A Protestant Church

Sermon Transcript

In this seminar I hope to pick up where we left off the last one. In the last seminar we covered the Nicene Creed, which Mark and I as the elders of this church are proposing to you all as an official doctrinal standard of our church. The Nicene Creed defines what C.S. Lewis called Mere Christianity–the things on which any tradition that can reasonably be called Christian agree. However, C.S. Lewis himself cautioned in his book Mere Christianity that we not settle for mere Christianity. Here’s what he writes there:

“I hope no reader will suppose that ‘mere’ Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions–as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its pain and panelling. In plain language, the question should never be: ‘Do I like that kind of service?’ but ‘Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?’ When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.”

To use Lewis’ illustration, then, we could say the last seminar was a seminar on the hall, whereas this one is intended to move us closer to a particular room. From the hall of the Nicene Creed, about five-hundred years later two more halls formed: In 1054, the western and eastern churches broke communion with one another. The eastern side of that division lives on today as the Eastern Orthodox Church, while the west experienced another division about 500 years later between Roman Catholic and Protestant. When we looked at the Nicene Creed I discussed the issue that led to the split between west and east, and I also covered more of the history of the Protestant Reformation in a prior seminar, but let me recap it for you now before getting into the specifics of what makes us a Protestant church.

The date that typically marks the beginning of the Protestant reformation is October 31, 1517, the day Martin Luther, a German monk, nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. Luther’s 95 theses were not 95 theses to start a new church or destroy the existing church. They were a call for a disputation on the 95 theses. I neither know nor will try to cover all 95, but a few important historical developments led Luther to do so.

One was Luther’s own experience as a Christian. By 1517 the western church had undergone significant development since the early councils like the council of Nicaea and even since the east-west schism of 1054. Among those was the development of the sacrament of penance. Penance was an additional sacrament to those given in the New Testament in which western churches taught that one could make satisfaction for post-baptismal sins. So the thinking went something like this: Baptism cleansed one from original sin (inherited from Adam), and for pre-baptismal sins, but how then could one be forgiven of post-baptismal sins? The sacrament of penance became the answer in the western churches. It consisted of three basic elements and still does in Roman Catholic teaching: Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction. Contrition means you must be genuinely sorry for your sin, and resolve not to do it again. Confession means you must confess it to a priest, and satisfaction is the work the priest then assigns you to do to satisfy the debt of justice that your new sin accrues. So if you confess that you committed adultery in your heart, the priest might tell you to pray the rosary ten times, and do some act of kindness toward your wife. Then the priest pronounces your sins forgiven.

This created a couple problems for Luther. One was that as he grew in his understanding of God’s law, he discovered all sorts of sin in his heart. If penance was the way to be forgiven for post-baptismal sin, Luther felt he had to basically live at the sacrament of penance. It is said that the priest taking his confession complained of how frequently and scrupulously Luther observed the sacrament. Furthermore, this issue of contrition created issues for Luther. He was sorry for his sin, no doubt, but was he really sorry enough? How could he know? So in Luther’s experience of the Christian life, he found the sacramental system of the church in his day to be destructive of the fruit of the Spirit the New Testament suggests is normative for Christians. Far from knowing the peace and joy that comes from believing, Luther was in constant anxiety regarding his spiritual state. Not only that, but far from loving God, he later admitted that constantly feeling like he needed to satisfy such a harsh judge cultivated in him hatred for God.

Broader than a concern for his own well-being, though, another aspect of the penitential system that troubled Luther was the introduction of indulgences into it. Indulgences are still taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be a remission of the temporal punishments due to sin on the conditions prescribed by a priest. You can see how that sounds like a work of satisfaction, but the distinctive feature of indulgences is that they can be financial. That is, you can pay some sum of money to the church, and receive remission of the temporal punishments for your sins, and even the temporal punishments of the sins of people you love who have died, but are still in purgatory (another medieval accretion that contradicts scripture) suffering the temporal punishments for their sins before they enjoy the vision of God. Sorry; that’s a lot to throw at you, but the upshot is that Luther saw people in his day receiving a promise of remission of sin apart from their personal repentance. And he saw poor people being fleeced for money with the promise that if they gave it, they could help a dead relative escape the torments of purgatory. Luther reportedly heard one indulgence seller say, “When the coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.”

These concerns sat uncomfortably with Luther, but light finally came to him when the Lord opened his eyes to understand the book of Romans, especially Romans 1:17, which says that of the gospel: “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” Luther had always been taught that the “righteousness of God” was the righteousness God requires; what the Spirit opened his eyes to see was that the righteousness of God was rather the righteousness that God gives. The righteous shall live by faith because by faith they receive a righteousness not their own. Luther came to describe this as the “sweet exchange” – On the cross, the sins of all who believe were placed on Christ, and he suffered the demand of God’s justice for them in full, so that the moment anyone receives and rests upon Christ alone for salvation, their sins are forgiven, and they receive (as the other half of the exchange) Christ’s righteousness, as though it were their own. In that moment, then, they are declared righteous in God’s sight, though in themselves, sin still remains. Even when they commit post-baptismal sins, then, they can rest in the assurance that Christ has already paid for them in full, and justice demands no further satisfaction, whether by way of rosary prayers, financial indulgences, or post-death purgation. From this realization, this recovery of the biblical gospel, Luther finally knew peace with God, as Romans 5:1 says, “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God.”

But, to make a long story short, the Roman Catholic hierarchy of his day was having none of it. So instead of a disputation, Luther was called to a trial called the Diet of Worms, which does not mean they made him eat worms. A diet was what they called an imperial council, and it took place in the city of Worms. Here Luther was pressured to recant his views, and interestingly, he asked if he could sleep on it. It seems he actually weighed the arguments made against him, and perhaps that he was even afraid. But he returned the next day and said:
“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other. May God help me. Amen.

Most historians now question whether he ever said, “Here I stand, I can do no other”, but it’s too epic to leave out. For his refusal to recant, Luther was excommunicated. But, as the apostle Paul wrote of his own imprisonment in 2 Timothy 2:9, the word of God was not bound. In his time, he spread the word by traveling the newly developed Roman road system. In Luther’s day, God’s word spread through the printing press, invented less than 50 years before 1517. Prior to the invention of the printing press, most Christians did not have access to the Bible at all, let alone to teaching on it like Luther’s. Not only that, but the entire worship service in the West was conducted in Latin, a language only a small minority of the population understood. Most Christians, then, were entirely at the mercy of the priests, unable to do as the Bereans did in Acts 17:11, to “examine the scriptures to see if the things they were hearing were so.” With the invention of the printing press, that changed. The Bible began to be translated into the language of the people, and writings like Luther’s began to spread to places like France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and England. And thus, Protestantism began.

Now, there are a few big rooms in the Protestant hallway, and in the next seminar, I hope to talk about those aspects of the Confession of Faith we are proposing that would put us in the Baptist room, but in this one, I’m just going to talk about those aspects that would put us in the Protestant hallway. We’ve always been a Protestant church; the fact that we even feel free to adopt our own statement of faith proves that we are Protestant. However, the current statement of faith is not as clear on Protestant distinctives as the new one we are proposing, and that’s an intentional attempt at improvement on our part. One way to even think about what we’re doing as elders as we lead our church toward this new confession of faith, is we’re trying to lead our church further out of the hallway of mere Christianity and into a room, in which, as Lewis says, there are fires and chairs and meals. 

But before I do, let me just briefly cover those aspects of the confession that, in addition to the Nicene creed, are points of agreement with all of historic Christianity. One basic thing to say about the reformation was that it was an effort of reformation, not revolution. The reformers did not see themselves as starting the theological project from scratch, as though it was just them and their Bibles. That’s a caricature. In reality, much of their theology was an organic development of what came before, and a cleansing of it from the accretions that had been added erroneously in the centuries prior. So turn with me now to our proposed confession of faith, and we’ll look at those articles shared in common with what Lewis called “Mere Christianity.” Many of them contain things I covered in the last seminar, so I’ll read each and give time for questions on each, but will only explain anything in them that is a substantial addition to the material on the Nicene Creed we covered last time.

“Mere Christianity” Confession of faith

1. Of The True God

We believe that there is one, and only one, living and true God, an infinite, intelligent Spirit, the Maker and Supreme Ruler of heaven and earth; inexpressibly glorious in holiness, and worthy of all possible honor, confidence, and love; that in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; equal in every divine perfection, and executing distinct but harmonious offices in the great work of redemption.

John 4:24; Ps 83:18; Heb 3:4; Rom 1:20; Jer 10:10; Ex 15:11; Ps 147:5; Isa 6:3; 1 Pet 1:15-16; Rev 4:6-8; Mark 12:30; Rev 4:11; Matt 10:37; Jer 2:12-13; Matt 28:19; John 15:26; 1 Cor 12:4-6; 1 John 5:7; John 10:30; John 5:17; John 14:23; John 17:5, 10; Acts 5:3-4; 1 Cor 2:10-11; Phil 2:5-6; Eph 2:18; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5

III. Of Humanity

We believe that humans were originally created male and female in the image and likeness of God. Male and female are, therefore, the only two genders, and each human is conceived essentially and unchangeably male or female as revealed in his or her biological sex. Marriage was also instituted by God at creation and consists in the uniting of one man and one woman in a covenant intended to last as long as both parties live. Humanity was created in holiness, under the law of his Maker; but by voluntary transgression fell from that holy and happy state; in consequence of which all mankind are now sinners; being by nature utterly void of that holiness required by the law of God, positively inclined to evil, and under just condemnation to eternal ruin, without defense or excuse.

Gen 1:27; Gen 1:31; Gen 2:24-25; Eccl 7:29; Acts 17:26-29; Gen 2:16-17; Gen 3:6-24; Rom 5:12; Rom 5:15-19; Ps 51:5; Rom 8:7; Isa 53:6; Gen 6:12; Rom 3:9-18; Eph 2:1-3; Rom 1:18, 32; Rom 2:1-16; Gal 3:10; Matt 20:15; Ezek 18:19-20; Rom 1:20; Rom 3:19; Gal 3:2

Here we do have some content that goes beyond what is covered in the Nicene Creed, and even some that goes beyond the New Hampshire Confession written in 1833, but not much that is substantially new compared to our current Statement of Faith. We have the statements on gender and marriage that are already part of our current Statement of Faith, in which we clarify that gender is not merely a social construct, but essential to our identity as humans made in the image of God, and revealed in our bodies. We also clarify that marriage is between one man and one woman. So someone could not embrace a gay or trans identity and be a member of our church, or adopt an affirming position on those things, but I trust most of you already knew that about our church, and that it’s another feature of mere Christianity.

There are other features of this article that are more presupposed than addressed explicitly in the Nicene Creed, because the Nicene Creed is primarily about God, not man. So it says for us humans for our salvation, Christ became man, which of course assumes that there is such a thing as humanity and that it needed salvation, but this article spells out more what it means to be human, and why it is we need salvation. To be human means to be an image of God, which means humans are created in a unique relationship with God, one in which we are not God, hence the term “image,” but one in which we relate to God personally: We can love him or hate him, obey him or disobey him, trust him or doubt him, and in fact in every moment of our existence, we are doing one or more of those things with God. It also means we have a unique responsibility to reflect God: As God is just, we are to do justice, as God is holy, we are to be holy, as God is love, we are to love, and so on, and we in fact did do that when first created, as this article states that man was “created in holiness.”

But by voluntary transgression, we fell from that happy and holy state. Here the voluntary transgression referred to is the transgression of Adam in the garden of Eden. So we read in Romans 5:12 – “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” There we see clearly that sin came into the world through this one man, Adam, and later in Romans 5 his sin is specifically identified as “one transgression,” the transgression of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The consequence of this was not just a consequence for him, but for all mankind who proceeded from him by ordinary generation, and that consequence is typically called “original sin,” which does not refer to Adam’s sin, but to the sin that is original in us, which comes to us as a consequence of Adam’s sin, and which consists of two components: Original corruption, and original guilt. Original corruption is covered here when it says that we are “by nature utterly void of that holiness required by the law of God, positively inclined to evil,” which means we aren’t born good or neutral with respect to God’s law. We are born with a positive inclination against it, and no inclination toward it. So Ephesians 2:3 can say that Christians “were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”

So original corruption speaks to the nature of our hearts at conception, an internal reality. Original guilt, the other aspect of original sin, speaks to our legal status at conception. So the final line of this article in the confession says, “under just condemnation to eternal ruin, without defense or excuse.” This stems from that last part of Romans 5:12, which says “death spread to all men because all sinned.” Now many hear that and think, “Now wait a minute; I wasn’t even there!” But the text clearly says all sinned–why? Because Adam was not just a private person; he was a legal representative of all humanity. What he did, we did, and therefore his legal status of guilt became ours. You can say this is unfair, and many do, but we should recognize 1.) God as creator and judge is free to do what he wants, 2.) Even if judged just according to our own persons, we’d be found guilty, 3.) It’s a bit like saying it’s unfair that I was born with dark hair or light skin–there is a real link between us and our parents, 4.) This method through which we inherit the legal status of a representative is the same mechanism through which we receive the righteousness of Jesus, our only hope of salvation. But more on that later.

XII. Of The Harmony Of The Law And The Gospel

We believe that the Law of God is the eternal and unchangeable rule of His moral government; that it is holy, just, and good; and that the inability which the Scriptures ascribe to fallen men to fulfill its precepts, arises entirely from their love of sin: to deliver them from which, and to restore them through a Mediator to unfeigned obedience to the holy Law, is one great end of the Gospel, and of the Means of Grace connected with the establishment of the visible church.

Rom 3:31; Matt 5:17; Luke 16:17; Rom 3:20; Rom 4:15; Rom 7:12; Rom 7:7, 14-22; Gal 3:21; Ps 119:1-176; Rom 8:7-8; Josh 24:19; Jer 13:23; John 6:44; John 5:44; Rom 8:2-4; Rom 10:4; 1 Tim 1:5; Heb 8:10; Jude 20-21

Again, this is more implied in the Nicene Creed than explicitly stated, but it speaks to the question of why we are counted sinners in the first place: Because there is an eternal law of God which we violated. This law of God is sufficiently revealed in scripture, and though to it there are sometimes added other duties or prohibitions (not eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, male circumcision under the Old Covenant, baptism under the new), there is an essential core that is the same throughout, which Jesus summarized as to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself, which gets fleshed out in the various commandments of scripture, that is called in Romans 7:12 “holy, righteous, and good,” as stated here.

The problem, then, the reason for our sin, lies not in that the commandments are too hard or something. God doesn’t require us to fly or have a photographic memory. The problem is our sinful nature. And redemption, then, is not intended to free us to sin, but to free us from sin, that we might be progressively brought into obedience to it. So Romans 8:1-4 says, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

1. Of The Lord’s Day

We believe that the first day of the week is the Lord’s Day, and that, unless providentially hindered, it is to be honored by the public gathering of visible churches for the worship of God.

Acts 20:7; Gen 2:3; Col 2:16-17; Mark 2:27; John 20:19; 1 Cor 16:1-2; Ex 20:8; Rev 1:10; Ps 118:15, 24; Ps 149:1; Isa 58:13-14; Isa 56:2-8; Heb 10:24-25; Acts 11:26; Acts 13:44; Lev 19:30; Luke 4:16; Acts 17:2-3; Ps 26:8; Ps 87:3; Heb 4:3-11

This is more of a rewrite from the New Hampshire Confession, because the New Hampshire identifies the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath, a view historically common to Reformed Christians of both credobaptist and paedobaptist varieties, and a view I consider unbiblical, although even with this statement, you could still hold that view. This statement is more of a minimalist statement in light of Colossians 2:16-17, which suggests that the Sabbath law is no longer binding on Christians: “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” 

That said, we do still see a pattern in the New Testament of Christians gathering on the first day of the week, and it would be strange if, of all the Ten Commandments, just one of them, the command to honor the sabbath day and keep it holy, had no New Testament application. So in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 we read, “Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come.” Here Paul assumes that the church is gathering on the first day of the week, so he tells to make their contributions then, so that he doesn’t have to go around and collect when he comes, but can collect simply from the church.

Then in Revelation 1:10, we read of John saying that he was in the Spirit “on the Lord’s Day.” The only other time Lord appears in the possessive in the New Testament is in reference to the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11, something common that was uniquely set apart for the Lord. When we look at other uses of the term “the Lord’s Day” in writing outside the New Testament from the time period, it is used in reference to the first day of the week, with the late 1st century Didache instructing Christians that they should gather together, break bread, and give thanks “on the Lord’s Day,” among others reflecting the same practice. Thus it has always been the practice of Christian churches to gather for worship on the Lord’s Day. What else you do on the Lord’s Day has been a matter of debate, and here we want to be sensitive to not passing judgment on another’s conscience where scripture hasn’t clearly spoken, and where we have in fact been warned to not let anyone pass judgment on us with regard to a Sabbath, but it seems at a minimum we ought to be able to affirm as Christians that we should gather for worship on the Lord’s Day.

XVI. Of Civil Government

We believe that Civil Government is of Divine appointment, for the interests and good order of human society; and that magistrates are to be prayed for, conscientiously honored, and obeyed; except only in things opposed to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only Lord of the conscience, and the Prince of the kings of the earth.

Rom 13:1-7; Deut 16:18; 2 Sam 23:3; Ex 18:23; Jer 30:21; Matt 22:21; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13; 1 Tim 2:1-4; Acts 5:29; Matt 28:1-20; Dan 3:15-18; Dan 6:7-10; Acts 4:18-20; Matt 23:10; Rom 14:4; Rev 19:16; Ps 72:11; Ps 2:1-12; Rom 14:9-13

Romans 13:1 says, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” So we see here that as this article says, the civil government is of divine appointment. We should therefore pray for our governing officials, honor them, and obey them, except in anything where they give commands opposed to the will of our ultimate Lord Jesus Christ. In that case, in the words of Acts 5:29, “We must obey God rather than men.” 

XVII. Of The Righteous And The Wicked

We believe that there is a radical and essential difference between the righteous and the wicked; that such only as through faith are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and sanctified by the Spirit of our God, are truly righteous in His esteem; while all such as continue in impenitence and unbelief are in His sight wicked, and under the curse; and this distinction holds among men both in and after death.

Mal 3:18; Prov 12:26; Isa 5:20; Gen 18:23; Jer 15:19; Acts 10:34-35; Rom 6:16; Rom 1:17; Rom 7:6; 1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:7; Rom 6:18;22; 1 Cor 11:32; Prov 11:31; 1 Pet 4:17-18; 1 John 5:19; Gal 3:10; John 3:36; Isa 57:21; Ps 10:4; Isa 55:6-7; Prov 14:32; Luke 16:25; John 8:21-24; Prov 10:24; Luke 12:4-5; Luke 9:23-26; Eccl 3:17; Matt 7:13-14

XVIII. Of The World To Come

We believe that the end of the world is approaching; that at the last day Christ will descend from heaven, and raise the dead from the grave to final retribution; that a solemn separation will then take place; that the wicked will be adjudged to eternal, conscious torment, and the righteous to eternal, conscious joy; and that this judgment will fix forever the final state of men in heaven or hell, on principles of righteousness.

1 Pet 4:7; 1 Cor 7:29-31; Heb 1:10-12; Matt 24:35; 1 John 2:17; Matt 28:20; Matt 13:39-40; 2 Pet 3:3-13; Acts 1:11; Rev 1:7; Heb 9:28; Acts 3:21; 1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 Thess 5:1-11; Acts 24:15; 1 Cor 15:12-58; Luke 14:14; Dan 12:2; John 5:28-29; John 6:40; John 11:25-26; 2 Tim 1:10; Acts 10:42; Matt 13:49; Matt 13:37-43; Matt 24:30-31; Matt 25:31-46; Rev 22:11; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Mark 9:43-48; 2 Pet 2:9; Jude 7; Phil 3:19; Rom 6:23; 2 Cor 5:10-11; John 4:36; 2 Cor 4:18; Rom 3:5-6; 2 Thess 1:6-12; Heb 6:1-2; 1 Cor 4:5; Acts 17:31; Rom 2:2-16; Rev 20:11-12; 1 John 2:28; 1 John 4:17; 2 Pet 3:11-12

I covered a lot of these two articles in the last seminar when we looked at the line of the Nicene Creed that says Jesus will come again to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end, so for this one I’ll focus on a statement we added to the New Hampshire Confession, the statement that the wicked will be adjudged “to eternal, conscious torment.” 

With a few scattered exceptions, this was the consensus view of Christians until the mid-19th century when a view known as “conditional immortality” or “annihilationism” became more popular. Where prior generations of Christians had taken for granted the idea of the soul’s immortality, annihilationists claimed that immortality was conditional on faith, such that those who rejected Christ would in the end be annihilated out of existence, rather than subject to eternal, conscious torment. 2 Tim 1:10, after all, says that Jesus Christ “abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” Those who reject Christ, then, it would seem, do not receive immortality from him, any more than they receive life from him.

There were also what we might call “humanitarian” concerns about eternal, conscious torment. Is it really consistent with a loving God to imagine him eternally tormenting people? Isn’t the eternal state supposed to be perfect, and how could it be if God is still tormenting people in it? As with pretty much all false teaching, the appeal is understandable, and the teaching would have no following if it weren’t. But when we examine the scriptures, eternal, conscious torment is still shown to be true.

In Revelation 20-22, we get a revelation of how things will be in the end, after the final judgment. There is no Revelation 23. So Revelation 20-22 reveals to us the final state of things, and in it we read of certain beings being thrown into the “lake of fire.” In Revelation 20:10, for example, we read that “the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” In other words, the final state, at least of the devil, the beast, and the false prophet, is to be tormented day and night, forever and ever. That is how Revelation 20:10 describes what it’s like to be in the lake of fire: Tormented day and night, forever and ever. Then we read in verse 15 of Revelation 20 that “if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” Putting the verses together, what conclusion does that produce? Those whose names are not found written in the book of life will be tormented day and night, forever and ever.

Furthermore, when we come to Revelation 21 and 22, and we read the descriptions of the final state, we don’t find that anyone annihilated. Revelation 22:14-15, for example, says this: “14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.” Notice the present tense of verse 15 once those who have the right to the tree of life enter the city by the gates: Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, murderers, idolaters, and so on. And there’s only 6 more verses in the whole Bible, and I can tell you that in none of them do we read of these people going out of existence. In fact, there is no account anywhere in the Bible of anyone going out of existence, unless you think that’s what the lake of fire does, but that’s something you have to read into it, in direct contradiction of what we are explicitly told does happen to those thrown into the lake of fire: They will be tormented day and night, forever and ever.

No doubt, this is one of the most unsettling, bone-chilling teachings of the Bible, but it is, in fact, the teaching of the Bible, and therefore, we should confess it, but not make light of it. It is an understandable impulse to want to soften it in some way because it is such an unsettling thought, but the better way to deal with that would be to let it drive us to fervent prayer for lost souls, and to sharing the good news of Christ with them, because God has provided a way of salvation from this awful end, and that alternative results in something also eternal and conscious, but it is eternal, conscious joy in the presence of the one for whom our souls were made. As Psalm 16:11 tells us, in his presence there is fullness of joy, and at his right hand, pleasures forevermore.

Protestant distinctives

1. Of The Scriptures

We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter; that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.

Nm 23:19; Deut 4:1-2; Ps 19:7-10; 119:89; Prov 30:5-6; Is 40:8; Mt 5:17-18; Lk 21:33; 24:44-46; Jn 5:39; 17:17; Rom 2:12; 15:4; 2 Tim 3:15-17; Heb 1:1-2; 4:12; 1 Pt 1:25; 2 Pt 1:19-21; 1 John 4:1

Now I’ve put this in the “Protestant distinctives” section, but most of this statement also just represents mere Christianity. It begins by saying that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and what it means by that is not that it’s a very inspiring piece of literature, like Dante was a very inspired author when he wrote The Divine Comedy. It means what is taught in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” All scripture is breathed out by God. Bear in mind that the word in the Bible for breath and spirit is the same, such that the breath of God is the Spirit of God, the third person of the Trinity, the one whose unique appropriation in the work of God is to bring the work of God to completion. If you were with us for the Nicene Creed seminar, we talked about how creation is the work of God, and the aspects of it are appropriated to the persons as the Father speaking all things into existence, the Son being the Word, and the Spirit being the one who carries that word to the unformed ground. As our breath carries our speech as air moves through our lungs, then our vocal cords, where vibration and articulation turn it into audible speech, so God’s Spirit here is said to “carry” the words of Scripture, such that the words of scripture are the words of God. So 2 Peter 1:20-21 says, “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” 

So the words of scripture are the words of God, and we call that the doctrine of inspiration. Hence the article goes on to say that it has “God for its author” and as a result, it also says, it has “truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.” Here we get at the idea of biblical inerrancy, again a point of continuity from our current statement of faith, and a basic of mere Christianity. The idea of inerrancy is that the Bible affirms nothing that is contrary to fact. Sometimes Christians will say that they believe in biblical infallibility, meaning that everything the Bible says is true, but the message can still be true while facts are false: Like maybe Adam and Eve weren’t made from the dust of the ground, maybe there wasn’t one original pair, maybe no real fire from heaven came down on the altar when Elijah challenged the prophets of Baal, but the message is still true: God made us, we’re all one, and God is greater than Baal.

And certainly we don’t want to read the Bible as though every passage is to be interpreted in the same way–we read poetry poetically and understand that symbolism is part of the genre, and shouldn’t be pressed in a woodenly literal way, we understand that numbers can be used symbolically in apocalyptic literature, even as we saw recently in Daniel. We interpret the Bible according to the author’s intention, but what inerrancy is saying is that if we have interpreted a passage according to the author’s intention, it does not affirm anything contrary to fact. And the reason for this is because if all the words of scripture are the words of God, and we’re understanding them as God intended, for those words to then err would require us to say one of two things: God said it, but God didn’t know any better, or God knew better, but he lied, both utterly impossible to say of the God who knows all things and who never lies.

Now again, that’s just mere Christianity, but the Protestantism comes out when it says that the Bible “is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.” The true center of Christian union, then, is not submission to a particular church hierarchy, as in the classic Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox conception of the church, nor even in a particular confession, like the New Hampshire Confession, as though the only way we can recognize someone as a believer in Christ is if the agree with that confession. Confessions like this one, though prudent, are subordinate standards to the scriptures, because scripture is “the supreme standard” by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.

Notice, then, that it does not say that creeds or human opinions have no value; it’s really just saying that we need to recognize them for what they are, and recognize them as something different from scripture. Since we only have a guarantee of truthfulness with God’s words, and we have no sense from God that later creeds and opinions of humans, whatever the position of the one publishing such a creed or opinion, are in fact God’s very words, then the statements of uncertain truthfulness (words of humans) must be measured against the standard of definite truthfulness (the words of God). This is one of the five “solas” of the Protestant reformation: Sola scriptura, the idea that scripture is our only ultimate authority, such that it exercises an independent authority over even church officers, councils, and creeds.

Contrast this statement with the Roman Catholic Catechism’s statement in section 82 of their Catechism: “Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” The confession we are proposing is Protestant in that it singles out Scripture as the supreme standard by which even the tradition can be tried and corrected. We can see Jesus using scripture this way in Mark 7. This is Mark 7:1-8

“Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“‘This people honors me with their lips,

but their heart is far from me;

7

in vain do they worship me,

teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

 

Note the distinction: Even among teachers among God’s people, the Pharisees, people about whom Jesus would later say this: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you” (Matt 23:2), so he clearly viewed them as having some legitimate authority, but here he still distinguishes between the commandment of God and the tradition of men, and said that one has authority over the other. So also, we should confess that scripture is the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.

1. Of The Way Of Salvation

We believe that the salvation of sinners is wholly of grace; through the mediatorial offices of the Son of God; who by the appointment of the Father, freely took upon him our nature, yet without sin, thus uniting a divine and human nature in his one person, without confusion or change, division or separation; honored the divine law by his personal obedience, and by his penal substitutionary death made a full atonement for our sins; that having risen from the dead he is now enthroned in heaven; and uniting in his wonderful person the tenderest sympathies with divine perfections, he is every way qualified to be a suitable, a compassionate, and an all-sufficient Savior.

Eph 2:3; Matt 18:11; 1 John 4:10; 1 Cor 3:5-7; Acts 15:11; John 3:16; John 1:1-14; Heb 4:14; Heb 12:24; Phil 2:9, 14; 2 Cor 5:21; Isa 42:21; Phil 2:8; Gal 4:4-5; Rom 3:21; Isa 53:4-5; Matt 20:28; Rom 4:25; Rom 3:21-26; 1 John 2:3; 1 Cor 15:1-3; Heb 9:13-15; Heb 1:8; Heb 1:3; Col 3:1-4; Heb 7:25; Col 2:18; Heb 7:26; Ps 89:19; Ps 34:1-22

Again, most of this is mere Christianity, though it does go beyond the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed said that God the Son was one in being with the Father, and that for us humans for our salvation, he was born of the virgin Mary, and became man. However, it did not specify the relationship between his newly assumed human nature and his eternal divine nature. So in the years that followed, different views on that developed, until in 451 a council met in Chalcedon to decide the matter. That council landed on the doctrine of Christ which we have added here to the New Hampshire, that the divine and human natures are united in the one person of Christ, without confusion or division, separation or change. I discussed that more in the history of denominations seminar earlier this year, but the formulation was to safeguard the biblical truths that our savior is a single person, who is both truly human, and truly God, whereas if those natures were somehow combined into something else, he would be neither truly human nor truly God.

The part that is distinctively protestant is the part that says “by his penal substitutionary death made a full atonement for our sins.” Here we are confessing the doctrine known as penal substitutionary atonement. While I would argue that the doctrine as an organic development of ways Christians had thought about the atonement since the time of Christ, its fully systematized form came with the Protestant reformation, though it is not without its detractors today even among those who are ostensibly Protestant. Popular author John Mark Comer recently made waves online when he celebrated a book that he said might finally deal the final blow to penal substitutionary atonement. He later backtracked on that comment a bit, but still expressed concerns about the doctrine. I want to suggest, however, that penal substitutionary atonement is both biblical and glorious.

First, what does it mean? We can break it down into its component parts: Penal means that by his death on the cross, Jesus was paying the legal penalty for sin. Substitutionary means that he was doing it as a substitute; i.e., he wasn’t paying the legal penalty for his own sin, of which he had none. And then, finally, there is atonement; meaning that through this substitutionary payment for sin, Jesus paid for our sins in such a way that the legal demand of God against our sins has now been satisfied, thus reconciling us to God. Now, why would I say this is biblical?

First, there is a legal penalty for sin. As we saw earlier, original sin includes original guilt–we are conceived with a guilty legal status. Yes, we are also born with a corrupt nature, and we’ll talk about how regeneration and sanctification address that, but something must be done about that guilty status. Again, back to Romans 5, where we read in verse 18 that “One trespass led to condemnation for all men.” Condemnation is a legal category, as when we read in Proverbs 17:15 that “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.” Opponents of penal substitutionary atonement sometimes allege that it is “western,” but Proverbs 17:15 comes right out of the wisdom tradition of the ancient near east, to say nothing of them being divinely inspired, and concepts of law, curse, and blessing are woven into the very fabric of the biblical story. Since Adam’s one trespass led to condemnation for all men, and since all sin is worthy of condemnation, there is a legal penalty for sin. So Colossians 2:14 can speak of “the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands.” Or, to use the language of curse, Galatians 3:10 says, “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the law, and do them.’”

Second, scripture presents Christ as having borne that legal penalty. So Galatians 3:13 goes on to say that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’” The quote there goes back to Deuteronomy 21:23, where it is clear that the one hanged on a tree is “cursed by God.” And here it is applied to Christ, saying that on the cross, Christ bore the curse that the law pronounced on our sins, because we have not abided by all things written in the book of the law, and done them. Colossians 2:14, which spoke of God cancelling the record of debt that stood against us, says in the clause just following that one that “This [God] set aside, nailing it to the cross.” In other words, God took the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands, and credited it, or imputed it, to Christ, and then Christ met the legal demand by offering his life in our place.

Third, scripture presents God himself as being active in putting Christ to death. To be clear, that doesn’t mean God the Father put God the Son to death, properly speaking, for God as God cannot die, nor can the Son and the Father, one in being, act separately from one another. Rather, God put Jesus Christ, the God-man, to death, who died according to his humanity, such that it was not only the Father’s wrath, but in an admittedly mysterious way, the Son’s wrath, and the Spirit’s wrath, that was poured out on Christ. Isaiah 53:10 says “it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief.” Think of how Jesus sweated blood in anticipation of going to the cross; why would he be in such distress? We have other stories of Christian and even pagan martyrs approaching death doing so boldly and courageously; surely Jesus is a greater man than they, so why the great distress from him? Well we can hear his cry on the cross: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? He wasn’t just anticipating martyrdom; he was anticipating being forsaken by God, the judgment of God that we deserved! He was anticipating being crushed by the Lord for our sins! 

Fourth, scripture presents his work as effective. Galatians 3:13 says Christ did in fact redeem us from the curse of the law. Hebrews 10:14 says that by this single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. In other words, the death did atone. The sins for which he died really are presented in scripture as having been paid for, such that even after we believe, as we continue to have to confess our sins, 1 John 1 tells us that blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:5-10). 

So yes, Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sins, as our substitute, and by his penal substitutionary death, he made a full atonement for our sins, and this is at the heart of the gospel! When we proclaim that Christ died for our sins, which Paul includes in his summary of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15, this is what we mean, and what we believe he meant! That’s why we can proclaim to people that everyone who believes in Jesus receives forgiveness of sins in his name, as Acts 10:43 says–because the sins have already been paid for in full by his death on the cross in our place! 

1. Of Justification

We believe that justification includes the pardon of sin, and the promise of eternal life on principles of righteousness; that it is bestowed, not in consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but solely through faith in the Redeemer; by virtue of which faith His perfect righteousness is freely imputed to us of God, and that it brings us into a state of most blessed peace and favor with God.

John 1:16; Eph 3:8; Acts 13:39; Isa 53:11-12; Rom 5:1-2; Rom 5:9; Zech 13:1; Matt 9:6; Acts 10:43; Rom 5:17; Titus 3:5-7; 1 Pet 3:7; 1 John 2:25; Rom 5:21; Rom 4:4-5; Rom 6:23; Phil 3:7-9; Rom 5:19; Rom 3:24-26; Rom 4:23-25; 1 John 2:12; Rom 5:3; Rom 5:11; 1 Cor 1:30-31; Matt 6:33; 1 Tim 4:8

If we’re thinking of the key doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, the statement on scripture would be one, and this statement on justification would be the other. First, what is justification? It is the pardon of sin and the promise of eternal life on principles of righteousness. So when one is justified, all their sins are forgiven, but if that were all justification did, it would only restore them to the position of Adam before his fall into sin: “Not guilty,” but not promised eternal life either. Justification goes further. In justification God also declares the one justified righteous, such that the moment they are justified, they are promised eternal life. Justification, then, is a legal declaration. Remember we saw that what we inherited from the first sin was internal corruption and legal guilt; justification deals with the latter of those.

And again, the contrast here is with a Roman Catholic doctrine of justification. In Roman Catholic theology, justification is not a legal declaration, but an internal transformation. We’re going to see when we talk about regeneration that we also believe in the necessity of an internal transformation for salvation, but all we’re saying here is that’s not what justification is. Justification is a legal declaration of righteousness, not an internal infusion of righteousness. And we can see this in many ways in scripture, but I’ll just point out two. First, there’s the verse I already quoted from Proverbs 17:15 – “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.” If justifying the wicked were an act in which we make the wicked righteous, then to justify the wicked would not be an abomination; it would be a great kindness to them! But if justifying the wicked were declaring the wicked righteous, we can see how that would be a miscarriage of justice, and thus an abomination to the Lord. Furthermore, we see in this verse that the opposite of justification is condemnation, which is a legal declaration. The one who condemns the righteous in this verse is not actually making them wicked; judges don’t have that power. But they do have the power to declare them guilty, which would be an abomination to the Lord if the accused was in fact righteous.

From the New Testament, listen to this from Luke 7:29 – “When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they declared God just, having been baptized with the baptism of John.” The ESV smoothed out the translation there, but when it says “They declared God just” the Greek is simply “they justified God.” Now could that really mean that they made God righteous? Of course not. So what does it mean? It means what the ESV translated it as: They declared God just. So when Romans 4:5 then calls God the God who “justifies the ungodly,” it means that God declares the ungodly just, or righteous. 

Now, immediately that should raise a question: How can God just do that? Didn’t Proverbs 17:15 say that the one who justifies the wicked is an abomination to the LORD? And yet there’s Romans 4:5, saying that God does in fact justify the ungodly. Well the confession here is quick to add that though justification includes pardon of sin and the promise of eternal life, it does so on principles of righteousness. In other words, when God justifies the ungodly, God is not suspending his justice in order to do so. He’s not saying, “I know justice requires me to condemn you, but I’m in a good mood today, so I’m going to forego justice in order to give you mercy.” 

So how can God justify the ungodly in a way that is consistent with his justice? This is where penal substitutionary atonement shows its necessity. Romans 3:24-26 says of those who believe that they are “justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

So there we can see that justification is a gift; it is not merited by the recipient. The ungodly, because ungodly, do not deserve to be declared righteous. And yet, God is still righteous in declaring them righteous because he did put forward Jesus Christ as a propitiation by his blood, which is just a fancy word for a sacrifice of atonement. In other words, because Jesus already paid the penalty for the sins of those who would believe, thus satisfying the demand of justice against the ungodly, it is not unjust of God to forgive the sins of the godly. Those sins were already paid for. And these verses specifically tell us that God put forward Christ as a propitiation by his blood to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was so that he might be both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ. It is just of God to pardon the sins of the ungodly when he justifies them because Jesus already paid for them.

But remember we said that justification doesn’t just include the pardon of sin; it’s not just a “not guilty” declaration–it’s a “righteous” declaration. So how can God say that to the ungodly, “You are righteous”? The end of this article of the confession clarifies that when it says that Jesus’ perfect righteousness is freely imputed to those who believe. Back to Romans 5:18-19 – “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” Just as Adam’s disobedience was imputed to us and rendered us legally guilty, so Jesus’ righteousness is imputed to us, which rends us not only “not guilty,” but righteous, as legally righteous in God’s sight as Jesus Christ himself, who was tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin, and who became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. That doesn’t make us internally righteous, but it does make us legally righteous, which is why Romans 4:5 can say that we are still ungodly when God justifies us, and why it is indeed a gift, rather than something we merit.

So justification in the Bible is a declaration of righteousness, and on what basis can God declare the ungodly righteous? On the basis of Christ’s penal substitutionary death, which satisfied the legal demand for condemnation of the sins of the ungodly, and on the basis of Christ’s perfect life, which is imputed to those who are justified. God declares us righteous because Christ’s righteousness has been given to us as a gift, not because God has suspended justice in order to be nice to us. 

That leaves one more question that this article addresses: What is the instrument through which we receive Christ’s righteousness, that we might be justified by it? This article of the confession says it “is bestowed, not in consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but solely through faith in the Redeemer.” Note the word solely there–it is bestowed solely through faith in the Redeemer. This is another sola of the reformation–sola fide: We are justified by faith alone. Again, the contrast here is with Roman Catholicism, which teaches that justification is “granted us through Baptism,” and that after being justified, we are able to merit for ourselves and others the graces needed to attain eternal life. But scripture teaches that justification is received by faith alone.

We can see this in the earlier quoted Romans 3:24-26, which right after saying God put forward Jesus as a propitiation by his blood, says this was “to be received by faith.” And we looked this morning more at what faith is: Faith is believing the gospel, and the example given in both Romans and Galatians is Abraham, who “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” You can go back and read that account in Genesis, and you will see that Abraham’s faith was an internal thing, not some action he performed like getting baptized, or in his case, getting circumcised. In fact, Paul appeals to this very fact in Romans 4:9 – “For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” As Paul says in Romans 10:10, “With the heart one believes and is justified.”

So Romans 4:5, the text to which we’ve returned throughout this discussion of justification, says, “And to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.” On the basis of a faith that is alone, a faith in someone who does not work, God counts them righteous, because faith receives Christ, who has paid for our sins and lived the perfect life. One way to think of this is marriage. I had a friend in college who did ROTC, so he graduated from Penn State with no debt. Then he married a girl who came to Penn State from out-of-state. She had over $100K in debt. The day they got married, all his assets became legally hers, and all her debt became legally his, because they were really united to one another. By faith, we are united to Christ, such that all his assets, all his righteousness, becomes legally ours, and all our debts, become legally his, and because he already paid for them, they are all forgiven the moment we believe.

Luther called justification the principle article of all Christian doctrine. John Calvin said it was the hinge on which religion turns. So significant is it that Paul says of the false teachers in Galatia who denied it that they were preaching a different gospel, and they were thus to be accursed (Gal 1:8-9). That’s why I’m giving the kind of time I’m giving to it here. But not only that, the article ends by saying that justification “brings us into a state of most blessed peace and favor with God.” Listen to these words from Romans 5:1 – “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” I want you to know the joy and peace that comes from believing that! If you are believing in Jesus Christ today, before you fix a single thing you’ve done wrong, and before you do a single good work, while ungodly, you are righteous in God’s sight, as legally righteous in his sight as you will be in heaven, because the righteousness by which you are righteous is Christ’s righteousness. 

1. Of The Freeness Of Salvation

We believe that the blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel; that it is the immediate duty of all to accept them by a cordial, penitent, and obedient faith; and that nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth, but his own inherent depravity and voluntary rejection of the gospel; which rejection involves him in an aggravated condemnation.

Isa 55:1; Rev 22:17; Rom 16:25-26; Mark 1:15; Rom 1:15-17; John 5:40; Matt 23:37; Rom 9:32; Prov 1:24; Acts 13:46; John 3:19; Matt 11:20; Luke 10:27; 2 Thess 1:8

I don’t have much to add here and this is pretty close to something any ostensibly Christian tradition could say, except I’ll just say that the blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel because of penal substitutionary atonement and justification by faith alone. It’s because those are true that we can honestly say John 3:16 to someone – Whoever believes in Jesus Christ will not perish, but have eternal life. It’s that free. To receive eternal life you don’t need to believe and get baptized, and live a good life, and do anything else. You just need to believe. And there if you don’t, your lack of salvation is on you, and no one else.

VII. Of Grace In Regeneration

We believe that, in order to be saved, sinners must be regenerated, or born again; that regeneration consists in giving a holy disposition to the mind, affections, and will; that it is effected in a manner above our comprehension by the power of the Holy Spirit, in connection with divine truth, so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the gospel; and that its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance, and faith, and newness of life.

John 3:3; John 3:6-7; 1 Cor 3:14; Rev 14:3; Rev 21:27; 2 Cor 5:17; Ezek 36:26; Deut 30:6; Rom 2:28-29; Rom 5:5; 1 John 4:7; John 3:8; John 1:13; Jas 1:16-18; 1 Cor 1:30; Phil 2:13; 1 Pet 1:22-25; 1 John 5:1; Eph 4:20-24; Col 3:9-11; Eph 5:9; Rom 8:9; Gal 5:16-23; Eph 3:14-21; Matt 3:8-10; Matt 7:20; 1 John 5:4, 18; Eph 2:1-10

I mentioned that for God to save us, both the legal guilt we inherited from Adam and the internal corruption we inherited from Adam would need to be dealt with. Here we see how God deals with the internal corruption: Regeneration, or being “born again.” Perhaps you’ve heard the term “born-again Christian.” Growing up Roman Catholic myself, we’d sometimes refer to those “born-again”s. But the term “born-again Christian” is as redundant as a term like “born human” or “married husband.” Of course, if you’re a human, you’ve been born, and of course if you’re a husband, you’re married, because that’s just what those terms mean. So also to be a Christian is to be born again.

We get this idea from multiple places in scripture, but probably the clearest is Jesus’ encounter with the Jewish priest Nicodemus in John 3. There Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” From this passage we get that simple phrase: “You must be born again.” Must be born again for what? “To enter the kingdom of God.” That’s a kingdom Jesus goes on to say is not of this world, and so your first birth doesn’t make you a citizen of that kingdom. As Jesus says in verse 6, that which is born of the flesh if flesh. If you want to enter the spiritual kingdom of God, you must be born again. 

What then is this new birth? This article of the confession says that it consists in giving a holy disposition to the mind, will, and affections. As Paul Washer has said, it’s when you go from loving sin and hating God to loving God and hating sin. Or to use the words of the confession, it’s when you go from being positively inclined to all evil to being positively inclined to what is good. It does not just make good people a little better; it makes dead sinners alive. It is a new creation, not an improvement on the old. 

This article of the confession then says that this is effected in a manner beyond our comprehension, in connection with divine truth. This is getting at what Jesus says in John 3:8, that as the wind blows where it wishes, so is everyone who is born of the Spirit. You ever look at yourself or at others and wonder, “how’d that guy become a Christian? Why her, and not him?” God regenerates those he wills, and it is a mystery to us. But we do know that he ordinarily does so in connection with divine truth, and especially the preaching of it. So in 1 Peter 1:23-25 we read, “you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; 24 for “All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, 25 but the word of the Lord remains forever.” And this word is the good news that was preached to you.” As Jesus stood at the tomb of Lazarus, and spoke to dead Lazarus, saying, “Lazarus, arise,” and Lazarus arose, so through the proclamation of the gospel, God makes dead sinners alive. Again, the contrast here is with Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, even Lutheranism and some Anglicans, in which baptism is seen as the ordinary instrument of regeneration.

The article then goes on to say that regeneration “secure[s] our voluntary obedience to the gospel; and that its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance, and faith, and newness of life.” Here we can begin to see that this confession is not only merely Protestant, but a reformed Protestant confession. The modifier “reformed” refers to those churches of the Protestant reformation that were influenced by the reformation in Switzerland, where Ulrych Zwingli, and especially John Calvin, were significant leaders. The term originally referred to a certain view of the sacraments, which we aren’t covering in this seminar, but it came to also refer to a certain view of salvation, in which regeneration precedes faith. In the decades after Calvin, another school of thought would emerge represented by a Dutch theologian named Jacobus Arminius, and known to us today as Arminianism, not to be confused with Armenianism, which refers to the nation of Armenia. Arminianism refers to the theology of Arminius, who held that regeneration followed faith. So while this confession, in line with the reformed tradition, says you must be born again to believe, Arminianism says you must believe to be born again. It describes repentance and faith as fruits of regeneration, not the other way around.

Where are we seeing that in scripture? Well, in John 6:44 Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” Faith can’t cause regeneration, because apart from regeneration, we are unwilling to believe. As Tim Keller once said, if God gave you a million chances to choose him, you’d say no every time. So Romans 8:7-8 says, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” This explains why when Jesus tells Nicodemus you must be born again, he doesn’t say, “So believe, in order that you might be born again.” Nicodemus can’t cause himself to be born again, any more than we could cause ourselves to be born the first time. Another way to come at it is to recognize that scripture describes as dead in our trespasses and sins until God makes us alive, and dead people don’t choose to believe. Thus regeneration must precede faith, and all those God generates will voluntarily believe the gospel. God doesn’t override your will; he renews it, so that you freely choose to believe. That’s what all who are regenerate do.

Now that is definitely a reformed understanding of salvation, and you would have to affirm it to affirm this confession of faith, but there is more to a reformed understanding of salvation that we don’t require you to affirm to be a member of this church. A fuller reformed understanding of salvation is often summarized with the acronym TULIP, total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. Only the last of those is actually explicitly confessed in this confession of faith. I believe all 5 of them; I think they’re all biblical, true, and glorious, and would love to convince you of all of them, but you don’t have to affirm them to be a member here.

Finally, I’ll close this discussion of regeneration with the last words of this article on it: “that its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance, and faith, and newness of life,” and let me just talk about that “newness of life” part. Scripture is clear that those who are born again will display that new life in them in ways that are observable to others. 1 John 3:9-10 says, “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.” Note the specificity there: No one born of God makes a practice of sinning. He cannot keep sinning, because he has been born of God. The idea is that if you really are born again, and the life of God is now in you, you cannot go on being ok with sin. Of course, those who are born again do still sin in this life, but they can never be ok with it. Those who are born again side with God against their sin, not with their sin against God. They want to fight it, kill it, and over time, they do habitually weaken it. We also see here that they love their brothers, and whoever does not love his brother is not a child of God, i.e., has not been born again. As it is natural for members of the same family to have an affection for one another, so it is natural for someone who has been born again to have a unique attachment to and love for the family of God. I think back to my own regeneration, and recall how once I was born again, I just didn’t want to be around the Roman Catholic Church in which I’d grown up anymore, even though it felt familiar to me. I wanted to be around other people who were born again, other Christians! A life of obedience, a life of love–this is the kind of newness of life scripture says comes to those who are born again.

VIII. Of Repentance And Faith

We believe that Repentance and Faith are sacred duties, and also inseparable graces, wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God; whereby being deeply convinced of our guilt, danger and helplessness, and of the way of salvation by Christ, we turn to God with unfeigned contrition, confession, and supplication for mercy; at the same time heartily receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as our Prophet, Priest and King, and relying on Him alone as the only and all sufficient Savior.

Mark 1:15; Acts 11:18; Eph 2:8; 1 John 5:1; John 16:8; Acts 2:37-38; Acts 16:30-31; Luke 18:13; Luke 15:18-21; Jas 4:7-10; 2 Cor 7:11; 1 Cor 10:12-13; Ps 51:1-19; Rom 10:9-11; Acts 3:22-23; Heb 4:14; Ps 2:6; Heb 1:8; Heb 7:25; 2 Tim 1:12

Where in the previous article we saw that repentance and faith are fruits of regeneration, so here we see that they are “wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God.” Repentance and faith are the gift of God, something he grants, as we can see in Acts 11:18 that God has granted to the Gentiles repentance that leads to life, and in 2 Timothy 2:25 that we must correct our opponents with gentleness, because God may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. 

Repentance and faith are two ways of describing the same action. (Use my turn around illustration). Repentance is in focus when this article speaks of being deeply convinced of our guilt, danger, and helplessness. Jesus says he came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance, so there’s no reason to come to him unless you are convinced that you are a sinner. That doesn’t just mean believing that you are imperfect; any unbeliever believes that. It means being deeply convinced of your guilt, danger, and helplessness. It’s feeling, “Man, there is a real hell, I deserve it, and I have no hope of escaping it by my efforts.” It’s a turning from that, which is called repentance, and a turning to God, in which we “heartily receive the Lord Jesus Christ as our prophet, priest, and king, and rely on him alone as the only and all sufficient savior,” as this article says, and that part we’d call faith.

Jesus Christ is prophet, priest, and king, and thus to receive Christ, is to receive him as such. That means you cannot receive him as Savior, but not as Lord. If you do that, you haven’t received him at all, and should have no assurance of salvation. And faith here is something more narrow than the general virtue of faith. We could say that faith in the broadest sense is trust in God, believing whatever he says to be true. But the faith that justifies in the New Testament isn’t just a general disposition of trust in God. It’s a faith that believes specific content from God, what the New Testament calls the gospel, and faith that especially rests on a person: Jesus Christ, for a certain result: That we might be saved by him, and by him alone.

So Galatians 2:16 says, “yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” So we can see in this verse the object of saving faith: We have believed in Christ Jesus. And we can see the reason for believing in Christ Jesus: in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law. We don’t believe in Christ Jesus to get a good score on our next test, or to get out of a really bad situation, or even to live a more satisfying life. We believe in order to be justified. And that belief is not a mere resolution to live a better life, or asking Jesus to help you live a better life. It is a belief in Christ, and a trust in his perfect life, substitutionary atoning death, and resurrection from the dead to justify and save you. Saving faith is when you turn from sin and draw near to God, no longer as only a judge who condemns you, but as a father who loves you, because you believe that Jesus Christ brings you into that relationship with God.

Imagine that in order to get into an event, your name has to be on the guest list. How would you respond? One approach is to just give up and say, “Well I guess I’m not going to that event. Might as well live how I want.” We could say that’s an irreligious life–don’t bother trying to get God’s approval; just live how you want. Another approach is to say, “Well I’m sure they’ll take me just as I am,” when you have no reason to believe that. In fact, the host said your name would have to be on the list, but you tell yourself you’ll be ok. That’s the therapeutic life–self-affirmation no matter what. Another approach is to say, “Well if my name needs to be on that list, then I’m going to figure out what the host wants and do everything I can to become that.” That’s the moralistic approach–try to obey, and hope God accepts me for my obedience. Yet another approach is to say, “Well if my name needs to be on that list, I’m going to figure out what the host wants and do everything I can to become that. But I know I can’t do it alone, so I’m going to ask Jesus for help.” There you’re still hoping to be welcome because of your obedience, but you ask Jesus for help. Another approach is to say, “I know my name isn’t on the list, but Jesus’ is, and I’m with him.” God promises that all who come to him like that will be welcomed in. It’s relating to God on the basis of what Jesus did, not on the basis of what you do. That’s what it means to rely on him alone as the only and all sufficient savior, as this article of the confession says.

Any church claiming to be Christian is going to tell you to rely on Christ, but this was another sola of the reformation: Solus Christus, Christ alone, like what Jesus accomplished in his own person, who Jesus is in his own person, is sufficient for my salvation. That’s faith. So the Heidelberg Catechism, one of the great summaries of biblical truth that come out of the reformation, says “Do those who look for their salvation in saints, in themselves, or elsewhere really believe in the only savior Jesus? A. No. Although they boast of being his, by their actions they deny the only savior, Jesus. Either Jesus is not a perfect savior, or those who in true faith accept this savior have in him all they need for their salvation.” In other words, to rely on Jesus and the work of a priest and the merits of saints and your own merits, is not saving faith: It’s showing a lack of faith in Christ, as though his life, death, and resurrection were not enough for your salvation.

1. Of God’s Purpose Of Grace

We believe that Election is the eternal purpose of God, according to which He graciously regenerates, sanctifies, and saves sinners; that being perfectly consistent with the free agency of man, it comprehends all the means in connection with the end; that it is a most glorious display of God’s sovereign goodness, being infinitely free, wise, holy and unchangeable; that it utterly excludes boasting, and promotes humility, love, prayer, praise, trust in God, and active imitation of his free mercy; that it encourages the use of means in the highest degree; that it may be ascertained by its effects in all who truly believe the Gospel; that it is the foundation of Christian assurance; and that to ascertain it with regard to ourselves demands and deserves the utmost diligence.

2 Tim 1:8-9; Eph 1:3-14; 1 Pet 1:1-2; Rom 11:5-6; John 15;16; 1 John 4:19; 2 Thess 2:13-14; Acts 13:48; John 10:16; Matt 20:16; Acts 15:14; Ex 33:18-19; Matt 20:15; Eph 1:11; Rom 9:23-24; Jer 31:3; Rom 11:28-29; Jas 1:17-18; 2 Tim 1:9; Rom 11:32-36; 1 Cor 1:26-31; Rom 3:27; Rom 4:16; Col 3:12; 1 Cor 3:5-7; 1 Cor 15:10; 1 Pet 5:10; Acts 1:24; 1 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 2:9; Luke 18:7; John 15:16; 1 Thess 2:12; 2 Tim 2:10; 1 Cor 9:22; Rom 8:28-30; John 6:37-40; 1 Thess 1:4-10; Isa 42:16; Rom 11:29; 2 Pet 1:10-11; Phil 3:12; Heb 6:11

This article of confession speaks to the doctrine of election, which is more commonly referred to in the Bible under the title of predestination. The word is in the Bible, so everyone who believes the Bible has to do something with it, but here the confession allows some room for a diversity of views. There is a debate between reformed and arminian theology again as to whether election is unconditional or conditional, with the reformed holding that it is unconditional, and certainly that comports best with the words of this confession. However, this article does not say that explicitly, nor does anything in this article necessitate that view, even if it is more naturally aligned with it. So on a practical level, if you’re still sorting out where you land on that, I think you can subscribe to this confession. If you’re firmly convinced of Arminianism, you might have a harder time doing so though, especially given what we saw about regeneration and faith earlier. 

But as far as what is said in this article, it’s really just acknowledging what all must acknowledge about predestination if that term is to mean anything: It sets our destiny prior to our lives, hence the term predestined. It is God’s choosing of us, hence the term election, which Ephesians 1 clearly tells us he does “from before the foundation of the world.” Therefore, it is only those God has chosen who he then regenerates, sanctifies, and saves. However, the article clarifies that God does this in a way that is consistent with the free agency of man, which is what we say earlier: God’s saving work regenerates the will; it doesn’t override it. Everyone who believes chooses to believe, though they were already elect. 

The article also says it comprehends the means with the end, meaning if God elects someone to eternal life, he also ordinarily insures that someone preaches the gospel to them, so that they will be born again through the preaching of the gospel, as we again saw earlier. 

No doubt the doctrine of election raises a lot of questions for people, but this article of the confession shows us what it does in scripture, and what it should do in us: It displays God’s sovereign goodness. He didn’t have to save me, but he chose to! How amazing is that? He didn’t have to save anyone, but he chose to save some, though all had rebelled against him without any good excuse. How amazing is that? And therefore, as the article goes on to say, it should promote humility and praise: God chose me, not because I’m one of the good guys, but out of sheer grace. The article says it should lead to active imitation of his free mercy: if God chose me when I didn’t love him, how much more should I show mercy to those who don’t love me!

The article says it encourages the use of means. This is how the apostle Paul spoke of it: “Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim 2:10). Sometimes people worry that the doctrine of election will make people lazy – “If God’s already decided who he will save, why believe the gospel? Why evangelize?” Suffice it to say that if we are to obey God in believing what the Bible teaches about election, part of our obedience is also applying the doctrine in the way the Bible applies it: As a motivation to evangelize, precisely because we know that God has chosen to save some, and he intends to use our feeble efforts at gospel proclamation to save them! 

And finally, the article says “that it may be ascertained by its effects in all who truly believe the Gospel; that it is the foundation of Christian assurance; and that to ascertain it with regard to ourselves demands and deserves the utmost diligence.” Here’s another Protestant distinctive: The idea that assurance of salvation is possible for the ordinary Christian. You can know that God chose you, not because there’s a verse in the Bible that lists the names of those God chose, but because the Bible tells us that those God chose will repent and believe, and God promises that all who do repent and believe have eternal life. It’s not presumption, then, but faith, to take God at his word and trust that if you are believing in Jesus Christ, it is because God chose you, and therefore you will spend eternity with him. If you doubt that, this article of the confession says it is your duty to work toward greater assurance, in line with 2 Peter 1:10, which says to “be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election.” 

There are four categories of people when it comes to assurance of salvation. There are those who lack assurance who should lack it, because they are unbelievers. There are those who have assurance but shouldn’t, because they aren’t actually regenerate, but they think they’ll be saved in the end because they prayed a prayer once or got baptized or because they think if God even exists he must be nice enough to take a nice person like me. Then there are those who lack assurance, but should have it, because they are true believers, but through weakness of faith, they struggle to believe that Jesus has really saved them. Then there are those who have assurance and should have it, because they are true believers. The goal is to get to that last category, and the safest path to it if you’re in any of the other categories is repentance and faith. Is there a sin that remains in your life that causes you to doubt your salvation? Confess it, turn from it, ask God to forgive it, and trust his promise that he does so through faith in Christ, and over time, trust God to bring the sensible comforts you desire. A lot more could and has been said about how to seek a true assurance of salvation, but suffice it to say for now that it can be attained through the use of ordinary means, and you ought to seek it.