This essay is the second part of a series and it is an excerpt from four books: Biblical Doctrine by John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, Everyone is a Theologian and What is Reformed Theology both by R. C. Sproul. It is not an original work, and the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

I have written about a reason to study biblical theology, and then some, here. You can also find the first part of this essay here.

Again, I have to say that the most important thing is not only to study biblical truths but to live by them.

…

John MacArthur:
There is an old saying, “Beware of the barrenness of a busy life.” Life is often hectic, and most people rarely contemplate what is most important. But few matters are as significant as considering who we are and why we exist. King David was a busy man, but as he looked to the heavens and saw the moon and stars, he thought deeply and asked, “What is man that you [God] are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” (Ps. 8:4). Against the backdrop of God’s wonderful creation, man seemed small and insignificant. David’s question is one that all should contemplate.

… a biblical anthropology helps address specific issues like abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, transgenderism, and environmentalism. Much of the world today is confused and acts sinfully in regard to these issues since the world operates from a faulty view of God and man. But an anthropology from God’s perspective instructs us truthfully on these and other issues. A biblical anthropology guides us in applying a Christian worldview to critical matters facing our world.

The writer of Hebrews addressed how the world came to exist: “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible” (Heb. 11:3). God spoke the universe into existence (Ps. 33:6, 9). He did not use preexisting matter (Rom. 4:17). Nor is matter eternal. Creation was ex nihilo—the material and spiritual creation came into being from nothing.

The origin of the physical universe has emerged as one of the most significant biblical battlegrounds in the twenty-first century. Secular and Christian communities both debate the veracity of the creation accounts in Genesis 1–2. Even many Christians seriously question the biblical record and strongly prefer scientific conclusions over the testimony of Scripture. Today, only a minority of theologians hold to sudden creationism, the view that the creative process described in Genesis 1 occurred in six literal and consecutive days. Many assert that the universe is millions or even billions of years old and that a long interval existed between the origin of the earth and the first human beings.

A full discussion of the various creation views is beyond the purpose of this chapter, but the position presented here is sudden creationism. This is the view of Scripture and the context for understanding the creation of man on day six. Key truths, including the greatness and power of God, are lost when one abandons the plain sense of Genesis 1 and 2 that the earth was created directly by God in six literal days.

… direct creation means that man is not God. Man is neither divine nor the highest being in existence. A metaphysical or ontological gap exists between God and man. Man can never be God, nor should he seek to be God. The Mormon leader Lorenzo Snow stated, “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” This is false. God was never man (Christ’s incarnation as the God-man being the one unique exception), and man can never be God. Hosea 11:9 declares, “For I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst.” Creatures will always be under the eternal Creator who made them.

The Hebrew term for “image” signifies a “copy” but also carries the idea of “representation.” In the ancient world, a king or ruler would place an image or idol of himself in his realm to symbolize his sovereignty there. When others saw the image, they knew who had control. Likewise, God’s image bearers represent God in the world. But unlike lifeless statues, God’s image bearers are alive. They should operate as God’s representatives and mediators on the earth. Thus, “image” has implications for kingship. While God is the King, God created man as a king, a vice-regent and mediator over the creation on God’s behalf.

Genesis 9:6 says that capital punishment is the appropriate penalty for murder since man is still the image of God: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” After the flood humans are still the image of God. Similarly, James 3:9 condemns cursing people since they are “made in the likeness of God.” This also affirms that people after the fall still bear something of God’s likeness. God’s image bearers were certainly marred with the curse, but the image and likeness of God, though distorted, was not obliterated.

It is a characteristic within the makeup of man. The image is part of man, not just something he does. Some have asserted that the image is the physical body of man or some physical characteristic like walking upright. Some say that the image is a psychological or spiritual quality, such as reason, memory, will, or moral capacity.

Second, the functional view asserts that the image of God is something humans do. Since Genesis 1:26–28 links the image with ruling and subduing the earth, some believe that the image is man’s dominion over creation. German Protestant theologian Hans Walter Wolff (1911–1993) stated, “It is precisely in his function as ruler that he [man] is God’s image.”

Third, the relational view claims that relationship is the image of God. Summarizing this view, Millard Erickson writes, “Humans can be said to be in the image or to display the image [of God] when standing in a particular relationship, which indeed is the image.”12 This perspective was popular with neoorthodox and existential theologians. Support for the relational view is found in the way that the image of God is closely connected with man being created male and female (Gen. 1:27). Since the concept of relationship is central to man’s connection with God and people, the image is viewed as man being in relationship.

So which position is correct? All three views are closely connected to the image of God, and truth can be gleaned from each of them. The best view, however, is that the image of God is substantive or structural to man. Function and relationship are the consequences of man being the image of God structurally.

What is this structure that makes man the image of God? It is best not to narrow the structure to any one characteristic or quality. The image permeates man’s being. The structure probably consists of the complex qualities and attributes of man that make him human. This includes his physical and spiritual components. The image could also be linked to personhood and personality and to the powers to relate and operate. It could be connected with thinking and reasoning. Grudem may be closest when he says, “Every way in which man is like God is part of his being in the image and likeness of God.”13 All that makes one a human person is related to the image of God. The following characteristics help to further define man as an image bearer:

Ontologically, man is a living, personal, self-conscious, active being with personality. He is a complex unity of soul/spirit and body. While God is spirit (John 4:24) and grants a spirit to man, the bodily component of man is related to the image of God. Robert Culver notes, “There is something about the human body which is analogous to something in the Godhead. . . . It is apparent that while the human body, per se, is in no respect an image of the God of the Bible, all of man’s physical nature was originally created to bear that image.”14

Volitionally, man has a will and the ability to select between various choices. He can discern right from wrong. This volitional aspect separates man from the animals and other creatures mentioned in Genesis 1–2.

Intellectually, man has a rational mind. He is aware of himself, his environment, others, and God. He can think critically and logically. He possesses memory, imagination, creativity, and language skills for communicating and understanding the thoughts of others.

Emotionally, a human experiences a wide range of emotions and feelings, such as fear, anger, guilt, anxiety, regret, shame, happiness, and joy. He can both laugh and cry. Also, human emotionality is complex, as people can experience two or more emotions almost simultaneously. For example, parents can feel sadness, pride, nervousness, and happiness when their daughter moves out of town for college.

Relationally, man is equipped to participate in relationships with God and with other people. Jesus said that the greatest commandments are to love God and to love others (Matt. 22:36–40). Only persons can give and receive love.

Functionally, man has what he needs to fill, rule, and subdue the earth on God’s behalf for God’s glory. Males and females have bodies able to reproduce and interact with a physical environment. Humanity possesses the ingenuity to implement a successful strategy for the earth.

While not God himself, man reflects the image and likeness of God in wonderful, complex, and mysterious ways.

The best way to understand the image of God is to look at the Lord Jesus, in whom it is perfectly revealed. Paul refers to Jesus as the “last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45), connecting Jesus with humankind. He also says, “He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). The Greek term for “image” is eikōn and compares to the Hebrew term for image, tselem. It conveys both “representation” and “manifestation.” God is spirit and is thus invisible, but Jesus as the God-man is the image of the invisible God.

Growing more like Christ in sanctification is manifesting the image of God. The image of God is not some mysterious, abstract doctrine. Jesus is the image of God in action and the model to follow.

The image of God relates to the Bible’s storyline in the following ways:

Creation: Man, including both male and female, is created in the image of God. Like his Creator, man evidences both unity and diversity in a relationship of love. “Man” comprises both male and female, yet male and female are distinct in gender and have differing roles. At creation man functioned in proper relationships with God, other humans, and creation.

Fall: Man violated the Creator/creature distinction by acting autonomously and rebelling against God. The image of God became marred but not lost. Man’s threefold relationships suffered: (1) in regard to God, man is spiritually dead; (2) in regard to humans, tension plagues men and women, and women must suffer pain in childbirth; (3) in regard to creation, the earth now works against man and frustrates him, and the earth will swallow up man in death.

Incarnation (Jesus Christ): Jesus, the God-man, is the perfect image of God. He manifests the image exactly by perfectly loving God, loving people, and exercising authority over nature. Those who belong to Jesus through saving faith become new creatures, and by their love they display the restored image of God, although imperfectly before the final resurrection. Sanctification is the process by which Christians are being conformed to the image of Christ, who himself is the perfect image of God.

Restoration: When Jesus returns, Christians will be glorified and made like Jesus. They will perfectly exhibit the image of God forever.

Bodily resurrection, though, is not just for believers. The wicked will be resurrected for eternal punishment (Dan. 12:2). Jesus said, “Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28–29). Just as righteous saints are raised, so too the wicked will rise and receive a body fit for punishment in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:11–15). In this present age, death brings a temporary separation between body and spirit (James 2:26), but with God’s resurrection program, all people—believers and unbelievers—will possess a body fit either for eternal life on the new earth or for eternal separation from God in the lake of fire.

At physical death, the soul survives and is immediately in God’s presence. In the parable of the rich man, God told the foolish rich man, “This night your soul is required of you” (Luke 12:20). This rich man would die, but his soul would be in God’s presence for an accounting. Similarly, in Revelation 6:9, saints killed on earth find their souls in heaven: “I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne” (Rev. 6:9). Thus, the soul returns to God at physical death.

Ultimately, all souls will be united with resurrected bodies. At Jesus’s return to earth, the martyrs of Revelation 6:9–11 will be resurrected so they can reign in Jesus’s kingdom on earth (Rev. 5:10). Revelation 20:4 states, “Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” Souls in heaven will one day receive a physical, glorified body.

Concerning human beings, “spirit” often signifies the capacity of humans to be in relationship with God, and “spirit” is sometimes used interchangeably with “soul” (Ps. 31:5; Eccles. 12:7; Heb. 12:23; Luke 1:46–47).

The Greek term for “spirit” is pneuma. As with ruakh, the word pneuma can refer to various realities. In an anthropological sense, it connotes the life force that animates the body and departs at death (Matt. 27:50; Acts 7:59; James 2:26; Rev. 11:11). It refers to the self that interacts with God. Pneuma often refers to interaction with God and the spiritual realm (Rom. 1:9; 8:16; 1 Cor. 14:14; Rev. 21:10). And it is commonly used of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:18).

Dichotomism
Dichotomism holds that man is a two-part being consisting of a body and an immaterial element called either “soul” or “spirit.” No real distinction exists between the two terms, which are interchangeable. Dichotomism, then, affirms the human person as a combination of body and soul/spirit. This view differs from materialistic monism, since dichotomism asserts that reality and humanity consist of more than matter; a spiritual element also exists. While a person has a physical body, the soul/spirit animates the body and survives physical death.

Trichotomism also affirms that man consists of multiple parts, but it holds that man is a three-part being comprising body, soul, and spirit. The term trichotomy comes from the combination of the Greek terms tricha, “three,” and temno, “to cut.” The first element of man is the body, which is the material part of a person. The second part is the soul, which is the psychological element of man and the part that enables interaction with people and the natural world. The soul is the basis of reason, emotion, personality, and social interaction. The third part is the spirit, which is usually identified as the religious element that perceives and responds to spiritual matters and to God. Whereas the soul is said to interact with horizontal areas related to man’s experience with people and nature, the spirit interacts with vertical matters such as man’s experience with God. The presence of spirit allegedly distinguishes humans from animals.

Two passages are often used to support trichotomism. First Thessalonians 5:23 states, “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (NASB). Here all three components—“spirit,” “soul,” and “body”—are mentioned side by side. Hebrews 4:12 also mentions both soul and spirit: “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit.”

Trichotomism was popular among the Alexandrian fathers of the early church, especially Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–ca. 215) and Origen (ca. 184–ca. 254). This view went through a general decline until the nineteenth century, when it became more popular.

Both dichotomism and trichotomism correctly affirm that man consists of more than matter. The dividing issue centers on whether there exists a substantive distinction between soul and spirit. The biblical evidence indicates that there does not. “Soul” and “spirit” are used interchangeably in Scripture, and both terms indicate similar functions in relating with God, other people, and nature. So it is difficult to argue that they are distinct parts of a person. Some verses even place “soul” and “spirit” together in parallel form, showing that the same concept is in view:

Therefore I will not restrain my mouth;

I will speak in the anguish of my spirit [ruakh];

I will complain in the bitterness of my soul [nephesh]. (Job 7:11)

My soul [nephesh] yearns for you in the night;

my spirit [ruakh] within me earnestly seeks you. (Isa. 26:9)

And Mary said,

“My soul [psychē] magnifies the Lord,

and my spirit [pneuma] rejoices in God my Savior.” (Luke 1:46–47)

These passages demonstrate that “soul” and “spirit” in the Bible are interchangeable and address the same realities. In Isaiah 26:9 and Luke 1:46–47, the soul is even interacting with God, meaning that such activity is not restricted to the spirit.

The following two examples also reveal that “soul” and “spirit” refer to the same entity. First, Jesus expresses grief over his coming suffering:

Now is my soul [psychē] troubled. And what shall I say? “Father, save me from this hour?” (John 12:27)

After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit [pneuma]. (John 13:21)

Second, two passages describe saints in heaven:

And to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits [pneuma] of the righteous made perfect . . . (Heb. 12:23)

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls [psychē] of those who had been slain for the word of God. (Rev. 6:9)

But what about 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12? Must these texts be seen to support trichotomism? No. Scripture gives the immaterial aspect of the person different terms, but not every designation means a distinguishable part. At times, terms can be piled up or combined for emphasis. In Luke 10:27, for example, Jesus mentions loving God with all one’s “heart,” “soul,” “strength,” and “mind.” He uses four terms and does not even mention “spirit.” So should we conclude that there are four or five or even more parts to the human person? No, the immaterial part of the person can be called “soul,” “spirit,” “heart,” or “mind,” and yet sometimes these designations can refer to the whole person. So these are overlapping concepts, not distinguishable parts. The dichotomism position, therefore, has the strongest scriptural support.

Yet is there a better designation than dichotomism? Since Scripture presents a person as a unified yet complex self, the designation “complex unity” is preferred. The material (body) and immaterial (soul/spirit) function together in one person, embracing both unity and diversity. This complex unity is conditional, since death in a fallen world separates body and spirit (James 2:26). Yet this separation is temporary, since all people are headed for resurrection, a reunion of body and spirit in eternal forms. The concept of complex unity even parallels other realities. For example, there is one God, yet God is also plurality. God is Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Also, Jesus is one person, yet he is both God and man.

Man as a complex unity also covers all aspects of a person’s physical and spiritual needs. While discussing the importance of saving faith, James mentions the importance of meeting physical needs: “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?” (James 2:15–16). Also, God’s salvation eventually brings restoration to the whole person. The Holy Spirit regenerates dead sinners, making them spiritually alive to God (Titus 3:5), yet Jesus will also redeem and glorify their bodies (Rom. 8:23; Phil. 3:20–21).

In addition to being created by God, the man and the woman were created differently. God formed man from dust, but God did not create the woman in the same way. God took a rib from Adam to make the woman (Gen. 2:22). So woman was made from man. Far from an incidental detail, this has significance for functional distinctions between men and women. When discussing order between men and women in the church, Paul highlighted this point by saying, “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man” (1 Cor. 11:8). In explaining why men are to do the teaching in the church, Paul declared, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13). The roles that men and women have in society, the family, and the church are grounded in the differences between men and women that God instituted at creation.

Gender is deeply embedded in human identity and is established at conception. When a sperm carrying an X chromosome fertilizes the ovum, a girl is produced, while a Y chromosome brings a boy. When a child is born, often the first reaction is, “It’s a boy!” or “It’s a girl!” At birth, all recognize that gender exists. Parents do not choose the gender of their child or say that it does not matter. Neither do they have to wait to see if the boy will later become a girl or vice versa. Gender is defined permanently at conception and revealed at birth.

Male and female were created for relationship, not isolation. As God evaluated the newly created male, he said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen. 2:18). So God would make a “helper” (Heb. ‘ezer) to assist Adam. The other creatures were wonderful, but they were not suitable for the man. Desire for human companionship is thus not faulty, as if it were a postfall development. Adam was not wrong for desiring human companionship, and it is not a challenge to man’s relationship with God. God desired and designed humans for relationships.

When God made the woman from Adam’s rib, he brought her before the man, and Adam then exclaimed,

This at last is bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called Woman,

because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:23)

Genesis 2:24 then summarizes God’s intent for man and woman: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” The marriage relationship involves leaving father and mother to become “one flesh” in marriage. The term for “leave” (Heb. ‘azab) is forceful and means “abandon” or “forsake.” Also, the word for “hold fast” (Heb. dabaq) means “strong personal attachment and devotion.” It is later used to prescribe how Israel should show its commitment to God—“But you shall cling [dabaq] to the Lord your God” (Josh. 23:8). The result of this marital clinging is becoming “one flesh.” This unity certainly involves the sexual union at the heart of the oneness, as well as the children who are one from two. Yet it goes beyond that so as to involve mutual dependence in all areas of life. Oneness and intimacy should permeate the relationship.

Procreation, with all its blessings, is painful for the woman in a fallen world and is often filled with tragedy. Rachel died while giving birth to Benjamin (Gen. 35:16–18). Some children will die in the womb, and others will have their lives cut short by abortion. Some women who desire to have children will be barren (Gen. 30:1).

The Bible presents homosexuality as sin and explicitly states that practicing homosexuals will not inherit God’s kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10). Homosexuality perverts God’s design that marriage reflect Christ’s relationship to his church: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:31–32). Marriage illustrates the relationship of the Lord Jesus to his church; the loving headship of a husband pictures the loving headship of Christ over his bride, and the joyful submission of a wife pictures the joyful submission of the church to her Lord. By tampering with the participants of marriage, homosexual activity or homosexual marriage distorts the gospel picture that God intended marriage to portray. It defies the will of the Creator, threatens what is good, and hurts those involved in this practice.

In Genesis 1:27, the Hebrew words for “male” and “female” are emphatic, giving the sense of “the one male and the one female.” Only one man and one woman existed in the beginning, so that monogamous, heterosexual marriage could occur. This is God’s paradigm for marriage. Based on this paradigm of one man and one woman established at creation, the rest of Scripture strictly forbids any sexual activity outside marriage—including all fornication (Acts 15:29; 1 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 13:4), adultery (Ex. 20:14; Lev. 20:10; Matt. 19:18), bestiality (Ex. 22:19; Lev. 18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21), and homosexuality (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26–27).

Homosexual unions cannot rightly be called “marriages,” since they involve only one gender, possess no ability to procreate, and cannot provide the kind of sexual companionship God intended. Nor do they picture the relationship between Jesus and his church.

Like the issue of gender, views of human personhood have also been distorted by modern society, which often denies personhood to those whom the Bible considers persons. According to the Bible, all human beings are persons who possess dignity because they are made in God’s image. This includes the very young, the very old, and everyone in the middle.

When does personhood begin? Various views concerning the beginning of personhood have been offered. Only one is biblical. Personhood begins at conception.

Scientific fact demonstrates that human life begins at conception, when all twenty-three pairs of chromosomes are complete. The fertilized egg then contains a fixed genetic structure (DNA).19 Between days twelve and twenty-eight, a heart begins to beat. Blood cells form at day seventeen, and eyes begin to form at day nineteen. Between weeks four and six, brain waves can be measured. At one month, the embryo looks like a distinct human person. Fingerprints exist at two months. The skeleton, circulatory system, and muscular system are complete by the eighth week. The manifestation of personhood appears rapidly after conception.

Personhood is not a development; it is an event. It occurs at conception. Attempts to separate personhood from biological human life are unscientific, arbitrary, and dangerous. All that physically constitutes a person is made immediately at conception. Biological human life means that personhood exists. A human life is a person. Separating human life from personhood has resulted in the killing of persons in the womb through abortion and has even led to the murder of babies after birth. Beck and Demarest note that four conditions must exist for an act to be considered murder:

1. A person must be killed.
2. The person must be killed intentionally.
3. The victim must be innocent.
4. An unlawful or sinful motive must be involved in the killing.

They also rightly conclude, “Abortion as commonly practiced today satisfies these criteria.”

Death is “the king of terrors” (Job 18:14) and is used by Satan to cause fear and slavery (Heb. 2:15). Paul referred to death as an “enemy” that must be defeated (1 Cor. 15:26). Not only does death extinguish life, it leaves behind the carnage of grief. When Sarah died, Abraham wept and mourned for her (Gen. 23:2). When Jacob died, his son Joseph “fell on his father’s face and wept over him and kissed him” (Gen. 50:1).

While death is often viewed as natural, death is an intrusion into God’s creation. God created humans for life, not death. In his original state, man was not created to die, though death was nonetheless a possibility if he rebelled against his Creator. Jesus conquered death by his resurrection, and the fact that death will be finally removed in the coming eternal state (Rev. 21:4) demonstrates that death is not inherent to being human.

God holds sovereign control over life and death. First Samuel 2:6 states, “The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.” Job said, “In his [God’s] hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind” (Job 12:10). In the future, death will be thrown into the lake of fire after the great white throne judgment, prior to the eternal state (Rev. 20:14).

The Bible links death with a person’s final breath (Job 14:10). Genesis 25:8 says, “Abraham breathed his last and died.” The same is said of Ishmael (Gen. 25:17). On the cross, “Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last” (Mark 15:37).

The reality of personhood begins in the womb and extends to this final breath, the end of life. The Bible treats all humans through death as persons with dignity. Since being in God’s image is structural to being human, there never comes a point when a person becomes anything less than a full person. This includes the elderly and the severely handicapped. Some argue that personhood exists only if someone can function in a certain capacity. But that makes personhood dependent on what a human does rather than on who he or she is. Understanding this point rules out the killing of people whom society might deem unworthy of living. A biblical understanding of human life places a barrier before the termination of a life simply because that person cannot “contribute to society,” however that may be defined. From conception to last breath, all human beings are God’s creations and should be treated as such.

The ancient philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BC) is one who denied an afterlife. For him, because death is ceasing to exist, it should not be feared. No divine judgment awaits, and since death is the end of self-awareness, it is a nonissue. The atheist Richard Dawkins, who similarly asserts that death is nonexistence, argues that people should be satisfied that they lived at all. Knowing that they have lived, Dawkins says, indicates that they are the “lucky ones,” who “won the lottery of birth against all odds.”

The traditional Christian view is that the soul/spirit lives in an intermediate state between death and bodily resurrection. While the human person is a complex unity of body and soul/spirit, death causes a temporary separation of body and soul. The body returns to the ground, while the soul resides in another realm. The soul of the believer resides with God in heaven, but the soul of the unbeliever is separated from God in hell. At the coming resurrection, the souls and bodies of all people will be united forever in the final heaven or hell.

After the global flood, Noah represented mankind as the one from whom diversity would again emerge. Noah’s sons—Ham, Shem, and Japheth—became the heads of various peoples in the world. Genesis 9:19 states, “These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the people of the whole earth were dispersed.” 

Often misunderstood, the curse on Canaan in Genesis 9:18–27 was a prediction of Israel’s eventual victory over the Canaanite inhabitants of the Promised Land. It was not a curse on Noah’s son Ham nor a prediction that dark-skinned descendants from Ham would be slaves of other groups.

Reflecting these historical developments, the apostle Paul gave clear teaching in his epistles about ethnicity for the church. Thus, Galatians 3:28 explains that believers equally share salvation and spiritual blessings in Christ regardless of race, gender, or social status. Ephesians 2:11–3:6 says that believing Gentiles are coequal with believing Jews in the people of God and participate together in the covenants and promises mediated through Israel. Believing Gentiles do not become spiritual Jews; instead, Jews and Gentiles share common life together in the church. The unity among Jews and Gentiles is grounded in the death of Jesus and the removal of the Mosaic law (Eph. 2:13–16). And so Colossians 3:9–11 speaks of a renewal in Christ “in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman” (NASB). Salvation is equally accessible to all groups.

A biblical theology of ethnicity and nations reveals the following truths and principles:

1. All people of every ethnicity are made in the image of God.
2. No people group is superior or inferior to any other.
3. Racism is a heinous sin in that it denies full personhood to certain people groups, thus violating the dignity of all God’s image bearers.
4. Israel was chosen to be the nation through which God would restore fallen humanity and bring salvation and restoration to all the world.
5. Salvation is provided to all through the ultimate Israelite, Jesus the Messiah, who will restore the nation of Israel and bring blessings to the Gentiles through salvation.
6. The death of Christ and the establishment of the new covenant bring unity to all who identify with Jesus. True racial unity and harmony are found only in Jesus the Messiah, not simply in education, social reform, legislation, or any other man-centered attempts.
7. The church should evidence racial harmony and serve as an example to the world of God’s intention.

The doctrine of man can be summarized as follows:

At the culmination of a literal six-day creation, God created man in two genders—male and female. Starting from the first man (Adam) and the first woman (Eve), mankind was mandated both to multiply and fill the earth and to rule and subdue the creation on God’s behalf. These are man’s primary responsibilities.

Man was created in the “image” and “likeness” of God, which means that he is like God in some ways and that he represents God on the earth. Man is both a king and a son. Yet at the same time, he is not God. Man is inherently tied to the earth and the created order, though he is the pinnacle of God’s creation. Humanity is placed into three relationships: (1) with God, (2) with other humans, and (3) with creation. As God’s image bearer, man is constituted to relate to all three effectively. Each human person is also a complex unity of body and soul/spirit. 

As a volitional and reasoning being, man is called to love God and to show his allegiance by obeying God.

Man, however, disobeyed God and failed the kingdom command to rule and subdue creation. He died spiritually, and the process of physical death began. His relationship with other humans suffered, as did his relationship to the earth, which began to work against him. Man was still the image of God, but this image was marred and distorted by sin. Man became totally corrupt in his being, and he could do nothing to save himself. Hope was not lost, though, as God initiated a plan to save mankind and reverse the curse through a coming seed of the woman. 

Humanity fell, but a coming specific man would be the Savior of the world. Adam and Eve and their descendants anticipated this coming Deliverer, though they did not know the timing of his arrival (see Gen. 4:1; 5:28–29). Man’s right to rule the world was affirmed even after the fall (Ps. 8:4–8), although in this present age he is not ruling the earth successfully. That ability awaits the “world to come” (Heb. 2:5–8).

God raised up people, saved by grace through faith, to further his plan to save mankind and creation. These included covenant heads such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. But each of these men was sinful and unable to be the Savior. Israel as a nation would be used to further God’s purposes, although the nation too showed itself to be sinful. The same was true for the kings in the line of David, who were supposed to model obedience and righteousness in Israel yet also failed.

When Jesus arrived, he was the “last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45), the Messiah, and the ultimate seed of the woman (Gal. 3:16). In other words, he was (and is) the ultimate man—God’s man. He was the perfect image of God, who manifested God’s intent for humanity. Jesus fulfilled God’s plans for man. He was righteous and obedient. Relationally, Jesus loved God and loved people infinitely. Functionally, he showed his dominion over the earth by his miracles.

Jesus presented himself as King and his kingdom as near (Matt. 4:17). Yet the people did not receive him. With his death Jesus atoned for the sins of God’s image bearers and laid the basis for the kingdom of God and the restoration of all things (Col. 1:20; Heb. 2:5–9; Rev. 5:9–10). Jesus ascended to heaven as the exalted Messiah and sat down at God’s right hand in heaven, ruling his spiritual kingdom of salvation while awaiting his earthly rule from his Davidic throne at his second coming (Ps. 110:1–2; Matt. 25:31; Rev. 3:21).

Based on Christ’s atoning work and the establishment of the new covenant at the cross, those who are united to Jesus receive salvation and are being conformed to the image of Christ, who is the perfect image of God. 

Sanctification is the process by which God’s people in this age become more like Christ, increasingly manifesting what the image of God is supposed to be. Yet this world is still evil, and man’s successful rule over the earth awaits Jesus’s kingdom at his return. When Jesus returns to earth, he will bind Satan and remove his presence from the earth. Then, with those who belong to him, Christ will rule for a millennium over an earthly kingdom that fulfills the kingdom mandate of Genesis 1:26–28. Jesus will rule the nations (Psalm 2) and share his rule with his saints (Rev. 2:26–27; 3:21).

When Jesus fulfills man’s destiny on the earth and finally and fully succeeds where the first Adam failed, his kingdom will transfer to the Father’s kingdom in the eternal state (1 Cor. 15:24–28; Revelation 20–21). As a result of the work of the ultimate man, Jesus, the earth will have been successfully ruled and subdued, Satan will have been defeated, unbelievers will have been judged, and the curse will be forever removed. The saints of God will eternally enjoy a perfect relationship with God, other people, and the new creation. Man’s task will be a success because of Jesus! The last verse describing activity on the new earth proclaims, “And they will reign forever and ever” (Rev. 22:5). What has been impossible for thousands of years will happen—the story ends well for redeemed humanity!

First, modernity tends to view human beings as naturally good. Before the philosophical shifts of the eighteenth century, a general understanding of human depravity prevailed. The Protestant Reformation, for example, was connected with Martin Luther’s angst over his own sinfulness. With the coming of the modern era, though, the traditional view of man’s sinfulness began to wane, and man was viewed as inherently good. Human problems and suffering were linked with ignorance. In the false euphoria of the Enlightenment, many concluded from the advances in education, science, and technology that man was inherently good and that as he was educated, the world would get better. The twentieth century clearly obliterated that illusion, and man’s depravity was put on display, as the world exploded with the largest scale of warfare and bloodshed in history—including two devastating world wars, the Holocaust, and the Cold War. The twenty-first century so far has also been rife with wars, unstable nations pursuing or possessing nuclear weapons, and increasing Islamic terrorism. Global media have exponentially exposed human depravity at a level never before imagined. The education, science, and technology that brought great medical advances and comforts have at the same time devised weapons of mass destruction. Societies are increasingly opposed to God’s standards, even redefining basic aspects of human identity such as gender and marriage. Contrary to the modern and postmodern mindsets, the reality of sin is alive and on full display.

Second, deterministic views of humanity have challenged the biblical understanding of sin. People are viewed primarily as products of their environment, social upbringing, or psychological drives or deprivations. Society has gone so far in accommodating its own depravity that it is reluctant to hold anyone morally culpable for almost any behavior. This accommodation is consistent with the view that man is basically a machine that does what he is preprogramed to do.

Third, with the rise of postmodernism, our society has shifted toward moral relativism. Today, right and wrong, good and evil, are not defined in absolute terms but are viewed subjectively. Individuals and societies, not God, are seen as having the authority to determine what is wrong. A strong majority of people now believe that truth and morals are flexible and subjective, not fixed. And they have no interest in what Scripture says.

Fourth, sin is an unpleasant subject. In our age of self-esteem and subjectivity, people do not like to think of themselves as evil. Millard Erickson notes, “To speak of humans as sinners is almost like screaming out a profanity or obscenity at a very formal, dignified, genteel meeting, or even in church. It is forbidden. This general attitude is almost a new type of legalism, the major prohibition of which is, ‘You shall not speak anything negative.’”

Instead of saying, “God’s will be done,” the sinner says, “My will be done.” Sin, therefore, is acting autonomously and usurping the authority of God.

Genesis does not describe Satan’s fall, but the chief demon arrives in Genesis 3 as a fallen being fiercely opposed to God. The fall of Satan is probably being referred to in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. Both passages speak of human kings (of Tyre and Babylon), yet what is depicted goes far beyond any human monarch. Rather, both passages describe the first sin in the cosmos. Ezekiel 28:13 says, “You were in Eden, the garden of God.” We are told that Satan was an “anointed guardian cherub . . . on the holy mountain of God” (Ezek. 28:14). The reference to “cherub” means that Satan was an angel in God’s presence. Ezekiel 28:15 then states, “You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you.” So Satan went from “blameless” to “unrighteousness.” God is not the chargeable cause of unrighteousness. Unrighteousness was found in Satan; the blame lies with him. Isaiah 14:14 says that the desire to be like God (“the Most High”) was the reason for this angelic worship leader’s rebellion (Isa. 14:11–12).

Since God cannot be the author of sin and does not tempt anyone to sin (James 1:13), and since Lucifer, the angels who followed him, and Adam and Eve were all created sinless, the question arises as to where sin originated. Many believe that since God is all-powerful, the blame for sin must belong to him. This is false. Certainly, the origin of sin is a deep and dark mystery, but God is not the chargeable cause of sin. Because created persons sinned, the capacity for sin had to exist as a possibility within them. Sin occurred because Satan, Adam, and Eve chose to exercise their volition to disobey God rather than to love God. Consequently, as creatures, they cannot escape accountability to their Creator.

Sin always disappoints and never satisfies.

The Fall’s Impact on Relationships

The negative consequences for sin go beyond personal turmoil and despair. Man was created for relationships with God, with other people, and with the creation. All three connections were damaged by the fall of man.

God

First and most important, man’s relationship with God was severed. Man became spiritually dead. (More on what spiritual death entails will be discussed below.)

In addition, sin brings the wrath of God, which is God’s righteous displeasure toward sin. Romans 1:18 says, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (cf. Col. 3:5–6). Ephesians 5:6 states, “The wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.” God’s wrath hangs over all in rebellion against him and will be manifested in the future day of the Lord and the final judgment in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:11–15). Paul said to the unrepentant, “You are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Rom. 2:5).

Sin also invites God’s punishment. Because he is holy and righteous, God must punish sin. Jesus said that the wicked “will go away into eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46). The seriousness of sin’s penalty was demonstrated when the Son of God took upon himself the punishment for the sins of all of God’s elect on the cross.

Sin creates enmity, a hostile situation between parties. Romans 5:10 says that before salvation in Christ, people are “enemies” of God. Unbelievers are “alienated from the life of God” (Eph. 4:18). Also, “the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God” (Rom. 8:7). The responsibility for the enmity lies solely with man.

People

Next, sin disrupted all human relationships. First, God said that the woman would have increased pain in childbirth, so that even the procreation of another person would be difficult: “To the woman he said, ‘I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children’” (Gen. 3:16a).

Second, tension between man and woman in the basic and necessary union of marriage would also transpire. God told Eve, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16b). While “desire” could refer to a physical desire for her husband, a desire to control is probably in view. Genesis 4:7, which has a parallel construction, uses “desire” in a controlling sense: “And if you [Cain] do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” So Genesis 3:16 predicts struggle and conflict within marriage, the most intimate love relationship.

Third, strife between persons in general society is promised and realized. Cain slew his brother Abel for jealous reasons (Gen. 4:8). Lamech killed a young man who struck him (Gen. 4:23). The history of mankind manifests continual hatred, strife, murders, and war.

Creation

Man’s sin negatively affected his relationship to the creation. Man’s mandate to rule and subdue the earth and its creatures is not revoked (Ps. 8:4–8), but creation now works against man and frustrates his efforts. God told Adam, “Cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life” (Gen. 3:17). The cursed ground will lead to “pain” for man. Adam is also told, “Thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread” (Gen. 3:18–19a). So man’s interaction with the earth will be difficult, and the earth will even consume him at death (Gen. 3:19b). God’s expectation for a successful rule of man remains unfulfilled. Hebrews 2:5–8 reaffirms that God created man to rule creation but recognizes that “at present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him” (Heb. 2:8). It will take the last Adam, Jesus (1 Cor. 15:45), and those who believe in him, to successfully rule the earth (Rev. 5:10). This will occur when Jesus returns and establishes his millennial reign (Rev. 20:1–6).

In sum, not only will Adam and his descendants suffer and die as individuals, but also all his relationships will suffer. Only the Lord Jesus will be able to restore mankind’s relationship to God, to one another, and to the creation. As the “last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45), he will love God and people perfectly and will manifest absolute control over creation.

Three Forms of Death

The widespread and devastating results of sin can be summarized in one word—death. God told Adam, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:17). Death is the penalty for disobedience. It is a complex concept involving (1) spiritual death, (2) physical death, and (3) eternal death.

Spiritual Death
When Adam and Eve sinned, physical death did not occur immediately. Adam lived 930 years (Gen. 5:5). Spiritual death, however, happened instantly. Spiritual death is the state of spiritual alienation from God. As a result of Adam’s sin, all living people are born spiritually dead (with the exception of the Lord Jesus Christ). Paul refers to spiritual death in Ephesians 2:1: “And you were dead in [your] trespasses and sins.” In Ephesians 2:5, Paul says that unsaved people are “dead in [their] trespasses.” For Adam and Eve, sin brought separation from God, banishment from his presence, and forfeiture of spiritual life (Gen. 2:23–24). All their descendants have likewise been born in a state of spiritual death. This deadness also renders a person unresponsive to spiritual truth (Rom. 8:7–8; 1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 4:17–18). Only by the divine miracle of regeneration does God end spiritual death and re-create sinners, making them alive to himself (2 Cor. 4:6).

Physical Death
While God mercifully did not impose physical death on Adam and Eve immediately, the process of physical death started when they sinned. God told Adam, “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19).

Adam was formed from dust, but here a tragic irony was introduced. Because of sin, he would return to dust and the ground would swallow him up in death. Physical death would happen since Adam and Eve were barred from the tree of life (Gen. 3:24).

Also, even before any human died, animal death occurred when God killed an animal to use its skin to clothe Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:21). Human death first occurred when the initial offspring of Adam and Eve—Cain—slew his brother Abel (Gen. 4:8). The list of Adam’s descendants in Genesis 5 starkly reveals that death became the end of every human life, by repeating after every person listed, “. . . and he died” (Gen. 5:5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31). Besides the past exceptions of Enoch and Elijah and the future exceptions of those who will be alive at the rapture (1 Thess. 4:13–18), physical death will consume all descendants of Adam. The writer of Hebrews declares, “It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27). Physical life became brief after the flood. Moses said, “The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away” (Ps. 90:10).

Eternal Death
Eternal death awaits those who physically die while being spiritually dead. Those who die in unbelief will face the lake of fire forever (Rev. 20:11–15). John refers to this as “the second death” (Rev. 20:6). While it does not cause people to cease to exist, eternal death is still a kind of death since it involves everlasting ruin, punishment for sins, and separation from God’s presence to bless. Only those who are delivered by the gracious work of the Lord Jesus escape eternal death. Revelation 20:6 states, “Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power.”

The most acceptable position is that Adam’s sin is imputed to all who were united to him as the representative of humanity. Adam’s guilt is our guilt. While affirming that a corrupt nature is passed down from Adam, representative headship teaches that all people are condemned because of their direct relationship to Adam.

The representative-headship view (often called federal headship) asserts that the action of a representative is determinative for all members united to him. When Adam sinned, he represented all people; therefore, his sin is reckoned to his descendants.

An example of headship affecting others is found in Joshua 7 with Achan and his family. Israel’s defeat at Ai was attributed to Achan, who disobeyed God by wrongly confiscating silver and gold for himself in his tent. While Achan alone committed this sinful action, his sons and daughters were stoned with him, bearing the punishment along with Achan for his deed (Josh. 7:24–25). In like manner, the guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed or placed on the rest of the family of mankind.

Those who affirm the representative-headship view first appeal to the parallels made with Jesus in Romans 5:12–21 (discussed above under the realism view). Romans 5:18 says that Jesus’s “one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” Jesus’s act of dying on the cross brings justification to sinners. Romans 5:19 adds, “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.” Jesus’s obedience is imputed to others as their righteousness. The logic here suggests that if the justification and righteousness of the Lord Jesus is imputed to those in him, so too the guilt of Adam’s sin has been imputed to those he represented. As already stated, the Adam-Christ parallel in Romans 5:12–21 is best explained by the idea of representation. Just as Christians are considered righteous because Christ’s alien righteousness (i.e., righteousness that is external to the believer) is imputed to all who are Christ’s, so too Adam’s guilt is imputed to all his descendants, even though they did not personally sin when he did.

But what does Paul mean by “old self [man]” and “new self [man],” and how does this relate to the doctrines of man and sin? The old self is the unregenerate self, connected with Adam. It encompasses everything a person is in Adam before union with Christ. The new self is the regenerate self, united with Christ, who replaces the old man. When a person becomes a Christian, he puts on the new self and becomes a “new creation” in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). He is no longer the old man. The unregenerate self in Adam is gone forever. The new self in Christ is reality. Yet since glorification of the body has not occurred and Christians still struggle with the flesh, believers must continually put aside fleshly desires. They must walk by the power of the Holy Spirit so they do “not gratify the desires of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16).

The Bible teaches what has been called total (or pervasive) depravity to describe the corruption and pollution of sin passed down from Adam. Total depravity emphasizes the devastating impact of sin on the person and covers three related concepts: (1) the pollution and corruption of all aspects of a person; (2) the complete inability of a person to please God; and (3) universality, in that all are conceived and born as sinners. Together these show the abysmal state of unredeemed humanity, all of whom are both unable and unwilling to glorify God.

Total depravity does not mean that unsaved people always act as badly as possible. Nor does it mean that unsaved people cannot do relative acts of goodness. Unbelievers can do good things for society, their friends, and their family. They can stop a fight, give to charity, perform life-saving surgery. They can help a lost child find her parents. These acts have a relative goodness, which corresponds with what Jesus said: “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children . . .” (Matt. 7:11).

Concerning the first feature, sin is total or pervasive in that all components of a person are polluted by sin. Just as smoke from a fire permeates everything in a room, the whole person is corrupted by sin. No part of man escapes. This includes both the material and immaterial aspects of a person—body and soul. The body decays and is headed for physical death, and along the way, the body functions as an instrument for evil activity. The spiritual part of man is also fully corrupt. This includes all of man’s thinking, reason, desires, and affections. Thus Paul concludes, “To the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled” (Titus 1:15). Speaking of the godless, Paul refers to “the futility of their minds” (Eph. 4:17). The heart is also debased; so Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” Jesus also teaches that it is from the heart that wicked deeds occur (Mark 7:21–23). On multiple occasions the Bible addresses both corrupt thinking and an evil heart. Paul said, “They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart” (Eph. 4:18). Also, sinful mankind “became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened” (Rom. 1:21). John Calvin rightly stated, “We are so entirely controlled by the power of sin, that the whole mind, the whole heart, and all our actions are under its influence.”

Second, sin is total in that man is incapable of pleasing God on his own. Paul states, “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” (Rom. 8:7–8). And Jesus says, “Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5).

Third, sin is universal in that all humans are sinners. First Kings 8:46 declares, “For there is no one who does not sin.” And Psalm 14:3 states, “They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.” The entire section of Romans 1:18–3:20 is dedicated to showing that all people are sinners and unable to save themselves, concluding that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).

Therefore, man’s spiritual state is not one of relative neutrality, in which he is able to accept or reject God and his gospel. He is an active hater of God (Rom. 8:7) who cannot accept spiritual truth (1 Cor. 2:14). The total depravity of man demonstrates the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation. Man can do nothing. God must accomplish all as a gift of sovereign grace.

Are all sins the same in God’s eyes, or are some sins worse than others? All sins are the same in the sense that each renders a person guilty and worthy of God’s wrath. The root of all sin is autonomy and replacement of God with self. However small a sin may seem, it is an assertion that the person is acting independently of God. Eating fruit from a tree in a garden, like Adam and Eve did, might not seem immoral and may seem minor compared to other crimes, but it was an act of iniquity that had grave consequences for the human race. Breaking any command is an assault against the divine Lawgiver. James declared, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not murder.’ If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law” (James 2:10–11). Grudem is correct that “in terms of our legal standing before God, any one sin, even what may seem to be a very small one, makes us legally guilty before God and therefore worthy of eternal punishment.” Even one sin against an infinitely holy God demands an infinite punishment.

At the same time, Scripture does speak of the reality that some sins are considered greater than others. When being shown abominations in the temple, Ezekiel was told, “You will see still greater abominations that they commit” (Ezek. 8:13). Here some abominations were “greater” than others. Jesus explained that those who delivered him to Pilate committed “the greater sin” (John 19:11). In Matthew 11:20–24, Jesus said that the Jewish cities that heard the kingdom message would fare worse on judgment day than the Gentile cities that did not. Greater knowledge brings greater responsibility. In Luke 12:47–48, Jesus taught that a servant who knew the Master’s will but did not do it would be treated more harshly than one who did not know the Master’s will. Also, James said that a stricter judgment awaits teachers: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1).

Jesus then spoke of the unforgivable sin (12:30–32), which involved blaspheming the Holy Spirit. This sin could not be forgiven either in the present age or in the coming age. This sin was more than making offhand, derogatory statements about Jesus or the Holy Spirit from a distance or from ignorance. It involved disparaging the clear works that the Holy Spirit was doing through the Son of God. The unpardonable sin, therefore, is the willful and final rejection of the Holy Spirit who is working through Jesus, by attributing God’s work in Christ to Satan.

Another view is that the sin leading to death could refer to a true believer whose life, like that of some at Corinth (1 Cor. 11:29–30), brought shame to Christ, and thus God’s discipline resulted in premature death. The Christian’s sin is so serious that God takes the person’s life. For example, Ananias and Sapphira died on the spot when they lied to the Holy Spirit in front of the church (Acts 5:1–11). Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 5:5, Paul mandated discipline for a sinning church member involved in immorality: “You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” If a Christian is under church discipline, believers in the church should not pray for the consequences of such discipline to be removed until the sinner repents. With the goal that this person will repent, the church delivers him or her to Satan’s realm. The sin that leads to death in 1 John 5:16, then, is not one particular sin but any sin that the Lord determines is serious enough for drastic chastisement.

What is the effect of a Christian sinning? The Bible does not teach perfectionism in this life or before the resurrection, so Christians will sin. First John 1:8 states, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” But when a person trusts in Christ, he receives both forgiveness of sins and Christ’s righteousness. As a result, Paul declares, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). Christ died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3), so all sins—past, present, and future—are forgiven. God, who began a good work in us, will be faithful to complete what he started (Phil. 1:6). Sin will not remove a Christian from God’s love; indeed, Paul says that nothing “will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:39).

However, while instances of personal sin cannot break the believer’s union with Christ, they do have a negative impact on the believer’s communion with Christ. When Christians sin, they grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30). Sin also brings God’s discipline. Jesus said, “Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent” (Rev. 3:19). In addition, “For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives” (Heb. 12:6). Christians should examine themselves for sin and be open to loving exhortation and rebuke from other believers (Gal. 6:1). Jesus instituted a church discipline process for dealing with sin in the life of a professing Christian (Matt. 18:15–20). Unrepentant sin should lead to expulsion from the church, so that the church maintains its purity (1 Cor. 5:13).

Sin in the life of a Christian is a serious matter. It harms one’s spiritual growth and testimony for Christ. While Christians will never face judicial punishment for sins, they will stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account for their deeds done in the body, whether good or bad (2 Cor. 5:10). The dross will be burned away, and the eternal reward will reflect what remains (1 Cor. 3:12–15).

…

John MacArthur:

Before addressing the doctrine of soteriology, it is necessary to consider that the driving purpose for which God saves his people is in accordance with his ultimate purpose for all things—namely, to bring glory and honor to himself.

Another preliminary matter is the treatment of the doctrine of common grace. It is not, strictly speaking, soteriological, because common grace is not saving grace.2 As an expression of the universal goodness and benevolence of God (Ps. 145:9), common grace is experienced by all people without exception, including those who will never receive salvation (cf. Pss. 33:5; 52:1; 107:8; 119:68). It stands in distinction to special grace, or saving grace, by which God rescues his elect from the penalty and power of sin (Eph. 2:5; Col. 1:13–14), regenerating and sanctifying them through the work of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 5:17; Titus 3:5). Common grace, then, does not impart forgiveness for sin, nor does it regenerate unbelieving hearts. Though it reveals truths about the Creator (Rom. 1:18–20) and brings conviction of wrongdoing (Rom. 2:15), it cannot lead to salvation on its own, apart from saving grace. For this reason, it could just as well have been treated in chapter 3, “God the Father,” as an expression of God’s attributes of grace and mercy. Nevertheless, because common grace is preparatory for the enjoyment of saving grace, it is treated here.

God’s common grace provides the human race with at least three benefits. First, it temporarily restrains sin and militates against sin’s damaging effects. Apart from divine grace, the full expression of humanity’s fallen nature would be unleashed in society—with catastrophic results. Although sinners are totally depraved, meaning that sin affects every aspect of their being (Rom. 3:10–18, 23; cf. Jer. 17:9; Eph. 2:1; Titus 3:3), the full manifestation of that sinfulness is restrained through the conscience, which enables sinners to understand the difference between right and wrong (Rom. 2:15); the authority of parents, who teach and discipline children (Prov. 2:1–5; 3:1–2; 13:1–2, 24; 19:18); and the civil government, which maintains order in human society (Rom. 13:1–5).

Second, common grace enables unbelievers to enjoy beauty and goodness in this life (Ps. 50:2). Both the righteous and the unrighteous experience numerous physical blessings from God’s hand (Ps. 104:14–15; Matt. 5:45; Acts 14:15–17; 17:25). Every breath taken, every morsel eaten, every earthly beauty, and every wholesome moment is only possible by God’s gracious provision (cf. Job 12:10; Acts 17:28). He is the sole source of all goodness (Ps. 106:1; Mark 10:18; 1 Tim. 4:4; James 1:17). Consequently, all that is good and worthwhile comes from his benevolent hand. Though this world has been devastated by the curse of sin (Rom. 8:20–22), the common grace of God allows sinners to taste of his abundant loving-kindness (see Ps. 34:8).

Third, common grace affords sinners time to hear the gospel so that they might be motivated to repent. Though God could justly execute judgment against sinners instantly, he temporarily withholds the punishment they should receive (cf. Ezek. 18:4, 32; Rom. 6:23; 9:22–23; 1 Tim. 4:10). As the apostle Paul explained, “Do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?” (Rom. 2:4; cf. 2 Pet. 2:5; 3:9, 15). Though sinners suppress the truth of the gospel in unrighteousness, the common grace of God makes their rejection of him inexcusable (Rom. 1:18–20).

While common grace expresses the goodness and kindness of God to all humanity, it is in the overflowing blessings of his special grace that God’s character as Savior is fully displayed. The remainder of this chapter details the revelation and operation of God’s sovereign, saving grace.

The outworking of God’s saving grace on sinners begins long before any individual sinner experiences the benefits of that grace. Before the sinner’s conversion and justification, before the Savior’s substitutionary atonement, and even before the creation of the world itself, God’s redemptive grace has its origin in eternity past in the sovereign counsel of the will of the triune God. As Paul wrote to Timothy, God saves his people according to his own eternal purpose, having lavished on them grace “in Christ before the ages began” (2 Tim. 1:9).

A natural objection that arises to the doctrine of exhaustive sovereignty is that it seems to make God morally culpable for sin. However, while God is properly said to ordain—and thus to be the Ultimate Cause of—all things, he is never the proper chargeable cause of evil. Scripture distinguishes between the (1) Ultimate Cause of an action and (2) the proximate and efficient causes of an action, indicating that only the proximate and efficient causes are blameworthy for an evil action. In addition, Scripture also takes into account the motive for an evil action. While God ordains the evil choices of free moral agents, he does not coerce them; rather, they act according to their own freedom of inclination. Because God is never the efficient cause of evil and because he always ordains evil for good, he incurs no guilt.

This theodicy is substantiated by numerous passages in the Bible, such as God’s role in sending Joseph into slavery (Gen. 45:5–8; 50:20), in sending Assyria to destroy Israel (Isa. 10:1–8), and in inciting David to take the census of Israel (2 Sam. 24:1; 1 Chron. 21:1). But the clearest example comes from the apostolic record of the greatest evil event in history: the murder of the Son of God. If God can be absolved of wrongdoing for ordaining the greatest evil, then there can be no objection to his justice in ordaining lesser evils.

For example, Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were rightly to blame for the crucifixion of Christ (Acts 4:27). Indeed, Peter openly indicted the men of Israel for their crime (Acts 2:23, 36). And yet Peter also explicitly said that such evil was accomplished by God’s decree, that is, “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). Indeed, Herod, Pilate, the Jews, and the Gentiles were gathered against Jesus “to do whatever [God’s] hand and [his] plan had predestined to take place” (Acts 4:27–28).

It may be observed, first, that God is the Ultimate Cause of the crucifixion, having predestined every circumstance that led to its occurrence and thus rendering it certain. Second, the Jews were a proximate cause, having incited the Romans to crucify Christ. Third, Herod, Pilate, and other godless men were the efficient cause, because the crucifixion was carried out by Roman authority. The Jews were thus held accountable as a proximate cause, as Peter said to them, “You crucified and killed [Jesus] by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:23). That it was the Romans who actually nailed Jesus to a cross made the Jews no less culpable for that crime. And yet God, by whose hand all these things ultimately came about, is not the chargeable cause of any evil, because, while the perpetrators meant it for evil, God meant it for good. As Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) explains,

[It is consistent to say] that God has decreed every action of men, yea, every action that they do that is sinful, and every circumstance of those actions; [that] he determines that they shall be in every respect as they afterwards are; [that] he determines that there shall be such actions, and so obtains that they shall be so sinful as they are; and yet that God does not decree the actions that are sinful as sinful, but decrees [them] as good. . . . [B]y decreeing an action as sinful, I mean decreeing [it] for the sake of the sinfulness of the action. God decrees that it shall be sinful for the sake of the good that he causes to arise from the sinfulness thereof, whereas man decrees it for the sake of the evil that is in it.

Thus, Herod, Pilate, Judas, and the Jews conspired to bring about the crucifixion because they wanted to be rid of this man who indicted them for their sin. But God ordained the evil of the cross for the good that it would bring, namely, the salvation of his people from their sin. Such an explanation may not satisfy every objection of fallen man, but such is the theodicy that arises from Scripture itself. On that basis, it must be accepted that while God is the Ultimate Cause of all things, he is not the chargeable cause of evil.

The decree of election is the free and sovereign choice of God, made in eternity past, to set his love on certain individuals, and, on the basis of nothing in themselves but solely because of the good pleasure of his will, to choose them to be saved from sin and damnation and to inherit the blessings of eternal life through the mediatorial work of Christ.

The Biblical Concept of Election
The doctrine of election is one of the most controversial doctrines in Christian theology. Misconceptions of the nature of God, an unbiblical conception of love, and fallen humanity’s notions of fairness have caused many to balk at the idea that God unconditionally chooses some and not others to receive salvation. Because the sovereign freedom of God scandalizes the subversive human mind, some theologians have altogether denied the biblical teaching concerning election and predestination.

However, both the terminology and the concept of election are taught explicitly throughout Scripture. In Ephesians 1:4–5, Paul writes that the Father “chose [Gk. eklegomai] us in him [Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined [Gk. proorizō] us for adoption as sons.” In Romans 8:29–30, he says, “For those whom he [the Father] foreknew [Gk. proginōskō] he also predestined [Gk. proorizō] to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined [Gk. proorizō] he also called.” In the next chapter, Paul illustrates God’s absolute freedom in salvation by pointing to his discriminating choice between the twins, Jacob and Esau:

Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election [Gk. hē kat’ eklogēn prothesis tou theou, lit. “the according-to-election purpose of God”] might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Rom. 9:11–13)

Perhaps the clearest statement on God’s sovereign election in salvation comes in Paul’s remarks to the Thessalonians: “God has chosen [Gk. haireomai] you from the beginning for salvation [eis sōtērian] through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth” (2 Thess. 2:13 NASB).

In addition to these several references to God’s sovereign, predestining choice, the New Testament also recognizes a category of individuals designated “the elect” (Gk. hoi eklektoi). They are the specific objects of God’s saving choice. It is customary for the apostles to refer to all believers as “God’s chosen ones” (Col. 3:12; cf. Titus 1:1) or “those who are elect” (1 Pet. 1:1; cf. 1 Thess. 1:4). It is for “God’s elect” that Christ was delivered over to death; they are thereby justified and saved from all accusations and condemnation (Rom. 8:32–34). Because they are his own, God does not delay to “give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night” (Luke 18:7). It is “for the sake of the elect” that the days of the great tribulation will be cut short (Matt. 24:22; Mark 13:20), that Christ may return with his angels and “gather his elect from the four winds” to himself (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:27). And it is “for the sake of the elect” that the apostle Paul endures his many ministerial hardships, that those who have been chosen by God in eternity past may finally come to “obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2:9–10). The reader of Scripture simply cannot deny that the doctrine of election is a biblical teaching that permeates the pages of divine revelation.

The Categories of Election
Scripture employs the terminology of election in several senses. First, God is said to choose, or elect, certain people either to an office or to perform a specific task of service. He chose people for leadership over the nation of Israel, as in the case of Moses (Num. 16:5–7) and Zerubbabel (Hag. 2:23). Scripture indicates that God chose those whom he pleased to the priestly ministry of Israel, both the tribe of Levi in general (Deut. 18:1–5; 21:5; 1 Chron. 15:2) and men individually (e.g., 1 Sam. 2:27–28). As with the office of priest, so also God elected his chosen ones to serve in the offices of king (Deut. 17:15; 1 Sam. 10:24; 1 Chron. 28:4–6; 29:1) and prophet (Jer. 1:10). The Father also, in a special manner, chose the Son for the task of accomplishing salvation for the elect (Isa. 42:1; Luke 9:35; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2:4, 6). Then, during his earthly ministry the Lord Jesus himself chose twelve of his disciples for the task of apostolic service and preaching (Mark 3:13–15; Luke 6:13; John 6:70; 13:18; 15:16, 19; Acts 1:2, 24).

Second, Scripture also speaks of corporate election—the choice of certain nations or groups to enjoy special privileges or perform unique services to God. This is never clearer than in the case of God’s choice of Israel to be the recipient of his covenant love and blessings. As Moses declared the law of God to the second generation of Israelites preparing to enter the Promised Land, he insisted that their covenant relationship with Yahweh was rooted in his sovereign election:

The Lord your God has chosen [Heb. bakhar] you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love [Heb. khashaq] on you and chose [Heb. bakhar] you, for you were the fewest of all peoples. (Deut. 7:6–7)

Yet on your fathers did the Lord set His affection [Heb. khashaq] to love them, and He chose [Heb. bakhar] their descendants after them, even you above all peoples. (Deut. 10:15 NASB; cf. 4:37; 1 Kings 3:8; Isa. 41:8; 44:1; 45:4; Amos 3:2)

God set his electing love and affection on Israel to be his special possession among all the nations of the earth. He entered into covenant with them, and, as such, his choice of that nation is irrevocable. While the vast majority of the Jewish nation are presently enemies of the gospel and cut off from covenant blessing, nevertheless a time is coming when “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26), for “God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew [Gk. proginōskō]” (Rom. 11:2). “As regards election [Gk. eklogē],” Paul says, “they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:28–29).

Finally, in addition to election unto service and corporate election, Scripture clearly teaches that God chooses certain individuals for salvation. Some theologians point to the several passages of Scripture that teach vocational election or corporate election in order to argue against the doctrine of unconditional individual election. However, such an argument is invalid. It is not disputed that Scripture employs the terminology of election in multiple senses, but the mere occurrence of one sense is not in itself an argument against the legitimacy of any other sense. Indeed, Scripture is replete with references to individual election to salvation. In the Old Testament, Nehemiah proclaimed that God chose Abram and entered into covenant with him (Neh. 9:7), which God himself declared from the beginning: “For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him” (Gen. 18:19). He also chose Isaac over Ishmael (Gen. 17:19–21; 21:12; cf. Rom. 9:7–9) and Jacob over Esau (Rom. 9:10–13) to be children of the promise.

Moses is nearly tautologous: God set his love on his people in election because he loves them. When the question is asked, why does God choose one person over another? the answer cannot be because that person did this or that but rather because God acted according to the sovereign freedom of his will (Eph. 1:5).

Arminian theologians reject the teaching of unconditional election. They contend that it would be unfair for God to save some and not others, all things being equal between them. Instead, on the basis of Paul’s comment on God’s foreknowledge in Romans 8:29, they posit that God has chosen those whom he will save because in eternity past he looked ahead into the future and foresaw who would believe in Christ and who would reject him. God is often pictured as “looking down the corridors of time” and discovering those who according to their own free will would believe in Christ—these he chose to save on the basis of their foreseen faith. Discovering that the rest would reject Christ, he decided not to save them on the basis of their lack of faith. For this reason, this view is often called the foreseen faith view, the prescient view, or the simple foreknowledge view of election. Thus, the Arminian conception of election rests the ultimate cause of salvation on man, not on God; election is simply God’s ratification of the choices that he foresaw individuals would make.

This delivers a fatal blow to the supposition that election was conditioned on faith—or on anything else the sinner might think or do. If the basis of God’s choice was the foreseen faith or actions of those whom he chose, Paul would have had to write that God “predestined us . . . according to his foreknowledge of our faith.”

Therefore, when one comes to his statement in Romans 9:11 and reads that election is “not because of works,” it is natural to expect him to say, “but because of faith.” If the Spirit desired to convey that the conditioning basis of election was faith, there was no better opportunity to reveal it than in this passage. Yet the apostle breaks from his consistent pattern of contrasting works and faith precisely because election is not based on faith. He declares rather that it is “not because of works but because of him who calls.” Once again, the basis of God’s electing choice is grounded in God himself, which is to say that election is based on the good pleasure of God’s own will (cf. Eph. 1:5). While faith is a condition of justification, it is not a condition of election. Election is unconditional.

A final problem concerning the doctrine of conditional election is that it is unable to escape the charge of undermining the doctrine of salvation by grace alone (sola gratia). By grounding God’s electing purpose in man’s foreseen faith and not in God’s sovereign will, the Arminian ultimately makes man the determinative cause of salvation and not God. On this view, what ultimately differentiates the saved person from the unsaved is not something God has done but something man has done. To Paul’s question in 1 Corinthians 4:7, “For who makes you differ from another?” (NKJV), the Arminian, if he is to be consistent, must ultimately answer, “I make the difference. God chose me and not my neighbor because he foresaw that I would freely believe and my neighbor would not.” In that case the believer has grounds for boasting. Yet Paul replies that God has chosen the foolish, and the weak, and the base—not the wise, the strong, or the faithful—“so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:29–30 NASB). 

Grudem summarizes helpfully:

What ultimately makes the difference between those who believe and those who do not? If our answer is that it is ultimately based on something God does (namely, his sovereign election of those who would be saved), then we see that salvation at its most foundational level is based on grace alone. On the other hand, if we answer that the ultimate difference between those who are saved and those who are not is because of something in man (that is, a tendency or disposition to believe or not believe), then salvation ultimately depends on a combination of grace plus human ability.

Thus, Scripture instructs that in his inscrutable wisdom, God has not chosen to save all men. His election is particular, not universal. Given this, we must inquire as to the destiny of those whom he has not chosen to save.

 The decree of reprobation is the free and sovereign choice of God, made in eternity past, to pass over certain individuals, choosing not to set his saving love on them but instead determining to punish them for their sins unto the magnification of his justice.16

The doctrine of reprobation is a difficult teaching to accept. It is not pleasant to contemplate the miseries of eternal suffering in and of themselves, let alone to consider that the God who is love and is by nature a Savior has sovereignly determined to consign sinners to such a wretched end. Because it so easily offends fallen man’s sensibilities, many Christians who embrace the doctrine of election nevertheless reject the doctrine of reprobation altogether. That is also the case because the doctrine is so easily and so often misunderstood. Because of that, it is necessary to state what precisely we do and do not believe concerning the doctrine of reprobation.

In the first place, reprobation is often wrongfully conflated with the doctrine of equal ultimacy. Equal ultimacy teaches that God’s actions in election and reprobation are perfectly symmetrical, so that God is just as active in working unbelief in the heart of the reprobate as he is in working faith in the heart of the elect. It pictures God in eternity past contemplating all humanity as yet unfallen and morally neutral and arbitrarily deciding to work sin and unbelief in the reprobate in order to be justified in consigning them to eternal punishment. Though this is what many think of when they hear the terms reprobation or double predestination, it is a gross caricature of the biblical doctrine of reprobation that is utterly foreign to Scripture, repugnant to the love and justice of God, and an aberration of historic Calvinism that has been rejected throughout Reformed orthodoxy.

Instead, Scripture teaches an unequal ultimacy with regard to election and reprobation—that is, while God does indeed decree both the salvation of some and the damnation of others, there is a necessary asymmetry in these decrees. Such an asymmetry is observed in Romans 9:22–23, for example, where Paul uses the active voice to speak of God’s involvement in election (“vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory”) and the passive voice to speak of his involvement in reprobation (“vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”). When God chose some and not others for salvation, he regarded them not as morally neutral but as already-fallen creatures. That is not to say that they were already created and fallen, for God’s decree is eternal and thus pretemporal. Rather, from eternity, before anyone had been created, God conceived of or contemplated all people in light of their fall in Adam and thus as sinful creatures.18 In the case of the elect, he actively intervenes—setting his love on them, determining to appoint Christ as their Savior and to send the Spirit to sovereignly quicken them from spiritual death unto new life in Christ. In the case of the nonelect, however, he does not intervene but simply passes them by, choosing to leave them in their state of sinfulness and then to punish them for their sin. While he is the efficient cause of the blessedness of the elect, he is not the efficient cause of the wretchedness of the nonelect; rather, he ordains them to destruction by means of secondary causes.19 Thus, the elect receive mercy, for they are not punished as their sins deserve, but the nonelect receive justice, for they are rightly condemned as their sins deserve. On neither ground can God be charged with unrighteousness, because all are guilty and because he is not obligated to show grace to any.

Sometimes, in order to rightly distinguish reprobation from equal ultimacy, people make inaccurate statements concerning precisely how election and reprobation are unequal or asymmetrical. In particular, they often wrongly state that election is positive and unconditional while reprobation is negative and conditioned on man’s sin. While such statements can be true depending on what one intends, they are confusing because they fail to distinguish between the two elements of the decree of reprobation: (1) the decision to pass over some, called preterition, and (2) the determination to condemn those passed over, called precondemnation. With respect to the positive-negative distinction, preterition is indeed a negative or passive action on God’s part; God simply passes over man and leaves him in his state of sinfulness. Precondemnation, however, is a positive action in which God actively determines to visit judicial punishment on sin. The “vessels of wrath” are “prepared for destruction” (Rom. 9:22), destined to disobedience (1 Pet. 2:8), and “designated for this condemnation” (Jude 4).20 With respect to the unconditional-conditional distinction, precondemnation is indeed conditional, for God assigns men to condemnation on the basis of their sin and guilt. Preterition, however, is unconditional. Sin cannot be the basis on which God passes over some men, for all men without exception are sinners. Like election, God’s decision not to choose someone for salvation is based on nothing in that individual but rather is a sovereign act of God’s good pleasure. Thus, preterition is passive and unconditional, while precondemnation is active and conditional. 

To say that election is positive while reprobation is negative is to fail to adequately emphasize the active nature of precondemnation. And to say that election is unconditional while reprobation is conditional is to fail to adequately emphasize the unconditional nature of preterition. Avoiding both of these imprecise statements will ensure an accurate understanding of the doctrine of reprobation.

Having understood what is and is not meant by reprobation, it is essential to prove the rightness of this doctrine from Scripture. Once again, it is acknowledged that reprobation is a difficult doctrine, one that Calvin himself called a decretum horribile, “a fearful decree.”21 Nevertheless, the doctrine of reprobation is taught in the Bible, and we are therefore obliged to reverently submit our minds and our emotions to the infinite wisdom of God’s revelation, trusting that what he says and does is right and just (Rom. 3:4).

If no one can resist God’s sovereign will or decree, how can he justly hold people accountable for that which they are unable to do? Paul answers those who would reproach God by reminding them that mere mortals are in no position to call God to account: “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’” (9:20). Paul then continues with this analogy and pictures God as a potter, likening the election of some to fashioning a clay vessel for honorable use and likening the reprobation of others to fashioning another clay vessel for dishonorable use (9:21). In defending God’s freedom to do what he wishes with what is his own (Matt. 20:15), Paul then goes on to describe the elect as “vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” and the reprobate as “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (Rom. 9:22–23). These vessels could only have been “prepared” by the potter himself, and Paul clearly indicates that those whom he hardens (9:18) are those whom he has fitted for destruction.

Yet it must be remembered that God is not subject to fallen notions of fairness, nor will he be tried at the bar of human reason. To those who would bring such charges, Paul’s rebuke is apropos: “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” (Rom. 9:20). All such accusations are born of the erroneous presumption that if God gives grace to any of his creatures, he must give grace to all. Boettner says, “Many people talk as if salvation were a matter of human birthright. And, forgetful of the fact that man had lost his supremely favorable chance in Adam, they inform us that God would be unjust if He did not give all guilty creatures an opportunity to be saved.”25 Yet it undermines the very nature of grace to suppose that it is owed to sinful human beings. Truly, the question concerning God’s decree of predestination is not, why did God not choose everybody? but rather, how can it be that this supremely holy God would choose anybody? It is the marvel of marvels that the King of kings, whose glory is exalted above the heavens, should lift a finger to rescue even one of such vile traitors as the sons of Adam.

God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass—even the preparation of vessels of wrath unto destruction—in order that his people might enjoy the fullest display of his glory. Those who would reproach God for ordaining the destiny of the wicked for his own glory must remember that, far from a megalomaniacal narcissism, God’s pursuit of his own glory is, as Edwards said, “in order to the happiness of the creature . . . because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God.” Our knowledge of God would be imperfect if we did not see the full expression of his attributes: grace, mercy, forgiveness, justice, righteousness, and the rest of the panoply of his perfections. And yet none of those attributes could be expressed fully if there was not sin to punish and to forgive or sinners to whom to be gracious or on whom to exercise justice. God is not less glorious but more glorious because he has ordained evil, and the more he magnifies his glory, the greater is his love to his people. Surely God cannot be charged with unrighteousness for doing that which amounts to the greatest benefit for those who are his.

Neither do the doctrines of election and reprobation undermine the reality that all are commanded to repent and believe the gospel. Those who suppose that God’s sovereign choice is incompatible with man’s responsibility to believe fail to do justice to the whole of God’s revelation. Indeed, immediately following what is the most exalted teaching on divine sovereignty in Romans 9, Paul just as clearly teaches human responsibility in Romans 10. He declares that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (10:13), mandates that preachers of the gospel be sent to call all to repentance (10:14–17), and pictures God’s loving benevolence even to the obstinate by depicting him as one who stretches out his hands and calls them to salvation (10:21). Scripture never teaches that God’s absolute sovereignty obviates the sinner’s responsibility to turn from his sins and trust in Christ. Neither is the sinner exhorted to determine whether God has chosen him for salvation or not. The sinner’s responsibility is not to discern the secret counsels of God’s decree but rather to heed the clear commands of Scripture to repent and believe the gospel (Mark 1:15; Acts 17:30).

R. C. Sproul:
In bringing the whole human race before the tribunal of God, Scripture indicts us all without exception, save for Jesus. It says, “There is none righteous, no, not one.” The qualifying phrase, “no, not one,” makes it clear that the universal judgment is not hyperbole. It is a universal negative proposition, from which none are excluded. The absence of exclusions or exceptions is not technically absolute when we consider the sinlessness of Jesus. This text, however, does not have Jesus in his moral uniqueness in view. It is evaluating the entire human race apart from Jesus.

The text then moves in a remarkable way from the general to the specific. Not only does it say there is none righteous, but it says there is none who does good, no, not one. We are not considered unrighteous because the dross of sin is mixed together with our goodness. The indictment against us is more radical: in our corrupt humanity we never do a single good thing.

How are we to understand this? Is it not our daily experience that many good deeds are performed by pagan people? The Reformers wrestled with this problem and acknowledged that sinners in their fallen condition are still capable of performing what the Reformers called works of “civil virtue.” Civil virtue refers to deeds that conform outwardly to the law of God. Fallen sinners can refrain from stealing and perform acts of charity, but these deeds are not deemed good in an ultimate sense. When God evaluates the actions of people, he considers not only the outward deeds in and of themselves, but also the motives behind these acts. The supreme motive required of everything we do is the love of God. A deed that outwardly conforms to God’s law but proceeds from a heart alienated from God is not deemed by God a good deed. The whole action, including the inclinations of the doer’s heart, is brought under the scrutiny of God and found wanting.

Jonathan Edwards said civic virtue is motivated by “enlightened self-interest.” Such outwardly virtuous acts are motivated, not by a desire to please or honor God, but by a desire to protect our own interests. We may learn, for example, that there are circumstances where crime does not pay. We may obey legal speed limits to avoid a speeding ticket. We are restrained from sinning to our full potential by law, culture, and the prospect of conflict with other sinful people.

The condition of radical corruption, or total depravity, is the fallen state known as original sin. The doctrine of original sin does not refer to the first sin committed by Adam and Eve, but to the result of that first sin. Original sin is the corruption visited on the progeny of our first parents as punishment for the original transgression. Virtually every Christian church has some doctrine of original sin. Though liberal theology, deeply influenced by humanistic assumptions, often decries original sin, all the historic confessions include the doctrine. To be sure, the degree of corruption involved with original sin has been a perennial point of debate among theologians. The consensus of historic Christianity, nevertheless, is that the biblical view of the fall requires us to affirm some concept of original sin.

As we noted earlier, much of the controversy between Pelagius and Augustine focused on the issue of the freedom of the human will. Pelagius believed the doctrine of original sin does violence to human freedom and responsibility. If Augustine assessed original sin correctly and we lack the ability not to sin (non posse non peccare), what does this do to free will? The Westminster Confession of Faith declares: “Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”

If ever the Reformed doctrine of total depravity has been crystallized into one brief statement, it is here. The moral inability of fallen man is the core concept of the doctrine of total depravity or radical corruption. If one embraces this aspect of the t in tulip, the rest of the acrostic follows by a resistless logic. One cannot embrace the t and reject any of the other four letters with any degree of consistency.

Let us look carefully at this succinct summary of the Reformation concept of moral inability. First, the confession says that as a result of the fall, man “hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation.” Something has been not only lost, but wholly lost. It has been lost totally and in its entirety. It is not a partial loss or diminution of power or ability. It is a radical and complete loss. Yet this does not mean that the will’s ability to choose has been lost completely. What has been lost is the ability to will “any good accompanying salvation.”

We have already discussed the sinner’s ability to perform works of civil virtue. These deeds conform outwardly to the law of God, but they are not motivated by a love for God. The moral ability lost in original sin is therefore not the ability to be outwardly “moral,” but the ability to incline oneself to the things of God. In this spiritual dimension we are morally dead.

Calvin took a position similar to Augustine’s: “This liberty is compatible with our being depraved, the servants of sin, able to do nothing but sin. In this way, then, man is said to have free will, not because he has a free choice of good and evil, but because he acts voluntarily, and not by compulsion. This is perfectly true: but why should so small a matter have been dignified with so proud a title? An admirable freedom! That man is not forced to be the servant of sin, while he is, however, ethelodoulos (a voluntary slave); his will being bound by the fetters of sin.”

Though Calvin affirmed that we are able to choose what we want, he regarded the term free will a bit grandiose for the matter. “Why should so small a matter,” he asked, “have been dignified with so proud a title?” The title is indeed rooted in human pride. We like to think we have more moral power than we do. We think our will is utterly unaffected by original sin. This is the cardinal point of humanism. The humanistic and pagan view of free will is that the will acts from a posture of indifference. By indifference we mean that the will is inclined to neither good nor evil but exists in a state of moral neutrality. The mind of fallen man has no bias, no predisposition to evil. This view of free will is on a collision course with the biblical view of sin.

We human beings do have the natural ability, however, to make choices. We have been given the necessary natural equipment. We have a mind that can process information and understand the obligations imposed by the law of God. We have a will that enables us to choose to do what we want to do. Prior to the fall we also had a good inclination, enabling us to choose the good. It is precisely this inclination to the good that was lost in the fall. Original sin does not destroy our humanity or our ability to make choices. The natural ability or faculty remains intact. What was lost is the good inclination or righteous desire for obedience. The unregenerate person is not inclined to obey God. He has no love for God that stirs his will to choose God. He could choose the things of God if he wanted them, but he does not want them. Our wills are such that we cannot freely choose what we have no desire to choose. The fundamental loss of a desire for God is the heart of original sin.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism:

The doctrine of unconditional election is awe-inspiring. It is mysterious (we cannot fully understand all that is involved). But the important thing to realize is that this is what the Bible teaches; God has chosen some men, and not others. And Ile has done this without any injustice. He has done this so that there will he two, and only two restilts. On the one hand there will be some who are saved. And when they at last reach heaven they will say this: “I owe it all to God. I did not deserve this. But God chose me, and to him alone he the praise.” But, on the other hand, there will be others who are lost. And when they at last reach their sad destination they will only he able to say this: “It is all my own fault. I deserve this. I deserved it because I sinned in Adam and fell with him. But I also deserve it even more because I did not want to cone to Christ in true repentance and faith. I did not choose Christ, and to me alone be the blame.” It is only when we see these two things-on the one hand, no ground to boast (not even one little thing of self); and on the other hand, no ground to complain-that we can begin to understand the importance and wonder of this doctrine. And, as far as any personal difficulties are concerned, let its always put this truth first-if we really want to he saved in God’s way, then we need not fear-“give diligence to make your calling and election sure,” says Peter, “for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:10-11).

R. C. Sproul:
The objection Paul does anticipate is one that Calvinists hear constantly: the Calvinist doctrine of election casts a shadow over God’s righteousness. The complaint is loud and frequent that unconditional election involves God in a kind of unrighteousness. My guess is that Paul anticipated the very objection that Calvinists hear because he taught the same doctrine of election that Calvinists teach. When our doctrine of election is assailed, I take comfort that we are in good company, that of Paul himself, when we must bear the cavils of those who oppose unconditional election.

The idea that there may be unrighteousness in God is related to God’s choice of some for salvation while passing over others. It does not seem fair or “right” for God to bestow his grace on some but not on others. If the decision to bless Jacob over Esau was made before either was born or had done anything good or evil, and if the choice was not with a view to their future actions or responses, then the obvious question is, Why did one receive the blessing and not the other? Paul answers by appealing to God’s words to Moses: “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy.” It is God’s prerogative to dispense his grace however he sees fit. He owed neither Jacob nor Esau any measure of grace. Had he chosen neither, he would have violated no precept of justice or righteousness.

It still seems that if God gives grace to one person, in the interest of fairness he “ought” to give grace equally to another. It is precisely this “oughtness” that is foreign to the biblical concept of grace. Among the mass of fallen humanity, all guilty of sin before God and exposed to his justice, no one has any claim or entitlement to God’s mercy. If God chooses to grant mercy to some of that group, this does not require that he give it to all.

God certainly has the power and authority to grant his saving grace to all mankind. Clearly he has not elected to do this. All men are not saved despite the fact that God has the power and right to save them all if that is his good pleasure. It is also clear that all are not lost. God could have chosen not to save anyone. He has the power and authority to execute his righteous justice by saving nobody. In reality he elects to save some, but not all. Those who are saved are beneficiaries of his sovereign grace and mercy. Those who are not saved are not victims of his cruelty or injustice; they are recipients of justice. No one receives punishment at the hands of God that they do not deserve. Some receive grace at his hands that they do not deserve. Because he is pleased to grant mercy to one does not mean that the rest “deserve” the same. If mercy is deserved, it is not really mercy, but justice.

John MacArthur:
Practically all religions have some concept of atonement—a means by which reparations are made, sin is expiated, deity is satisfied, and reconciliation is achieved between the deity and the sinner. Man-made religions propose some means by which the sinner must make an acceptable atonement to earn merit that will compensate for or erase sin, removing guilt through good works, religious ritual, restitution, the payment of a penalty, the offering of a sacrifice, or some sort of self-abasement. The distinctive teaching of biblical Christianity is that God himself has made full atonement for sinners—and he accomplished this by the substitutionary sacrifice of his own Son on the cross. Sinners contribute nothing by way of merit or sacrifice to the atonement.

The Father does not love his people strictly on the grounds that Jesus died for them; rather, Jesus died for his people because the Father loved them.

Several of the church fathers (e.g., Athanasius, Augustine), medieval theologians (e.g., Thomas Aquinas), and early Reformers (e.g., John Calvin) espoused what is known as the hypothetical necessity view of the atonement. This view teaches that, based on the sovereign freedom of the God for whom nothing is impossible, he could have chosen to save his people by a means other than the vicarious atonement of Christ. While he ultimately has decreed to save by the shedding of Christ’s blood, there is nothing inherent in the nature of God or the nature of forgiveness that makes this absolutely necessary.

In contrast, an overwhelming majority of theologians (e.g., Irenaeus, Anselm, John Owen, Francis Turretin, Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, Louis Berkhof, John Murray) maintain what is called the consequent absolute necessity view of the atonement. This view acknowledges that it is not absolutely necessary for God to save anyone from sin at all—a fact illustrated by his immediate damnation of sinful angels, for whom no provision of salvation has ever been made (2 Pet. 2:4; cf. Heb. 2:16). As in the case of the fallen angels, God was entirely within his rights to abandon sinful humanity to misery and to vindicate his justice by consigning all to hell. In this sense, the atonement was not absolutely necessary; that God has graciously chosen to rescue anyone is a free act of the good pleasure of his will (Eph. 1:5). However, once God had determined to save man, the cross of Christ was, consequently, absolutely necessary. Murray explains, “In a word, while it was not inherently necessary for God to save, yet, since salvation had been purposed, it was necessary to secure this salvation through a satisfaction that could be rendered only through a substitutionary sacrifice and blood-bought redemption.”

Scripture clearly vindicates this latter view, as it often speaks of the necessity of Christ’s cross. In Hebrews 2:10, the author declares that it was fitting—that is, that it was consistent with the nature of God, sin, and salvation—that the Father, in bringing many sons to glory, should make Christ perfect through sufferings.

Scripture employs several themes to describe what Christ accomplished on the cross. The work of Christ was a work of substitutionary sacrifice, in which the Savior bore the penalty of sin in the place of sinners (1 Pet. 2:24); it is a work of propitiation, in which God’s wrath against sin is fully satisfied and exhausted in the person of our substitute (Rom. 3:25); it is a work of reconciliation, in which the alienation between man and God is overcome and peace is made (Col. 1:20, 22); it is a work of redemption, in which those enslaved to sin are ransomed by the price of the Lamb’s precious blood (1 Pet. 1:18–19); and it is a work of conquest, in which sin, death, and Satan are defeated by the power of a victorious Savior (Heb. 2:14–15). Each of these themes is worthy of study and will be the subject of this section’s discussion.

Thus, in Paul’s hymn of praise concerning the incarnation and atonement of the Son of God, he describes Christ’s work as his “becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8). Christ’s atoning work was a work of obedience to the Father.

Originally developed in the intertestamental period, that baptism was a ceremonial rite for Gentile converts to Judaism by which they confessed their uncleanness and need for spiritual cleansing. In John’s day, Israel had so multiplied their wickedness—that is, they were in need of such cleansing—that ethnic Jews submitted themselves to proselyte baptism to signify their repentance.35 People from Jerusalem, all Judea, and all throughout the region of the Jordan River came to confess their sins and be baptized (Matt. 3:5–6). So when Jesus came to his cousin to be baptized, John was rightly incredulous: “John would have prevented him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’” (Matt. 3:14).

While not every Levitical sacrifice is prescribed to atone for sin, the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement surely are. Once a year, the high priest of Israel was to enter the Most Holy Place in order to “[make] atonement for himself and for his house and for all the assembly of Israel” (Lev. 16:17; cf. 16:24, 32–34). Two goats were to be offered: one as a sacrifice and another as a scapegoat that bore the sins of the people and was banished from the presence of the Lord (Lev. 16:8–10). The blood of the sacrificial goat was to be sprinkled on the mercy seat, the covering of the ark of the covenant where atonement was made (Lev. 16:15–19). Because “the life of the flesh is in the blood, [God has] given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life” (Lev. 17:11). After this, the high priest was to deal with the scapegoat:

And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness. (Lev. 16:21–22)

In fact, in the Galatians 3 passage, Paul quotes the promised curse for disobedience just a few verses earlier: “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’” (Gal. 3:10; cf. Deut. 27:26). For those who seek to attain righteousness by their works, the law requires perfect obedience (James 2:10). Because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), all come under the curse of the law. It is from this curse of spiritual death and destruction that Christ has redeemed his people. He has done this by becoming a curse for us, that is, by bearing the penal sanctions of that curse in our place.

Christ’s perfectly efficacious redemption applied to the believer’s soul at his justification will also finally be applied to the body at his glorification. In other words, the cross has secured the consummation of our salvation no less than its inauguration. For this reason, that final day is called “your redemption” (Luke 21:28) and “the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30).

Such, then, is the character of the penal-substitutionary atonement of Christ. The guilt of our sin demanded the penalty of death, and so the Lamb of God was slain as an expiatory sacrifice on our behalf. The wrath of God was kindled against our sin, and so Christ was set forth as a propitiation to bear that wrath in our place. The pollution of our sin alienated us from God and aroused his holy enmity against us, and so by atoning for sin Christ has reconciled God to man. Obedient to sin, man was in bondage to sin through the law that exposed sin in our lives, and so Christ has paid the ransom price of his precious blood to God the Father in order to redeem us from such slavery. In doing so, he has plundered Satan’s house, conquering death and its captain by the exercise of his own power.

Thence flow the polluted streams of all false religion, according to which man adds to Christ’s work his own religious performance—the multiplication of good works and the repudiation of bad works—to secure his salvation. Liberal theology has not only embraced such idolatry but has canonized it as one of the few dogmas on which it stands: man is basically good, and to be accepted before God, he need only respond to the moral influence of Christ’s death and imitate his example of self-sacrifice. By this, it is argued, even if never so explicitly, God will be pleased with us and will not count our sins against us.

Jesus’s death did not make sins forgivable; it accomplished forgiveness. His atonement was not hypothetical, potential, or provisional; it was an efficacious atonement.

None of this is to suggest that the elect were justified or granted saving faith and repentance at the time of Christ’s death in the first century. Neither is it to suggest that anyone is saved apart from faith. To assume so is to confuse the accomplishment of redemption with its application. Rather, to speak of definite atonement and accomplished salvation is to say that Christ has endured all the punishment of, paid the full penalty for, and satisfied the whole of God’s wrath against the sins of his people. It is to say that he has done everything necessary to completely secure the salvation of those for whom he died—to render certain and definite the application of salvation’s benefits to all those for whom Christ purchased them. It is, finally, to say that nothing can be added to Christ’s work in order to invest it with power or efficacy but that because our substitute has actually borne the full penalty of sin’s condemnation, “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1).

The answers given to this vital question typically fall into two general categories. The universalist school of thought answers that Christ has paid for the sins of every person who has ever lived without exception. This is often called general, unlimited, or universal atonement. By contrast, particularists teach that Christ died as a substitute for the elect alone—for only those particular individuals whom the Father chose in eternity past and gave to the Son. While this position has long been known as limited atonement—that Christ’s atonement is limited to the elect—many proponents have found such a label to be easily misunderstood and have preferred definite atonement or particular redemption. Throughout the discussion of soteriology in the present volume, particular redemption has been affirmed. In this section it will be defended from Scripture.

Thus, both particularists and universalists can subscribe to the popular dictum that the atonement is “sufficient for all, yet efficient for only the elect.”

Perhaps the most common argument from those who hold to some form of an unlimited atonement is that Christ died for all without exception in a provisional sense. Christ died to provide salvation for all yet not to infallibly secure it for anyone in particular. He has died potentially for all, it is said, such that the potential exists for anyone to have the benefits of his sacrifice applied to him or her through repentance and faith. Very rarely is this provisional nature of the atonement argued based on the exegesis of Scripture; rather, it is presented as a theological construct to explain texts that speak of Christ’s death in universalistic terms. The argument usually takes the following form:

1. Scripture speaks of the death of Christ in universalistic terms; thus, Christ died for all without exception.
2. Not everyone receives the saving benefits of Christ’s death; some perish in hell.
3. Therefore, Christ died for all in only a provisional or potential sense; the atonement is granted its efficacy by the decision of the sinner to repent and believe.

Since, then, Christ’s atonement is by its very nature an efficacious substitution—that is, since he actually satisfied all of the Father’s wrath against the sins of those for whom he died—one cannot affirm a universal atonement but at the same time deny universal salvation without emptying the atonement of its saving power.

R. C. Sproul:
The question answered by the doctrine of limited atonement is this: Is Christ a real Savior or merely a “potential” Savior? The doctrine of limited atonement, the l of tulip, is probably the most disputed term of the five. The idea that the atonement is “limited” provides the crux of the controversy. To state the question in another way: Did Christ die to atone for the sins of every human being, or did he die to atone for the sins of the elect only?

The atonement of Christ was clearly limited or unlimited. There is no alternative, no tertium quid. If it is unlimited in an absolute sense, then an atonement has been made for every person’s sins. Christ has then made propitiation for all persons’ sins and expiated them as well.

It seems to follow from the idea of unlimited atonement that salvation is universal. The vast majority of Arminians, Dispensationalists, and other semi-Pelagians who deny limited atonement, however, reject universalism. Historic Arminianism embraces particularism: not all people are saved, only a particular number of them. That particular group of people who are saved are those who respond to the offer of the gospel with faith. Only those who believe appropriate the benefits of the saving atonement in Christ. The person who fails to embrace the saving work of Christ with faith is ultimately left without the expiation of his sins, the propitiation of the cross, and the satisfaction of God’s justice.

In this view faith is not only a condition for redemption, but also one of the very grounds of redemption. If the atonement is not efficacious apart from faith, then faith must be necessary for the satisfaction of divine justice. Here faith becomes a work with a vengeance because its presence or absence in a sinner determines the efficacy of Christ’s work of satisfaction for this person.

I can hear the howls of protest from the Arminian camp. They steadfastly abhor the idea that human faith adds any “value” to the finished work of Christ or to the efficacy of Christ’s work of satisfaction. The formula they normally use is that Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for some.

John MacArthur:
Therefore, we must conclude with Spurgeon that the universalist may keep his ineffectual atonement:

The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They say, “No.” They are obliged to admit this if they are consistent. They say, “No; Christ has died so that any man may be saved if”—and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say then, we will just go back to the old statement—Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He? You must say “No”; you are obliged to say so. . . . Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, “No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.” We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.

Once again it is observed that Christ intercedes for everyone for whom he died and that he died for everyone for whom he intercedes. The key question is, does Christ intercede before the Father on behalf of all men without exception or on behalf of the elect alone? Surely it is the latter. Is Christ praying to the Father for the salvation and blessing of the nonelect, a request the Father, because he does not intend to save the nonelect, will refuse his Son? Are the persons of the Trinity so divided? Here again the doctrine of unlimited atonement would drive a wedge between the will of the Father and the will of the Son, which has disastrous implications for biblical Trinitarianism. Further, Christ himself answers this question in the High Priestly Prayer of John 17. Here the Great High Priest is interceding before the Father on behalf of those for whom he will soon offer himself as a sacrifice, and he explicitly says, “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours” (John 17:9)

One of the most significant characteristics of the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ is that his work is sufficient and effective. The Son of God is no potential Savior. He did not merely “do his part” to secure the salvation of his people, only to leave the decisive determination up to them. Indeed, as he prayed to his Father on the eve of his betrayal and arrest, he declared that he had decisively accomplished the work that the Father had given him to do (John 17:4). On the cross, as he drank not only the jar of sour wine but the bitter cup of his Father’s wrath, absorbing in his own person the full punishment for the sins of his people (2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24), he cried out victoriously, “It is finished!” (John 19:30). In that moment, the Savior of the world infallibly secured the salvation of his people once for all (Rom. 6:10; Heb. 7:27; 10:10). The Son’s mission of redemption was fully accomplished.

Because of the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work, if a believer is asked when God saved him, there is a sense in which he ought to reply, “Two thousand years ago.” And yet no one comes into this world saved. We are all brought forth in iniquity (Ps. 51:5), dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), and enemies of God (Rom. 5:10; 8:7–8). Though all the blessings of salvation were purchased once for all at the cross, the people of God do not enjoy the benefits of Christ’s work until the Holy Spirit applies those blessings to individual believers—until they are born of the Spirit unto repentance and faith, are united to Christ, and are thereby justified, adopted, and set apart for a life of holiness and service to God. It is for this reason that we must distinguish between the accomplishment of redemption and the application of redemption.

Similarly, numerous passages in Scripture testify that one is justified by faith (e.g., Rom. 3:28; 5:1), which is to say that faith is the instrumental cause of justification. Thus, faith must logically precede justification, just as it precedes adoption.

At this point the remaining aspects of the application of redemption are relatively easy to place. As with justification, believers are said to lay hold of the grace of adoption by faith (John 1:12; Gal. 3:26). This is good cause for considering justification and adoption to be contemporaneous blessings. However, it is proper that adoption should logically follow justification. Indeed, believers could not be justly given the legal rights of life in the family of God while they remained destitute of a right standing before him. God must first declare us righteous before welcoming us into the family of the One “whose name is Holy” (Isa. 57:15). Further, the faith by which we lay hold of justification and adoption is a faith that continuously works through love (Gal. 5:6). While regeneration, conversion, justification, and adoption all occur instantaneously, sanctification is a progressive process that takes place throughout the Christian life (2 Cor. 3:18). Thus, sanctification is subsequent to adoption but prior to glorification. The sanctification process is marked by the believer’s persevering in faith (Matt. 24:13) and growing in the assurance of salvation (2 Pet. 1:10; 1 John 5:13).

Therefore, based on the foregoing biblical analysis, we find Scripture to provide the following ordo salutis:

1. Foreknowledge / predestination / election (God’s choice of some unto salvation)

2. Effectual call / regeneration (the new birth)

3. Conversion (repentance and faith)

4. Justification (declaration of right legal standing)

5. Adoption (placed into the family of God)

6. Sanctification (progressive growth in holiness)

7. Perseverance (remaining in Christ)

8. Glorification (receiving a resurrection body)

The first of these saving blessings is pretemporal and precedes even the application of redemption. Steps two through five all occur simultaneously at the time one becomes a Christian. Steps six and seven occur throughout the remainder of the Christian life. Finally, step eight completes the application of redemption at the return of Christ. We turn now to a more thorough discussion of these doctrines concerning the application of redemption.

…the Gospels speak of another call, often termed the external call, the general call, or the gospel call. This refers to the verbal proclamation of the gospel by which all sinners are called to turn from their sin and trust in Christ for salvation (Matt. 22:14). In other words, there is a distinction between the call of God (the internal call) and the call of the preacher (the external call). The internal call is given only to the elect and always brings the sinner to salvation. By contrast, the external call is given to all people without distinction and is often rejected. Because of this, the external call does not properly belong to the ordo salutis, for the saving benefits of Christ’s redemption are always and only effectually applied to the elect. Nevertheless, because the external call of the gospel is the means by which God issues the effectual call of regeneration, it is a requisite component in the study of the application of redemption.

In light of the fact that the external call of the gospel is essential to the salvation of sinners, it is imperative that we understand what truly constitutes that call. At least three elements must be communicated in the proclamation of the gospel. In the first place, the gospel preacher must explain the facts of God’s holiness, man’s sinfulness, and the work of Christ in accomplishing redemption.

God is not obligated to give grace to any man, let alone all men. The deficiency in the gospel call lies in man’s depravity, not in any supposed parsimony in God’s grace. To suggest such a thing approaches the highest strains of blasphemy.

In conversion, for example, though repentance and faith are themselves sovereign gifts from God (Acts 11:18; Eph. 2:8), we ourselves must turn from sin and trust in Christ. Though God grants us faith, he does not believe the gospel for us. Similarly, though the Christian’s growth in holiness is a sovereign work of the Spirit of God (Phil. 2:13; cf. 2 Cor. 3:18; Gal. 5:16–17, 22–23), we are called to avail ourselves of the means by which the Spirit sanctifies us, working out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12) and making every effort to supplement our faith with virtue (2 Pet. 1:5–8). The work of regeneration, however, is unlike these other aspects of the application of redemption. In regeneration, man is entirely passive; God is the sole active agent in bringing about the creative miracle of the new birth.

The monergistic work of God in regeneration is unmistakable in this text. In just these three verses, God uses the phrase “I will” six times, insisting that this spiritual heart transplant is entirely his work. In the next chapter, God illustrates his own sovereignty and man’s helplessness by picturing the future regeneration of Israel as his breathing life into a valley full of dry bones (Ezek. 37:1–11). While this is clearly a prophecy of the regeneration and salvation of the Jews before Christ’s return, it assumes that God is the One who regenerates individuals—in Israel’s case, a whole nation of them (Ezek. 37:11). Such is man’s natural state of depravity; he is no more able to bring himself to life than a pile of dead and dry bones could bring themselves to life. Having illustrated his promise, God then declares, “Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves. . . . And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live” (Ezek. 37:12, 14).

At the most fundamental level, regeneration is the divine impartation of eternal spiritual life into the spiritually dead sinner. Scripture employs numerous pictures to illustrate God’s effectual call of regeneration. As he did with the valley of the dry bones, God will, by the creative power of his word, speak spiritual life into the dead hearts of the Jews, breathing as it were the breath of divine life over the dry bones of their souls and making them alive. As Jesus stood at the tomb of his friend who had been dead four days, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out” (John 11:43). By this word, Jesus authoritatively summoned Lazarus out of death and into life, for “the man who had died came out” (John 11:44), stumbling from the tomb still wrapped in his grave clothes. So also does God command the spiritually lifeless corpse of the sinner to “come out” of his death and by that word effectually brings him to life. Perhaps most striking is the apostle Paul’s comparison of regeneration to God’s creation of the world. He says, “God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). In the beginning, God spoke the world into existence from nothing (Pss. 33:6; 148:5): “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (Gen. 1:3), instantly “call[ing] into existence the things that do not exist” (Rom. 4:17). In regeneration, God unites the external call of gospel preaching with his sovereign, effectual call unto new life. Into darkened and dead hearts he speaks the command, “Let there be light,” and instantaneously births in us the light of eternal spiritual life where it had not existed.

It is for this reason that theologians speak of the regenerating grace of God as irresistible. It is not that God’s grace can never be resisted; God’s common grace as expressed in the external call of the gospel is resisted all the time (Acts 7:51). Rather, it is that in the irresistible grace of regeneration, God overcomes man’s natural resistance to the gospel by shining light into his heart and opening his eyes to the glory of Jesus. Irresistible grace, then, does not mean that man is coerced or forced into repentance and faith; his will is not violated. Rather, this grace frees man’s will; it opens our eyes so we can accurately compare the glory of sin to the glory of Christ. The Westminster Confession explains,

All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.

Thus, in regeneration man’s will is not violated but transformed. In the final analysis, regenerating grace is irresistible because Christ is irresistible, for regenerating grace opens our spiritual eyes to his irresistibility.

As the Father is the ultimate agent of regeneration and the Spirit is the efficient cause of regeneration, Scripture identifies the word of God itself—specifically the gospel message—as the instrumental cause, or means, of regeneration.

Since Scripture identifies the word of the gospel as the means of regeneration, any sacramental view of regeneration is discovered to be unbiblical. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and even some strains of Lutheranism and Anglicanism teach baptismal regeneration—that the grace of the new birth is mediated through the sacrament of baptism. Proponents of baptismal regeneration often appeal to John 3:5, where Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” The reference to water, they argue, is a reference to Christian baptism.

One of the most common questions related to evangelical soteriology concerns the relationship between regeneration and faith. Which produces which? Does the sinner believe in Christ for salvation and, as a result of his faith, experience the new birth? Or, on the other hand, is the sinner born again unto saving faith? Which action induces the other? Does man’s act of faith bring about the Spirit’s work of regeneration, or does the Spirit’s work of regeneration bring about man’s act of faith? In numerous ways, Scripture answers in favor of the latter: regeneration is the cause, not the consequence, of saving faith.

Regeneration is the sovereign act of God, by the Holy Spirit and through the preached gospel, whereby he instantaneously imparts spiritual life to a sinner, bringing him out of spiritual death and into spiritual life.

Therefore, Jesus is teaching that because of the sinner’s depravity, no one can come to him in saving faith unless the Father grants the gift of being effectually drawn in regeneration.

It is clear from the above discussion that saving faith is the first and foremost result of regeneration. As the divine light shines into the sinner’s heart, opening his spiritual eyes to the repulsiveness of sin and the loveliness of Christ (2 Cor. 4:6), the newborn soul turns away in disgust from sin and lays hold of Christ with the embrace of saving faith. Those who profess to be saved but do not progress in cultivating patterns of life in obedience to Christ’s commands can make no legitimate claim to being true children of God. Whatever they may say with their lips, their lives betray a heart that is still unregenerate. As the new birth is the work of the Spirit (John 3:5, 6, 8; 6:63; Titus 3:5; cf. Rom. 8:2; 2 Cor. 3:6), those who are born again necessarily bear the fruit of the Spirit and are increasingly characterized by love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal. 5:22–23).

It should be apparent that repentance and faith are intimately related and even inseparable from one another. They are truly two sides of the same coin. In the first place, their connection follows a simple logic: it is impossible for someone to turn away from something without turning toward something else.

Thus, repentance is not merely a turning from sin but also a turning to God. To summarize the above lexical analysis, biblical repentance is not a mere change of thinking, though it does involve an intellectual acknowledgment of sin and a change of attitude toward it. Neither is it merely shame or sorrow for sin, although genuine repentance always involves an element of remorse. True biblical repentance is also a redirection of the human will, a purposeful decision to forsake all unrighteousness and pursue righteousness instead. Thus, genuine repentance involves the mind, the heart, and the will. Nevertheless, while sorrow should not be equated strictly with repentance, it is a necessary component of it and is often a powerful impulse to genuinely turning away from sin. As Paul says, “Godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret” (2 Cor. 7:10). Thus, true repentance will always include at least some element of contrition—not sorrow for getting caught, nor sadness because of the consequences, but a spirit broken by the sense of having sinned against God and a longing to be restored to fellowship with him (Ps. 51:12, 17).

Whereas repentance might be described as the negative aspect of conversion—that is, the act of turning away from sin—faith can be styled as the positive aspect, the soul’s turn to God and trusting in the person and work of Christ to provide forgiveness, righteousness, and eternal life.

The most basic element of faith is knowledge. Contemporary cultural thought, dominated by secular humanism, conceives of faith as the opposite of knowledge—that faith is what takes over when one does not have sufficient knowledge. It is not uncommon to hear someone say, “Well, I can’t really know, but I just believe it.” However, the biblical conception of faith is not an existential leap in the dark or a sentimental, wish-upon-a-star kind of hope. So far from being an alternative to knowledge, true faith is based on knowledge; it has its sure and solid foundation in the knowledge of divinely revealed truth.

There was something more to Moses’s, Paul’s, and Bartimaeus’s faith than merely knowing and embracing the truth. James tells us that the demons know and believe the truth of monotheism (James 2:19). Nicodemus believed that Jesus was a teacher sent from God (John 3:2). Agrippa believed that the Old Testament spoke truth (Acts 26:27). Judas was convinced that Jesus was the Christ (Matt. 27:3–5). Yet none of these possessed saving faith. Faith begins with knowledge (notitia) and assent (assensus), but it does not stop until it reaches the will’s utter reliance on Christ for one’s personal salvation (fiducia).

Finally, in this volitional aspect of faith, one not only trusts in Christ but also entrusts oneself to Christ, for believing in a person necessarily involves a personal commitment. The one who trusts Christ places himself in the custody of Christ for both life and death.

This means that true, saving faith necessarily works itself out in loving obedience (cf. Gal. 5:6). The eleventh chapter of Hebrews is dedicated to illustrating this sole principle. After defining the nature of true faith in the opening verses, the author scans the whole of redemptive history to demonstrate that faith works.

In sum, though justification frees the believer from the penalty of sin, the presence of sin still remains in his unredeemed flesh. Therefore, because he continues to sin against God and others, he must continue to repent. In a believer’s life, a spirit of repentance must be as indwelling as is his remaining sin.

This concept of union with Christ is as pervasive as it is precious. Most commonly represented by the tiny preposition “in,” the believer’s union with Christ permeates the New Testament. Believers are often said to be “in Christ” (1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:17), “in the Lord” (Rom. 16:11), and “in him” (1 John 5:20). Similarly, Christ is also said to be in his people (Rom. 8:10; 2 Cor. 13:5; Eph. 3:17), a notion that Paul defines as the very “hope of glory” itself (Col. 1:27). Sometimes both of these aspects of union with Christ are presented in the same text, only further emphasizing the intimacy of the mutual indwelling of Christ and the believer (e.g., John 6:56; 15:4; 1 John 4:13). Clearly, the importance of the believer’s union with Christ cannot be overstated.

Union with Christ and Soteriology
How the doctrine of union with Christ relates to the rest of soteriology has long been a matter of discussion. That is because it is not merely another phase in the application of redemption, like regeneration, faith, or justification. Instead, union with Christ is the matrix out of which all other soteriological doctrines flow. Indeed, as Paul says in Ephesians 1:3, our union with Christ is the source of every spiritual blessing we receive—from the Father’s election in eternity past, to the Son’s redemptive life, death, burial, and resurrection, all the way to the glorification of the saints with Christ in heaven. For this reason, the great theologian John Murray called the believer’s union with Christ “the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation.”126 It is the unifying principle of all soteriology, spanning from eternity past to eternity future.

The metaphor of marriage has great significance for understanding the believer’s union with Christ. First, it speaks to the intimacy of this union. The one-flesh union of husband and wife is the most private, personal, and intimate relationship among mankind, and its primary purpose is to be a picture of the union between Christ and the church. Second, it speaks to the organic nature of this union. The new life created via the one-flesh union of husband and wife portrays the mutuality and vitality of the church’s union with her husband. Third, this figure illustrates the legality of this union. As marriage legally joins the husband to the wife, so also does the believer’s union with Christ enable Christ to act as the legal representative in his stead (discussed further below). Finally, marriage illustrates the unbreakable bond that exists between Christ and the church. “To hold fast to” translates the Greek term proskollaō, which literally means “to be glued or cemented together.” God’s design for marriage is to be permanent (Mal. 2:16; Matt. 19:6), and it thus illustrates the permanence of the union between Christ and the church.

Before examining any particular aspect of justification, we must be clear about what the Bible teaches concerning the nature of justification itself. Justification is a legal, or forensic, declaration of righteousness, not an actual impartation or infusion of righteousness. It describes what God declares about the believer, not what he does to change the believer. In fact, justification itself effects no actual change whatsoever in the sinner’s nature or character.134 It is an instantaneous change of one’s status before God, not a gradual transformation that takes place within the one who is justified.

Disagreement over the nature of justification was one of the key debates of the Protestant Reformation, and it still divides biblical Christianity and Roman Catholicism to this day. Roman Catholic theology teaches that justification is not merely forensic but transformative. In other words, according to Roman Catholic teaching, “to justify” does not mean “to declare righteous” but “to make righteous.” Now, it is true that the saving grace of God is transformative; those who are declared righteous in conversion will be progressively made righteous throughout the course of their Christian lives. However, this progressive transformation defines the reality not of biblical justification but of sanctification. By failing to distinguish these two intimately related yet nevertheless distinct applications of redemption, Roman Catholicism collapses sanctification into justification. The inevitable consequence is that the believer’s own imperfect righteousness replaces the perfect righteousness of Christ as the sole ground of justification. The result is “a righteousness of my own that comes from the law,” which, as Paul says in Philippians 3:9, is not the saving righteousness of God. Because of this, failing to understand the nature of justification as a legal declaration and instead mischaracterizing it as a transformative process destroys the very foundation of the gospel.

But how is such a declaration by God just? Proverbs 17:15 says, “He who justifies the wicked . . . [is] an abomination to the Lord.” All mankind is wicked. We are lawbreakers, deserving God’s condemnation, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), and “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). Indeed, Romans 4:5 explicitly says that God justifies the ungodly. How can God declare to be righteous those who are actually guilty, and not, as Proverbs 17:15 says, participate in something abominable? How can God be both “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26)? The answer to that question is the doctrine of imputation. God’s declarative act of justification is based on his constitutive act of imputation. This is a twofold act; God imputes—that is, counts, credits, or reckons—our sin to Christ and punishes him in our place, and he imputes Christ’s righteousness to believers and grants them eternal life in him.

Christ’s accomplishment of redemption—both in paying for sin and providing righteousness—occurred two thousand years ago, apart from any human influence. His work was objective, external to you and me. Therefore, the question that must be answered is, how can the objective work of Christ be applied to me personally? By what means can my sins be imputed to Christ and his righteousness be imputed to me? The answer Scripture consistently gives is that we are justified through faith alone apart from works. Faith unites us to Christ in his death and resurrection, so that his punishment counts for our punishment and his righteousness counts for our righteousness.

The clearest exposition of the doctrine of sola fide, “faith alone,” comes in Paul’s letters, especially the book of Romans. As Paul introduces the good news of salvation in Romans 3, he casts the gospel as the manifestation of “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (3:22). He goes on to say that the gift of justification is “to be received by faith” (3:25) and that God is “the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (3:26). He summarizes his argument in utter candor: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (3:28). After illustrating the truth of sola fide through the example of Abraham in Romans 4 (discussed below), he offers another summary of the gospel in Romans 5:1: “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Taking up the matter again later in the epistle, he declares that saving righteousness comes by faith (9:30; 10:6), that Christ is righteousness to everyone who believes (10:4), and that “with the heart one believes and is justified” (10:10).

Perhaps the most common objection to the doctrine of sola fide is the accusation that the apostle James explicitly contradicts it. James 2:24 says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” How can James’s comment be reconciled with the doctrine of justification by faith alone? The answer is that James uses the word “justified” (Gk. dikaioō) in a different sense than Paul uses it in the above texts. In particular, James speaks of justification in the sense of “vindication” or “the demonstration of righteousness.”

Far from refuting the doctrine of sola fide in favor of the legalists, James’s argument actually provides a defense of the doctrine from the attack of the opposite error: antinomianism. This word comes from the prefix anti- and the Greek word nomos, which means “law.” Antinomianism, then, speaks of those who are “against the law,” specifically, in its theological sense, those who deny that sanctification is the necessary fruit of justification. Whereas legalism fails to distinguish between justification and sanctification, antinomianism severs the vital union between the two. Whereas legalism undermines the gospel by insisting that we must add our obedience to Christ’s work in order to be justified, antinomianism perverts the gospel by subtracting from the efficacy of Christ’s work, denying that those who receive Christ as Savior must also submit to him as Lord. James absolutely demolishes that proposition. He explains that the “faith” of professing Christians who fail to make progress in practical holiness, continuing to walk in patterns of unrighteousness, is no true and saving faith at all. Theirs is a dead faith (James 2:17, 26), a demonic faith (James 2:19), and a useless faith (James 2:20) that marks them out as those who address Jesus as Lord but to whom he will chillingly declare, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness” (Matt. 7:23).

First, regeneration is a work of the Spirit (John 3:5–6, 8; 6:63), whereas adoption is an act of the Father (Eph. 1:5). Second, regeneration is transformative; it is a work in the heart of man that fundamentally transforms his nature (Ezek. 36:26–27; 2 Cor. 5:17). Adoption, on the other hand, is declarative; it does not change man’s character. Rather, it is a fundamentally legal act in which God gives to those who receive Christ “the right”—that is, the legal authority154—“to become children of God” (John 1:12). Third, regeneration is said to be mediated by the Word of God (James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23–25), while the blessing of adoption is obtained through faith in Christ (John 1:12; Gal. 3:26). It is plain, therefore, that adoption is distinct from regeneration.

When speaking about sinful men becoming sons of God, it is necessary to distinguish between the Father’s adopted sons and daughters, on the one hand, and his one and only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, on the other. In one sense, we must not downplay the significance of the radical privileges of adoption. We are made partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), are indwelt by the Spirit of God himself (Rom. 8:14–16; Gal. 4:6), and are fellow heirs with Christ of eternal life (Rom. 8:17, 23; 1 Pet. 1:4). Believers have been so highly exalted that Christ is properly called our brother (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:17). Indeed, because Christ the sanctifier and we the sanctified have one Father, the Lord Jesus is unashamed to call us brothers (Heb. 2:11–12)

At regeneration, the sinner is made alive, granted repentance and faith, united to Christ, declared righteous on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ, and adopted into the family of God. However, the blessing of sanctification is a benefit of the application of redemption that, though it begins at regeneration, is applied throughout the entirety of the Christian’s life. In sanctification, God, working especially by the Holy Spirit, separates the believer unto himself (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2) and makes him increasingly holy, progressively transforming him into the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18) by subduing the power of sin in his life and enabling him to bear the fruit of obedience in his life.

Sanctification is intimately connected to justification, since both benefits are enjoyed by virtue of the believer’s union with Christ. Nevertheless, sanctification is not to be confused with or collapsed into justification, as in Roman Catholic theology. Justification is the once-for-all judicial declaration of righteousness that defines man’s legal standing before God. Sanctification, on the other hand, is a gradual, ongoing transformation of his nature. With respect to justification, Christ has secured forensic righteousness for the believer; in sanctification, the Spirit progressively works practical righteousness in the believer. Justification concerns the imputation of righteousness, whereas sanctification concerns the impartation of righteousness. To confuse the two is to fundamentally undermine the gospel.

…, the New Testament often employs the terminology of sanctification in the past tense, characterizing the Christian as one who has been initially sanctified by God. In his farewell address to the Ephesian elders at Miletus, Paul spoke of the inheritance they share “among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32). In his defense before Agrippa, he recounted his conversion experience on the Damascus road, when Jesus had commissioned him to the Gentiles so “that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:18). That such a designation does not refer to some completed state of progressive sanctification is established by Paul’s letter to the sinful Corinthian church members, whom he addressed as “those sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:2). The Corinthians were that motley crew of professing believers who were splitting up into factions (1 Cor. 1:11–13), whom Paul could only address as fleshly (1 Cor. 3:1), among whom there existed a kind of immorality not even named among the Gentiles (1 Cor. 5:1), who were suing one another before unbelieving judges (1 Cor. 6:1–7), who were defrauding the Lord’s Table to satisfy their gluttony and drunkenness (1 Cor. 11:20–22), and who were abusing the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12–14). If to be sanctified meant to have reached a state of exalted practical holiness, that description could hardly be made of them! And yet Paul spoke of their definitive sanctification: “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). For this same reason, both the Old and New Testaments identify all of God’s people as saints—literally, “the holy ones” (e.g., Pss. 16:3; 34:9; Dan. 7:18–27; Matt. 27:52; Acts 9:13, 32, 41; Rom. 1:7; 8:27; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; 6:18; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; Jude 3; Rev. 19:8). So far from identifying a spiritually elite people on the basis of their personal merits, as the Roman Catholic Church teaches, what makes a believer a saint is not his practical righteousness but his positional righteousness. All believers are saints because all believers have been set apart by a holy God and have been united to the holy Lord Jesus. This is precisely the concept of definitive sanctification.

Therefore, any attempt at morally improving oneself apart from the working of God’s supernatural grace bestowed through the believer’s union with Christ is a man-made counterfeit of the work of sanctification that finds no favor with God and is ultimately ineffective (Rom. 8:8; 14:23; Heb. 11:6).

As has already been implied, however, though the believer enjoys this decisive victory over the dominion of sin as a result of union with Christ, his heart and life are not totally purified. Though the penalty of sin is paid for and the power of sin is broken, the presence of sin still remains in the believer’s flesh and therefore must continually be put to death. Thus, the sanctification that begins definitively at regeneration necessarily continues throughout the entirety of the Christian life. This continuous aspect of sanctification is called progressive sanctification.

The continual, progressive nature of sanctification is substantiated in the Bible’s numerous calls to holiness in the present tense, indicating ongoing, continuous action. For example, Paul commands believers not to be conforming themselves to the world but to “be transformed [Gk. metamorphousthe, lit., ‘be continually being transformed’] by the renewal of your mind” (Rom. 12:2). The author of Hebrews commands Christians to “strive for [Gk. diōkete, lit., ‘be continually pursuing’] . . . the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). Putting to death the deeds of the body is the characteristic action of one who is indwelt by the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:13; cf. 8:9). Further, several passages explicitly assert the progressive nature of sanctification. Paul notes that his own sanctification is incomplete, so he continually presses on toward the goal of the heavenly prize (Phil. 3:12–14). Though the old self has been put off once and for all at conversion, yet the new self is continuously “being renewed [Gk. anakainoumenon] in knowledge after the image of its creator” (Col. 3:9–10). He prays that believers’ love would “increase and abound” (1 Thess. 3:12) and “abound more and more” (Phil. 1:9). Peter charges believers to “grow up into salvation” (1 Pet. 2:2) and to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18)—the concept of growth indicating an ongoing process. And most clearly, Paul states that as believers behold the glory of Christ with the eyes of the heart, they are thereby “being transformed [Gk. metamorphoumetha] into the same image from one degree of glory to another [Gk. apo doxēs eis doxan, lit., ‘from glory to glory’]” (2 Cor. 3:18). Believers are not conformed to the image of Christ in an instant, but rather, they experience a progressive transformation into his image by degrees. Thus, the Holy Spirit’s work in believers will cause them to increase in sanctification throughout their Christian lives.

Yet for all who will have died in faith before the return of Christ, the perfection of sanctification comes in two stages: the soul is fully sanctified at death, while the body awaits its perfected sanctification at the second coming of Christ. When believers pass from this present life, their spirits are separated from their bodies (2 Cor. 5:8) and enter the presence of the Lord (Phil. 1:23).

Those who believe themselves to have reached entire sanctification in this life have deceived themselves, “for,” as Solomon says, “there is no one who does not sin” (1 Kings 8:46), and again, “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins” (Eccles. 7:20). The concept of perfectionism is worthy of rhetorical derision, as seen in Proverbs 20:9: “Who can say, ‘I have made my heart pure; I am clean from my sin’?” James comments that “we all stumble in many ways” (James 3:2), and as we daily commit sin, the Lord Jesus instructs us to daily pray for forgiveness (Matt. 6:11–12; cf. 1 John 1:9).

Then, in a display of apostolic irony, he adds the exhortation, “Let those of us who are mature [Gk. teleios] think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you” (Phil. 3:15). Those who are “perfect” (i.e., truly spiritually mature) are those who realize they are not perfect and who acknowledge the perennial need for exhausting one’s efforts in the pursuit of personal holiness.

Charles Hodge rightly observes that

sanctification . . . does not consist exclusively in a series of a new kind of acts. It is the making the tree good, in order that the fruit may be good. It involves an essential change of character. As regeneration is not an act of the subject of the work, but in the language of the Bible a new birth, a new creation, a quickening or communicating a new life, . . . so sanctification in its essential nature is not holy acts, but such a change in the state of the soul, that sinful acts become more infrequent, and holy acts more and more habitual and controlling.

The means of sanctification include the following:

1. Reading and meditating on the Word of God (Pss. 1:2–3; 19:7–11; 119:105; John 17:17; Acts 20:32; 2 Tim. 3:16–17; Heb. 4:12; James 1:23–25)
2. Praying (Ps. 119:37; Luke 11:9; Phil. 4:6–7; Heb. 4:16; James 4:2; 1 John 1:9)
3. Fellowshiping with the saints in the context of the local church (Prov. 27:17; 1 Cor. 12:7; Eph. 4:11–16, 25; Heb. 3:12–13; 10:24–25)
4. Interpreting the experiences of God’s providence according to Scripture (Rom. 8:28–29), especially the experience of trials (Ps. 119:71; Rom. 5:3–5; 8:17; Phil. 3:10–11; Heb. 12:10; James 1:2–4; 1 Pet. 1:3–7)
5. Keeping the commandments of God (John 15:10)

Sanctifying grace flows through all these channels, and thus it is the responsibility of Christians to put themselves in the way of these blessings.

A sincere (and often vexing) question among professing Christians concerns whether or not salvation in Christ is eternally secure. Do those who truly know Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord by faith persevere in that faith to the very end of their lives? Or is there a possibility that a genuine Christian could lose his salvation?

Second, the believer’s security is grounded in the merits of Christ’s saving work and the efficacy of his present intercession. For this reason, Paul writes, “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us” (Rom. 8:33–34). Christ’s death, resurrection, and present intercession constitute the basis on which no charge against his people will ever stand. Because he has died, has risen, and is interceding before the Father, no one will separate us from his love (Rom. 8:35–39).

An implication of this truth is that many people may give outward signs of devotion to Christ and his church who are inwardly not true Christians. Illustrated by the seed that fell on the rocky ground, some professing Christians seem to receive the Word of God joyfully. Yet they have no root, so when tribulation and persecution come, they fall away from Christ and abandon their profession of faith (Matt. 13:3–9, 18–23).

Interestingly, Jesus does not say, “I knew you once, but you failed to persevere and fell away from the faith.” Rather, he says, “I never knew you,” indicating that those who make even the sincerest professions of faith but who fail to supplement their faith with the fruit of the Spirit (2 Pet. 1:5–10; Gal. 5:22–24) were never true Christians to begin with.

However, Scripture teaches that those who fail to persevere to the end reveal that they were never true Christians to begin with. The apostle John writes, “They went out from us”—which is to say, certain people associated themselves with the church yet later departed—“but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19).

Thus, the key to interpreting this passage (as well as the other warning passages in Hebrews, such as 10:26–31) is to determine who is being warned and why. Those who respond positively to the gospel at first only to reject Christ later—even if they associate themselves with the people of God and attend to the external duties of religion—are not true believers who forfeited their salvation but are apostates who never exercised saving faith.

How, then, can one be assured that he is a true believer in Christ and will not one day fall away, revealing that he was never a true believer at all? Scripture calls those who profess faith in Christ to examine themselves. Paul urges the Corinthians, “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves” (2 Cor. 13:5). Peter similarly exhorts the churches in his care, “Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election” (2 Pet. 1:10). The apostle John dedicated his entire first epistle to the subject, stating his theme at the end: “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13). The authors of Scripture clearly desired that believers be assured of their salvation by examining their lives for evidence of genuine spiritual life. Consider the following eleven lines of evidence—largely drawn from the tests outlined in 1 John—by which Christians can gain assurance that their faith and salvation are genuine.

First, a true Christian enjoys fellowship with the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit.

A second evidence of genuine salvation is the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the heart. John writes, “By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit” (1 John 4:13). When a sinner confesses that Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of the world and commits his life to him, it is the Spirit’s doing.

Third, Christians may gain assurance of salvation from answered prayer. John says, “And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us” (1 John 5:14; cf. 3:22).

Fourth, the true citizen of heaven eagerly longs for Christ’s return (Phil. 3:20).

A fifth evidence of salvation is spiritual discernment. Those who are born again are able to discern between spiritual truth and error—to test the spirits to see whether they are from God (1 John 4:1–3). Adherents of false religious systems attempt to undermine the biblical truth concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:16), but God equips his children to recognize and reject false teachers and to cling to sound teaching (1 John 2:12–19; 4:5–6). While even the demons may believe sound doctrine and be destitute of saving faith (James 2:19), one will not enjoy true assurance without believing sound doctrine (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Tim. 6:3–5; 2 Tim. 2:13–14).

Like the apostle, the true children of God sin in various ways but confess their sin and seek restoration to communion with God. The false Christian ignores and hides sin, but the genuine believer cries out with Paul: “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Rom. 7:24). The child of God is wearied by the burden of sin and longs for restored fellowship with the Father through confession and repentance.

A seventh manifestation of genuine salvation is the decreasing pattern of sin in one’s life. Not only is the child of God sensitive to his remaining sin, but by the grace of God and the power of the Spirit, he will also have progressive victory over those sins. John writes, “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” (1 John 3:9). Regardless of one’s profession, unbroken patterns of sin mark the unregenerate (1 John 3:8), not the children of God. When the sinner is regenerated, the dominion of sin is broken and the Spirit births holy affections in the new convert. Indwelling sin remains, but the love of sin is broken. The true Christian is no longer enslaved to sin but is a slave to righteousness (Rom. 6:14–18).

Eighth, as patterns of sin decrease, patterns of obedience increase. John could not be clearer: “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments” (1 John 2:3).

A ninth evidence of genuine salvation is a growing rejection of the worldliness that dominates human life. In 1 John 2:15, John writes about the true Christian’s deepest affections, greatest desires, and ultimate goals, commanding us, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (cf. James 4:4).

Tenth, the genuine Christian not only rejects the world but is also rejected by the world. For this reason, John writes, “Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you” (1 John 3:13). When God’s people stand apart from the world—rejecting its sinful values and standing for righteousness—its evil is exposed. Those searching for assurance must ask if they are readily accepted by the world or if, as those conformed to the image of Christ, they draw the same rejection that Christ himself drew from the enemies of righteousness (John 7:7).

The final divine act in the application of redemption is glorification. Given its immense importance, it is critical at the outset to distinguish glorification from other eschatological events. It must not be confused with the intermediate state. For those who die in faith before the return of Christ, their souls immediately go to be with the Lord (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23).

In justification, they are freed from the penalty of sin, and in sanctification, they are freed from the power of sin. In glorification, they are finally freed from the very presence of sin in both body and soul. That the resurrection of the body unto glorification was taught in the Old Testament is evidenced by the New Testament’s testimony that the Jews looked forward to a future resurrection. As Martha pled with Jesus to exercise his divine power with respect to the death of Lazarus, Jesus responded by telling her that he would rise again. Astutely, Martha replied, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day” (John 11:24). As Paul stood trial before Felix, he declared that “a resurrection of both the just and the unjust” was “laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets” (Acts 24:14–15). And Hebrews 11:10 teaches that the Old Testament saints hoped to inherit a physical city that could only be made possible by bodily resurrection (cf. Heb. 11:16).

That is, he will not replace your current body; he will renovate it. Our bodies will be changed, not exchanged (1 Cor. 15:51). Paul says, “This perishable body [i.e., the body he inhabited during his life on earth] must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality” (1 Cor. 15:53). Further, since Christ himself is the firstfruits of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:23), and since Scripture says that he will transform the bodies of believers “into conformity with the body of His glory” (Phil. 3:21 NASB), it is right to draw inferences about the nature of believers’ glorified bodies by considering the nature of Christ’s glorified body. And Christ rose in the very body in which he died, something that Thomas acknowledged when he placed his hands in the wounds that had been inflicted on Jesus’s body during his crucifixion (John 20:27; cf. 20:20). Thus, whatever trauma the believer’s body might experience as it succumbs to the curse of sin and death in this life, the omnipotent God will raise that body to perfection and unite it with the soul in the resurrection.

Third, the natural body is sown in weakness, but the glorified body is raised in power. It is only a matter of time before the reality of the physical limitations of our bodies confront us with what it is to be weak. If he lives long enough, even the strongest of the strong experiences the waning of his strength. Scripture even associates the flesh with moral weakness (Matt. 26:41). This will not be the case with the new bodies, for they will be raised in power. This is not necessarily to say that believers will possess superhuman strength, but glorified bodies will have “full and complete human power and strength,” which God “intended human beings to have when he created them apart from sin. It will therefore be strength that is sufficient to do all that we desire to do in conformity with the will of God.”

…

John MacArthur:
Angels possess the three identifiable traits of personhood: intellect, emotions, and will. First, angels are wise beings (2 Sam. 14:20) who can converse (Matt. 28:5), sing (Job 38:7), and worship (Heb. 1:6). Second, they have the capacity for emotion. Angels are joyful over the repentance of sinners (Luke 15:10). They fear God in worship with awe, wonder, and respect (Heb. 1:6). They also find God preeminently praiseworthy (Ps. 148:2; Luke 2:13–14). Third, angels possess a will with which they choose to worship God (Heb. 1:6; Rev. 5:11).

Angels are beings created by God (Neh. 9:6; Ps. 148:2–5; Col. 1:16), which is why they are called “sons of God” (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). They are spirit beings (“ministering spirits,” Heb. 1:14). Both Satan (a “lying spirit,” 1 Kings 22:22–23) and demons (“evil spirits,” Luke 7:21) are described as spirits. By Christ’s definition, a spirit is immaterial, one without flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).

Angels were created morally pure and remain so in perpetuity, being called holy (Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26). Holy angels are elect angels (1 Tim. 5:21) who do not need redemption from a fallen state (Heb. 2:14–16). In contrast, Satan and the demons, who were created pure, subsequently defaulted, sinned, and became evil (Ezek. 28:15; Jude 6). There is no salvation for fallen angels (Matt. 25:41).

Not bound by physical space, angels are mobile to the extent that they are able to travel from heaven to earth and back to heaven again (Gen. 28:12; John 1:51). For example, angels traveled between heaven and earth to minister to Daniel (Dan. 9:20–23; 10:1–13, 20) and to Christ (John 1:51). And Jacob himself witnessed this angelic mobility (Gen. 28:12).

Angels may also be either visible or invisible. For example, they were visible in their visit to Sodom (Gen. 18:2; Heb. 13:2) and to Christ’s tomb (John 20:11–12). They were invisible at first to Balaam (Num. 22:31) and to Elisha’s servant (2 Kings 6:15–17).

As spirit beings, angels are without gender (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35–36) and cannot reproduce after their own kind. When they do appear in an angelophany, they look like men, never like women (Gen. 18:2; Dan. 10:16, 18; Mark 16:5).

Angels are multilingual. Scripture portrays them as speaking in whatever language the hearer of their message will understand. When Paul wrote about “tongues of angels” (1 Cor. 13:1), he most likely reasoned hypothetically since Scripture does not mention an angelic language elsewhere.

Angels are ageless and immortal in the future. Holy angels cannot die because they have not sinned (Luke 20:36). Fallen angels will not die but will be eternally punished in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10).

Angels are messengers of God’s truth (Rev. 1:1). Paul warned that if a spirit being claimed to be a holy angel from God but delivered a false gospel, it was actually a demon who was to be accursed (Gal. 1:8).

The term translated “heaven” in the Bible describes three different elevation levels above planet earth. First, in descending order, comes the “third heaven” or paradise, which is the heaven of God’s presence (2 Cor. 12:2–3; cf. Ps. 123:1). It is referred to as (1) “the highest heaven” (1 Kings 8:27; Ps. 148:4), (2) the “heaven of heavens” (Deut. 10:14), (3) “his holy habitation in heaven” (2 Chron. 30:27), and (4) “far above all the heavens” (Eph. 4:10). Second is the stellar heaven of the sun, moon, and stars, termed the second heaven (Gen. 15:5; Ps. 8:3; Isa. 13:10; Heb. 4:14). Finally, there is the first heaven, or the earth’s atmosphere (Gen. 8:2; Deut. 11:11; 1 Kings 8:35).

Satan exhibits the three basic characteristics associated with personhood: intellect, emotion, and will. With his intellect, he tempted Christ (Matt. 4:1–11) and schemes against Christians (2 Cor. 2:11; Eph. 6:11; 1 Tim. 3:7; 2 Tim. 2:26). Emotionally, he exhibits pride (1 Tim. 3:6) and anger (Rev. 12:12, 17). The Devil also exercises his will against Christians (Luke 22:31; 2 Tim. 2:26).

Five additional personal qualities complete an elementary profile of this lying and murderous adversary. First, he is a created angel. According to Paul, God created all things (Col. 1:16), which includes angels. God’s response to Job equates “morning stars” with “sons of God” (Job 38:4–7; cf. 1:6; 2:1), the first-created angelic ranks who sang and rejoiced over the remainder of creation. The evil power behind the King of Tyre is referred to as the “anointed guardian cherub” (Ezek. 28:14, 16) who was created (Ezek. 28:13, 15). Originally created as a chief angel at the level of Michael the archangel (Jude 9), Satan now rebelliously leads a band of evil angels (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 12:9). Although he is an angel of darkness, he disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14).

Second, Satan is a spirit being (1 Kings 22:21–23; 2 Chron. 18:20–22; Eph. 2:2), although he appears at times like a physical person (Matt. 4:3–11), just like the holy angels (Mark 16:5). Whereas the writer of Hebrews refers to angels as “ministering spirits” (Heb. 1:14), Christ characterized demons as “unclean” (Luke 4:36) and “evil” (Luke 8:2) spirits. Such would also be true of the prince of demons.

Third, Satan possesses an extraordinary mobility. Both Job 1:7 and Job 2:2 portray Satan as “going to and fro on the earth,” as does 1 Peter 5:8, which refers to Satan as one who “prowls around” the world. Fourth, Satan can function both in heaven (1 Kings 22:21–22; Job 1–2; Rev. 12:10) and on earth (Matt. 4:3–11). Finally, God will hold Satan morally responsible in the end for his treacherously evil deeds (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 20:10).

The following twenty-nine attributions offer glimpses into his diabolical character:

1. Abaddon (Rev. 9:11): This transliterated Hebrew word is normally associated with death and destruction in the six Old Testament texts where it appears (Job 26:6; 28:22; 31:12; Ps. 88:11; Prov. 15:11; 27:20). Abaddon and its Greek counterpart, Apollyon, refer to Satan as the angelic king with dominion over demons in the bottomless pit in Revelation 9:1. See “Angel of the bottomless pit,” “Apollyon,” “Beelzebul,” “Evil One,” “God of this world,” “King,” “Prince of the power of the air,” “Ruler of this world,” and “Star” below.

2. Accuser (Zech. 3:1; Rev. 12:10): Satan acts as the prosecuting attorney in heaven before God, as the one accusing (Heb. satan; Gk. katēgorōn) the high priest of Israel, Joshua (Zech. 3:1), and Christians (Rev. 12:10) of being unworthy of God’s grace in redemption and service. While some have identified the “accuser” in Psalm 109:6 as Satan, the context (109:4, 20, 28) seems to refer to David’s human accusers.

3. Adversary (1 Pet. 5:8): Satan’s adversarial role (Gk. antidikos) of opposing believers in Christ is portrayed as a ferocious, roaring lion stalking prey. See “Enemy” and “Satan” below.

4. Angel of the bottomless pit (Rev. 9:11): Much as Michael is the archangel of heaven (Rev. 12:7), so Satan is the “king” of the Abyss. There are demons on earth who do not want to go there (Luke 8:31). There are other demons in the Abyss who will be want to go there (Luke 8:31). There are other demons in the Abyss who will be released by Satan for a short time (Rev. 9:1–2, 11). Some demons have been confined there for a considerable portion of human history and will not be released until the final judgment (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6), when they will be cast into the lake of fire with Satan and the rest. During Christ’s millennial kingdom reign on earth, Satan will be imprisoned in the Abyss (Rev. 20:1–6). See “Abaddon” above and “Apollyon” below.

5. Apollyon (Rev. 9:11): This name represents the Greek parallel to the Hebrew Abaddon, best translated “destroyer.” It appears only once in the New Testament. See “Abaddon” and “Angel of the bottomless pit” above and “Beelzebul,” “King,” and “Star” below.

6. Beelzebul (Matt. 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15): Jewish leaders accused Christ of casting out demons by the power of the leader (Gk. archōn) of the demons, whose name meant “lord, prince” and who had originally been the pagan Philistine patron deity of the coastal city Ekron (2 Kings 1:2–3). After arguing that Satan would not oppose demons because that would be self-defeating, Jesus acknowledged that while Satan was strong (Luke 11:21), he himself was far stronger (Luke 11:22) and would prevail. See “Abaddon” and “Apollyon” above and “Evil One,” “God of this world,” “King,” “Prince of the power of the air,” “Ruler of this world,” and “Star” below.

7. Belial (2 Cor. 6:15): This transliterated Hebrew word appears twenty-seven times in the Old Testament (see Deut. 13:13; Judg. 19:22; 1 Sam. 2:12; 1 Kings 21:13; Prov. 6:12) and refers to vile, wicked, and worthless scoundrels and troublemakers. It is quite possible that Nahum 1:15 uses this word to refer to Satan. Certainly, Paul intended the term to portray Satan as the most vile, wicked, and worthless creature, without peer or superior.

8. Devil (see Matt. 4:1–Rev. 20:10): This word appears thirty-eight times in the New Testament, referring to Satan in thirty-four instances. It is the second-most-used term for Satan in the Bible. In the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, Devil (diabolos) is used to refer to Satan in Job 1–2, where the Devil slanderously accuses Job of less-than-noble motives for serving God. He also slanders Joshua, the Jewish high priest (Zech. 3:1). The ultimate slander, however, is of God when Satan tells Eve that she will not die, even though God has said that death will be certain if she eats the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17; 3:4). Satan slanders both God to man and man to God.

9. Dragon (Isa. 27:1; Rev. 12:3, 7, 9; 20:2): John employs the figure of an apocalyptic monster thirteen times in Revelation 12; 13; 16; and 20 to picture Satan. This word (Gk. drakōn) unmistakably refers to Satan since both Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 identify the “dragon” as “the serpent of old,” “the devil,” and “Satan.” See “Leviathan” and “Serpent” below.

10. Enemy (Matt. 13:25, 28, 39; Luke 10:19): In the parable of the tares, Christ tells of the enemy (Gk. echthros), who planted darnel, a wheat-like weed, in the wheat field. Matthew 13:39 identifies the enemy as the Devil. See “Adversary” above and “Satan” below.

11. Evil One (Matt. 5:37; 6:13; 13:19, 38; John 17:15; Eph. 6:16; 2 Thess. 3:3; 1 John 2:13–14; 3:12; 5:18–19): Apart from Satan and Devil, the Evil One (Gk. ponēros) is the third-most-frequent appellation used. Evil stands in contrast to righteousness (Gk. dikaiosynē) since Satan stands in diametrical contrast to Christ. The whole world lies in the power of the Evil One (1 John 5:19). See “Abaddon,” “Apollyon,” and “Beelzebul” above and “God of this world,” “King,” “Prince of the power of the air,” “Ruler of this world,” and “Star” below.

12. Father of lies (John 8:44): Not only is Satan a perpetual liar, he is the originator of lies. The Devil, by deceiving Eve (Gen. 3:1–6; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14) into disobedience, has in a sense fathered the entire human race, characterized by lies, sinful children who walk in the footsteps of their primogenitor (Rom. 3:10–11, 13). This family imagery continues in Acts 13:10, where Paul calls Elymas the sorcerer a “son of the devil,” making crooked the straight paths of the Lord. John similarly identifies all who do not practice righteousness or love their brother as “children of the devil” (1 John 3:10). The “weeds” in Matthew 13:38 are branded “sons of the evil one,” that is, false believers. The Antichrist is called “the son of destruction” (2 Thess. 2:3), with “destruction” alluding to Satan as Abaddon (see above). The same is true of Judas (John 17:12). See “Liar” and “Lying spirit” below.

13. God of this world (2 Cor. 4:4): By God’s sovereign ordinance, Satan is the superior power but not the deity (Gk. theos, as per Ps. 82:6 [Septuagint]; John 10:33–36) of this age (1 John 5:19). This title comes by virtue of his position, not his nature. It all began in Eden and will continue this way until the curse is reversed (Rev. 22:3). Satan is ultimately behind all false religions (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). See “Abaddon,” “Apollyon,” “Beelzebul,” and “Evil One” above and “King,” “Prince of the power of the air,” “Ruler of this world,” and “Star” below.

14. King (Rev. 9:11): In context, Satan is the king over demons, just as he is the “prince of the demons” in Matthew 12:24. See “Abaddon,” “Apollyon,” and “Beelzebul” above and “Star” below.

15. Leviathan (Isa. 27:1): See “Dragon” above and “Serpent” below.

16. Liar (John 8:44): Christ is the truth (John 14:6), and Satan is the prevaricator. All of Satan’s messages and activities are built on global deceit (Rev. 12:9; 20:3, 8, 10). Satan is the “lying spirit” of 1 Kings 22:22–23 and 2 Chronicles 18:21–22. Elymas the magician was full of deceit and was thus called a “son of the devil” (Acts 13:10). This liar rules over deceitful spirits spreading the teaching of demons (1 Tim. 4:1). His first act of treason with humans was to deceive Eve (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14). He disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). From the beginning (Genesis 3) to the end (Revelation 20), Satan has opposed the truth of God with the lies and deceits of hell. See “Father of lies” above and “Lying spirit” below.

17. Lucifer (Isa. 14:12): Tradition, especially visible in the KJV/NKJV translations, has popularized this title. Literally, the Hebrew word (helel) is best translated as “light bearer” or “day star.” It seems more likely that this description is used in reference to the king of Babylon than to Satan in this context. Isaiah compared the king to a morning star heralding a new day but quickly giving way to the glory of the sun.3 See “Star” below.

18. Lying spirit (1 Kings 22:22–23; 2 Chron. 18:21–22): In keeping with Satan’s propensity to lie (John 8:44), God used him and four hundred lying demons to deceive Israel’s King Ahab to go into battle. As a result, Ahab was killed (1 Kings 22:37–38) according to God’s promise (1 Kings 21:17–26). Satan was used by God for a “strong delusion” (2 Thess. 2:11). See “Father of lies” and “Liar” above.

19. Murderer (John 8:44): Jesus said, “He was a murderer from the beginning.” As a result of Satan’s lie to Eve, she ate of the tree, and God’s promise in Genesis 2:17 was fulfilled: “For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Satan had poisoned Eve’s mind with lies so that she ate, and in eating, she immediately died—that is, she was spiritually separated from God. Later she would die physically, and apart from God’s redemptive grace, she would finally and eternally die to God. All her offspring followed in her footsteps, including Cain, who was of the Evil One and murdered his brother (1 John 3:12).

20. Prince of the demons (Matt. 9:34; 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15): See “Beelzebul” above.

21. Prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2): Satan rules over “the power” of demons, some of whom temporarily reside between God’s heaven and the earth. Paul expanded on this concept, writing about “the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12). See “Abaddon,” “Apollyon,” “Beelzebul,” “Evil One,” “God of this world,” and “King” above and “Ruler of this world” and “Star” below.

22. Roaring lion (1 Pet. 5:8): See “Adversary” above.

23. Ruler of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11): By God’s sovereign ordinance, Satan is the spiritual prince (Gk. archōn) of this world (Gk. kosmos). The term “world” is used here in the sense of the global system that is hostile to God under Satan’s dominion (1 John 5:19). This rulership began in Eden (Genesis 3) with evil results that will continue until the final judgment (Revelation 20). See “Abaddon,” “Apollyon,” “Beelzebul,” “Evil One,” “God of this world,” “King,” and “Prince of the power of the air” above and “Star” below.

24. Satan (Matt. 4:10–Rev. 20:7): This is the name used most often to refer to the Devil, appearing eighteen times in the Old Testament and thirty-six times in the New Testament. It basically means adversary, enemy, or opposition. From the time of Satan’s spiritual/moral fall (Isa. 14:12–14) to his final judgment (Rev. 20:7–10), Satan has been the chief initiator, instigator, and perpetrator of evil aggression both against and within the purposes and plans of God. See “Adversary” and “Enemy” above.

25. Serpent (Gen. 3:1, 4, 13–14; Isa. 27:1; 2 Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9; 20:2): Although the names Satan, Devil, and Evil One are not used in Genesis 3, the imagery of the crafty serpent of old (Gen. 3:1) is unmistakably identified with the Devil or Satan on four later occasions. See “Dragon” and “Leviathan” above.

26. Spirit (1 Kings 22:21–23; 2 Chron. 18:20–22; Eph. 2:2): Satan is clearly marked as a “spirit” in contrast to a human being.

27. Star (Rev. 9:1, 11): All angels are created beings (Neh. 9:6; Ps. 148:2, 5; Col. 1:16). Angels are pictured as stars (Job 38:7) who were created early in the creation sequence and sang praises throughout the following days. Unholy angels, that is, demons (or stars of heaven), were pressed into service by Satan (Rev. 12:4). Revelation 9:1 portrays Satan as a “star fallen from heaven” and 9:11 identifies him as “king” over demons, “the angel of the bottomless pit,” “Abaddon,” and “Apollyon,” (cf. Isa. 14:13). See “Abaddon,” “Apollyon,” “Beelzebul,” “Evil One,” “God of this world,” “King,” “Lucifer,” “Prince of the power of the air,” and “Ruler of this world” above.

28. Strong man (Matt. 12:29; Mark 3:27; Luke 11:21): While Jesus acknowledged that Satan was a “strong man” (Gk. ischyros), he asserted that he was stronger (Luke 11:22) and thus able to overpower the forces of evil that Satan ruled.

29. Tempter (Matt. 4:1, 3; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:2, 13; 1 Cor. 7:5; 10:13; 1 Thess. 3:5): See “Father of lies,” “Liar,” and “Lying spirit” above.

Much of Satan’s work is covert. But when the Lord Jesus appeared, he drew demons out of their hiding places within people. Satan and his demonic minions were most intensely engaged during Christ’s earthly ministry. Looking ahead, their maneuvering will reach a crescendo again during Daniel’s seventieth week, especially the last half.

Satan operates as the unrivaled master of disguise (Gk. metaschēmatizō, 2 Cor. 11:13–15). He makes the bad appear good. He decorates sinful behavior to look righteous. His lies sound attractively better than the truth. He compellingly preaches the perversion that wrong is right and right is wrong. He remains the messenger of darkness while masquerading as an angel of light. He falsely gives a polished appearance of authenticity to all that is spiritually counterfeit.

Satan rules as the commanding general of the opposing army. He attempts daily to outwit or outthink believers in spiritual warfare. Deviousness colors Satan’s character and conduct. He is a guerilla warrior who disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). To make the battle more difficult, Satan wages an invisible spiritual war using the most deceitfully clever tactics ever devised. He stands committed to spiritual espionage. He appears as a friend on the outside, but inside he remains the deceiving enemy. His lying statements, garnished with truth, are poison to the soul. His servants falsely present themselves as advocates of righteousness (2 Cor. 11:15).

For each strategy, Satan employs a variety of tactics or specific spiritual warfare techniques to achieve victory. The Bible identifies over twenty tactics in the historical narratives and teaching portions of Scripture. If believers think as God thinks and thwart the schemes of Satan, he will not take advantage of them. Victory is promised if Christians let the Word of God richly dwell within them (Col. 3:16).

The Adversary’s First Strategy. Satan will attempt to distort or deny the truth of God’s Word.

1. Sensualism: Attractiveness and desirability have replaced God’s Word as my standard for determining God’s best in my life (Gen. 3:1–6).

God’s Mind: 2 Timothy 3:16-17

2. Sensationalism: I believe that immediate success is more desirable than success in God’s time (Matt. 4:1–11).

God’s Mind: 1 Corinthians 1:18–25

3. Universalism: Because we live together in the same world with the same kind of imperfections, we will live together in eternity (Matt. 13:24–30).

God’s Mind: John 1:12–13; 3:36; 5:24

4. Rationalism: I will substitute human reason for simple childlike faith anchored in the Word of God (Matt. 16:21–23).

God’s Mind: Isaiah 55:9

5. Existentialism: I am the master of my fate and the captain of my soul (2 Cor. 4:4).

God’s Mind: John 3:16–21

6. Illusionism: I believe that everything that appears or claims to be of God is of God without further investigation (2 Cor. 11:13–15).

God’s Mind: Deuteronomy 13:1–5; 1 John 4:1–4

7. Ecumenism: I believe that all sincere religions involve valid expressions of worshiping the true God (Rev. 2:9; 3:9).

God’s Mind: Acts 4:12

8. Humanism: I alone can defeat Satan without God’s help (Jude 9).

God’s Mind: John 15:5

The Adversary’s Second Strategy. Satan will try to discredit the testimony of God’s people.

1. Situationalism: I believe that God’s Word is flexible enough to bend when I judge that the situation demands it (Acts 5:1–11).

God’s Mind: Psalm 119:89

2. Individualism: My chief marriage responsibility is to satisfy myself, not my partner (1 Cor. 7:1–5).

God’s Mind: Ephesians 5:22–25

3. Isolationism: My reputation will have an effect on no one else but me (1 Tim. 3:7).

God’s Mind: 2 Samuel 12:14; 1 Timothy 6:1; Titus 2:5

4. Hedonism: Because God has removed my home responsibilities, I am free to satisfy myself while the church supports me (1 Tim. 5:14–15).

God’s Mind: 2 Thessalonians 3:10

The Adversary’s Third Strategy. Satan will seek to depress or destroy the believer’s enthusiasm for God’s work.

1. Materialism: I prize material and physical blessings more highly than my spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ (Job 1:1–2:13).

God’s Mind: Matthew 6:33

2. Defeatism: Because I have failed, I am no longer useful in the King’s service (Luke 22:31–34).

God’s Mind: Psalm 32:1–7

3. Negativism: My weakness prevents me from being effective for God (2 Cor. 12:7–10).

God’s Mind: Philippians 4:13

4. Pessimism: The difficult circumstances in my life cause me to doubt that I will ever accomplish anything significant for God (1 Thess. 2:17–3:2).

God’s Mind: Psalm 37:23–24

The Adversary’s Fourth Strategy. Satan will aim to dilute the effectiveness of God’s people.

1. Egotism: I will attribute what I am or what I will achieve to my own accomplishments rather than to God’s activities in my life (1 Chron. 21:1; 1 Tim. 3:6).

God’s Mind: Jeremiah 9:24–25; 1 Peter 5:6 

2. Nominalism: Because I am saved and my sins are forgiven, my present lifestyle is unimportant (Zech. 3:1–5).

God’s Mind: 1 John 2:1–6

3. Cultism: My salvation will be based on works rather than on faith in Jesus Christ (Luke 22:3–6).

God’s Mind: Ephesians 2:8–9

4. Uniformitarianism: My relationship with trespassing believers will remain the same despite their repentance and change of heart toward God (2 Cor. 2:5–11).

God’s Mind: Ephesians 4:32

5. Assertivism: It is healthy for me to vent my anger frequently for lengthy periods of time (Eph. 4:26–27).

God’s Mind: James 1:19–20

As a matter of fact, even Satan’s worst evil attacks will serve God’s best righteous purposes. At the human level, Joseph told his less-than-loving brothers, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). The brothers were actually God’s servants. In the same way, Nebuchadnezzar, the pagan king of Babylon, carried out God’s purposes (Jer. 25:9; 43:10), as did the Persian king Cyrus (Isa. 44:28; 45:1). These powerful monarchs served God. And on at least fourteen occasions mentioned in Scripture, so did Satan or his demons.

When Satan says, “If you are the Son of God . . .” (Matt. 4:3, 6), the conditional “if” carries the meaning of “since” in this context. There was no doubt in Satan’s mind who Jesus was, but Satan’s design was to get him to violate the plan of God and employ the divine power that he had set aside in his humiliation (cf. Phil. 2:7).

All three of Jesus’s replies to the Devil were taken from Deuteronomy. The first one, from Deuteronomy 8:3, states that God allowed Israel to hunger, so that he might feed them with manna and teach them to trust him to provide for them. So the verse is directly applicable to Jesus’s circumstances and a fitting reply to Satan’s temptation that Jesus fulfill his desires of the flesh.

In the second case, Satan also quoted Scripture (Matt. 4:6; cf. Ps. 91:11–12)—but utterly twisted its meaning by employing a passage about trusting God to justify testing him. Christ replied (Matt. 4:7) with another verse from Israel’s wilderness experience (Deut. 6:16)—recalling the experience at Massah, where the grumbling Israelites put the Lord to the test, angrily demanding that Moses produce water where there was none (Ex. 17:2–7).

Finally, Christ cited Deuteronomy 6:13–14, again relating to the Israelites’ wilderness experiences. Christ, like them, was led into the wilderness to be tested (cf. Deut. 8:2). Unlike them, he withstood every aspect of that fierce test.

Satan’s failure to tempt Christ into sin proved at least three essential truths concerning Christ’s deity: Christ’s impeccability, Christ’s unswerving allegiance to the truth of God’s Word, and Christ’s superiority and authority over Satan.

Satan’s Original Judgment
Satan was not originally created as the Evil One that he eventually chose to become. So when did the Devil first rebel against his holy Master? Genesis 1–3 does not recount the occasion but rather assumes it. Having declared the creation to be “very good” (Gen. 1:31), God subsequently chronicled a deceitful creature in Genesis 3 who set out to dupe the first humans so that they would serve his own purposes, not God’s.

There is not one clear, direct passage in Scripture that explicitly reports this celestial treason. However, several places allude to it. First, Revelation 12:3–4 speaks of the red dragon, the ancient deceiver whose efforts were global (Rev. 12:9), who enlisted one-third of the heavenly host to join him in spiritual rebellion against God and to thus become unholy angels, or demons. There has not been and will not be another defection of angels beyond this one. Also, there will be redemption for none of the demons.

This brief statement in Revelation looks back to Ezekiel 28:11–19, which addresses the ancient king of Tyre and the satanic influence in his reign. Here it is difficult to clearly distinguish between the two, but it is rather obvious that both are in view.15 Several facts should be inferred about Satan:

1. Satan is a created being (28:13).

2. Satan was created as a righteous angel (28:13–14).

3. Satan chose an unrighteous way of life (28:15).

4. Satan was subsequently dishonorably discharged by God from further heavenly, holy service on behalf of his Creator (28:16).

While referring to the future king of Babylon, Isaiah 14:4–21 seems also to allude to Satan in the same manner as Ezekiel. It is much like when Christ spoke about Peter and Satan in the same sentence (Matt. 16:23). God’s judgment is rendered on the basis of Satan’s five “I will” boasts (Isa. 14:13–14), which evidence his abominable pride. Paul likewise warns church leaders concerning Satan’s original sin (1 Tim. 3:6–7). Though Satan and one-third of the angels in heaven were disqualified from the honorable role of serving God in heaven, they were not completely banned from a heavenly presence (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1).

After cursing the physical being, God turns to the spiritual being, Satan, and curses him.16 God’s message is a “first gospel” (or protoevangelium) and is prophetic of the struggle that began in the garden and its outcome between “your offspring”—Satan and unbelievers, who are called the Devil’s children in John 8:44—and her offspring—Christ, a descendant of Eve, and those in him. In the midst of the curse passage, a message of hope shines forth: the woman’s offspring called “he” is Christ, who will one day defeat the Serpent. Satan will only “bruise” Christ’s heel (cause him to suffer), while Christ will bruise Satan’s head (destroy him with a fatal blow). Paul, in a passage strongly reminiscent of Genesis 3, thus encouraged the believers in Rome that “the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (Rom. 16:20; cf. John 16:11). This protoevangelium in Genesis 3:15 anticipates Christ’s redemptive victory on the cross over Satan and demons.

Having understood these things, can true believers be indwelt by demons with a need for these demons to be evicted? After a complete study of the appropriate scriptures, the answer is no. Demonization (Gk. daimonizomai) refers only to unbelievers in whom a demon resides. The Bible concludes that the deliverance of a Christian from indwelling demons is an oxymoron.

The Bible convincingly reveals that true believers cannot be inhabited by Satan or demons. However, they can be tormented, oppressed, and harassed externally, even to a severe degree like Saul (or centuries later, like Paul, who was allowed to endure a satanic thorn in the flesh, 2 Cor. 12:7). Should demons actually be found to indwell a person, this would be evidence that he or she lacks genuine salvation, no matter how strongly that person or a counselor or a pastor or even a demon argues otherwise. If one encounters a truly demonized person, then he must recognize the strength of the enemy, appeal to God in prayer (see Jude 9), and use the power of Scripture (Rom. 1:16)—especially the gospel—to deal with the situation.

…

John MacArthur:
Throughout the New Testament, the church is primarily designated by the Greek word ekklēsia, a term meaning “those who are called out.”2 In the ancient world, the ekklēsia referred to a group of citizens who had been “called out” to administrate civic affairs or to defend the community in battle. Used in a general and nontechnical way, the term came to refer to any “assembly” or “congregation.”

Though the physical kingdom of Christ on earth awaits its future fulfillment, the Lord Jesus brought an internal, spiritual kingdom at his first coming (cf. Matt. 13:3–52; Luke 17:20–21). That kingdom can be defined as the realm of salvation.

The New Testament recognizes that not everyone who externally associates with the church is a true believer (Matt. 13:24–30; Jude 4). Consequently, not all who are part of the visible church (the company of those who outwardly profess faith in Christ) are actually members of the invisible church (the community of those who truly possess saving faith in him). There are always false professors and hypocrites who associate themselves with the visible church. Jesus himself warned that many will claim to know him who in reality do not:

Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?” And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” (Matt. 7:21–23)

In light of Christ’s sobering warning, those who profess faith in Christ ought to examine themselves to ensure that they are truly in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5; cf. 1 John 2:3–11).

The universal church includes all genuine Christians throughout the entirety of the church age. They are members of “the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (Heb. 12:23), having been declared righteous because their sins have been washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ (Rev. 1:5). All true believers throughout church history—both those alive today and those already in heaven—make up the universal church.

God has ordained the local church to provide the kind of environment where an uncompromising life can thrive as his people grow spiritually through the teaching of the Word (1 Pet. 2:2–3).

The church is further described as the bride of Christ (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:23–32; Rev. 19:7–8; 21:9) and the body of Christ (Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 12:12, 27; Eph. 4:12, 25; 5:23, 30; Col. 1:24), of which he is the Head (Eph. 1:22–23; 4:15; Col. 1:18; 2:19). Both of these metaphors emphasize the spiritual union that exists between Christ and his own (cf. Gal. 2:20). Scripture speaks of believers being in Christ and of his being in them (John 17:23; cf. 2 Cor. 5:17; Col. 1:27)

Likewise, the body of Christ is a unified whole. There are many religious organizations and functions, but only the church is the body of Christ, of which every true believer in Christ is a member. The Lord Jesus can be no more separated from his church than a head can be separated from its body. Conversely, those who are part of his church cannot be separated from him (John 10:28–29; Rom. 8:38–39) or each other (1 Cor. 12:12–27).

The Great Commission indicates that true evangelism involves making disciples (and not merely convincing unbelievers to make decisions). As sinners respond in saving faith to the message of the gospel, they are to be initiated into the church through baptism and discipled by the church through sound teaching. The pattern of disciple making was established by Jesus himself, who sought to make disciples during his earthly ministry (Mark 1:16–22; 2:14; John 8:31). His example is to be continued by his people. True followers of Christ become “fishers of men” (Matt. 4:19), meaning that those who become his disciples are themselves to be disciple makers.

Because they understand the hope of eternal salvation (Titus 1:2; cf. John 3:16; 11:25) and the converse reality of God’s coming judgment (2 Cor. 5:11, 20; cf. 2 Pet. 3:11–15; Heb. 9:27), believers should be eager to proclaim the good news of salvation. Though the church will continue to exalt Christ and edify one another in heavenly glory, evangelism is something that can be done only in this life.

R. C. Sproul:
We can begin to understand those aspects of the church by looking at the Greek word kyriakon, from which we get the English word church. The words for “church” in other languages—kirk in Scots, kerk in Dutch, and Kirche in German—all derive from the same root. Kyriakon refers to those who are possessed or owned by the kyrios, or Lord.

Theologians use the term invisible church to refer to those who make up the true church of Jesus Christ; that is, those who are truly regenerate. By contrast, the visible church is the body of all who claim to be in a state of grace and who identify with the church. The invisible church is so called because, according to Scripture, we can evaluate others’ professions of faith and their commitment to Christ only on the basis of outward appearances. If someone tells me he is a Christian, I must assume he is telling the truth. I am not able to read his heart. The actual state of his soul is beyond my ability to penetrate.

Yet what is invisible to us is plainly visible to God. We are limited to the outward appearances; God can read the heart. For God, there is nothing invisible about the church; it is all plain and open to Him. We must avoid the assumption that the invisible church and the visible church are separate entities. As Augustine observed, the invisible church is found substantially within the visible church. Thus, the invisible church is made up of the true believers within the visible church.

That is when Protestants began to refer to a true church rather than to the true church. The Reformers said that just as a particular congregation is a mix of tares and wheat, so no denomination is infallible; every one contains some degree of error or corruption. The Reformers then identified three essential marks of a true church.

The first is that the church professes the gospel. If a church denies any essential point of the gospel, such as the deity of Christ, the atonement, or justification by faith alone, it is no longer a church. The Reformers excluded the Roman Catholic Church because, although it embraced the deity of Christ and the atonement, it rejected justification by faith alone. Therefore, the Reformers said, Rome was no longer a true church.

The second mark is that the sacraments—baptism and the Lord’s Supper—are duly administered. The Reformers recognized the differences among Christians over the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper and the mode of baptism, but they said the basic celebration of the sacraments on a regular basis is a necessary element of a true church. Some so rejected the sacramental emphasis of the Roman Catholic Church that they sought to establish churches without the sacraments, but the Reformers argued that the sacraments were designed by Christ for the edification of God’s people, and therefore it is the duty of the church to maintain the proper observation of them.

The third mark of a true church is discipline, which requires some form of church government. A church has responsibility for the spiritual nurture of its members, to see that people grow in their faith and become increasingly sanctified. Therefore, discipline is required to keep the church from becoming infected with impurities and corruption. If the clergy of a particular church continually deny the deity of Christ, yet the church does not censure or remove them, then that church has ceased to be a legitimate church.

John Calvin’s all-consuming passion for reformation in the sixteenth century was focused on worship because he knew that the greatest enemy to the health of God’s people is their proclivity toward idolatry. Idolatry creeps into the life of the church in countless ways, which is why Calvin was driven to offer pure worship to God—something lost in our day. We tend to be more interested in entertainment than in expressing worship in spirit and truth.

Just because one is baptized does not mean one is saved—all are justified only by faith. When one has faith, then everything communicated through the sign and seal of baptism is fully received. Likewise, one who comes to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper without faith runs the risk of Christ’s judgment, which Paul warned about in 1 Corinthians 11:27–32. The issue for the Reformers was not the validity but the efficacy of the sacraments, which was inextricably tied to the presence of genuine faith.

During the period between the Old Testament and the New Testament, a practice emerged among the Jews called “proselyte baptism.” This was a purification rite for Gentiles, a bathing that symbolized the cleansing of people considered to be unclean. If a Gentile wanted to become a Jew, he was required to do three things. He had to make a profession of faith in Judaism. Then, if he was a male, he had to undergo circumcision. Finally, he had to undergo the purification rite of proselyte baptism because he was considered ceremonially unclean.

Circumcision was not the sign of the new covenant. This was the subject of Paul’s dispute with the Judaizers, who insisted that all converts to Christianity must be circumcised. Paul wanted the Judaizers to understand that circumcision was a sign not only of the promise of the covenant but also of its curse. All those who failed to fulfill the terms of the old covenant were cut off from God’s presence. On the cross, however, Christ fulfilled the curse. Therefore, those under the new covenant who insisted on circumcision were falling back to the terms of the old covenant.

The Roman Catholic view is called “transubstantiation.” In simple terms, the Roman church believes that a miracle takes place when the priest blesses the bread and wine during the Mass. The ordinary elements of bread and wine are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. This doctrine was shaped using the philosophy of Aristotle.

John MacArthur:
In keeping with their foundational role, the apostles and the prophets declared the revelation of God’s Word (Eph. 3:5; cf. Acts 11:28; 21:10–11) and confirmed their message with miraculous signs (2 Cor. 12:12; cf. Acts 8:6–7; Heb. 2:3–4). Just as the superstructure of a building rests on its foundation, so all subsequent generations of the church have been built on the revelatory foundation laid by the apostles and prophets in the writing of the New Testament (cf. 2 Pet. 1:19–21). The other groups—evangelists and pastor-teachers—have continued to build on that foundation throughout church history by fervently proclaiming the gospel of grace and faithfully preaching the Word of truth (cf. 2 Tim. 4:1–5).

The Greek word apostolos, translated “apostle,” means “sent one” and applies to an ambassador, representative, or messenger. The term is sometimes used in the New Testament in a general sense to refer, for example, to the messengers of local churches (2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). However, the primary New Testament use of the title applies to “apostles of Jesus Christ” (e.g., Gal. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1; Jude 17), those specific men whom Jesus personally selected to be his authorized representatives. That limited group included the Twelve (with Matthias replacing Judas Iscariot in Acts 1:26) and Paul, who was commissioned by Christ to be an apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. 1:15–17; cf. 1 Cor. 15:7–9; 2 Cor. 11:5).

The apostles of Jesus Christ met three basic qualifications. First, they were chosen directly by the Lord Jesus (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2, 24; Gal. 1:1). Second, they were able to perform the signs of an apostle, being authenticated by miraculous “signs and wonders and mighty works” (2 Cor. 12:12; cf. Matt. 10:1–2; Acts 1:5–8; 2:43; 4:33; 5:12; Heb. 2:3–4). Third, with their own eyes they were witnesses of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:21–25; 10:39–41; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7–8). In 1 Corinthians 15:8, Paul explicitly states that he was the last person to have met this third qualification, indicating that there have been no genuine apostles since Paul. Moreover, Paul saw his apostleship as unique and extraordinary (1 Cor. 15:8–9); it was not a normative pattern for later generations of Christians to emulate. An honest assessment of modern claims to the office demonstrates conclusively that there are no apostles today and have not been in church history since the first century.

The word translated “prophet,” from the Greek prophētēs, means “one who speaks in the place of” or “a spokesman.” New Testament prophets, then, were spokesmen for God, though second in rank to the apostles (1 Cor. 12:28). As in the Old Testament, prophets in the early church were primarily distinguished by their reception and delivery of new revelation from God (Acts 11:27–28), though sometimes they expounded on previously revealed truth (cf. Acts 13:1).

Due to the constant threat of false prophets (Matt. 7:15; Acts 20:29–31; Jude 3–4), the prophet’s message was to be tested against truth that had been previously revealed (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:20–22). The genuineness of a New Testament prophet’s ministry, like that of his Old Testament counterparts, could be determined by his doctrinal accuracy (Deut. 13:1–5; Acts 20:29–30; 2 Pet. 2:1).

In Ephesians 4:11, the Greek word poimēn can be translated as either “pastor” or “shepherd.” It describes the leadership, protection, and care that pastors exhibit toward the members of their flock. The Lord Jesus is the great Shepherd (Heb. 13:20–21; 1 Pet. 2:25); those whom he has given to the church as pastors are to be his undershepherds (1 Pet. 5:2). Their primary function is to feed the sheep (cf. John 21:15–17), a responsibility that they accomplish through teaching the Word (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16–17; 1 Pet. 2:2–3). Although teaching can be identified as its own ministry (1 Cor. 12:28), it is best to regard “shepherds and teachers” in Ephesians 4:11 as describing two facets of a single office of pastoral leadership. Other New Testament texts indicate that pastors are expected to be both shepherds (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2) and teachers (1 Tim. 3:2; 5:17).

Though structure and administration have their place, true power in the church comes through prayer and the ministry of the Word. Consequently, the pastor-teacher is to prioritize prayer and preaching rather than becoming overly encumbered with the management of other administrative issues (cf. Acts 6:2, 4). The sheep are best served not through elaborate programs or slick presentations but through consistent, solid teaching. The image of a shepherd accentuates the spiritual care and biblical nourishment that pastors provide for their people as they lead them. A shepherd’s heart is essential in those who would aspire to be pastors and teachers of God’s people.

In the New Testament, elders were uniquely set apart for their office. The Greek word kathistēmi, meaning “to ordain,” was normally used to describe the appointment of elders. The ordination process signifies a divine calling and setting aside to spiritual leadership that is officially recognized by the church.

According to the New Testament pattern, the ordination process was overseen and administered by the recognized leadership of the church. For example, in Acts 14:23, it was Paul and Barnabas who “appointed elders in every church.” In Titus 1:5, Paul instructed Titus to “appoint elders in every town.” First Timothy 4:14 indicates that the elders themselves were to ordain other elders. Whether the appointment was made by an apostle, an apostolic delegate, or a team of local church elders, the basic principle is clear: the ordination of new elders is the responsibility of those who currently serve as part of the church’s recognized spiritual leadership.

Within a group of elders, it is likely that some will be supported by the church while others will earn a living through other means. Both situations are biblically permissible, and neither affects a man’s qualification for pastoral leadership. Often, elders who are paid by the church are referred to as clergy (or staff elders), while elders who support themselves outside the church are called lay elders. While such designations can be useful in certain situations, it is important to understand that no such distinction is found in Scripture. The Bible makes no qualitative difference between a lay pastor and a staff pastor. Every elder is responsible to provide leadership, care, oversight, protection, sound teaching, and a godly example to the flock. As those who have been set apart by God and ordained by the church, they are all called to the same standard of accountability before the Lord, whether or not they receive financial remuneration from the church.

Scripture presents pastoral ministry as a team effort, involving a plurality of elders in each local congregation. The word presbyteros almost always occurs in the plural when used in the New Testament (e.g., Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2; 20:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14). The few exceptions occur when a biblical author applies the term to himself (e.g., 1 Pet. 5:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 1) or when an individual elder is being singled out from the larger group (1 Tim. 5:19). The clear norm was that first-century churches were governed by multiple elders. Consequently, Paul can address the believers in Philippi by greeting “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers [plural of episkopos] and deacons” (Phil. 1:1).

Historically, various forms of church government include the episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational forms. An episcopal form of church government places primary leadership responsibility with the episkopos, or “bishop.” Variations of this ecclesiastical structure are found in Methodism, Anglicanism, and Roman Catholicism, and can involve multiple levels of hierarchy (e.g., priests, bishops, archbishops). Though prominent throughout much of church history, this system has at least two significant weaknesses. First, it creates a positional distinction between the episkopos (“bishop”) and the presbyteros (“elder”) not found in the New Testament. Consequently, a biblical case for this form of church government cannot successfully be made. Second, this form of church government is especially vulnerable to corruption due to its hierarchical structure of ecclesiastical leadership, which can wrongly put the focus on titles and positions of authority rather than on the spiritual qualifications for pastoral ministry. Such corruption is nowhere more apparent than in Roman Catholicism with its history of papal corruption, doctrinal deviation, and spiritual abuses.

The presbyterian form of church government focuses on the role of the presbyteros, or “elder,” noting that the terms “bishop” and “elder” are interchangeable in the New Testament (cf. 1 Tim. 3:1–2; Titus 1:7). This approach is primarily found within Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. The emphasis on elder rule is clearly affirmed in the New Testament (1 Thess. 5:12; Heb. 13:17). However, the extrabiblical hierarchical structures historically associated with this form of church government (e.g., local church sessions, regional presbyteries, larger synods, general assemblies) have neither New Testament precedent nor support.

In defining the office of deacon, the New Testament puts primary weight on a person’s moral character. That is why Scripture reveals more about the spiritual qualifications for deacons than it does about the specific nature of their role in the local church. Biblically speaking, the emphasis is not on organizational structure but on the moral integrity, spiritual maturity, and doctrinal purity of those who serve in an official capacity.

According to 1 Timothy 3:12, deacons must “be the husband of one wife.” As with elders, this is not merely a prohibition of polygamy. Instead, it speaks to the sexual purity and moral integrity that ought to be true of every deacon. It is not simply that he has one wife but that he is absolutely faithful to that one woman. His marital life is characterized by total consecration and pure devotion to her. The consistency of his Christian walk is also evidenced in his role as a father, since deacons must manage “their children and their own households well” (1 Tim. 3:12). By leading his family well, he demonstrates that he is also capable of serving in key roles of responsibility within the church (cf. 1 Tim. 3:5).

Though deacons share the same spiritual qualifications as elders, they do not perform the same role in the church. Deacons care for the flock under the oversight of the elders by organizing and executing administrative tasks and other service-oriented ministries. Their faithful service exemplifies the kind of spiritual greatness that Jesus commended when he told his disciples: “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:26–28). The deacon’s role is one of selfless service on behalf of others—a role that Christ himself modeled perfectly (Phil. 2:3–7). The reward for such service does not consist of temporal riches or worldly fame; rather, it is measured in terms of the eternal blessings that await those who faithfully serve their heavenly Master (1 Tim. 3:13; cf. Matt. 25:21, 23).

When an individual is saved, he becomes a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). Because he is united to Christ and the other members of the body in this way, he is therefore qualified to become a member of a local expression of that body.

To become a member of a church is to formally commit oneself to an identifiable, local body of believers who have joined together for specific, divinely ordained purposes. These purposes include receiving instruction from God’s Word (1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 4:2), serving and edifying one another through the proper use of spiritual gifts (Rom. 12:3–8; 1 Cor. 12:4–31; 1 Pet. 4:10–11), participating in the ordinances (Luke 22:19; Acts 2:38–42), and proclaiming the gospel to those who are lost (Matt. 28:18–20). In addition, when one becomes a member of a church, he submits himself to the care and the authority of the biblically qualified elders whom God has placed in that assembly.

Baptism
By both example and instruction, the Lord Jesus gave the church two ordinances that they are to observe: baptism (Matt. 3:13–17; 28:19) and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:19–20). The word baptize (from Gk. baptizō) means “to immerse” or “to dip.” When used literally, the term refers to actions like the dipping of fabric into dye or the immersion of a person in water. But it is also used figuratively in the New Testament to emphasize the close identity and solidarity between two people. For example, in 1 Corinthians 10:2, Paul explains that Old Testament Israel was baptized into Moses. That figurative use of the word underscored the solidarity of the Israelites with their God-ordained spokesman and leader.

Spirit Baptism
In an infinitely more profound way, the New Testament teaches that all believers are immersed into Christ Jesus at the moment of conversion (Rom. 6:3; cf. Matt. 3:11). They are baptized by Christ with his Holy Spirit. Through this Spirit baptism (which is entirely God’s work), believers are united with Christ (1 Cor. 6:17; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:27) and placed into his body, the church (1 Cor. 12:13). It is this spiritual reality that Peter speaks of when he writes, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). As this verse makes clear, it is not the external action of water that saves (the “removal of dirt from the body”) but the internal reality of “an appeal to God for a good conscience,” which is possible only through faith in the death and “resurrection of Jesus Christ” (cf. Rom. 10:9–10; Heb. 9:14; 10:22).

Spirit baptism occurs only once, at the moment of salvation, and should not be sought as a secondary, postconversion experience. That singular Spirit baptism occurs at conversion, when the believer is born again and placed into the sphere of the Spirit’s sanctifying power and indwelling presence.

In order to symbolize that internal reality of salvation, the New Testament calls believers to be baptized in water as a public testimony to their faith in and solidarity with the Lord Jesus. Water baptism, then, is the outward, postconversion demonstration of an inward reality that has already occurred at conversion. The baptism of John the Baptist symbolized repentance from sin and turning to God (Matt. 3:6; cf. Acts 19:4–5). In Christ, baptism not only signifies a turning away from sin but also serves as a public affirmation of one’s identification and union with him in his death, burial, and resurrection.

Scripture presents baptism as the first step of obedience for believers after they have embraced the Lord Jesus in saving faith. Though not salvific, baptism is commanded by Christ himself (Matt. 28:19). Those unwilling to confess their Lord and Savior publicly through baptism are living in disobedience and thus call into question the genuineness of their faith because they are unwilling to obey (cf. Matt. 10:32–33).

The proper mode of baptism is by immersion, as indicated by the Greek word baptizō. Immersion also serves as a symbol of one’s burial and resurrection, signifying the spiritual reality that believers have died to sin and risen with Christ (cf. Rom. 6:4, 10).

Though pervasive throughout church history, the practice of infant baptism lacks clear New Testament support, since saving faith precedes baptism and not vice versa. In Scripture, only believers are said to be baptized. The New Testament definition of baptism, in fact, requires that the inner realities of repentance and faith precede the external symbol. In Acts 2:38, only those who believed and repented were called to be baptized. According to Colossians 2:12, those who have been baptized into Christ (a spiritual reality represented by water baptism) have been “raised with him through faith.”

The Lord’s Table
A second ordinance that must be observed by the church is the Lord’s Table (or the Lord’s Supper). Unlike baptism, which is observed once following conversion, the Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated repeatedly throughout the Christian life.

Background and Practice
On the night before his death, the Lord Jesus celebrated a final Passover meal with his disciples, transforming it into a celebration of infinitely greater importance. Whereas the Passover commemorated Israel’s deliverance from slavery in Egypt (Ex. 12:1–14), the Lord’s Supper points to the ultimate deliverance of God’s people from slavery to sin and death. The Passover looked back to the temporary rescue from physical bondage; the Lord’s Supper commemorates the eternal and spiritual deliverance provided through the new covenant. The lambs slaughtered during the Passover merely foreshadowed the sacrifice of the spotless Lamb of God who died on a cross to redeem sinners once for all (1 Pet. 1:18–19; cf. Heb. 9:25–26).

The observance of Communion was practiced by the church from its inception on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:42). The early church also developed congregational meals that came to be known as love feasts (Jude 12), which were usually concluded with a celebration of the Lord’s Supper. These meals were designed to foster fellowship and mutual care among the members of the church. But some used these meals as an opportunity to show partiality and engage in drunkenness (1 Cor. 11:18, 21; cf. 2 Pet. 2:13). When they connected such behavior to the Lord’s Supper, they desecrated the holy ordinance. It is in that context that Paul offered this stern warning:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. (1 Cor. 11:27–32)

Though believers ought to pursue holiness at all times (1 Pet. 1:15–17), the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is an occasion when they ought to carefully examine their hearts, confessing and repenting from any known sin before the Lord. Those who participate in Communion without repenting of known sin profane the celebration and invite the chastisement of God.

Prayer
Though often neglected in many churches, prayer (both corporate and private) is a vital means of grace that God uses to grow his people in holiness (cf. Heb. 4:16). In 1 Thessalonians 5:17, Paul instructed the church in Thessalonica to “pray without ceasing.” That imperative designates the heart attitude that ought to characterize every congregation. The command “pray” (from Gk. proseuchomai; cf. Matt. 6:5–6; Mark 11:24; Luke 5:16; 11:1–2; Acts 10:9; Rom. 8:26; 1 Cor. 14:13–15; Eph. 6:18; Col. 1:9; 2 Thess. 3:1; James 5:13–14, 16) includes all facets of prayer: dependence, adoration, confession, intercession, thanksgiving, and supplication. The phrase “without ceasing” refers to a constant way of life that is characterized by a prayerful attitude, not an endless string of utterances (cf. Matt. 6:7).

Worship
Worship is the theme of salvation history, the supreme purpose for which believers were redeemed (John 4:23), and the occupation with which they will be eternally enthralled (Rev. 22:3–4; cf. 19:1–6). To worship the Lord is to ascribe to him the honor, glory, adoration, praise, reverence, and devotion that is due him, both for his greatness and for his goodness. As the sovereign Creator of the universe, the triune God alone—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is worthy of worship (cf. Isa. 42:8; 48:11; Matt. 4:10; Rev. 14:7). The veneration or worship of angels, saints, or other supposed deities constitutes idolatry, and is strictly prohibited in Scripture (Ex. 20:3–5; cf. Col. 2:18; Rev. 19:10; 22:9). It is the inexcusable refusal to worship the true God that brings his judgment on the unregenerate world (Rom. 1:18–32).

True worship must begin in the heart and mind of the worshiper. Hence, it cannot be equated with elaborate services, ornate buildings, eloquent prayers, or beautiful music. Those things may be outward expressions of genuine worship, but God accepts only that which flows from sincere devotion to him. Though many associate a church’s worship with its music program, music is only one avenue through which worship can be expressed. Forms of worship can include prayer, expressions of praise and thanksgiving (Heb. 13:15), and serving others for the sake of Christ (Heb. 13:16; cf. Phil. 4:18). During the worship service itself, the congregation joins in corporate worship by praising God through song, beseeching him in prayer, and listening to the reading and preaching of his Word. Contributing financially to the church through giving is also an expression of worship when done from a heart of joy. As Paul told the Corinthians,

Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work. . . . You will be enriched in every way to be generous in every way, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God. For the ministry of this service is not only supplying the needs of the saints but is also overflowing in many thanksgivings to God. By their approval of this service, they will glorify God because of your submission that comes from your confession of the gospel of Christ, and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others, while they long for you and pray for you, because of the surpassing grace of God upon you. Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift! (2 Cor. 9:6–15)

For believers, the supreme act of worship is to offer all of themselves as a living sacrifice to the Lord (cf. Matt. 22:37). Paul thus exhorted the Romans with these words:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Rom. 12:1–2)

Worship, then, encompasses much more than the singing portion of a church service; it is a way of thinking and living for God’s honor and glory.

While worship may be passionate, it must always be grounded in truth. As Jesus explained, “The hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:23–24; cf. Phil. 3:3). Many in the church today confuse emotionalism for worship. But emotional experiences that are not governed by theological truth do not honor the Lord. Genuine worship engages the mind; it does not bypass it (cf. 1 Cor. 14:15, 19). Moreover, God-honoring expressions of worship are characterized by decency and orderliness (1 Cor. 14:40). Churches should not promote mindless, chaotic, or worldly practices in the name of worship. Such practices undermine rather than foster the kind of worship that honors God.

Fellowship
As noted above, the word fellowship comes from the Greek term koinōnia, meaning “partnership” or “sharing.” The basis for fellowship is salvation. Because believers are in fellowship with the Lord Jesus, they are also in fellowship with one another. This is a magnificent metaphor illustrating the common life that believers share under their Head, the Lord Jesus. It is this kind of unity, commonality, and togetherness that ought to characterize the fellowship in every church (Rom. 12:16). Expressions of fellowship include discipleship (Matt. 28:19–20; 2 Tim. 2:2), mutual accountability (Gal. 6:1–2; Heb. 10:24–25), and joyful service (1 Cor. 15:58; Eph. 4:12; Rev. 22:12).

Church Discipline
Though the word discipline carries negative connotations, the practice of church discipline ought to be motivated by a positive, loving desire both to preserve the purity of the church (2 Cor. 7:1; cf. Acts 5:11; 1 Cor. 5:1–13; 2 Thess. 3:6–15; 1 Tim. 1:19–20; Titus 1:10–16) and to restore sinning brothers and sisters to the fellowship (cf. Luke 15:3–8; Jude 23).

This passage delineates a four-step process for how churches are to deal with sin among their members. First, believers are to address sin on an individual level, approaching the offending party with a spirit of gentleness and humility. If the sinning brother responds to that private confrontation in repentance, the church discipline process comes to an end. He is forgiven and restored (Matt. 18:15). 

But if he refuses to repent, the process moves to a second step, in which one or two more believers join in confronting the sinning brother. These witnesses (cf. Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15; John 8:17; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28) primarily confirm that the sin was committed, and they also observe how the offending party responds after being confronted a second time (Matt. 18:16). It is hoped that the added weight of their rebuke will be enough to prompt a change of heart in the sinning brother.

Should he still refuse to repent after being given adequate time, the process moves to a third step. In light of the sinning brother’s persistent hardheartedness, the witnesses are to bring the matter to the church (Matt. 18:17) by notifying the elders, who in turn communicate it to the congregation. Because of the public nature of this step, the elders must perform due diligence to confirm the facts of the situation—that the church member has sinned, has been confronted, and has refused to repent—before announcing it to the entire congregation. The purpose of alerting the church is twofold: to remind other members of the seriousness of sin (cf. 1 Tim. 5:20) and to encourage them to confront the sinning brother in the hopes that he will repent and be restored.

If the confronted brother still refuses to repent, the final step of church discipline is to formally separate and to ostracize him from the fellowship. The unrepentant person is no longer to be treated as a brother but as “a Gentile and a tax-collector” (Matt. 18:17)—meaning as an outsider to whom the benefits and blessings of church membership are no longer extended. The motivation is not to punish the person but to see him yet come to his senses and repent (cf. 2 Thess. 3:11–15). Consequently, the only contact with such individuals should be for the purpose of admonishing them and calling them to repentance. In the early church, believers were not even to share a meal with those who persisted in unrepentant sin (1 Cor. 5:11; cf. 2 Thess. 3:6, 14). Putting them out of the church protects the purity of the remaining members (1 Cor. 5:6) and safeguards the congregation’s testimony in the eyes of the world.

…

John MacArthur:
Death is an unpleasant topic, but Scripture teaches what most intuitively know—death is the destiny of human beings. While all recognize the blunt reality of death, the Bible alone reveals its origin, its significance, and what must happen for it to be defeated. Death is not nonexistence. The primary meaning of death is separation. Thus Genesis 35:18 says of Rachel, “Her soul was departing (for she was dying).” After death, her soul went on living, though it was separated from her body.

The Bible speaks of three types of death. First, physical death involves the cessation of bodily life. When key organs such as the brain and heart cease to function, physical death occurs. At this point, a separation transpires between a person’s body and his soul/spirit. James declared, “The body apart from the spirit is dead” (James 2:26). In regard to physical death, Ecclesiastes 12:7 explains, “The dust [body] returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.”

Second, spiritual death involves alienation from God. A person can be physically alive yet spiritually dead. In fact, all people are conceived and born into a state of spiritual separation from God (Ps. 51:5). This occurs because of imputed sin from Adam and an inherited sin nature from our ancestors. Paul addressed spiritual death when he told the Ephesians, “You were dead in your trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1 NASB). Speaking of their previous condition before Christ, Paul noted that the Ephesians were physically alive but spiritually separated from God.

Third, eternal death is punishment and banishment from God for eternity. This happens to those who physically die while spiritually dead. The unrepentant will experience eternal, conscious separation from God’s presence to bless (2 Thess. 1:9). The lake of fire is their destiny (Rev. 21:8). Not everyone, though, will experience eternal death; those who believe in Jesus will evade it.

Scripture teaches other important truths about death. First, sin is the cause of death. Contrary to the secular worldview, death is not the result of natural processes stemming from a random and chance universe. Death happens because the first man, Adam, sinned against the Creator. Adam was told that he would die if he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:15–17), and Romans 5:12 explains that “sin came into the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin.” At its core, death is a spiritual matter with wide-ranging and far-reaching consequences.

Second, death is real, not an illusion. There is an actual separation of the body from the soul. Although Christians recognize this truth, some cults and quasi-Christian sects have denied the reality of sickness and death.

Third, death is unnatural. God did not create man to die, and death was not an original part of the creation (Genesis 1–2). That is why mourning and tears are often associated with death in the Bible (Gen. 50:1, 3). Jesus wept for Lazarus with real tears (John 11:35). Death is a disruption to life. It should never be glamorized or downplayed. In this fallen world, death may seem natural since it is all around us. But God did not create man to die, and a day is coming when death will be defeated.

Paul told the Corinthians, “Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). Again, Paul viewed departure from the body (physical death) as preferable since he would be with Jesus. In addition to being an encouragement for the believer, these verses refute the unbiblical concept of soul sleep, in which physical death means nonexistence until the resurrection. The believer is never separated from Christ.

The intermediate state of unbelievers involves conscious torment in a place called hades, from hadēs, the Greek term for the abode of the dead.6 In the Septuagint, it was used to translate the Hebrew word sheol, which referred to the realm of the dead in general, without necessarily distinguishing between righteous and unrighteous souls. But in the New Testament, hades refers to the place of the wicked prior to the final judgment in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:13). Hades, therefore, serves to describe a temporary place of conscious torment for the wicked.

The intermediate destiny of the believer differs drastically from that of the unbeliever. It involves a conscious, peaceful existence in heaven with Jesus between physical death and the resurrection of the body. The believer’s soul is translated immediately to the presence of Jesus in heaven upon physical death (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:22–24). As Stephen was being stoned, he cried out to Jesus, whom he saw in heaven, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). To the repentant thief on the cross, Jesus promised, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43).

When death occurs, the body is buried while the soul is taken immediately to heaven. Paul said that being with the Lord Jesus in this state is “far better” (Phil. 1:23) than physical life in a fallen world (2 Cor. 5:8). Yet he also stated that the intermediate condition is comparable to being “naked” (2 Cor. 5:3), since humans were not created to be disembodied. Humans are most whole when clothed with a physical body. It is the glorification of the resurrected body for which Paul longs most (2 Cor. 5:1–2). For the Christian, resurrection is better than the intermediate state, which is better than life in this fallen world.

The intermediate state is for deceased believers in heaven or unbelievers in hades during this age before the second coming of Jesus and the resurrection of the body. But it is not the final state or destiny for human beings.

Believers in God are destined for the resurrection of the body. One of the earliest biblical figures, Job, expressed confidence in resurrection:

For I know that my Redeemer lives,

and at the last he will stand upon the earth.

And after my skin has been thus destroyed,

yet in my flesh I shall see God. (Job 19:25–26)

Job knew his “skin” would be “destroyed” (physical death) but that this was not the end. His “Redeemer” would stand on the earth, and in the end Job would, in his “flesh,” “see God.” Physical resurrection is real and occurs because of the Redeemer. Isaiah also declared the resurrection of the body for the saved:

Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise.

You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy!

For your dew is a dew of light,

and the earth will give birth to the dead. (Isa. 26:19)

Scripture gives fewer details concerning the nature of the resurrection body of the lost, but some conclusions are possible. Daniel 12:2 says that the unsaved “awake” to “shame and everlasting contempt.” Unbelievers experience a tangible bodily resurrection. As we saw in Daniel 12:2 and John 5:28–29, they come out of the grave. So the body that died and was buried is the body that comes out of the grave. It is resurrected, but the person is the same. So there is a one-to-one correspondence.

Second, the resurrection body of the unsaved is suited to experience the lake of fire. Just as believers will receive a body to live on the new earth (Rev. 21:1–22:5), which is a real place, nonbelievers will receive a body fit to experience the lake of fire, which also is an actual place. Revelation 20:15 states, “And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” Such a parallel between believers and unbelievers is explained in Isaiah 66:22–24, which first describes conditions of the new earth for believers (66:22–23) and then describes conditions for the unsaved (66:24): “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.” This indicates a tangible existence for the lost.

While many dreadful things can occur in this fallen world, our experiences are mixed with God’s common goodness such as love, personal relationships, food, rain, and sunshine. In hell, though, God’s common goodness and grace are removed, and the lost must face the undiluted wrath of God. Hell is exceedingly more than a metaphor for tough times in this life, so to confuse the two is dangerous.

The resurrected Jesus is also in the third heaven. At Jesus’s ascension, two angels declared, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). While being stoned, Stephen cried out, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:56). Jesus’s presence in heaven is linked with Psalm 110:1–2 and its prediction that the Messiah would have a time at God’s right hand before reigning from Jerusalem (cf. Heb. 8:1). Hebrews 9:24 states that Christ with his priestly ministry has entered into heaven on our behalf.

Deceased brothers and sisters in Christ are also in the third heaven. Hebrews 12:23 speaks of “the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (NASB). As for living saints, their “names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20), and their “citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20). Also, their reward is in heaven (Matt. 5:12).

As glorious as the present third heaven is, it is not the final domain of God and his saints. Second Peter 3:13 declares, “But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” Revelation 21:1–2 reveals that the New Jerusalem will come down from heaven upon the new earth. There God will dwell with his people (Rev. 21:3). He will wipe away their tears and remove all negative remnants of the previously cursed world (Rev. 21:3–7). Thus, in the fullest way heaven will come to earth. There will be no sickness, no hunger, no trouble, and no tragedy, just absolute joy and eternal blessings.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism:

Pre-millennialists believe that Christ will return to resurrect the believers, and that He will then establish a kingdom which will endure for 1,000 years (the millennium). After this will come the resurrection of unbelievers, the judgment day, and then eternity. We do not agree with this view. It is important to note, lulwever, that while all dispensationalists are pre-millennialists, not all pre-millennialists are dispensationalists. Pre-millennialists who are not dispensationalists admit that there is a present kingdom of Christ, as well as expect a literal reign of Christ on earth, during the inilleilnllllll. Post-millennialists believe that Christ will advance His present spiritual and invisible kingdom (through the work of the Church in preaching the gospel, etc.) until the whole world is evangelized. After this will follow an extended period (the millennium) in which righ teousness and peace will cover the world. Then they believe that (perhaps after a great apostasy) Christ will return visibly, to raise all the dead, to judge the world, and to usher in eternity. A-millennialists do not believe that the Bible promises any millennium. They believe that good and evil will both grow together until the harvest. They believe that one day Christ will return (without warning) and raise all the dead and bring them to judgment. After this follows the eternal state. The pre-millennialists are called pre-millennialists because they expect Christ’s visible return before a millennial period. The postmillennialists are so named because they expect return after it millennial period. The a-millennialists are called this because they do not expect a millennium.

We believe the a-millennial view is to be preferred for the following reasons: (I) the Scriptures say that no one can know when Christ will return (Acts 1:7; Matt 24:36ff.; I Tim. This would not be so if men knew fie would return after a millennium (1,000 years of peace). (2) The Scripture says that these are the last days (Heb. 1:2; John 6:39; 11:24; 12:48; Acts 2:17; 2 Tim. 3:1, etc.). If this he so, then we cannot expect a millennium after these days are ended by the coming of Christ. (3) In Christ’s parable of the wheat and tares “both grow together until the harvest.” This does not seem capable of agreement with the idea of a time of complete righteousness and peace before Christ returns. But let us remember that (apart from the dispensationalists) men may hold to any one of these three views and yet be considered orthodox Christians.

R. C. Sproul:
We have a tendency to view the difference between life and death as the difference between good and bad, but that was not how the Apostle viewed it. He saw the difference as between good and better. Living is good. Yes, there is much pain in life, and some are reduced to such a level of suffering that they long to die; but most of us, despite the pains, heartbreaks, and disappointments, want to live. There is joy in living, so we hold on to life with a passion. Yet for Christians, death is even better, because we go immediately to be with Christ, a hope verified by Christ’s resurrection.

Premillennialism
Premillennialism teaches that before Christ returns there will be a literal, earthly millennial kingdom. The prefix here, pre-, indicates the conviction that Christ will return before the millennium is established. There are two popular forms of premillennialism today: dispensational premillennialism and historic premillennialism.

Dispensational theology is a complete system of doctrine. It is most noted for its particular scheme of understanding the prophecies of the Bible. Dispensational premillennialists believe that the prophecies of the kingdom given to Israel in the Old Testament will be literally fulfilled in the contemporary Jewish state. They look for a literal rebuilding of the temple and a reinstitution of the sacrificial system.

Foundational to the eschatological position of dispensationalists is the belief that God has two separate plans of redemption, one for Israel and one for the church. Traditional dispensational premillennialism teaches that Christ offered the Jews the kingdom of David, but the Jews rejected it, so the coming of David’s kingdom, a Jewish kingdom, was postponed until sometime in the future. They also believe that the church as we know it exists in “the church age,” one of several major periods or dispensations of biblical history. The church age is a parenthesis between the advent of Christ and the future coming of the kingdom. Dispensational premillennialists believe that the church ultimately will lose influence in the world and become apostate toward the end of the church age, and will not be restored until after the return of Christ. Finally, Christ will return to rapture His saints before the great tribulation.

This return of Christ to rapture His people is seen as the first of His two returns. Upon His first return, He will translate His people up into the clouds, thereby delivering them from the pain and persecution of the tribulation. Then Christ will come back again to establish His kingdom. He will administer a Jewish political kingdom that will be headquartered in Jerusalem, and that kingdom will last for exactly one thousand years. During that time, Satan will be bound, the temple will be rebuilt, and the sacrificial system of the Old Testament will be reinstituted. Near the end of the millennium, Satan will be released, and Christ and His followers will be attacked at Jerusalem. At this point, Christ will call down judgment from heaven and destroy His enemies, judgment of the wicked will occur, and the final eternal order will be initiated.

This version of dispensational premillennialism, where the church is raptured before the tribulation, is the most popular version among evangelicals. There are other versions that place the rapture at other times relative to the tribulation while keeping the rest of the system essentially the same. But while the pretribulation rapture is popular because it provides Christians with hope of avoiding the great tribulation at the end of the age, I find not a shred of evidence in Scripture to support it.

Historic premillennialism is a bit different. It teaches that the church is the initial phase of Christ’s kingdom, as prophesied by the Old Testament prophets. The church gains occasional victories in history but ultimately will fail in its mission. It will lose influence and become corrupt as worldwide evil increases toward the end of the church age. The church will eventually pass through an unprecedented worldwide time of travail known as “the great tribulation,” which will mark the end of history as we know it. At the end of the tribulation, Christ will return to rapture His church, to resurrect deceased saints, and to conduct the judgment of the righteous, all in the twinkling of an eye. Christ will then descend to earth with His glorified saints, fight the battle of Armageddon, bind Satan, and establish a worldwide political kingdom, in which Christ will reign from Jerusalem for a thousand years. At the end of the millennium, Satan will be loosed, and a massive rebellion against Christ’s kingdom will occur. Finally, God will intervene with fiery judgment to rescue Jesus and the saints, which will be followed by the resurrection and judgment of the wicked.

Amillennialism
The amillennial position, which holds some points in common with both of the premillennial positions, believes that the church age is the kingdom age prophesied in the Old Testament. The New Testament church has become the Israel of God. Amillennialists believe that the binding of Satan took place during Jesus’ earthly ministry; Satan was restrained while the gospel was preached to the world, and this restraint continues today. Insofar as Christ presently rules in the hearts of believers, they have some influence in the culture in which they live, but they will not transform the culture. Toward the end, the growth of evil will accelerate, resulting in the great tribulation and a personal Antichrist. Christ will return to end history, resurrect and judge all men, and establish the eternal order. In eternity, the redeemed may be either in heaven or in a totally renovated earth.

Postmillennialism
Postmillennialism has several distinctive features. First, it holds that the messianic kingdom of Christ was founded on earth during His early ministry in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy—the church is Israel. Second, the kingdom is essentially redemptive and spiritual rather than political and physical. Third, the kingdom will exercise a transformational influence in history, a belief that some have called the most distinctive characteristic of postmillennial eschatology. It is optimistic that the influence of the church of Jesus Christ will have a positive, redeeming influence on culture and on the world over time. 

Despite times of weakness and corruption, the church will ultimately triumph over the wickedness of this world, such that the kingdom will gradually expand on earth. This will be accomplished with Christ’s kingly power but without His physical presence on earth. Finally, postmillennialists believe that the Great Commission will succeed. What distinguishes postmillennialists from amillennialists and premillennialists is the belief that Scripture teaches the success of the Great Commission in the age of the church.

There are differences among postmillennialists, just as there are among those of the other convictions. There is also a debate over a view known as preterism, which occurs in both full-preterist and partial-preterist forms.

Whichever eschatological view we hold, we must hold it humbly because we do not know the future. We can all look backward, but we do not know God’s agenda for what’s to come. We must be humble and acknowledge that our eschatological view might not be accurate. At the same time, much of the doctrinal teaching in the New Testament has to do with future things, so how we understand God’s promises about the future has a dramatic impact on our personal confidence and involvement in the mission Christ gave to the church.

…