a translation of “Yahweh”, the covenant Name of God).

What does this have to do with worship song?  Well, may I suggest that one way the church of Jesus Christ can “honor” the elderly and “rise up” before them is by favoring their musical choices in worship (provided, of course, that those choices are biblically and theologically sound).  In other words, if a church has to choose between sticking with a biblically-sound hymnal that is favored by older members of the church, and transitioning to the use of contemporary songs that might be more pleasing to the youth, if the older members of the church would be upset or offended by such a change, then I believe the biblical choice would be clear:  Let the youth of the church “stand up before the gray head” and keep using the hymnal, even if it might not be their personal preference.  Such an honoring of the wishes of the elderly in the church by the youth could do much to deepen respect and appreciation for the youth of the church by the “seasoned saints” in the congregation, and likewise it could help deepen the sanctification of the church’s youth by providing them with an opportunity for self-denial for the benefit of others.

(5) The singing of good hymns reminds believers that the singing of praise is worship, not entertainment.

Music is powerful.  I enjoy attending good musical concerts, whether the music be classical or contemporary.  I have a high regard for good musicians who perform their music masterfully.  But when attending a musical concert, it is clear that a concert is just that – a concert.  A performance.  In other words, entertainment.  But worship song is not entertainment.  No, it is worship (i.e., a vital element of biblical worship).

The congregational singing of good hymns reminds us that the singing of praise is worship, not entertainment.  The whole congregation sings together in one voice.  And hymns are written and designed for congregational use.  They are not designed to be performed by a select company of trained musicians.  But, at least in my limited experience of contemporary worship, often the worship songs are written in such a way that they are better performed by trained musicians (in this case the praise band) rather than being written in a way that encourages congregational participation.  This performance aspect of some contemporary worship songs sends the wrong message.  It tends to blur the line of distinction between worship and entertainment.  The classic hymns of the church avoid this, generally speaking.

(6) Good hymns are a source of great comfort for God’s people.

A number of years ago I faced a very stressful time in my life.  There were numerous pressures and life changes that closed in on me at the time, and I faced an uncertain future.  In the midst of this pressure-cooker period of my life I found myself one day driving alone down the highway.  As the road stretched before me tears started to well up as I just felt emotionally overwhelmed.  Then I decided to do something counterintuitive.  I decided to sing some hymns of praise to God.

One of the hymns I sang as I chugged down the highway, misty-eyed from anxiety, was “It Is Well.” The words of this precious hymn struck a chord in my heart:

“When peace like a river attendeth my way

When sorrows like sea billows roll

Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say

It is well, it is well with my soul!

It is well, with my soul

It is well, it is well with my soul!”

Being reminded through that touching hymn that, because of Christ, it was indeed “well with my soul” flooded my heart with a sense of peace and calm, and brought great comfort to my soul, even in the midst of my stress.

One of the reasons why the great classic hymns of the faith have stood the test of time is not only because of their faithfulness to Scripture and theological orthodoxy, but also because they have proven over time to be a source of great comfort to generations of believers.  When the church robs younger generations of this precious treasure of hymnody, it also robs them of what could prove to be a powerful source of great comfort to them as they face the trials and tribulations of their Christian lives.  Let us not rob them of this resource of comfort.

Much else could be said, but I hope this has been enough to give the reader some food for thought on this issue.

“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” (Colossians 3:16, ESV)

There are few things today that seem to divide Christians from one another more than the issues of “worship style” and worship song.  It used to be that professing believers would find it necessary to separate from fellow believers over deeply-held theological and denominational distinctives.  But in our contemporary context of widespread biblical and theological ignorance, where personal religious experience trumps sound biblical doctrine, it is the “worship wars”- in particular the issue of the classical hymns versus contemporary worship songs – that seem to cause the most division in the Body of Christ.  In fact, I suspect that for many Christians today, if put in a position of having to choose between a church that was more biblically orthodox and faithful but which did not offer one’s preferred worship style, and a church which was less biblically consistent and less doctrinally sound, but offerred a “worship experience” more suited to one’s personal musical and liturgical preference, would put “worship style” over sound doctrine and choose the church which was more musically and stylistically to their liking.

There are many things about the “worship wars” in the churches which are regrettable and unnecessary.  For example, there can be hardened attitudes and a dead traditionalism on all sides of the contemporary versus traditional worship debate (yes, not just on the side of those who advocate for the exclusive use of traditional hymns, but even on the “contemporary” side, where the singing of contemporary worship songs has sometimes become a newly fossilized liturgical tradition that pushes out the older hymns of the faith in the name of “relevance”).  Certainly, as believers on both sides of this liturgical divide dialogue and try to understand each other, they should do so in a spirit of Christian civility, mutual respect and a desire for genuine spiritual unity in Christ’s Body.  But at the same time differences must be honestly faced.

In this article I want to offer a number of reasons why I believe Christ’s church would do well to continue to use the biblical Psalms and the classic hymns of the faith as the predominant (though not necessarily exclusive) material for the church’s worship song.

Lest the reader misunderstand where I’m coming from, let me make it clear that I am not arguing that old = good and new = bad.  I am not saying that all traditional hymns are biblically sound and theologically substantive, or that all contemporary worship songs are by definition biblically and theologically shallow or flawed.  On the contrary, one can find a number of traditional hymns which are theologically shallow, sentimental, and devoid of biblical content, just as one can find a number of contemporary worship songs which are biblically and theologically rich.  Let the reader understand that I am not saying that we should exclude all contemporary worship songs from our worship services, or that we should only sing hymns from our authorized hymnal (which, in our case, is the Trinity Hymnal).  (In fact, Lake OPC recently obtained a CCLI license, which allows us to include a wide range of worship songs not found in our hymnal in either bulletin inserts or overhead projections, and we do on occasion sing high-quality contemporary worship songs in our services.)

So why would the contemporary church do well to retain the predominent use of the biblical Psalms and classical hymns of the faith in its worship practice.  Here are a number of considerations:

(1) Good hymns are theologically rich and feed the Christian soul.

Good, classical hymns of the faith have biblical and theological substance which can edify and feed the soul of the believer, whereas many (though certainly not all!) contemporary worship songs tend to be biblically and theologically shallow and are thus inadequate as spiritual food to the soul.

Consider, for example, the first verse of that classic hymn “O Worship the King”:

“O worship the King, all glorious above,

O gratefully sing His power and His love,

Our Shield and Defender, the Ancient of Days,

Pavilioned in splendor and girded with praise.”

In this hymn God is extolled as the Divine, all-glorious King, the Shield and Defender of His people, the Ancient of Days (see Daniel 7:13), indicating His eternality.  This brief verse is God-centered, biblically-grounded and theologically-rich.  It is rich spiritual food for the Christian soul.

Compare and contrast this rich, substantive hymn to the chorus of a popular contemporary Hillsong worship song:

“Your fire fall down

Your fire fall down

On us we pray

As we seek…

Show me Your heart

Show me Your way

Show me Your glory.”

Aside from the fact that it is questionable how biblical it is to pray for God’s “fire” to fall down upon us, since in Scripture the falling of God’s fire is often a picture of God’s holy wrath and judgment, notice how man-centered and theologically shallow this chorus is. (“Show me Your heart…Show me Your way…Show me Your glory…me, me, me – it’s all about me.)  Furthermore, as I’ve heard this chorus sung, it is repeated multiple times, becoming almost a “Jesus mantra”.  While singing such a worship chorus over and over and over again at the leading of a skillful praise band might emotionally manipulate worshipers to have a powerful, emotional religious experience, almost no biblical content is conveyed in actual chorus, and thus it is practically worthless in edifying the believer or leading her/him on to spiritual maturity.

Or consider the chorus of another contemporary worship song, written by popular contemporary Christian musician Chris Tomlin:

“You’re a good, good father,

It’s who you are, it’s who you are, it’s who you are,

And I’m loved by you,

It’s who I am, it’s who I am, it’s who I am.”

This song has at least some biblical truth to it.  Certainly God is a gracious and good heavenly Father to those who are in Christ, and we believers are certainly loved by Him.  However, it is only because of Christ’s incarnation and atonement on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins that God can relate to us as a good and gracious Father, and not as an offended, righteous Judge.  And it is precisely any clear reference to the Person and work of Christ that is missing in this otherwise touching song.

Contrast this theologically-shallow Tomlin song with the first verse of the classic Charles Wesley hymn, “Arise, My Soul, Arise”:

“Arise, my soul, arise, shake off your guilty fears;

the bleeding Sacrifice in my behalf appears:

before the throne my Surety stands, before the throne my Surety stands,

my name is written on his hands.”

This gospel-saturated hymn points the believer to the ultimate basis for his right standing before the “good, good Father” in heaven, namely, the bloody sacrifice of Christ as our Surety before the throne of the Father.  It is the sacrificial death of Christ for sinners which demonstrates God the Father’s goodness and love (Romans 5:8).  Again, good hymns are biblically-faithful, theologically-rich, and they feed the Christian soul with the truth of God, not with mere emotional sentiment reflective more of adolescent angst than of biblical fidelity.

(2) The classic hymns of the church connect contemporary Christians with the historic church.

When we as 21st century Christians sing the Psalms of Scripture and the great classical hymns of the faith, we are joining our voices with the voices of past generations of past Christians who fought the fight of faith, ran the race of discipleship, and who thus encourage us as we strive through the grace of God to fight the good fight and run the race of faith that is set before us.  When we cut ourselves off from the classic hymns of the church and opt for only that which is contemporary, in a sense we cut ourselves off from the communion of the saints who have gone before in past ages.  Thus we impoverish ourselves and our churches.  Singing Psalms and the classic hymns of the church reminds us that Christianity is a historic faith and that it is a multi-generational communion!  Singing only contemporary worship songs in church implicitly teaches that God has only been at work in the here-and-now, or that what God did in the past is “irrelevant” to what He is doing in the present.

(3) Good hymns serve a catechetical purpose in the church.

The wording of Colossians 3:16 (which I quoted at the beginning of this article) seems to indicate that one of the ways we “teach” and “admonish” one another is through the singing of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.  Many of us learned the English alphabet through singing the alphabet song.  Likewise, worship song is a great way to teach the “a-b-c’s” of the Faith.  Teaching the faith to new believers and to future generations is greatly enhanced through the singing of Psalms and biblically-faithful hymns of the faith.  Thus the hymnody of the church undergirds the church’s preaching, instruction and catechesis.  If the steady diet of the church’s worship song is biblically and theologically-shallow, we should not be surprised if the contemporary church begets biblically ignorant and theologically shallow Christians.

We will consider some further reasons to retain the predominent use of hymnody in the church’s worship practice in Part 2.

When it comes to the doctrine of election, the bottom line is this:  Does God choose us for salvation because we first choose Him; or do we choose Him because He first chose us?

Christians of a non- or anti-Calvinist persuasion usually “choose” the former position (pun intended); whereas Christians of a Reformed and Calvinist persuasion affirm the latter.

Those who opt for the former position believe that God’s election of us is conditioned upon something that He sees in us or something we do to earn His choice; whereas Calvinists believe that God’s choice of us in Christ is not conditioned upon anything that God sees in us, whether foreseen faith or works or both; hence the Calvinist view is that God’s election of us is unconditional.  God’s choice of us in not conditioned upon anything in human beings that moves God to choose them.  Rather, it is because God has chosen them in His grace that His chosen ones respond to His gracious initiative with a living faith, a genuine repentance from sin, and an earnest life of discipleship.

The Bible clearly teaches a doctrine of election.  Many passages in both the Old and the New Testaments affirm that God “chooses”, “elects” and “predestines” a select number of people.  Consider just a small sampling of Scripture passages on this topic:

“It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 7:7-8, ESV; emphasis added)

“Remember the wondrous works that he has done, his miracles, and the judgments he uttered, O offspring of Abraham, his servant, children of Jacob, his chosen ones!” (Psalm 105:5-6, ESV; emphasis added)

“For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” (Jesus Christ, in Matthew 24:24, ESV; emphasis added)

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” (Romans 8:29, ESV; emphasis added)

“Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect?  It is God who justifies.” (Romans 8:33, ESV; emphasis added)

“And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad – in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call – she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”” (Romans 9:10-12, ESV; emphasis added)

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.  In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved…In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will…” (Ephesians 1:3-6, 11, ESV; emphasis added)

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion…” (First Peter 1:1a, ESV; emphasis added)

And this is just a small sampling of such passages.

As the reader can hopefully see, it is only by a studied avoidance of passages like these that the careful Bible reader can miss being confronted with the biblical doctrines of election and its related doctrine, predestination.  But the issue is, how are such passages to be understood?  Does a correct understanding of such passages lead to a Calvinistic or a non-Calvinistic doctrine of election and predestination?

We in the Reformed Faith believe that a careful, contextual study of such passages supports the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election, and not non-Calvinist doctrines that result in one way or another in a conditional understanding of election.

Some non-Calvinists appeal to passages which speak of our election in Christ being based upon God’s “foreknowledge” (for example, see Romans 8:29 and First Peter 1:1-2).  The “foreknowledge” view of election basically teaching that God chose to save us believers even before He created the world because He foresaw in the future that at some point in our lives we would freely choose to accept Christ as our Savior.

Certainly we Calvinists don’t deny that God foresees everything that happens in the future, including our future choices.  (We would point out, however, that the reason God is able to do this is because God is absolutely sovereign and has foreordained everything that comes to pass, as taught in passages such as Ephesians 1:11.  The reason that God can foresee the future is not only due to His omniscience, but also because He has planned the future in His eternal decree.)  However, we would point out that our non-Calvinist friends have misunderstood the biblical concept of “foreknowledge”.

When the Bible speaks of God “foreknowing” someone, it doesn’t simply mean that God foresees the choices that individual will make.  Rather, just as Adam is said to have “known” his wife Eve in the sense of loving her intimately in the context of the covenant of marriage (see, for example, Genesis 4:1), God “knows” us believers in the sense of loving us with a special, covenantal, saving love.  Thus, when the Bible talks about God “foreknowing” individuals, it means that He has “fore-loved” them – i.e., He has chosen to love them in Christ with a saving love even from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4)!  So the “foreknowledge” view of election must be rejected as a false view based upon a misinterpretation of certain biblical passages.

Others seek to explain biblical reference to election by putting forward a doctrine of corporate election.  In other words, it is claimed that in the Bible God doesn’t choose individuals for salvation; rather, He chooses corporate groups (Israel in the Old Testament, the Church in the New Testament).  In this view the way to be identified as belonging to God’s “chosen” and “predestined” people is by choosing to identify yourself with the company of those who are followers of Jesus Christ – in other words, by choosing to believe in Christ and thus to become part of His elect Body, the Church.

Certainly most Calvinists won’t deny that there are corporate aspects to God’s electing purposes.  Yes, the Church corporate can rightly be referred to as God’s chosen people, collectively considered, and I believe the Bible would affirm such a designation.  However, a careful study of a number of key biblical texts (especially, for example, Romans chapter 9) will make it clear to the unbiased student of Scripture that God certainly does elect certain select individuals as individuals to be recipients of His saving grace in Jesus, while passing over others in the operations of His saving grace and leaving them in their own freely-chosen sin.  (For example, the contrast Paul makes in Romans 9:10-13 between God’s choice of Jacob over Esau makes it clear in that particular context that he is speaking of individual election and rejection, not a merely corporate election of the Israelites over the Edomites considered as collective people groups.)

Whether the non-Calvinist Christian adopts the foreknowledge doctrine of election, or the corporate election view, notice that both of these non-Calvinist doctrines of election assume one major thing:  They assume that God’s choice of us depends upon something we decide or something we do.  In other words, salvation is not wholly and exclusively by God’s grace, but by a grace plus works combination.  God’s election of us is not by His sovereign grace alone; rather, His “grace” of election is dependent, at least in part, upon our own will or our own works (or both).  Thus these non- and anti-Calvinist doctrines of election, when taken to their logical extreme, ultimately lead down the road to a false gospel of works-righteousness.

The Reformed and Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election serves to guard the one main point of Calvinism that undergirds all the other points of the Calvinistic system:  namely, the truth that we sinners are saved by God’s grace, and by God’s grace alone!  From beginning to end, our salvation in Christ was planned, executed, applied by the unconditional grace of God alone, apart from anything we have done or ever can do.  And this is why the doctrine of unconditional election is, at heart, a gospel doctrine.

God’s choice to save us in Jesus Christ is grounded in His unconditional, unmerited, free and sovereign grace.  Period!  Sola Gratia (Grace Alone)!  Soli Deo Gloria (To God alone be glory)!  Let us glory in this precious Reformation doctrine, and let us proclaim it boldly and clearly in this age which is so saturated with and under the deluding spell of man-centered, man-glorifying, me-centered distortions of the biblical gospel.