8 The high priest Hilkiah told the court secretary Shaphan, “I have found the book of the law in the Lord’s temple,” and he gave the book to Shaphan, who read it. 9 Then the court secretary Shaphan went to the king and reported, “Your servants have emptied out the silver that was found in the temple and have given it to those doing the work—those who oversee the Lord’s temple.” 10 Then the court secretary Shaphan told the king, “The priest Hilkiah has given me a book,” and Shaphan read it in the presence of the king.
11 When the king heard the words of the book of the law, he tore his clothes. 12 Then he commanded the priest Hilkiah, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Achbor son of Micaiah, the court secretary Shaphan, and the king’s servant Asaiah, 13 “Go and inquire of the Lord for me, for the people, and for all Judah about the words in this book that has been found. For great is the Lord’s wrath that is kindled against us because our ancestors have not obeyed the words of this book in order to do everything written about us.”
14 So the priest Hilkiah, Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan, and Asaiah went to the prophetess Huldah, wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. She lived in Jerusalem in the Second District. They spoke with her. 15 She said to them, “This is what the Lord God of Israel says: Say to the man who sent you to me, 16 ‘This is what the Lord says: I am about to bring disaster on this place and on its inhabitants, fulfilling all the words of the book that the king of Judah has read, 17 because they have abandoned me and burned incense to other gods in order to anger me with all the work of their hands. My wrath will be kindled against this place, and it will not be quenched.’
18 Say this to the king of Judah who sent you to inquire of the Lord: ‘This is what the Lord God of Israel says: As for the words that you heard, 19 because your heart was tender and you humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants, that they would become a desolation and a curse, and because you have torn your clothes and wept before me, I myself have heard’—this is the Lord’s declaration. 20 ‘Therefore, I will indeed gather you to your ancestors, and you will be gathered to your grave in peace. Your eyes will not see all the disaster that I am bringing on this place.’” Then they reported to the king.
~2 Kings 22.8-20
Title: On Fuel for the Fires of Revival Text: 2 Kings 22-23 Series: Revival Us Again! Church: Redeemer Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR Date: December 28, 2025
Several months ago, Matthew Barrett, then a professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, announced that he was leaving the SBC to become Anglican. Shortly thereafter, he took a position as Research Professor of Theology at Trinity Anglican Seminary, and he and his family joined St. Aidan’s Anglican Church in Kansas City. He detailed his reasons for making this change in an article on his blog/newsletter, Anselm House. Basically, he suggests that the SBC “officially rejected” Nicene orthodoxy, that the SBC values image over external (read episcopal) authority, and that the “baptist” hermeneutic is ultimately individualistic in its rejection of infant baptism. Though I find these criticisms to be greatly flawed and wholly inaccurate as representations of Baptist theology and ecclesiology, it is not my purpose to respond to them here. This has already been done by several others who are more capable than me. (For example, see Denny Burke’s response here.)
Rather, I would like to respond to another component of Barrett’s argument for Anglicanism, that being the beauty and and antiquity of its liturgy. After giving a rather glowing description of the elements and order of an Anglican worship service, including pictures, he goes on to write, “What a comfort to tell our kids, “The way we are worshipping is how Christians have worshipped across history. It’s really, really old. You are participating in the church universal.”” Now, let me just say that I have no small appreciation for high church liturgy. I have previously written on the use and value of the lectionary, the Christian calendar, and church tradition. I think there is much that modern churches, with their consumeristic performance based, emotion driven worship services, could learn from these practices. However, to say that “Anglicanism is the most beautiful representation of classical Christianity” is surely to place preferences of form over matters of substance.
The fact of the matter is that the early church’s worship was simple; it revolved around Word and Table, fellowship and prayer. As we read in Acts 2.42, “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer.” Beyond this, we simply do not know what worship services in the early church consisted of. We have scattered liturgical details and other descriptions throughout the New Testament, but we do not have an official liturgy for the early church. Did they sing psalms? Probably. Did they read the Scriptures? Definitely. Did they pray together? Likely. Did they observe the ordinances of baptism an the Lord’s Supper? Clearly. Did they recite early kinds of creedal statements? Possibly. Of course, as the church grew, more formal liturgies were understandably developed, especially in the second and third centuries, and by the fourth century, there seems to have been a common or shared understanding of what the worship of the church should include and how it should progress. But, contrary to Dr. Barrett’s claim above, there is simply no proof that the Anglican liturgy is “how Christians have worshipped across history.” No doubt there are many similarities, but there is likely just as many differences that vary across place and time.
However, the more basic point that needs to be underscored here, I believe, is that the church’s worship, no matter what form or style it is expressed in, is beautiful. When God’s people gather together to sing His praise, to hear from His Word, to intercede in prayer for one another, to commemorate the Gospel is baptism and eucharist, there is simply nothing that is more beautiful, nothing more majestic, nothing more glorious. The voices of the saints singing and praying and confessing and expositing the great works of God in Christ as one gathered and united body in the Spirit is the most beautiful thing in this world. Of course, as I noted above, this beauty has sadly been lost in many churches today; we have turned the church’s worship into a show. We have exchanged beauty for spectacle, truth for emotion, participation for entertainment, and this is especially so in churches that do not come stand in the line of high church traditions. But, the point is that it is narrow minded and arrogant to suggest that one particular form or tradition of worship is the most beautiful, the most ancient, the most formation to the exclusion of all others.
In the Book of Revelation, John writes, “After this I looked, and there was a vast multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language, which no one could number, standing before the throne and before the Lamb” (Revelation 7.9). This vision of the diversified and redeemed people of God standing before the heavenly throne praising God should help us to understand the beauty of the church’s worship. We do not all sing with one voice, we do not all worship in the same way. Every tradition, every culture, every community has its own way of worshiping God, and this is beautiful. The glory of God in Christ cannot be wholly encapsulated in just one worship tradition, but wherever there are genuine believers who are gathered together to worship God in Spirit an truth, this is beautiful. Every church has its own liturgy, whether it be formal or informal, but when we prioritize the form of our worship over the object of our worship, then we have missed the mark. Christ is the focus of our worship, there is no way that we could ever find enough ways to magnify and exult in His glory.
8 Put the ram’s horn to your mouth! One like an eagle comes against the house of the Lord, because they transgress my covenant and rebel against my law. 2 Israel cries out to me, “My God, we know you!” 3 Israel has rejected what is good; an enemy will pursue him.
4 They have installed kings, but not through me. They have appointed leaders, but without my approval. They make their silver and gold into idols for themselves for their own destruction. 5 Your calf-idol is rejected, Samaria. My anger burns against them. How long will they be incapable of innocence? 6 For this thing is from Israel— a craftsman made it, and it is not God. The calf of Samaria will be smashed to bits!
7 Indeed, they sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. There is no standing grain; what sprouts fails to yield flour. Even if they did, foreigners would swallow it up. 8 Israel is swallowed up! Now they are among the nations like discarded pottery. 9 For they have gone up to Assyria like a wild donkey going off on its own. Ephraim has paid for love. 10 Even though they hire lovers among the nations, I will now round them up, and they will begin to decrease in number under the burden of the king and leaders. 11 When Ephraim multiplied his altars for sin, they became his altars for sinning. 12 Though I were to write out for him ten thousand points of my instruction, they would be regarded as something strange. 13 Though they offer sacrificial gifts and eat the flesh, the Lord does not accept them. Now he will remember their guilt and punish their sins; they will return to Egypt. 14 Israel has forgotten his Maker and built palaces; Judah has also multiplied fortified cities. I will send fire on their cities, and it will consume their citadels.
Title: On the Danger of Mixing Religion with Politics Text: Hosea 8.1-14 Series: Hosea: A Love Story Like No Other Church: Redeemer Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR Date: May 11, 2025
Is the Roman Catholic Church a Gospel-denying church? This question was the theme of a recent debate between Allen S. Nelson IV, pastor of Providence Baptist Church in Perryville, AR, and Father Stephen Hart, pastor/priest at Sacred Heart Church in Morrilton, AR. (A video of the debate can be found on the YouTube page of Providence Baptist Church, here.) While it is true that both participants had strong moments in the two hour event, it is not my purpose to evaluate their performances or to name a winner. I think that Pastor Nelson was at his best when he was pushing the details of the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as stated in their published documents, and Father Hart was at his best when he was giving the Catholic understanding of relevant New Testament texts. In the final analysis, though, I suspect that most people went away from the event feeling confirmed in the positions they held coming in and believing that their preferred candidate had won the evening. In the space that follows, I would simply like to suggest four important takeaways that were clarified for me.
First, the debate made it clear that the Roman Catholic Church generally misunderstands the New Testament concept of justification. Lexically, the δικαι- word group (words that are usually translated in the NT as righteousness and/or justified) refers to a forensic or legal status of innocence or guiltlessness. In his commentary on Romans in the NICNT series, Douglas Moo writes, “To justify signifies, according to forensic usage, to acquit a guilty one and declare him or her righteous.” (86) As we read in Romans 5.19, “For just as through one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous (δικαίωμα).” In other words, it is a once-for-all gavel dropping declaration that a person is not guilty of their sin before God because of their faith in the atoning work of Christ. And what is important is that this status cannot be changed because of our sin, nor can it be augmented by good works. From beginning to end, it is a gift that is given by faith alone and that is preserved, maintained, and completed by God through His Spirit. As the Apostle Paul writes, “I am sure of this, that he who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” (Phil. 1.6) Or again, in Romans 8.29-30, we read, “For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified.”
However, the RCC insists that this declaration of righteousness, being God’s powerful word, must be effectual, and include thereby moral transformation. For example, the Council of Trent defines justification as that “which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man.” (Chapter 7) Trent goes on to argue that “by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified.” (Chapter 10) And so, it logically follows when Trent resolves that, “If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.” (Canon 24) Of course, the Council of Trent, first convened in 1545, was the Church’s response to the Protestant Reformation, and so one can’t help but wonder if there isn’t some amount of reactionism that has influenced their positions on these matters. Nevertheless, it seems clear from these statements that Trent’s understanding of justification goes well beyond the New Testament understanding of the term.
Secondly, and the statements above demonstrates this, but the debate made it clear that the Roman Catholic Church confuses the doctrine of justification with the doctrines of regeneration and sanctification. Regeneration (aka new birth or “being born again”) refers to that work of the Spirit in which a person is given spiritual life. In other words, the Spirit transforms an individual from a state of spiritual death to a state of new creation in Christ, thus, enabling them to repent, believe, and live in accordance with God’s will. By the same token, sanctification is simply the lifelong process by which a person is gradually transformed more and more into the image of Christ, becomes more holy, and learns to walk in obedience to the law of Christ. As we read in Hebrews 10.14, “For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” (ESV/LSB) Note especially in this verse that we are perfected forever, and yet we are being sanctified. The point is that these are logically distinct aspects of the salvation process (ordo salutis), even if in actual experience they are sometimes indistinguishable.
But in the teaching of the RCC, all of this inheres within the doctrine of justification. As we saw above, the Catholic church defines justification as that “which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man.” Whatever the reason for this lack of theological precision may be, this indiscriminate intermingling of categories leads inevitably to the conclusion that a person’s justification is dependent upon their sanctification. Or to put it another way, the Roman Catholic view seems that imply that while justification is begun by faith, it is continued, maintained, and eventually confirmed by good works. This is perhaps why Trent envisages the possibility that a person’s initial justification can be lost. In Chapter 14, Trent reads, “As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance they shall have attained to the recovery, by the merit of Christ, of the grace lost.” If a person’s justification can be lost by their disobedience, then it necessarily follows that it must be maintained (or should I say earned) by their obedience. Whatever the case, it is clear that in the Catholic understanding, the determining factor in a person’s justification is their obedience, i.e. their good “works”, and not their faith.
Now, I would be remiss if I did not also submit the opposing position to equal scrutiny, and so, before I conclude this article, I would like to offer two areas of weakness in our position that I believe were exposed in the aforementioned debate. And let me hasten to add that these points should not be received as any kind of criticism of Pastor Nelson; based on the limited interaction I have had with him, I find him to be a biblically faithful, theologically astute individual. But, as it regards the way that our views are typically represented in these discussions, I think there are two important takeaways for us to consider.
The first takeaway for those holding our perspective might be stated thus, namely that Protestants have a tendency to underemphasize the importance, nay even the necessity, of good works. In our zeal to proclaim and defend that time honored Reformation principle sola fide, or justification by faith alone, we inadvertently imply that living a life of obedience that issues forth in good works is some kind of optional add-on. We suggest, though perhaps unintentionally, that the Gospel’s call to live a life of ongoing discipleship to Jesus is something that is reserved for the religious elite, those who are really serious about their faith, those who are truly devout, so-called ‘super Christians’. But the Apostle James is clear on this point when he writes, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2.24) Of course, this is not a contradiction of the Apostle Paul, nor is it inconsistent with the Reformation’s emphasis on faith alone rightly understood (contra Luther). Rather, it is a reminder that the kind of faith that justifies is a faith that works. In other words, the principle of sola fide does not mean that a person can believe in Jesus and then live in whatever manner they so choose. This kind of “easy-believism’ is in truth no faith at all. In fact, it is demonic (James 2.19), and it does not and cannot save. A faith that saves, a faith that justifies, is a faith that works, and on this point, James and Paul are in complete agreement.
There is a sense in which our works will play a role at the final judgment. Jesus himself says in Matthew 16.27, “For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will reward each according to what he has done. ” And in Second Corinthians 5.10, we read, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may be repaid for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” Or again, in Romans 2.6-8, Paul writes (quoting Proverbs 24.12 et al.), “He will repay each one according to his works: eternal life to those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality; but wrath and anger to those who are self-seeking and disobey the truth while obeying unrighteousness.” And finally, in Hebrews 12.14, we are told to “Pursue … holiness [because] without it no one will see the Lord.” This does not mean that we are “saved” by or because of our works, but it does mean that living a life of obedience to God validates or proves that our faith is indeed a saving faith. The message of the Gospel is built on both the indicatives of what Jesus has done for us and imperatives that we are called to obey for Him. We receive the indicatives by faith, and we obey the imperatives because of what we have received by faith. The order matters here. If we put the imperatives of the Gospel before the indicatives of the Gospel, then we distort the Gospel into a salvation by works. In the logic of the Gospel, the indicatives precede and enable the imperatives. But the point is that they are both necessary parts of the gospel.
And this brings me to the second weakness of the Protestant position that I believe was exposed in the debate, namely that Protestants have a tendency to reduce the Gospel to its lowest common denominator. There can be no doubt that justification by faith is an important, even essential, foundation for our salvation, but the Gospel is so much more than justification by faith. The Gospel is the good news that in the person and work of Jesus Christ God has entered into his creation to redeem his people by dying for their sin as an atonement and by defeating death through His resurrection and to renew his creation by establishing his rule on earth, so that through the Spirit they can walk in perfect conformity to His ways and experience the blessings of His ongoing presence in and among them. It is this vision of a renewed humanity living in a renewed world in which God is eternally present to bless that is the goal of the biblical narrative (Revelation 21-22). This is why we must constantly remind ourselves that even though we have already been saved (justification), we are still being saved (sanctification), and yet one day we will be saved (glorification). And all of this is received and experienced by and through faith, but this faith must be a faith by which we walk in conformity to the way and will of Christ.
So, is the Roman Catholic Church a Gospel-denying church? I don’t know, but it does seem to me that their official teachings, whether explicitly or implicitly, confuse important concepts and components of the Gospel, and in doing so, it has the potential to lead even the most sincere and devout parishioner to believe that they are saved by living a morally upright and generally good and charitable life. Can a person be genuinely saved in the Roman Catholic Church? I think yes, but I would suspect that this is in spite of its official dogmas and teachings. And beyond their doctrine of salvation, there are many other tenets and teachings of the Roman Catholic tradition that I consider to be in clear contradiction to the teaching of Scripture. However, that is a question for another time. I will simply close this post with the words of the Apostle Paul, because I think they sum up the issues discussed in this article particularly well. “For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift— not from works, so that no one can boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time for us to do.” (Ephesians 2.8-10)
One of the most important advances in Biblical Studies in the last 100 years has clearly been the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thanks to the curiosity of a young Bedouin shepherd, the first scrolls were discovered at Qumran in 1947. Over the next ten years, hundreds of papyrus fragments were found in some eleven caves in the area containing various biblical and extra biblical writings dating from 200 BCE to 100 CE. The general consensus has been that these represent the religious views of a sect of early Judaism known as the Essenes, known previously only through the writings of Josephus. Over the past 50 years, the study of these scrolls has provided valuable insight in the religious thought world of Jesus, Paul, and the first Christians, and comparative studies are now basically the norm in New Testament monographs and the other academic publications.
In this post, I am not interested in the content of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as fascinating as the material may be; I am more interested in the textual transmission of the scrolls, particularly as that might be compared to the textual transmission of the biblical text. It is truly a wonder of God’s providence that the Dead Sea Scrolls were preserved they way that they were. They were likely buried in the caves prior to the Jewish War (66-70 CE), and then subsequently abandoned when the Essene community was destroyed by the Romans. Thanks to the arid and dry climate of the area around the Dead Sea, these scrolls were preserved in glass jars for over 2000 years. However, they do show the signs of their age. They mostly consist of fragmentary pieces, and even the larger documents are missing significant parts due to decay (see the picture above, for one example). This means that translating the scrolls into English for modern study is mostly piecemeal at best. Large portions of the text must be reconstructed through textual emendation and scholarly conjecture, in order to make the text readable and understandable.
For example, one paragraph from The Temple Scroll (11QT) reads,
On the fifteenth day of the month …[the corresponding] grain offering [and drink offering, all on] the altar, an offering by fire, of s[oothing odour to YHWH. On] the second [day:] twelve young bulls, [two rams, four]teen [lambs] and on he-goat [for a sin offerin]g [and the corresponding gr]ai[n-offering and drink-offering] according to the statue concerning the young bulls, the ram[s], the lambs [and] the he-goat; it is an offering by fire, of soothing odour to YHWH.
The braketed text in the quote above indicates where the text has been conjecturally emended and filled in by the translator. The point is that as valuable as the scrolls are, the condition of the text is partial, fragmentary, and dependent on scholarly interpretation and emendation.
By contrast, the textual tradition of the biblical text is far more substantial and stable. The earliest portions of the New Testament that are extant today can be dated to within in a century of the actual writing of the documents themselves, and the earliest complete manuscripts that we have today are removed by only 2 or 3 centuries from the time of the New Testament. Further, we have over 5000 extant manuscript witnesses to the text of the Bible, in addition to ancient versions, liturgies, and quotations in the church fathers. The point is that through the discipline of text criticism (see my post here), we can reconstruct the text of scripture with 99% accuracy, and any questions that do remain are mostly of peripheral concerns and have no bearing on the actual meaning of the text. Unlike the Dead Sea Scrolls, the biblical text is not fragmentary and dependent on emendation; no, it is stable, clear, and firm in it is manuscript foundations.
This then is an even greater wonder of God’s providence as he has preserved His Word throughout the centuries. He has graciously and providentially watched over His Word, and He has not left himself without a witness. This should give us a great amount of confidence and faith in the textual foundations of our faith. The text of the Bible has been preserved and passed down by God’s providence through the ages, so that we might have reliable witness to His revelation of Himself in Christ. Where would we be if the text of the Bible had been hidden in desert caves for over 2000 years? I shudder to think of the possibilities. When we read the Bible, we should give great thanks that God has not left us as blind to grope in the darkness hoping we might find Him. No, he has spoken clearly, firmly, and faithfully, so that we might know Him even as we are known. Thanks be to God!
For further study, see: Geza Vermes, trans. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Revised Edition. London: Penguin Books, 2011.
Full preterism, or consistent eschatology as it is sometimes called, is the belief that all of the Bible’s prophecies regarding the consummation of God’s plan for the redemption of humanity, including but not limited to the second coming of Jesus, the resurrection, final judgment, and the establishment of the new heavens and the new earth, occurred in 70 AD when the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. This event in their understanding marked the eschatological transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, meaning that no further fulfillment is necessary. The new has come; it is really and truly here to its fullest extent. There is no need for any further act of God to complete his redemptive purposes in the world.
Now, let me be clear, this position is complete and utter heresy. It is a false gospel, because it denies the essential orthodox belief that “He will come again to judge the living and the dead” (Apostle’s Creed). It denies “the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come” (Nicene Creed). These denials among others put the views of full preterism wholly outside the boundaries of historic Christian orthodoxy. In the space that remains here, I would simply like to outline a few of the methodological and theological errors that are typical of this view, and then I will conclude by reaffirming the orthodox Christian hope.
The first error of full preterism is that they have a conspiracy theory view of hermeneutical method. In other words, their interpretations are based on a string of loosely related or even unrelated texts that are tied together by the occurrence of similar words. Of course, they would claim that they are following the principle of sola scriptura, namely that “scripture interprets scripture,” but I would submit that this is a theological conviction for biblical interpretation not a hermeneutical method for biblical interpretation. (See my post here). In stringing texts together the way that they do, they completely disregard concerns for the text’s historical and theological context and the author’s flow of thought. Instead, they flatten out the distinctive emphases of particular texts by smashing them together to say that same thing. More often than not, their exegesis comes across like someone throwing paint against a wall and then concluding they’ve painted Mona Lisa.
A second error of full preterism is that they hold to a gnostic view of the human person. Gnosticism is a heresy from the second century CE that suggests that Christ came to save us from this evil material world so that we could throw off the limits of our physical bodies and exist eternally as pure spirit. Of course, there is much more to it than this simple definition, but its weakness is that it disregards God’s design for human beings as embodied souls. We were made with a body and a soul, and to exist without either one of these is to be incomplete from the biblical point of view. This is why the resurrection of the body is such a primary doctrine; we are not merely transformed spiritually, we will be transformed physically when He comes again. Full preterism denies the future bodily resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked, and they suppose that when we die, we either go to heaven or hell to continue on as a “spiritual” being for eternity.
Thirdly, full preterism has an adoptionistic view of the incarnation. Adoptionism, or dynamic monarchianism, is a heresy from the third century CE that suggests that the divine logos came upon the man Jesus as his baptism, left him at his crucifixion, but then came upon him again at his resurrection. In other words, the man Jesus was “adopted” by God at his resurrection. The view of full preterism is not unlike adoptionistic Christology because they seem to believe the body of Jesus was only necessary during his earthly life. Often they suggest that his body was burnt up, or maybe it disappeared, at His ascension, so that He no longer has a body in heaven now. In other words, the son “adopted” a body for as long as he needed it, but then, when he no longer needed it, he discarded it. Along with the gnostic notions discussed above, this position negates the necessity of the resurrection. Why did Jesus even have to be resurrected from the dead with a body? Why not just rise as pure spirit? Here again, this view cannot explain the glorified body of Jesus, because it makes the incarnation temporary.
A fourth error that is part of the full preterist view is that they seem to have a fatalistic view of human history. Since they view this world as it is now as the “new heavens and new earth,” they have no expectation for any kind of renewal or transformation of the created order. According to this view, sin, death, disease, heartache, and the like will continue in perpetuity, eternally, without end. The only escape from the harsh realities of this world is when we die and go to heaven. But a renewed earth free of the corruption of sin and death is not in the purview of full preterism. This is fatalistic, because it essentially says that this is how the world is and this is how it will be. Nothing will ever get better, paradise will never be restored. Among others problems, this perspective denies the original purity and goodness of God’s creation and God’s intent to restore creation to that state of purity and goodness.
The final error that I see with full preterism, and perhaps the greatest, is that it offers a hopeless view of the Gospel. The reason for this is that it does not offer a final and full defeat of sin. Sure, the penalty of sin has been paid on the cross, and Satan has been defeated. But according to the full preterists, Satan and sin continue to run free forever. There is no final end to sin; there is no final defeat of Satan, no final judgment of the wicked. These things continue into perpetuity. The fact of the matter is that this is not the Gospel. Christ came, yes to pay the penalty for our sin, but also to free us from sin, and not only us, but the entirety of His creation. This is why the creation groans with yearning for the revelation of the sons of God (Romans 8.19-22). We look forward to a world that will be free of the domination and corruption of sin, free of the decay of death, where there will be no more tears, no more pains, no more heartaches. This is hope. This is the Gospel. And so we say, “Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!” (Revelation 22.20)
All of these are given by the inspiration of God to be the standard of faith and life.
3. The books commonly called the Apocrypha were not given by divine inspiration and so are not part of the canon or standard of the Scriptures. Therefore, they have no authority for the church of God and are not to be recognized or used in any way different from other human writings.
~Second London Baptist Confession (1689), 1.2 & 1.3
Series: The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR Date: September 6, 2023
A few days ago, I posted a quote on my social media feed from the reformer John Calvin. Now, the quote in question said nothing about the doctrines or concepts that are usually associated with that name; actually, it had to with the usefulness of catechism in the transmission of the faith to the next generation. However, within a short amount of time, a recent acquaintance of mine messaged me with concern that if churches saw me posting quotes from this particular figure, then they would not ask me to preach. I am sure his concern was well intended, but since moving back to the Bible Belt five years ago, I have been constantly perplexed by the reactions that Calvin and his teaching seems to provoke.
On another occasion a few years ago, I was interviewing with a church in another state. They had received my resume from a state convention, and so they reached out to set up a virtual interview. After logging on, we exchanged pleasantries and said a word of prayer, but before asking me for my testimony or personal background, the first question they asked right out of the gate was “What do you believe about Calvinism?” Examples like this could be multiplied, but the fact remains that the slightest scent of affinity for John Calvin or for the doctrines known as “Calvinism” often provokes a visceral reaction in most churches in this area. There is a ubiquitous disdain for these concepts, especially in the more rural churches, and to be quite honest, it boggles my mind.
Reasonable disagreement on the question of God’s sovereignty and man’s ability when it comes to our salvation is understandable; this is a debate that has ebbed and flowed for the entire history of the church, but this kind of revulsion is simply beyond the pale. And so, in the space that remains, I would like to suggest four possible reasons for why rural Bible Belt Christians are so put off by so-called “Calvinism”.
First, there seems to be widespread misunderstanding when it comes what so-called “Calvinists” actually believe. Because of this, those beliefs are regularly mischaracterized and misrepresented in ways that no reasonable student of Reformed theology would ever agree with. Accusations that “Calvinists” do not believe in evangelism or that “Calvinism” makes God the author of sin are such tired critiques that they almost need no response. Answers to these questions and many more are readily available from reputable and godly scholars in both printed and electronic forms, but it is easier to label and dismiss someone’s beliefs than to listen and engage the merits of those beliefs. Whether you agree with the concepts or not, if you cannot explain those concepts in ways that their adherents would agree with, then you probably shouldn’t be critiquing them to begin with. As I have suggested in another post, this is how we show grace to those with whom we disagree.
Another reason why Bible Belt Christians harbor such vehement resentment for so-called “Calvinism” is that many rural churches have been hurt by pastors who held these beliefs in an unhealthy, unchristian manor. Time and time again, I have heard stories about how “Calvinism split our church”, and this absolutely saddens my soul. However, I would suggest that the essential cause of the pain had more to do with the character of the pastor in question and less to do with the theological concepts that he espoused. In most cases, “Calvinism” is simply a symptom of the problem, not the root cause. Pastors are called to the highest standards of Christlikeness, and a consistent attitude of combativeness or divisiveness driven by the nagging need to always be right should be a direct and immediate disqualification from pastoral ministry. The glaring absence of Christlikeness coupled with biased preaching that beats its preferred theological hobby horse every week, regardless of what it may be, is a recipe for heartache every time.
A third possible reason for the emotional overreaction to “Calvinism” in the Bible Belt might be linked to the lasting influence of Revivalism in this area. The theological example of men like Billy Graham and Adrian Rogers casts a long shadow over those who were directly influenced by their ministries. These were faithful, godly men whose proclamation of the Gospel led many to faith in Christ. For these Christians, the lasting memories of multi-night revivals with altars filled with throngs of people coming to faith in Christ represent the good ole’ days of the church. Even to this day, there is a deeply felt and inherent longing in many churches to experience those highs once again, and the assumption is that if we just preach the way that they preached, believe the way that they believed, program the way that they programmed, then we can reproduce the same results. Unfortunately, the culture has changed significantly since the heyday of these ministries, and the methods that worked then are unlikely to work in the same way now. However, as they did so well, so also must we proclaim the Gospel boldly and invite people to repent and believe, whatever that may look like.
Lastly, I think a final and more fundamental reason for the vitriolic reaction to so-called “Calvinism” has do with the conflict between the sovereignty of God and the ability of man. Again, my purpose is not answer that age old question, but simply to point out that the exaltation of God’s sovereignty, which is a basic principle in Reformed theology, is a direct affront to our own innate sinful desire to exalt ourselves. The suggestion that there is nothing that I can do to save myself or to turn myself toward God and away from sin apart from His gracious intervention is an insult to my own prideful sense of self. No one wants to admit that they are so deeply corrupted and enslaved to their own sin that they cannot lift themselves up by their own volitional, moral and spiritual effort. Except this is exactly what the Gospel teaches us. Whether we hold to the theology of so-called “Calvinism” or not, we must admit that we cannot, nay will not, save ourselves, even if we were given the opportunity. We are completely and totally dependent upon God to save us from sin and from ourselves, and this He did by sending His Son to die on the cross and rise again. This is what all Christians must believe.
In the final analysis, whether a person agrees or disagrees with John Calvin and his theology is not the point. We must be willing to listen to and learn from one another “as iron sharpens iron”; we must learn to discuss our differences with grace and understanding. And if we must disagree, then may the content of our disagreement be concerned with the Scriptures and with what they teach us about God and mankind, about sin and salvation, because these are the questions that matter in eternity. As our Lord Jesus said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1.15)
The reality is that no one comes to the interpretation of Scripture with a completely blank slate; we all have some amount of pre-understanding that we bring with us when we read the Bible. This pre-understanding is formed through our education and our experiences, the combination of which overtime becomes part of the lenses through which we read Holy Scripture. Most of the time, our pre-understanding is helpful, because it forms a foundation from which we are able to engage the text and grasp its meaning; however, sometimes our pre-understanding can be a hindrance, if and when we are unwilling to submit it to the authority of the Biblical text. This is why the interpretive process is sometimes referred to as a “hermeneutical spiral”, because even as our pre-understanding helps us to understand the text, so in turn, the text shapes and forms our pre-understanding to be conformed with Biblical truth.
For those of us who are committed to the principle that the Bible is God’s Word, part of that pre-understanding includes our theological convictions about the nature of Bible. The inspiration, inerrancy, authority, sufficiency, perspicuity, et al. are foundational truths which ground Evangelical biblical interpretation. The truth that the one true and living God has spoken through His Word in ways that we may understand and apply is what makes our attempts to understand the Bible so significant. We are reading God’s very word. And it is precisely because we are reading God’s word that we hold to a conviction known as the “analogy of faith,” or the idea that scripture interprets scripture. It is a hermeneutical conviction that has been passed down to us from our Reformation forebears, and it is the veritable corner stone of Protestant biblical interpretation. However, in application, it has caused much confusion, because more often than not it is treated as an interpretive method rather than as a theological conviction.
The “analogy of faith”, sometimes also referred to as the “analogy of scripture,” is primarily a theological conviction about the unity and coherence of Biblical truth. It is grounded in the truth that the Bible, though it was written by many diverse human authors over several centuries, actually has only one primary author, i.e. the one true and living God. He has spoken clearly through His Word for the purpose that it may be understood, and He is not the author of confusion. Therefore, the overarching story of the Bible, its primary message and its central tenets, is essentially clear, consistent, and consonant with itself. There are no actual contradictions in the Biblical text, and if there is an apparent contradiction, then the problem lies with our understanding of the text and not with the text itself. So, the principle that scripture interprets scripture merely means that when multiple passages say something on a particular topic (either explicitly or implicitly), then what those passages say about that topic will be complementary and not contradictory.
On the other hand, the “analogy of faith” is not primarily a hermeneutical method; it does not necessarily tell us how to interpret the Bible. It does not permit us to ignore the social, cultural, or historical context of a passage, nor does it allow us to disregard the literary and grammatical conventions by which it is communicated. It also does not require that the various human authors of Holy Scripture say exactly the same thing in exactly the same way. In other words, we must allow for diversity of nuance, differences in emphasis, and uniqueness in application among the biblical authors. Our interpretation must be grounded in the meaning that the Spirit inspired human author intended to convey to his primary audience. We must follow his flow of thought, consider his purpose for writing, analyze his meaning on his terms. These are the essential building blocks of a sound interpretive method.
The “analogy of faith” also does not give us the license to move haphazardly through the Scriptures connecting passages that are otherwise unconnected. When the biblical authors quote directly from or make clear allusion to other passages, we may consider their relationship, but the principle that scripture interprets scripture does not mean that particularities and distinctions between passages can be minimized or ignored. Individual passages must be engaged on their own merits within their immediate context. This is because biblical meaning flows outward from smaller units of thought to wider units of thought, starting with the sentence, then the paragraph, then the pericope, then the section, the book, books by the same author, books in the same testament, and finally the whole Bible. To reverse this process is to impose meaning on the scriptures from the top down; it is reading meaning into the scriptures that may not otherwise be present or supported by the passage.
The composition and preservation of the Bible is nothing less than a manifestation of God’s providence and sovereignty. It was written over the course of 2000 years by several dozen different authors in three different languages across three continents, and yet, its central truths and primary message are remarkably consistent and harmonious. Its message is so simple that a child could understand it, and yet so profound that the greatest minds throughout history have failed to exhaust its mysteries. And God has ordained that it should be the primary means by which we might come to know Him and His will for our lives. The good news of the Gospel is that He wants to be known, and He has revealed Himself in the Bible so that we may read, understand, and be transformed. If we will simply seek Him in, by, and through His Word, then we may be sure that He will be found.
Five hundred years ago, the leaders of the Protestant Reformation championed the refrain sola scriptura, that scripture alone is the ultimate and final authority for all questions pertaining to Christian faith and practice. It is a refrain that continues to ring out today in Bible believing churches all over the world. The perspicuity, sufficiency, and authority of the Bible are convictions that are foundational for the overall health and wellbeing of the church, and this is especially so when these truths are under the kind of direct attack that they have suffered in this current cultural climate. It is no understatement to say that the trends of the culture are moving against the authority and sufficiency of Holy Scripture. Therefore, it is imperative for every new generation of Christians to affirm, proclaim and defend these truths.
However, in my experience, there is widespread misunderstanding about what the doctrine of sola scriptura actually means. Many Christians commonly confuse the doctrine of sola scriptura, or “scripture alone”, with a position that might be called soloscriptura, or “scripture only”. Solo scriptura is the position that Holy Scripture is the only valid resource for matters of Christian faith and practice, and usually, it holds that other kinds of extra biblical resources are unnecessary, nay even inappropriate. According to this perspective, biblical commentaries, historical studies, biblical and systematic theologies are typically viewed as distractions or obstacles in the study of the Bible rather than as aids in the process. These resources are typically viewed as merely the opinions of men, and so they are deemed to be inappropriate for the Christian who truly wants to hear the voice God in His Word.
Now, I think that the believers who hold this kind opinion are genuine in their desire to know and obey the Word of God, and this should be applauded. But, to eschew all extra biblical resources out of some supposed devotion to the primacy of Holy Scripture is fundamentally short sighted and unwise. This is primarily because God has gifted his church with pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4.11), and these gifts have been preserved for us in the form of commentaries, theologies, and the like that have been passed down through the ages. Moreover, the Proverbs remind us that “A fool’s way is right in his own eyes, but whoever listens to counsel is wise” (Proverbs 12.15), and “Without guidance, a people will fall, but with many counselors there is deliverance” (Proverbs 11.14). In other words, it is in keeping with Biblical wisdom to listen to the counsel of those who have studied the Bible before us. Or to put it another way, “[Interpretations] fail when there is no counsel, but with many advisers they succeed” (Proverbs 15.22).
Of course, the doctrine of sola scriptura rightly affirms that these extra biblical resources do not stand above the Bible in any kind of authoritative or determinative way. The Bible is norma normans non normata; it is the norming norm that is itself not normed. On the other hand, biblical commentaries, systematic theologies, and the like are norma normata, or “normed norms”, in the process of biblical interpretation. They are the guard rails that keep us from falling into the canyon of interpretive subjectivism, but they are ultimately subservient to that final authority which is the inspired and inerrant Word of the one true and living God. This is the doctrine of sola scriptura rightly understood; it is the affirmation that scripture the final and highest authority on matters pertaining to Christian life and practice, but it is not the only authority on these matters.
So, when it comes to reading and studying the Bible, Christians are right to avail themselves of the plethora of resources both modern and ancient that are available today. This includes but is not limited to biblical commentaries, biblical, systematic, and historical theologies, socio-cultural background studies, linguistic and literary aids, and many others. These are valuable helps in the interpretive process. However, as helpful as these kinds of books are, we must remember that nothing can substitute for simply reading the Bible; this is the God-ordained means by which we are transformed into His image by the renewing of our minds. As Charles Spurgeon once said, “Visit many good books, but live in the Bible. ” Or as the Bible itself reminds us,
“But beyond these, my son, be warned: there is no end to the making of many books, and much study wearies the body. When all has been heard, the conclusion of the matter is this: fear God and keep his commands, because this is for all humanity.”
Faith seeking Understanding 
On Sola Scriptura and the Use of Bible Study Resources
Five hundred years ago, the leaders of the Protestant Reformation championed the refrain sola scriptura, that scripture alone is the ultimate and final authority for all questions pertaining to Christian faith and practice. It is a refrain that continues to ring out today in Bible believing churches all over the world. The perspicuity, sufficiency, and authority of the Bible are convictions that are foundational for the overall health and wellbeing of the church, and this is especially so when these truths are under the kind of direct attack that they have suffered in this current cultural climate. It is no understatement to say that the trends of the culture are moving against the authority and sufficiency of Holy Scripture. Therefore, it is imperative for every new generation of Christians to affirm, proclaim and defend these truths.
However, in my experience, there is widespread misunderstanding about what the doctrine of sola scriptura actually means. Many Christians commonly confuse the doctrine of sola scriptura, or “scripture alone”, with a position that might be called solo scriptura, or “scripture only”. Solo scriptura is the position that Holy Scripture is the only valid resource for matters of Christian faith and practice, and usually, it holds that other kinds of extra biblical resources are unnecessary, nay even inappropriate. According to this perspective, biblical commentaries, historical studies, biblical and systematic theologies are typically viewed as distractions or obstacles in the study of the Bible rather than as aids in the process. These resources are typically viewed as merely the opinions of men, and so they are deemed to be inappropriate for the Christian who truly wants to hear the voice God in His Word.
Now, I think that the believers who hold this kind opinion are genuine in their desire to know and obey the Word of God, and this should be applauded. But, to eschew all extra biblical resources out of some supposed devotion to the primacy of Holy Scripture is fundamentally short sighted and unwise. This is primarily because God has gifted his church with pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4.11), and these gifts have been preserved for us in the form of commentaries, theologies, and the like that have been passed down through the ages. Moreover, the Proverbs remind us that “A fool’s way is right in his own eyes, but whoever listens to counsel is wise” (Proverbs 12.15), and “Without guidance, a people will fall, but with many counselors there is deliverance” (Proverbs 11.14). In other words, it is in keeping with Biblical wisdom to listen to the counsel of those who have studied the Bible before us. Or to put it another way, “[Interpretations] fail when there is no counsel, but with many advisers they succeed” (Proverbs 15.22).
Of course, the doctrine of sola scriptura rightly affirms that these extra biblical resources do not stand above the Bible in any kind of authoritative or determinative way. The Bible is norma normans non normata; it is the norming norm that is itself not normed. On the other hand, biblical commentaries, systematic theologies, and the like are norma normata, or “normed norms”, in the process of biblical interpretation. They are the guard rails that keep us from falling into the canyon of interpretive subjectivism, but they are ultimately subservient to that final authority which is the inspired and inerrant Word of the one true and living God. This is the doctrine of sola scriptura rightly understood; it is the affirmation that scripture the final and highest authority on matters pertaining to Christian life and practice, but it is not the only authority on these matters.
So, when it comes to reading and studying the Bible, Christians are right to avail themselves of the plethora of resources both modern and ancient that are available today. This includes but is not limited to biblical commentaries, biblical, systematic, and historical theologies, socio-cultural background studies, linguistic and literary aids, and many others. These are valuable helps in the interpretive process. However, as helpful as these kinds of books are, we must remember that nothing can substitute for simply reading the Bible; this is the God-ordained means by which we are transformed into His image by the renewing of our minds. As Charles Spurgeon once said, “Visit many good books, but live in the Bible. ” Or as the Bible itself reminds us,
For more on this topic, see also:
On the Use and Benefit of Tradition
On Hermeneutics & Interpreting the Bible
Share this:
2 Comments | tags: Authority of Scripture, Bible Reading, Bible Study Methods, Bible Study Resources, Biblical Commentaries, Biblical Theology, Charles H. Spurgeon, Counselors, norma normans non normata, norma normata, Perspicuity of Scripture, Phillip Powers, Reformation, Scripture Alone, sola scriptura, solo scriptura, Sufficiency of Scripture, Systematic Theology, Wisdom | posted in Church History, Hermeneutics, Systematic Theology