Author Archives: Dan C.

The Truthfulness of Scripture – Inerrancy

Posted by Dan C. on

I found the following an excellent article concerning the history of the doc trine of the inerrancy of Scripture:

The Truthfulness of Scripture

Inerrancy

Michael S. Horton

Against the repeated claim that the doctrine of inerrancy, unknown to the church, arose first with Protestant orthodoxy, we could cite numerous examples from the ancient and medieval church. (1) It was Augustine who first coined the term "inerrant," and Luther and Calvin can speak of Scripture as free from error. (2)

Down to the Second Vatican Council, Rome has attributed inerrancy to Scripture as the common view of the church throughout its history. According to the First Vatican Council (1869-70), the Old and New Testaments, "whole and entire," are "sacred and canonical." In fact, contrary to the tendency of some Protestants (including some evangelicals) to lodge the nature of inspiration in the church’s authority, this council added,

And the church holds them as sacred and canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author. (3)

Successive popes during the twentieth century condemned the view that limited inerrancy to that which is necessary for salvation, and Pope Leo XIII went even further than the inerrancy position by espousing the dictation theory of inspiration. Undoubtedly, this mechanical theory of inspiration is what most critics have in mind when they encounter the term "inerrancy." Nevertheless, it does demonstrate that inerrancy is not an invention of Protestant fundamentalists. Quoting the Second Vatican Council, the most recent Catholic catechism states, "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." (4)

The Princeton Formulation of Inerrancy

Although inerrancy was taken for granted in church history until the Enlightenment, it was especially at Princeton Seminary in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that it became a full-blown formulation. This view is articulated most completely in Inspiration, a book coauthored by A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield and published by the Presbyterian Church in 1881. Their argument deserves an extended summary especially because it remains, in my view, the best formulation of inerrancy just as it anticipates and challenges caricatures.

First, they point out that a sound doctrine of inspiration requires a specifically Christian ontology or view of reality: "The only really dangerous opposition to the church doctrine of inspiration comes either directly or indirectly, but always ultimately, from some false view of God’s relation to the world, of his methods of working, and of the possibility of a supernatural agency penetrating and altering the course of a natural process." (5) Just as the divine element pervades the whole of Scripture, so too does the human aspect. Not only "the untrammeled play of all [the author’s] faculties, but the very substance of what they write is evidently for the most part the product of their own mental and spiritual activities." (6) Even more than the Reformers, the Protestant orthodox were sensitive to the diverse means used by God to produce the Bible’s diverse literature. This awareness has only grown, Hodge and Warfield observe, and should be fully appreciated. God’s "superintendence" did not compromise creaturely freedom. In fact, "It interfered with no spontaneous natural agencies, which were, in themselves, producing results conformable to the mind of the Holy Spirit." (7) Just as the divine element pervades the whole of Scripture, so too does the human aspect.

Far from reducing all instances of biblical revelation to the prophetic paradigm, as critics often allege, Hodge and Warfield recognize that the prophetic form, "Thus says the Lord," is a "comparatively small element of the whole body of sacred writing." In the majority of cases, the writers drew from their own existing knowledge, including general revelation, and each "gave evidence of his own special limitations of knowledge and mental power, and of his personal defects as well as of his powers….The Scriptures have been generated, as the plan of redemption has been evolved, through an historic process," which is divine in its origin and intent, but "largely natural in its method." (8) "The Scriptures were generated through sixteen centuries of this divinely regulated concurrence of God and man, of the natural and the supernatural, of reason and revelation, of providence and grace." (9)

Second, Warfield and Hodge underscore the redemptive-historical unfolding of biblical revelation, defending an organic view of inspiration over a mechanical theory. They note that many reject verbal inspiration because of its association with the erroneous theory of verbal dictation, which is an "extremely mechanical" view. (10) Therefore, theories concerning "authors, dates, sources and modes of composition" that "are not plainly inconsistent with the testimony of Christ or his apostles as to the Old Testament or with the apostolic origin of the books of the New Testament…cannot in the least invalidate" the Bible’s inspiration and inerrancy. (11) While higher criticism proceeds on the basis of anti-supernatural and rationalistic presuppositions, historical criticism is a valid and crucial discipline.

Third, the Princeton theologians faced squarely the question of contradictions and errors, noting problems in great detail. Some discrepancies are due to imperfect copies, which textual criticism properly considers. In other cases, an original reading may be lost, or we may simply fail to have adequate data or be blinded by our presuppositions from understanding a given text. Sometimes we are "destitute of the circumstantial knowledge which would fill up and harmonize the record," as is true in any historical record. We must also remember that our own methods of testing the accuracy of Scripture "are themselves subject to error." (12)

Fourth, because it is the communication that is inspired rather than the persons themselves, we should not imagine that the authors were omniscient or infallible. In fact, the authors themselves seem conscious enough of their limitations. "The record itself furnishes evidence that the writers were in large measure dependent for their knowledge upon sources and methods in themselves fallible, and that their personal knowledge and judgments were in many matters hesitating and defective, or even wrong." (13) Yet Scripture is seen to be inerrant "when the ipsissima verba of the original autographs are ascertained and interpreted in their natural and intended sense." (14) Inerrancy is not attributed to copies, much less to our vernacular translations, but to "the original autographic text." (15)

Fifth, the claim of inerrancy is that "in all their real affirmations these books are without error." (16) The qualification "real affirmations" is important and deserves some elaboration. The scientific and cultural assumptions of the prophets and apostles were not suspended by the Spirit, and in these they were not necessarily elevated beyond their contemporaries. Nevertheless, that which they proclaim and affirm in God’s name is preserved from error. For example, critics often point to Matthew 13:32, where Jesus refers to the mustard seed as "the smallest of all seeds." From the context it is clear that Jesus was not making a botanical claim but drawing on the familiar experience of his hearers, for whom the analogy would have worked perfectly well. If every statement in Scripture is a propositional truth-claim, then there are obvious errors. A reductionistic view of language is implied at this point both in many of the criticisms and defenses of scriptural accuracy. It is unlikely that in his state of humiliation, in which by his own admission he did not know the day or hour of his return, Jesus had exhaustive knowledge about the world’s plant life. Whatever contemporary botanists might identify as the smallest seed, if it were unknown to Jesus’ hearers, the analogy would have been pointless. We have to ask what the biblical writers are affirming, not what they are assuming as part of the background of their own culture and the limitations of their time and place.

If we do not hold ourselves and each other to modern standards of specialized discourse in ordinary conversation, we can hardly impose such standards on ancient writers. As Calvin observed, "Moses wrote in the manner of those to whom he wrote." If one wants to learn astronomy, Calvin adds, one must ask the astronomers rather than Moses, since his purpose was not to deliver supernatural information about the movement of planets. (17) Inerrancy requires our confidence not in the reliability of Moses and his knowledge of the cosmos but in the reliability of the historical narratives, laws, and promises disclosed in the Pentateuch. Even then, it is truthfulness, not exactness, that we expect when we come to the biblical text. (18)

To supplement their account, one could add that there are obvious discrepancies in biblical reports concerning numbers. However, these can be explained by recognizing the different methods of accounting, which are better known now than in the past. For example, on the basis of calculating the generations in Genesis, Archbishop Ussher concluded that the world was created on Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C. However, we know more now about ancient Near Eastern genealogies, which were not exhaustive but singled out significant and transitional figures. Similarly, Matthew’s list is selective, highlighting the crucial (and sometimes surprising) links in the genealogy that led to Jesus Christ (Matt. 1:1-17). Their goal (or scope) is to highlight the progress of redemption, not to provide general historical or scientific data. It is impossible to know how many generations are missing from such genealogies, and therefore efforts at calculating human history from them are always bound to fail. The fact that evenhanded historical research has resolved apparent discrepancies such as this one cautions us against hasty conclusions. Many of the alleged conflicts between Scripture and science have turned out to be founded on flawed biblical exegesis. In every science, anomalies are frankly acknowledged without causing an overthrow of an entire paradigm or settled theory that enjoys widespread consensus on the basis of weightier confirmations.

On the one hand, we must beware of facile harmonizations of apparent contradictions. It is sometimes said that the Bible is not a book as much as it is a library. We have to resist the long-held assumption in our intellectual culture that plurality reflects a falling away from the oneness of being. God is three persons in one essence. Analogously, this triune God reveals the one truth of the gospel in a plurality of testimonies. Furthermore, God spoke through prophets and apostles in many times and places, each of whom was shaped by various circumstances of God’s providence, and the variations even between the four Gospels enrich our understanding of the different nuances and facets of Christ’s person and work.

On the other hand, we must beware of equally facile conclusions that depend on naturalistic presuppositions or our own incomplete knowledge. Like the biblical authors, we are not omniscient and must with patient reserve anticipate fuller research and explanations. This does not require a dualistic conception between "religious truth" (faith and practice) and "secular truth" (history and science), as theories of limited inerrancy hold. (19) If we cannot trust God as Creator, then we cannot trust God as Redeemer. Instead of this sort of a priori division, we must recall the purpose or intent of a biblical passage. Once again, it is a question of scope–what is being claimed rather than assumed. As Warfield explains, "It is true that the Scriptures were not designed to teach philosophy, science, or ethnology, or human history as such, and therefore they are not to be studied primarily as sources of information on these subjects." (20)

Sixth, these theologians also denied that inerrancy was the foundation of our doctrine of Scripture, much less of the Christian faith. (21) We must first begin with the content and claims of Scripture, centering on Christ. Christianity is not true because it rests on an inspired and inerrant text, but vice versa. In fact, the redemption to which Scripture testifies and that it communicates would "be true and divine…even if God had not been pleased to give us, in addition to his revelation of saving truth, an infallible record of that revelation absolutely errorless, by means of inspiration." (22)

The Original Autographs

The appeal to the inerrancy of the original autographs has been a bone of contention in this debate. After all, what does it matter if inerrancy is attributed only to the original autographs if we no longer have access to them? But this is not as abstract or speculative a point as it might first appear. We have to distinguish between the original autographs and their copies in any case, since the valid enterprise of historical-textual criticism presupposes it. The very attempt to compare textual variants assumes that there is an original body of documents that some copies and families of copies more or less faithfully represent. Errors in these myriad copies are a matter of fact, but they can only be counted as errors because we have ways of comparing copies in a manner that gives us a reasonable approximation of the original autographs.

Even if we do not have direct access to these original autographs, we do have criteria widely employed in all fields of textual criticism that give us a good idea of what was originally written. (23) However, the methodological assumptions of textual criticism are quite different from those of higher criticism, which as an apparatus of theological liberalism follows naturalistic presuppositions. Where real discrepancies and doubts remain as to the authenticity of certain sayings, on the basis of textual-critical rather than higher-critical analysis, they do not affect any point of the church’s faith and practice. (24) The very fact that textual criticism is an ongoing field yielding ongoing results demonstrates that reconstructing or approximating the content of the original autographs is a viable goal and that, for the most part, it has already achieved this goal.

The Faithful Inspirer

In evangelical circles generally, inerrancy was assumed more than explicitly formulated until it was challenged. Warfield and Hodge helped to articulate this position, which is more formally summarized in the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (see page 30). (25) Like any formulation developed in response to a particular error or area of concern for faith and practice, the inerrancy doctrine invites legitimate questions and critiques. However, its alternatives are less satisfying.

Whatever the holy, unerring, and faithful Father speaks is–simply by virtue of having come from him–holy, unerring, and faithful. In addition, the content of God’s speech is none other than the gift of the eternal Son who became flesh for us and for our salvation. Revelation therefore is not merely an ever-new event that occurs through the witness of the Bible, it is a written canon–an abiding, Spirit-breathed deposit and constitution for the covenant community in every generation. Thus, the Christian faith is truly "a pattern of the sound words" and "the good deposit entrusted to you" that we are to "guard" by means of "the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14; cf. 1 Tim. 6:20). It is an event of revelation that not only creates our faith–fides qua creditor, the faith by which we believe–but, according to Jude 3, contains in canonical form "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints"–fides quae creditor, the faith that is believed.

1 [ Back ] See Robert D. Preus, "The View of the Bible Held by the Church: The Early Church through Luther," and John H. Gerstner, "The View of the Bible Held by the Church: Calvin and the Westminster Divines," in Inerrancy, ed. Norman Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980); John A. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982); G. W. Bromiley, "The Church Fathers and Holy Scripture," in Scripture and Truth, eds. D. A. Carson and John A. Woodbridge (Leicester: IVP, 1983).
2 [ Back ] Klaas Runia, "The Hermeneutics of the Reformers," Calvin Theological Journal 19 (1984), 129-32.
3 [ Back ] See Alfred Duran, "Inspiration of the Bible," in Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 8 (New York: Robert Appleton, 1910).
4 [ Back ] Dei Verbum (Constitution on Divine Revelation), Art. 11, quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori, MO: Liguori, 1994), 31.
5 [ Back ] A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, Inspiration (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 9.
6 [ Back ] Hodge and Warfield, 12.
7 [ Back ] Hodge and Warfield, 6.
8 [ Back ] Hodge and Warfield, 12-13.
9 [ Back ] Hodge and Warfield, 14.
10 [ Back ] Hodge and Warfield, 19.
11 [ Back ] Hodge and Warfield, 25.
12 [ Back ] Hodge and Warfield, 27.
13 [ Back ] Hodge and Warfield, 27-28.
14 [ Back ] Hodge and Warfield, 27-28.
15 [ Back ] Hodge and Warfield, 42.
16 [ Back ] Hodge and Warfield, 42.
17 [ Back ] John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, trans. John King (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 1:86.
18 [ Back ] Hodge and Warfield, 28-29. The Princeton theologians pointed out, "There is a vast difference between exactness of statement, which includes an exhaustive rendering of details, an absolute literalness, which the Scriptures never profess, and accuracy, on the other hand, which secures a correct statement of facts or principles intended to be affirmed….It is this accuracy, and this alone, as distinct from exactness, which the church doctrine maintains of every affirmation in the original text of Scripture without exception."
19 [ Back ] Advocates of this position include G. C. Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics: Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975); Dewey Beegle, The Inspiration of Scripture (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963); Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979). Although somewhat dated, the arguments offered in Vern Poythress, "Problems for Limited Inerrancy," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 18:2 (Spring 1975), 93-102, remain relevant.
20 [ Back ] Hodge and Warfield, 30.
21 [ Back ] Hodge and Warfield, 6-7.
22 [ Back ] Hodge and Warfield, 8-9.
23 [ Back ] For a careful analysis of this process, see esp. Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987); F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988).
24 [ Back ] One example is the ending of the Lord’s Prayer: "For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever."
25 [ Back ] Among other places, the full Chicago Statement may be found in R. C. Sproul, Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2005), 177-93.

__________________________________________

Michael Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California), host of the White Horse Inn, national radio broadcast, and editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. He is author of many books, including The Gospel-Driven Life, Christless Christianity, People and Place, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology, and Too Good to be True: Finding Hope in a World of Hype.

Issue: "Inspiration and Inerrancy" March/April Vol. 19 No. 2 2010 Pages 26-29

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 500 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Modern Reformation.

The Inerrancy of Scripture: The Fifty Years’ War and Counting

Posted by Dan C. on

We are entering a new phase in the battle over the Bible’s truthfulness and authority. We should at least be thankful for undisguised arguments coming from the opponents of biblical inerrancy, even as we are ready, once again, to make clear where their arguments lead.

Monday, August 16, 2010 – Al Mohler

clip_image001Back in 1990, theologian J. I. Packer recounted what he called a “Thirty Years’ War” over the inerrancy of the Bible. He traced his involvement in this war in its American context back to a conference held in Wenham, Massachusetts in 1966, when he confronted some professors from evangelical institutions who “now declined to affirm the full truth of Scripture.” That was nearly fifty years ago, and the war over the truthfulness of the Bible is still not over — not by a long shot.

From time to time, the dust has settled in one arena, only for the battle to erupt in another. In the 1970s, the most visible battles were fought over Fuller Theological Seminary and within the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. By the 1980s, the most heated controversies centered in the Southern Baptist Convention and its seminaries. Throughout this period, the evangelical movement sought to regain its footing on the doctrine. In 1978, a large number of leading evangelicals met and adopted a definitive statement that became known as “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.”

Many thought the battles were over, or at least subsiding. Sadly, the debate over the inerrancy of the Bible continues. As a matter of fact, there seems to be a renewed effort to forge an evangelical identity apart from the claim that the Bible is totally truthful and without error.

Recently, Professor Peter Enns, formerly of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, has argued that the biblical authors clearly erred. He has argued that Paul, for example, was clearly wrong in assuming the historicity of Adam. In Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, published in 2005, he presented an argument for an “incarnational” model of biblical inspiration and authority. But in this rendering, incarnation — affirming the human dimension of Scripture — means accepting some necessary degree of error.

This argument is taken to the next step by Kenton L. Sparks in his 2008 book, God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship. Sparks, who teaches at Eastern University, argues that it is nothing less than intellectually disastrous for evangelicals to claim that the Bible is without error.

His arguments, also serialized and summarized in a series of articles, are amazingly candid. He asserts that Evangelicalism has “painted itself into an intellectual corner” by claiming the inerrancy of Scripture. The movement is now in an “intellectual cul-de-sac,” he laments, because we have “crossed an evidential threshold that makes it intellectually unsuitable to defend some of the standard dogmas of the conservative evangelical tradition.” And, make no mistake, inerrancy is the central dogma he would have us let go.

God’s Word in Human Words is an erudite book with a comprehensive argument. Kenton Sparks does not misunderstand the evangelical doctrine of biblical inerrancy — he understands it and sees it as intellectually disastrous. “So like any other book,” he asserts, “the Bible appears to be a historically and culturally contingent text and, because of that, it reflects the diverse viewpoints of different people who lived in different times and places.” But a contingent text bears all the errors of its contingent authors, and Sparks fully realizes this.

The serialized articles by Sparks appear at the BioLogos Web site, a site with one clear agenda — to move evangelicals toward a full embrace of evolutionary theory. In this context, Sparks understands that the affirmation of biblical inerrancy presents a huge obstacle to the embrace of evolution. The “evidential threshold” has been crossed, he insists, and the Bible has come up short. The biblical writers were simply trapped within the limits of their own ancient cosmology and observations.

But Sparks presses far beyond this argument, accusing the Bible of presenting immoral teachings, citing “biblical texts that strike us as down-right sinister or evil.” The Bible, he suggests, “exhibits all the telltale signs of having been written by finite, fallen human beings who erred in the ways that human beings usually err.”

When Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks argue for an incarnational model of inspiration and biblical authority, they are continuing an argument first made long ago — among evangelicals, at least as far back as the opening salvos of the battle over biblical inerrancy. Sparks, however, takes the argument further. He understands that the incarnational model implicates Jesus. He does not resist this. Jesus, he suggests, “was a finite person who grew up in Palestine.” While asserting that he affirms the historic Christian creeds and “traditional Christian orthodoxy,” Sparks proposes that Jesus made routine errors of fact.

His conclusion: “If Jesus as a finite human being erred from time to time, there is no reason at all to suppose that Moses, Paul, [and/or] John wrote Scripture without error.”

That is a breath-taking assumption, to say the very least. But, even in its shocking audacity, it serves to reveal the clear logic of the new battle-lines over biblical inerrancy. We now confront open calls to accept and affirm that there are indeed errors in the Bible. It is demanded that we accept the fact that the human authors of the Bible often erred because of their limited knowledge and erroneous assumptions about reality. We must, it is argued, abandon the claim that the Bible is a consistent whole. Rather, we are told to accept the claims that the human authors of Scripture were just plain wrong in some texts — even in texts that define God and his ways. We are told that some texts are just “down-right sinister or evil.”

And, note clearly, we are told that we must do this in order to save Evangelicalism from an intellectual disaster.

Of course, accepting this demand amounts to a theological disaster of incalculable magnitude. Rarely has this been more apparent and undeniable. The rejection of the Bible’s inerrancy will please the evangelical revisionists, but it will rob the church of its secure knowledge that the Bible is indeed true, trustworthy and fully authoritative.

Kenton Sparks and the new evangelical revisionists are now making some of the very arguments that earlier opponents of inerrancy attempted to deny. In this sense, they offer great clarity to the current debate. Their logic is clear. They argue that the human authors of the Bible were not protected from error, and their errors are not inconsequential. We are talking about nothing less than whether the Bible truthfully reveals to us the nature, character, acts, and purposes of God.

As Dr. Packer said years ago, “[W]hen you encounter a present-day view of Holy Scripture, you encounter more than a view of Scripture. What you meet is a total view of God and the world, that is, a total theology, which is both an ontology, declaring what there is, and an epistemology, stating how we know what there is. This is necessarily so, for a theology is a seamless robe, a circle within which everything links up with everything else through its common grounding in God. Every view of Scripture, in particular, proves on analysis to be bound up with an overall view of God and man.”

The rejection of biblical inerrancy is bound up with a view of God that is, in the end, fatal for Christian orthodoxy. We are entering a new phase in the battle over the Bible’s truthfulness and authority. We should at least be thankful for undisguised arguments coming from the opponents of biblical inerrancy, even as we are ready, once again, to make clear where their arguments lead.

Is Scripture a Wax Nose?

Posted by Dan C. on

Knowing Scripture

R.C. Sproul

It has often been charged that the Bible can’t be trusted because people can make it say anything they want it to say. This charge would be true if the Bible were not the objective Word of God, if it were simply a wax nose, able to be shaped, twisted, and distorted to teach one’s own precepts. The charge would be true if it were not an offense to God the Holy Spirit to read into sacred Scripture what is not there. However, the idea that the Bible can teach anything we want it to is not true if we approach the Scriptures humbly, trying to hear what the Bible says for itself.

Sometimes systematic theology is rejected because it is seen as an unwarranted imposition of a philosophical system on the Scriptures. It is seen as a preconceived system, a Procrustean bed into which the Scriptures must be forced by hacking off limbs and appendages to make it fit. However, the appropriate approach to systematic theology recognizes that the Bible itself contains a system of truth, and it is the task of the theologian not to impose a system upon the Bible, but to build a theology by understanding the system that the Bible teaches.

At the time of the Reformation, to stop unbridled, speculative, and fanciful interpretations of Scripture, the Reformers set forth the fundamental axiom that should govern all biblical interpretation. It is called the analogy of faith, which basically means that Holy Scripture is its own interpreter. In other words, we are to interpret Scripture according to Scripture. That is, the supreme arbiter in interpreting the meaning of a particular verse in Scripture is the overall teaching of the Bible.

Behind the principle of the analogy of faith is the prior confidence that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. If it is the Word of God, it must therefore be consistent and coherent. Cynics, however, say that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. If that were true, then we would have to say that the smallest mind of all is the mind of God. But there is nothing inherently small or weak to be found in consistency. If it is the Word of God, one may justly expect the entire Bible to be coherent, intelligible, and unified. Our assumption is that God, because of His omniscience, would never be guilty of contradicting Himself. It is therefore slanderous to the Holy Spirit to choose an interpretation of a particular passage that unnecessarily brings that passage into conflict with that which He has revealed elsewhere. So the governing principle of Reformed hermeneutics or interpretation is the analogy of faith.

A second principle that governs an objective interpretation of Scripture is called the sensus literalis. Many times people have said to me, incredulously, "You don’t interpret the Bible literally, do you?" I never answer the question by saying, "Yes," nor do I ever answer the question by saying, "No." I always answer the question by saying, "Of course, what other way is there to interpret the Bible?" What is meant by sensus literalis is not that every text in the Scriptures is given a "woodenly literal" interpretation, but rather that we must interpret the Bible in the sense in which it is written. Parables are interpreted as parables, symbols as symbols, poetry as poetry, didactic literature as didactic literature, historical narrative as historical narrative, occasional letters as occasional letters. That principle of literal interpretation is the same principle we use to interpret any written source responsibly.

The principle of literal interpretation gives us another rule, namely that the Bible in one sense is to be read like any other book. Though the Bible is not like any other book in that it carries with it the authority of divine inspiration, nevertheless, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit over a written text does not turn verbs into nouns or nouns into verbs. No special, secret, arcane, esoteric meaning is poured into a text simply because it’s divinely inspired. Nor is there any such mystical ability we call "Holy Ghost Greek." No, the Bible is to be interpreted according to the ordinary rules of language.

Closely related to this point is the principle that the implicit must be interpreted by the explicit, rather than the explicit interpreted by the implicit. This particular rule of interpretation is violated constantly. For example, we read in John 3:16 that "whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life," and many of us conclude that since the Bible teaches that anyone who believes shall be saved, it therefore implies that anyone can, without the prior regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, exercise belief. That is, since the call to believe is given to everyone, it implies that everyone has the natural ability to fulfill the call. Yet the same gospel writer has Jesus explaining to us three chapters later that no one can come to Jesus unless it is given to him of the Father (6:65). That is, our moral ability to come to Christ is explicitly and specifically taught to be lacking apart from the sovereign grace of God. Therefore, all of the implications that suggest otherwise must be subsumed under the explicit teaching, rather than forcing the explicit teaching into conformity to implications that we draw from the text.

Finally, it is always important to interpret obscure passages by those that are clear. Though we affirm the basic clarity of sacred Scripture, we do not at the same time say that all passages are equally clear. Numerous heresies have developed when people have forced conformity to the obscure passages rather than to the clear passages, distorting the whole message of Scripture. If something is unclear in one part of Scripture, it probably is made clear elsewhere in Scripture. When we have two passages in Scripture that we can interpret in various ways, we want always to interpret the Bible in such a way as to not violate the basic principle of Scripture’s unity and integrity.

These are simply a few of the basic, practical principles of biblical interpretation that I set forth years ago in my book Knowing Scripture. I mention that here because so many people have expressed to me how helpful it has been to guide them into a responsible practice of biblical interpretation. Learning the principles of interpretation is exceedingly helpful to guide us in our own study.

The Principles of Biblical Interpretation

Posted by Dan C. on

There are certain principles that will help us to accurately handle the Word of Truth. These principles are embedded in the scripture itself. We do not need to go beyond the boundaries of the Bible to discover these laws and maxims that are used to determine the meaning of scripture. The Bible interprets itself (scripture interprets scripture).

Principle #1: The Literal Interpretation Principle

We take the Bible at face value. We generally take everyday things in life as literal or at face value. This is a common sense approach.  Even symbols and allegories in the Bible are based on the literal meaning of the scripture; thus the literal meaning is foundational to any symbolic or allegorical meaning.

The golden rule of interpretation is: “When the plain sense of the scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” Therefore, take every word at its primary, usual, meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and fundamental truths, clearly indicate otherwise.

Principle #2: The Contextual Principle

D.A. Carson has been quoted as saying, "A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text."  By "proof text," of course, Carson means the abuse of a single verse or phrase taken out of context to "prove" a particular view.  The word "text" is derived from the Latin word, which means to “weave.”  The context is that which accompanies the text. The Word of God is a perfect unit.  The scriptures cannot be broken; they all hang together, a perfect unity. We must look and consider the verses immediately before, after, and around the passage. We must consider the book of the Bible and the section of the Bible in which the passage occurs. The Bible must be interpreted within the framework of the Bible.

Principle #3:  The Scripture Interprets Scripture Principle

We may rest assured that God did not reveal an important doctrine in a single, ambiguous passage.  All essential doctrines are fully and clearly explained – either in the immediate context, or somewhere else in the Bible.  This principle is best illustrated by what is known as "topical Bible study."  There are two essential ‘rules’ for applying this principle:  1)  The context of the two passages must be the same; and 2) The plain passage must be used to guide our interpretation of a less clear passage – not the other way around!

Principle #4: The Progressive Revelation Principle

The Word of God is to be understood from the Old Testament to the New Testament as a flower unfolding its petals to the morning sun. God initiated revelation, but He did not reveal His truths all at one time. It was a long and progressive process. Therefore, we must take into account the then-current state of revelation to properly understand a particular passage. For example, an interpretation of a passage in Genesis which assumed a fully delineated view of the "new Covenant" would not be sound.  As the saying goes, “The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.”

Principle #5: The Accommodation Principle

The Bible is to be interpreted in view of the fact that it is an accommodation of Divine truths to human minds: God the infinite communicating with man the finite. The Bible was written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The Bible was also created in space, in time, and in history so that man could understand it. The truths of God made contact with the human mind at a common point, the Bible, to make God (and, indeed, all of reality) knowable.  We must be careful, then, not to push accommodating language about God and His nature to literal extremes.  God does not have feathers and wings (e.g., Psalms 17:8); nor is He our literal Father in the same sense our earthly father is.

Principle #6: The One Interpretation Principle

Every verse in the Bible has only one interpretation, although that verse may have many applications. The one correct interpretation is that which mirrors the intent of the inspired author.

Principle #7: The Harmony of Scripture Principle

No part of the Bible may be interpreted so as to contradict another part of the Bible.  The Christian presupposes the inerrancy and harmony of Scripture as a necessary result of a perfect Creator God revealing Himself perfectly to Mankind.  Proper application of hermeneutical principles will resolve apparent conflicts.  The key here, of course, is the word "proper," for exegetical fallacies can easily result from a zealous but ill-informed attempt to "save" Scripture from an apparent contradiction.

Principle #8: The Genre Principle

Genre is a literary term having to do with the category or "genus" of  literature under consideration. Proper interpretation must take the general literary category of any given passage into consideration.  Are we dealing with poetry or prose? Are we dealing with history or prophecy? It is important that when we interpret the Word of God, we understand as much as possible the author’s intent.  For example, if the author is writing history – the genre of the Pentateuch of Moses – it would not be proper to interpret a single reference (such as the speech of Balaam’s ass) as a poetic personification, unless a variety of contextual markers compelled us to do so.

Here are some books of the Bible and their respective genres:

Psalms – Poetry
Proverbs – Wise Sayings
Isaiah – History and Prophecy
The Gospels – Biography and History
The Epistles – Teaching and Doctrine
Revelation – Eschatology and Prophecy

Principle #9: The Grammatical Principle

The Bible was originally written in three languages:  Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.  While we have several highly accurate translations of the Bible in English, all translation involves a certain amount of interpretation on the part of the translator.  Thus, the study of word meanings, grammar, and syntax of the original languages is important for a proper understanding of Scripture. This doesn’t mean that every student of the Bible must learn Hebrew or Greek.  There are a number of tools available – lexicons, Bible dictionaries, detailed exegetical commentaries – that can provide a deeper understanding of crucial passages.

Principle #10:  The Historical Background Principle

The Bible was composed in a specific culture at a particular point in time.  While they are universal in application, the truths in the Bible can most fully be realized only when taking the surrounding culture and history into account.  For example, when Jesus is called "the first fruits" (1 Corinthians 15:20), we may have some understanding of this title from the Old Testament, but a study of Jewish religious practice in the first century can provide a deeper understanding of why Paul chose this title in this passage, as opposed to another title with the same general meaning of "first."

_______________________________________________________________

Discovered Online at For an Answer. The above is part of a much longer and more extensive Introduction to Hermeneutics found here.

WHY WOULD A LOVING GOD SEND ANYONE TO HELL?

Posted by Dan C. on

That was a question we had the opportunity to share on an online Christian radio program; This is how we answered it.

WHY WOULD A LOVING GOD SEND ANYONE TO HELL?

The question assumes that Hell exists, so we must start there with our answer. It’s important to note that the question is asked with the issue of ‘fairness’ according to our human standards of fairness. We will speak to both. To adequately address the question, we must begin with God.

Why did God create anything and everything?

We can answer that question by glimpsing into a portion of John’s vision of the throne room of God, around which are four and twenty elders exclaiming in the words of a well known chorus:

“Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. – Rev 4:11

What about Hell?

Although I know of no specific passages of scripture that tell us that the existence of Hell brings pleasure to God as part of ‘all things’, we do know that God created Hell for a specific purpose:

“Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” – Matt 25:41

These are the words of Jesus concerning Hell, with a view of judgment day when there will be those who are sent there, what it will be like and WHY Hell was created in the first place. We are prone to think of Hell in milder terms like ‘eternal’ separation from God. Now that’s true, and probably fine with unbelievers because they don’t want anything to do with God anyway. That brings us to the next question:

How DID Hell end up a place for humans, created to ‘glorify God and enjoy Him forever’?

For that we return to the Garden of Eden, the place created by God for mankind to ‘glorify God and enjoy Him forever’

We are loathe to think that God created robots, and He didn’t. He gave Adam and Eve a limited free will, restricted by the command NOT to eat of the fruit of a certain tree and the ability to choose between good and evil. We know the story. There was only one rule:

“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.“ – Gen 2:16-17

With all the ‘good stuff’ God had given them, Adam and Eve sinned and suffered the consequences –death, physical and spiritual. Not only did Adam and Eve’s disobedience affect them, it affected the entire human race to follow them; it’s called ‘imputation.’. Every person born after the fall has been born tragically flawed by sin, just as Christ’s righteousness is ‘imputed’ to those who believe in Him. We seem to have issues with the former, but not with the latter (a bit more about that later).

What do we mean by sin?

Here we need to define two aspects of sin. The first aspect about sin that comes immediately to mind are the sins we commit connected to God’s law – that we are unable to keep in their entirety and reach God’s standard of perfection (clearly demonstrated in the OT by the giving of the law and Israel’s inability to keep it). That fact alone tells us that we deserve hell.

There is also an aspect of sin not spoken of much these days, and that is the indwelling sin nature of fallen men, hinted at earlier. That sin is expressed in stark terms:

“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. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” – Romans 8:7-8

“as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. – Romans 3:10-11

“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” – 1 Cor. 2:14

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” – Jeremiah 17:9

If that isn’t bad enough, we are told

“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience–among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” – Eph 2:1-3

How can we be held accountable for all that sin, if Adam’s disobedience caused it? “Not fair!” we scream. I offer that in the same spirit of ‘fairness’, it wasn’t ‘fair’ of God to send his sinless Son to die for human sin! Hold that thought. And if God was really fair, he would leave us all to our ‘just’ fate – death and hell . We know the passage well:

“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” – Rom 6:23

Both types of sin are deserving of death, by God’s own decree. In fact you could say that we are all ‘born on death row’:

“ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” – John 3:18

In other words, what we are often told about “how worthy we are of heaven just because we have been born into this world” is not true. That teaching is, however, the picture of God’s love that is painted for us these days by many false teachers and so-called leaders in churches – a picture void of God’s hatred of sin, of His pouring out of wrath against it, of His judgment of it, and of His punishment for it. I heard one executive pastor’s wife tell an auditorium full of people that “God can’t imagine heaven without you in it! If this were true, from where does the concepts of sin, death, and hell originate?

It’s no wonder we ask the question this paper is discussing!

Having said all that, there is a remedy for sin!

“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience–among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved– and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, (Eph 2:1-6)”

The “us” are those who have repented of sin and believed in Christ as God’s remedy for that sin. When God could have left us all to the eternity we deserve, He sent his Son to die for those who believe. The result:

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” – John 3:18

In other words, those who are eternally condemned to Hell are there because they refused to believe – they refused God’s offer of salvation through the shed blood of Christ

Perhaps we should be asking “How could such a loving God sentence His own Son to dies for OUR sin?”

OR

Would it be ‘fair’ of God to ‘set the rules’ and grant eternal life to those who refuse the free gift of salvation by rejecting the Son?

The reality of a final judgment is clearly taught in Scripture. But the Bible also indicates that the people who go to hell do so because they have rejected God’s provision for salvation. The Bible says that God does not want anyone to go to hell:

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

Thus we conclude by saying:

1. The Bible teaches the reality of a final place of judgment for the wicked.

2. Those who spend eternity in hell, do so because they rejected God’s love and His provision for salvation.

3. It is God’s desire for everyone to come to Him by faith and receive the salvation that He offers.

C.S. Lewis, in this book, The Problem of Pain, notes that hell is the most loving thing God can do for those who would accept nothing better. It’s been said that the one who spends eternity in Heaven has only God to thank, and the one who spends eternity in Hell has only himself to blame.

“It Is Finished”– Arthur W. Pink

Posted by Dan C. on

"When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he gave up the ghost." – John 19:30

How terribly have these blessed words of Christ been misunderstood, misappropriated and misapplied! How many seem to think that on the cross the Lord Jesus accomplished a work which rendered it unnecessary for the beneficiaries of it to live holy lives on earth. So many have been deluded into thinking that, so far as reaching heaven is concerned, it matters not how they walk provided they are "resting on the finished work of Christ." They may be unfruitful, untruthful, disobedient, yet (though they may possibly miss some millennial crown) so long as they repudiate all righteousness of their own and have faith in Christ, they imagine they are "eternally secure."

All around us are people who are worldly-minded, money-lovers, pleasure-seekers, Sabbath-breakers, yet who think all is well with them because they have "accepted Christ as their personal Saviour." In their aspiration, conversation, and recreation, there is practically nothing to differentiate them from those who make no profession at all. Neither in their home-life nor social-life is there anything save empty pretensions to distinguish them from others. The fear of God is not upon them, the commands of God have no authority over them, the holiness of God has no attraction for them.

"It is finished." How solemn to realize that these words of Christ must have been used to lull thousands into a false peace. Yet such is the case. We have come into close contact with many who have no private prayer-life, who are selfish, covetous, dishonest, but who suppose that a merciful God will overlook all such things provided they once put their trust in the Lord Jesus. What a horrible perversion of the truth! What a turning of God’s grace "into lasciviousness"! (Jude 4). Yes, those who now live the most self-seeking and flesh-pleasing lives, talk about their faith in the blood of the Lamb, and suppose they are safe. How the devil has deceived them!

"It is finished." Do those blessed words signify that Christ so satisfied the requirement of God’s holiness that holiness no longer has any real and pressing claims upon us? Perish the thought. Even to the redeemed God says, "Be ye holy, for I am holy" (1 Pet. 1:16). Did Christ "magnify the law and make it honorable" (Isa. 42:21) that we might be lawless? Did He "fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15) to purchase for us an immunity from loving God with all our hearts and serving Him with all our faculties? Did Christ die in order to secure a divine indulgence that we might live to please self? Many seem to think so. No, the Lord Jesus has left His people an example that they should "follow (not ignore) His steps."

"It is finished." What was "finished? The need for sinners to repent? No indeed. The need for turning to God from idols? No indeed. The need for mortifying my members which are upon earth? No indeed. The need for being sanctified wholly, in spirit, and soul, and body? No indeed. Christ died not to make my sorrow for, hatred of, and striving against sin, useless. Christ died not to absolve me from the full discharge of my responsibilities unto God. Christ died not so that I might go on retaining the friendship and fellowship of the world. How passing strange that any should think that He did. Yet the actions of many show that this is their idea.

"It is finished." What was "finished?" The sacrificial types were accomplished, the prophecies, of His sufferings were fulfilled, the work given Him by the Father had been perfectly done, a sure foundation had been laid on which a righteous God could pardon the vilest transgressor of the law who threw down the weapons of his warfare against Him. Christ had now performed all that was necessary in order for the Holy Spirit to come and work in the hearts of His people; convincing them of their rebellion, slaying their enmity against God, and producing in them a loving and obedient heart.

O, dear reader, make no mistake on this point. The "finished work of Christ" avails you nothing if your heart has never been broken through an agonizing consciousness of your sinfulness. The "finished work of Christ" avails you nothing unless you have been saved from the power and pollution of sin (Matthew 1:21). It avails you nothing if you still love the world (I John 2:15). It avails you nothing unless you are a "new creature" in Him (2 Cor .5:17). If you value your soul, search the Scriptures to see for yourself; take no man’s word for it.

The Story of His Glory

Posted by Dan C. on

The greatest story ever told is a true story, recorded and preserved in the Old and New Testaments, a story which climaxes in Jesus of Nazareth. This story informs everything in your life with significance and meaning.

The Creator God

The story opens: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” By His powerful and creative word, God spoke into existence the Universe and everything in it. This truth defines everything, and its implications are massive.

Your life is not an accident, a mere product of chance. Because God is your Creator, you belong to him. Just as a sculptor is the master of her clay, and an inventor retains the ownership “rights” of his invention, God is the supreme owner of the Universe and everything in it. He created and sustains your life.

Made for His Glory

You were made for God’s purposes and pleasure, and were intended to live for His glory and fame, to display the worth and value of the One who designed you. Like a mirror, you were made to reflect another’s beauty: God’s.

God has revealed to us how we are to reflect His glory. Jesus summarized this in two great commands:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

A life fully defined by love—for God and others—is a God-glorifying life.

Shattered by Sin

But, we have not loved God supremely or loved our neighbors as ourselves. We have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. We’ve loved and worshiped idols of self, sex, money, power, prestige, and pleasure more than the Creator.

Our problem isn’t merely sinful actions, but sinful hearts:

What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.  For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person.

We may have lived respectable and moral lives by human standards, but often this is driven by self-serving motives and tainted with sinful desires. The Scriptures remind us that “Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” It only takes one drop of cyanide to poison a glass of water, and just one sin leaves us guilty before a holy God.

We have committed mutiny and treason against the Creator-God. We are dead in transgressions and sins; blinded by Satan, the god of this world; and slaves of our passions and desires. Although man is a mirror made to reflect the radiance of God’s beauty and glory, sin has shattered the mirror.

The Covenant God

But the Creator God is also a Covenant God, One who makes promises and keeps them. Even before man sinned, God had formed a plan of rescue. He revealed his plan to a man named Abraham, and promised that through Abraham, all the peoples of the earth would be blessed. Abraham’s descendants became known as the nation of Israel.

God chose Israel to be his special people. He later made another covenant with King David, promising him a son who would be forever enthroned over God’s people. The story of the Old Testament is the outworking of these two promises: the story of God’s glory returning to earth through His chosen people.

This story climaxes in Jesus, who was descended from David and Abraham. Jesus was born of a virgin in fulfillment of God’s promises. He was the ultimate revelation of God’s glory, the true Image-bearer of God on earth:

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jesus was God himself in human flesh.

The Crucified and Risen Messiah

For thirty years, Jesus lived a quiet life. Then He burst on the public scene, proclaiming the gospel (good news) of the kingdom, the fulfillment of God’s promises to his people. During his ministry, Jesus gathered followers and demonstrated both compassion and great power through many miracles. He taught with authority, appealing to the common people and raising suspicion among the religious and political leaders. He came with a message of hope, offering forgiveness and rest to those burdened and wearied with sin. He claimed divinity and oneness with God, and modeled a life of perfect love to God and man, always honoring his Father and extending mercy and compassion to broken people.

But his claim to be one with God led to his death. Jesus of Nazareth was sentenced to death by crucifixion—the most degrading and agonizing form of capital punishment at that time. A Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, sanctioned Jesus’s execution. He died outside of Jerusalem around 30 A.D., and was buried in the borrowed tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. His disciples were disillusioned and discouraged, and many of them denied and forsook him during the last hours of his life.

But three days later, mourners discovered that his tomb was empty. Jesus had come back to life and risen from the dead! For forty days, he appeared again and again to his disciples and closest friends, comforting them, commissioning them, and promising them the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit. Then he ascended into the heavens, with the promise that one day he would return again.

The Good News

The apostles and followers of Jesus emphasize in Scripture not only the fact of Jesus’ death, but also the reason. He died for our sins. The apostles realized that the death of Jesus resulted not just from the insidious plot of wicked men, but from the eternal plan of God to rescue men from their sins. Jesus himself said that he came to give his life as a ransom for many.

The death and resurrection of Jesus was the divine remedy to the problem of sin. God treated his sinless Son, Jesus, as if he had lived a sinful life, so that he could treat sinners as if they had lived the sinless life of Jesus. Through his crucifixion, Jesus absorbed the wrath of God against sin, so that God could be just in forgiving sin and declaring sinners righteous in his sight. By becoming a curse for us, Jesus delivered us from the curse of the law we had broken. The righteous one (Jesus) died for the unrighteous (us), so that we could be restored to a right relationship with God.

Jesus’ resurrection was proof that he had conquered sin and death once and for all. Death could not hold him in its grasp. Jesus destroyed Satan, who had the power of death, delivering those who through fear of death had been subject to lifelong slavery in sin.

Responding to the Good News

Someone once said that there are two kinds of people who go to hell: the unrighteous and the self-righteous. Living a moral life will not rescue you from sin, nor will baptism, confirmation, giving to the poor, or attending church. Religion is simply a more respectable pathway to eternal destruction. The only candidate for salvation is the person who realizes his utter helplessness to save himself. Self-salvation is utterly impossible.

But what is impossible with man is possible with God. The God-man, Jesus of Nazareth, has done for sinners what we cannot do for ourselves. When a jail-keeper asked Paul and his companions, “What must I do to be saved?” they answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.”

Believing in Jesus includes more than acknowledging the fact of his existence or the truthfulness of his claims. Believing in Jesus is trusting in him. Someone once defined faith this way: F.A.I.T.H. Forsaking All, I Trust Him. In the Apostle Paul’s words:

I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.

Trusting in Jesus is the pledge of allegiance to a person. Jesus said:

If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.

The life of faith is a life of repentance. Trusting in Jesus involves turning–turning from sin and self-righteousness to Jesus as Savior and Lord.

If you are to be rescued from God’s just judgment of your sin and rebellion, you must ask the Lord Jesus to save you. Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. This is God’s promise:

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Repenting of your sins and trusting in Jesus is both God’s invitation and His command: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.”

Will you obey his command?

From Reviving Our Hearts