Historical Roots

Who are Reformed Baptists? If you were to ask Reformed Baptists, they would likely say they are a people who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed by the Bible. But that does not really describe Reformed Baptists because Reformed Baptists have specific convictions about the meaning of the Bible and thus the nature of Christ. So the real question is, “Who is Jesus Christ, and what do Reformed Baptists think the Bible means?”

In answer to that question, it would be correct to say that Reformed Baptists are people and churches who subscribe to the Second London Confession as a faithful summary of the Bible’s doctrines. The Second London Confession is in the same theological stream as the First London Confession,1 and both of these confessions of faith were originally composed to show the overwhelming unity Reformed Baptists share with Reformed paedobaptists.2 But identifying Reformed Baptists with their historic confessions of faith, which were published in the latter part of the 1600s, could give a wrong impression.

It might appear from the dates of their confessions that Reformed Baptist beliefs are only about four hundred years old. But in reality, Reformed Baptists trace their theological heritage back to the church fathers, down through the Middle Ages, to the Protestant Reformation and to the post-Reformation period. Reformed Baptists consciously identify with the broad stream of historic orthodox Christianity. Referring to the fact that God’s truth is ancient, Jeremiah 6:16 says, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls.’” Isaiah 51:1 teaches that believers should remember their historical roots: “Listen to me . . . look to the rock from which you were hewn.”

Thus, Reformed Baptists do not see themselves as an elite sect of Christians, but as standing within the stream of historic catholic Christianity.3 Any discussion of Reformed Baptist theology, therefore, must account for Reformed Baptist doctrine as part of the ancient Christian faith, once and for all delivered to the saints. Because Reformed Baptists are catholic, the true Reformed Baptist spirit is also broad and catholic, recognizing that while they have their distinctive convictions about the meaning of the Bible, Christianity is bigger than any particular expression of it. In a sense, to be a Reformed Baptist is not to be anything special, but to be a Christian who stands within the historical theology of the church catholic, which is taught by the Bible and received by the best theologians of the church throughout history.

Therefore, to understand who Reformed Baptists are, we need to begin with church history. The history of the church is a history of God’s people clarifying and defending their articulation of God’s truth over and against heresies that emerged from within the kingdom of darkness and threatened to subvert the kingdom of God. Church history is often messy because the visible church was so frequently led away from certain points of truth by the seduction of false teaching. However, God faithfully continued to send theologians and ministers of His Word who would defend the gospel and its necessary theological basis.4

When we examine the history of the church’s doctrine in retrospect, we find that the church fathers were often at their clearest, and best, when orthodoxy was under the most intense attack.

Over the centuries, amid heated controversies, the fathers formulated doctrines that have proven to be faithful expressions of the inscripturated Word of God and have nourished God’s people. Reformed Baptists especially agree with the church fathers at these points. What follows is a simplified doctrinal history of the church, to show that the cherished doctrines of the Reformed Baptists and their confessions of faith did not emerge in seventeenth-century England, but are rooted in the historical faith, once for all delivered to the saints.5

The Apologists: The Bible

One of the first controversies that plagued the church involved the doctrine of the biblical canon. The term “biblical canon” refers to the books that are accepted as biblical.6 From the very beginning, the church faithfully received the Scriptures that the apostles handed down to them. They accepted the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament that Christ affirmed during His earthly ministry. They also acknowledged the twenty-seven books of the New Testament based on three criteria:

First, the books of the New Testament had to be authored by an apostle or someone closely associated with an apostle.
Second, they had to have the same orthodox doctrine as the apostles and the rest of the Scriptures.
Third, they needed to be books that were received by Christ’s church from the very beginning.

Thus, while various church leaders and groups questioned the inclusion of certain books of the canon, there was never any serious or lasting question as to which books are sacred Christian Scripture among Christ’s people as a whole. Nevertheless, during the first two hundred years after Christ’s death, false teachers began to attack the biblical canon. Gnostic heretics wickedly claimed that the Old Testament is evil because it was inspired by a wicked god called the Demiurge, who created the material world. Gnostics believed that the god who created matter is different from the true God of the New Testament.

But the Apologists, early church fathers such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, made the case for what Christians had always believed: that the Old Testament is Christian Scripture; that the one true God created the world; that the material world is inherently good, though fallen; and that the twenty-seven New Testament books are consistent with the Old Testament. The early church fathers firmly rejected the Gnostic writings, which falsely claimed to be part of the New Testament.

During these debates of the first hundred years, the church reclaimed the doctrine of the biblical canon, which had been recognized from the beginning. The church once again reaffirmed the biblical canon at the Council of Carthage in AD 397.

Reformed Baptists accept the sixty-six books of the Bible received by the early church and reject the false writings of the Gnostics. They also reject the apocryphal writings of the intertestamental period, which were wrongly considered to be true Christian Scripture for the first time at the Council of Trent in the 1500s, when the Roman Catholic Church added them to their Bible.

Athanasius and the Nicene Creed:
The Doctrines of God and the Trinity

Along with all orthodox Christians, Reformed Baptists gladly receive the major creedal formulations of the early fathers of the Western church, which clarify the nature of the Trinity and of Jesus Christ over and against the demonic doctrines of heretics.

Athanasius and the church fathers earnestly contended for the true faith against the false teaching of Arius, who heretically claimed that Jesus Christ is not God. Arius taught that the Son of God was God’s greatest creation, but that the Son is not God subsisting as the Son, eternally generated from the nature of the Father. This same error is committed by Jehovah’s Witnesses today.

Understanding the significance of this error, Athanasius strenuously argued that Jesus Christ must be true God for two reasons: First, He saves us from our sins, and second, we worship Him. God alone is able to save, and we may only worship God; therefore, Christ must be God, just as the Word of God teaches (John 1:1). Thus, Athanasius and the other faithful fathers at the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) reasserted the biblical doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene Creed.

Reformed Baptists thus accept the ancient creeds that affirm the Bible’s doctrine of the Trinity and Christ’s divine sonship, including the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. They join the universal church in denouncing the Gnostic heretics, who deny Christ’s human nature, and the Arians, who deny that the Son is God. The doctrines of these ecumenical creeds are also found in the Reformed Baptist confessions.

Reformed Baptists warmly accept the teaching of the universal church on God and the Trinity as accurately expressing the teaching of the Word of God. The Bible teaches that God is one simple and indivisible being (Ex. 3:14; Deut. 6:4) who eternally subsists in three persons: the Father, who is neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son who is eternally begotten from the Father (John 1:1, 14); and the Holy Spirit, who eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son (John 15:26). Reformed Baptists are strong classical Trinitarian theists.

Augustine of Hippo:
The Doctrine of Human Nature and Effectual Grace

Augustine of Hippo (354–430) defended the Bible’s doctrine of fallen human nature over and against the man-centered heresy of Pelagianism. A British monk named Pelagius taught that God graciously gives human beings a nature able to obey His gracious commands. Pelagius believed God’s commands imply human ability to obey them. So he insisted that anyone may obey God if he chooses to obey.

But Augustine rejected Pelagius’s doctrine of human ability and taught instead that fallen human beings are unable to obey God, unless God gives them effectual grace that makes them able and willing (John 6:44). Augustine famously wrote, “Give what you command, and then command whatever you will.”7 He also taught the doctrine of unconditional predestination, that God graciously chooses some fallen human beings and gives them the necessary effectual grace to be conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:5).

Reformed Baptists heartily affirm Augustine’s doctrine of fallen human nature that is utterly incapable of renewing itself or bringing itself to God. They also affirm the doctrine of predestination and the necessity of effectual grace to bring the elect to God. They confess this as the clear teaching of God’s holy Word.

Anselm and the Middle Ages:
Theological Method and Atonement

Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) was one of the faithful church fathers of the Middle Ages. He wanted his students to understand why they believed what they believed. He saw that it is not enough merely to believe the biblical doctrines of the faith. Rather, biblical doctrines ought to be understood with the proper use of reason. This is a tradition that would later be called scholasticism.

In his Proslogion, Anselm taught that theology is “faith seeking understanding.” He further explained, “Unless you believe, you will not understand.” Both of these ideas arise from Augustine’s doctrine of human nature. Sinful human beings must exercise reason by free grace through humble faith if they wish to understand the truth of God’s Word properly.

So Anselm not only affirmed Scripture’s final authority, but as a scholastic in his theological method, he also believed in using reason to synthesize and explain the truths of the Bible as a whole. Anselm employed logic and reason in the work of theology because he understood that reason comes from God, and that perfected reason is nothing other than the being of God Himself (the eternal Word or logos).

Reformed Baptists agree with the tradition that students of Scripture should make humble use of reason and the laws of logic, by faith, when studying the Word of God. The Bible teaches that Paul was skilled in knowledge (2 Cor. 11:6), as were Moses (Acts 7:22) and Apollos (Acts 18:24). In Isaiah 1:18, God speaks to His people and says, “Come now, let us reason together.” The Bible reasons with us about its own teachings and therefore models faithful reasoned reflection on God’s truth.

Anselm used his method of “faith seeking understanding” when thinking about the doctrine of Christ and His atonement. In his book Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man), Anselm asked, why did the Son of God have to become man in order for God to forgive sin? Couldn’t God simply cancel the debt of a sinner by kingly fiat as a mere act of His will? Anselm reasoned that such a thing would be impossible because God had been dishonored by the sin of human beings. Therefore, God the Son, who has infinite value, had to assume a human nature so that He could die and restore the honor of God.

Reformed Baptists wholeheartedly receive the biblical and historic teaching of the necessity of Christ’s incarnation and atonement for the redemption of sinners (Luke 24:26; Heb. 9:22).

Later, Thomas of Aquinas (1225–1274) continued in this scholastic tradition as a systematizer of the faith. He received Nicene orthodoxy, making contributions to the doctrine of God and other biblical doctrines, though Thomas did not accept the historic biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. In his foreword to the first volume of his Reformed Dogmatics (not in the English version), Herman Bavinck writes, “Irenaeus, Augustine and Thomas do not belong exclusively to Rome; they are Fathers and Doctors to whom the whole Christian church has obligations.”

The Reformation: Sufficiency of Scripture
and Justification by Faith Alone

In the 1500s, the pope’s unbelief and greed led to the horrible oppression of God’s people. The papacy found an unbiblical way to make money for the Roman church’s enrichment from the people’s sincere faith. Heiko Oberman rightly explains that during this time there were two different schools of thought regarding the authority of the Bible.8

One school of thought, which Oberman calls Tradition 2, claims that the church is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine. It holds that the Scriptures and church tradition are equally authoritative for doctrine because both come from God through the church. This led to the papist assertion of many extra-biblical doctrines and speculations, which has caused great harm to God’s beloved people.

The other school of thought, Tradition 1, is far older. It says that while God’s people should always consult the interpretive traditions of the church as an aid in understanding the Bible, the sixty-six books of the Bible alone are the Word of God, which is the church’s supreme and final authority.

The Protestant Reformation is best understood as a split between these two streams that coexisted within the church. The Protestants were part of the older tradition that held to the Bible as the final authority in all matters of doctrine and Christian practice. Protestantism, therefore, continued the faith of the ancient church, while Rome formed a new sect of papal authority and extra-biblical doctrine and practice.

Reformed Baptists fall within the very old tradition affirming sola Scriptura along with all Protestants (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

Many abuses and errors came from the pope’s authoritarianism, but the heresy precipitating the Reformation was the selling of indulgences. By granting an indulgence, the papacy claimed it could dispense merits to save people from purgatory. The church sinfully sold these indulgences to pay for the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica, among other things.

Johann Tetzel, a Dominican preacher with a flair for the dramatic, wickedly told the poor common folk, “When a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs,” claiming that they could buy their salvation, along with the salvation of their relatives. He insisted that the church had authority to dispense these indulgences.

Martin Luther

Martin Luther (1483–1546) vehemently protested against Rome’s unbiblical doctrine of indulgences, which undermined the heart of the gospel. The church’s faithful ministers joined Luther in earnestly speaking against the papacy’s false and novel teaching about the church’s authority to grant indulgences. These faithful ministers were called Protestants because they protested papal heresy and authoritarianism.

Martin Luther agreed with the older tradition that Scripture alone teaches that we are justified by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone, which gives God alone the glory for our salvation (Rom. 1:17; 3:28). Luther not only affirmed the sufficiency of the biblical canon, which he received from the early church, but also taught the doctrine of unconditional predestination, which he received from Augustine.

But the most important doctrine Luther recovered was the doctrine of justification by faith alone (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:15–16). Luther saw that the Bible’s distinction between the law and the gospel preserves them both. The law teaches that we are only justified before God based on perfect obedience, and since no one is perfectly obedient, the law condemns us. But the gospel teaches that Christ mercifully kept the law in our place so that we can be justified before God by faith alone. Christ paid the law’s penalty and earned its blessing for all who trust in Him. Luther believed that God’s moral law serves as the rule of life for the justified believer, not to justify him, but rather as the way to love God and to enjoy fulness of life in Him. This is the didactic use of the law for the believer.

The doctrine of justification by faith alone because of Christ alone was not original to Luther but is found in the early church fathers. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Epistle of Diognetus, among others, all affirm the biblical doctrine of justification, which was recovered at the Reformation.

The Lord greatly blessed Luther’s courageous stand for this glorious teaching. Justification by faith alone is at the very heart of the gospel. It glorifies the Lord Jesus Christ and forms the basis of the saint’s assurance and comfort.

Reformed Baptists wholeheartedly receive the Lutheran and Reformed law/gospel theology and Christ-centered salvation, along with its fruit: the glorious doctrine of justification by faith alone and assurance of salvation on that basis.

But while Luther applied the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture to salvation, he did not consistently apply it to the church or its worship. As a result, Lutheran worship has more in common with the worship of the papacy than does Reformed worship.

John Calvin

John Calvin (1509–1564) was the great systematizer of the doctrines of the Reformation. The two main branches of Protestantism are Lutheranism and Calvinism, which is the root of Reformed theology. If Martin Luther had flashes of insight into biblical theology, John Calvin systematized the Reformation’s insights, demonstrating their internal coherence and how they lead to salvation and true worship, in his magnum opus, The Institutes of Christian Religion. Following Calvin, the Reformed tradition worked to formulate the church’s doctrine on the basis of the Bible alone and to order all of theology from above, beginning with God. Reformed theology considers the Bible as a single, unified whole, sufficient for all matters of doctrine and godliness, and it aims to be consistently God-centered.

Like Luther, Calvin received the doctrine of the biblical canon and its sufficiency from the early church. He also accepted Augustine’s doctrines of the fallen human nature and predestination based on the Bible. He further received Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone, which was not original to Luther but has deep roots in the ancient church. Unlike Luther, however, Calvin went on to apply the sufficiency of Scripture to the church’s public worship.

Calvin and the Reformed tradition held to the regulative principle of worship, which teaches that the new covenant alone institutes elements of new covenant worship, and that all other elements of public worship are forbidden. The Bible alone teaches us how to worship.

This is different from the Lutheran and Anglican principle of worship, which the Reformed tradition calls “the normative principle.” The normative principle says that while the church’s worship should be consistent with the Bible, whatever the Bible does not expressly forbid is permissible in public worship.

Reformed Baptists gladly receive Calvin’s God-centered hermeneutic, as well as the regulative principle of worship (Deut. 12:32; John 4:24), as faithful to the Word of God.

The Post-Reformation Period: More Systematizing
and Identifying the Doctrine of the Church

After the Reformation, the newly entrenched papal church launched an offensive against the churches of the Reformation. It deployed sustained argumentation, in preaching and writing, against the biblical truths recovered by the Protestant Reformers.

Part of the Reformed response to this counter-Reformation was the renewal of scholasticism to develop arguments and doctrines to answer the challenges of their papist opponents.

While the Reformation of the 1500s recovered historical insights, expounded the Scriptures, and brought forth theologically sound conclusions, the post-Reformation theologians of the 1600s applied critical and constructive reason to further understand and express the doctrines of the Bible in light of papal distortions. They developed a methodology similar to that of Anselm and the medieval scholastics.

The Reformed scholastics had three basic elements in their methodology:

First, they viewed Scripture as the supreme source and authority of doctrine. Thus, they sought to employ sound exegesis and the careful use of reason in the formulation of their doctrines, along with elements of philosophy as the handmaiden of theology.
Second, they acknowledged and answered the strongest arguments against Reformed doctrine.
Third, they sought to identify the place of Reformed doctrine in the history of Christianity, over and against heresy, showing how it accorded with or differed from the church fathers.

The clearest expressions of Reformed scholastic theology in this post-Reformation period are found in the Reformed confessional tradition. The Reformed churches produced a number of confessions of faith. The Dutch Reformed church confessed the Canons of Dordt and the Belgic Confession, along with the Heidelberg Catechism. The English Presbyterians confessed the Westminster Confession and the Independents confessed the Savoy Declaration. Reformed Baptists confessed the First London Confession and/or the Second London Confession.

By virtue of their confessionalism, Reformed Baptists agree with Anselm and the Reformed faith that we should make humble use of human reason to understand the doctrines of the Bible, over and against the Lutherans, who are generally more reluctant to apply reason in their articulation of theology.

In England during the post-Reformation period, there were great debates over the nature of the church, even though the heirs of the Reformed faith agreed on the gospel and most other doctrines. The Reformed Anglicans wanted an English state-church with an Episcopalian form of government. The English Presbyterians also sought cooperation between church and state, but with a Presbyterian form of government.

The Independents agreed with the Anglicans and Presbyterians that infants should be baptized, but they did not agree with any kind of formal church-state synthesis. They wanted a church that was independent from the state so that the state would have no authority over the church’s doctrine or worship. They did not believe God’s Word authorizes any formal union of church and state.

The Independents also believed in a congregational form of church government, which means that churches are not governed by any human hierarchy, but only by Christ speaking in His Word to the congregation as a whole. The congregation then elects elders and votes on matters of membership and discipline.

The first “Reformed Baptists” arose from within an English Independent church, the Jacob-Lathrop-Jessey (or “JLJ”) Church. In the 1640s, John Spilsbury, Sam Eaton with Richard Blount, Hanserd Knollys, and William Kiffin all came out of the JLJ church and founded “baptistic congregationalist” churches because, while they agreed with the Independents on almost all other doctrines, they disagreed on infant baptism. They came to Baptist convictions, holding that only credibly professing believers should be baptized and admitted to church membership (Matt. 28:16–20; 1 Cor. 1:1–9; 12:13).

It is important to understand that the first Reformed Baptists didn’t see themselves as a certain kind of “Baptist.” Rather, they viewed themselves as congregationalists with baptistic convictions when it came to the subjects of baptism. Thus, Matthew Bingham says that, within the stream of historic Christianity, they might be more accurately called “baptistic congregationalists” who have a Reformed and Puritan theology.9

It is common for teachers of Baptist history to identify Arminian “General Baptists” (Smyth and Helwys), who held to a general atonement, as part of the same group as the Calvinistic “Particular Baptists” (Spilsbery, Kiffin, Knollys), who held to a particular atonement. Most Baptist scholars today would say that the term “Baptist” merely identifies the genus of churches that baptize believers. Therefore, they think Baptist churches come in two different species: General Baptists (Arminians) and Particular Baptists (Calvinists).

But in his book Orthodox Radicals, Matthew Bingham correctly demonstrates that the General and Particular Baptists did not consider themselves two different kinds of Baptists. They would never have joined in formal association with one another, and, in fact, the Particular Baptists regarded the General Baptists as dangerously heterodox. Bingham writes that an “intransigent hostility to Arminianism was evident even among the more ecumenically minded baptistic ministers who were perfectly willing to commune with paedobaptistic congregationalists.” Bingham notes that a letter from 1654 expresses gratitude to God who “‘through grace hath kept us sound in the faith, not any of us tainted with that Arminian poison that hath so sadly infected other baptized churches’. . . . Paedobaptism could be tolerated, but the ‘Arminian position’ could not.”10

The General Baptists had been heavily influenced by the continental Anabaptists and their theological errors. For example, the General Baptist John Smyth denied Augustinianism (rejecting both original sin and predestination) and collapsed justification and sanctification, compromising the gospel. To the Particular Baptists, such errors were a gross departure from biblical orthodoxy and a rejection of God’s gracious salvation in Christ. The Particular Baptists saw the General Baptists as overturning the Reformation and moving toward the heresy of Pelagianism. Those early Particular Baptists saw the doctrine of fallen human nature and God’s predestinating grace as something worth separating over within local churches, and even among associations of churches. In support of their position, one might consider the book of Romans, which includes a detailed treatment of the doctrine of predestination (Rom. 9). At the end of Romans, Paul exhorts the church to avoid those who teach against the doctrine of his epistle (Rom. 16:17–18).

In order to escape persecutions and difficulties in England, some Reformed Baptists crossed the Atlantic Ocean and came to America. Most of the earliest Baptists in America were Reformed Baptists. These early Reformed Baptists, under the influence of Benjamin Keach and his son Elias, edited and subscribed to the Philadelphia Confession and the Charleston Confession, which are nearly identical to the Second London Confession. The Philadelphia Confession adds a chapter on the laying on of hands and another chapter on congregational hymn singing, both of which were important doctrines for Keach. The Charleston Confession omits the chapter on the laying on of hands but retains a clear statement about congregational hymn singing.

Some think the Particular Baptist rejection of infant baptism and affirmation of the baptism of believers alone was itself a novelty in church history. But that is not accurate. The early Particular Baptists understood that prior to Augustine, the baptism of believers alone was widespread. In the early church, baptismal candidates were usually instructed for some time, and they only received baptism afterwards. The Didache (an ancient document composed in the first or second century), for example, clearly does not envision any kind of infant baptism, which proves that the practice of believers’ baptism is very old. As further proof, consider that the tradition of the early church was to delay baptism until immediately before death. Even though they were wrong to do so, they did it to avoid the baptism of unbelievers and to avoid any possibility of apostasy after baptism. Clearly, the early Christians were very serious about baptizing believers only, as Everett Ferguson demonstrates in his volume on the history of baptism.11

Reformed Baptists, therefore, are not a species of the genus “Baptist.” Rather, they are a species of the genus “Reformed.” Reformed Baptists are not a branch of a Baptist tree; rather, they are a branch of the Reformed tree. This is evident in that Reformed Baptists have much in common with other confessional Reformed churches, but they tend to have many substantial differences with other Baptists. Reformed Baptist identity is catholic first, then confessionally Reformed, and finally Baptist.

Some have suggested that paedobaptist churches of the Reformation are Reformed, while Reformed Baptists are not. They hold that believers-only baptism excludes Reformed Baptists from the Reformed tradition. They think that believers-only baptism is more of an ecclesiastical novelty than paedobaptism. But it is important to remember that there is a sense in which all of the church polities of the post-Reformation period were somewhat novel when compared to the time just before the Reformation. For example, unlike most earlier proponents of infant baptism, the English Presbyterians denied that baptism necessarily regenerates, and they founded their doctrine of infant baptism on a theology of the covenants in a manner that had no precise historical precedent. Similar things could be said about the polities and baptismal practices of Anglicanism and Independency. Baptist polity was no more or less novel than the other ecclesiastical polities of the post-Reformation period. Rather, Baptists were simply trying to apply the biblical doctrines of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and justification sola fide (faith alone) to the church.

In fact, all of the churches of the Reformation were seeking to bring their polities into line with the doctrines of the Reformation.

One significant feature of Reformed Baptist polity, which it shares with Independent polity, is that it de-coupled any direct relationship between the church and the state. The Reformed Baptists argued that this returned the church to its earliest biblical state, which did not seek direct authority in relation to the state. The Baptists also opposed any forcible conversions to Christianity because they believed that churches must be composed of those who voluntarily and credibly profess faith in Christ. This is not inconsistent with the thinking of the early church fathers. One early church apologist, Lactantius (250–325), wrote the following:

There is no occasion for violence and injury, for religion cannot be imposed by force; the matter must be carried on by words rather than by blows, that the will may be affected. Let them unsheath the weapon of their intellect; if their system is true, let it be asserted. We are prepared to hear, if they teach; while they are silent, we certainly pay no credit to them, as we do not yield to them even in their rage. Let them imitate us in setting forth the system of the whole matter: for we do not entice, as they say; but we teach, we prove, we show. And thus no one is detained by us against his will, for he is unserviceable to God who is destitute of faith and devotedness; and yet no one departs from us, since the truth itself detains him.12

Similarly, the Baptists believed that the kingdom of Christ advances through the preaching and teaching of the Word and through sound reason, rather than by the force of the sword (John 18:36).

The Twentieth Century: Where Did We Get
the Term “Reformed Baptist”?

The term “Reformed Baptist” appears to have emerged in Pennsylvania in the 1950s. Some of the administrators at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia were Baptists and part of building up a Baptist church in that area.13 These men held to the Second London Confession of Faith, which expressed the orthodox doctrine of God, Reformed soteriology grounded in the Bible’s covenants, and the Reformed doctrine of God’s law. In an era when dispensationalism was the prevailing evangelical hermeneutic, Presbyterians and confessional Reformed Baptists together began using the term “Reformed Baptist” to express unity in the essentials of the Reformed faith, while acknowledging differences in ecclesiology and baptism.

In Richard Muller’s chapter in The Life and Thought of John Gill, he recognized that the historic confessional Reformed Baptists fall within the Reformed tradition. Muller wrote:

English Baptist theology, is in large part an intellectual and spiritual descendant of the thought of those Reformers, Protestant orthodox writers, and Puritans who belonged to the Reformed confessional tradition. This must be acknowledged despite the pointed disagreement between Baptists and the Reformed confessional tradition over the doctrine of infant baptism: this one doctrine aside, their theology is primarily Reformed and what disagreements remain are nonetheless disagreements with and often within the Reformed tradition rather than indications of reliance on another theological or confessional model.14

In our present context, the term “Reformed Baptist” has been used in different ways. A Baptist who believes in the “five points of Calvinism” might call himself a Reformed Baptist, even if he does not accept the Reformed hermeneutic or covenant theology. But, originally, the term did not merely refer to Baptists who embrace the five points of Calvinism, but to Baptists who held to the Reformed doctrines of God, law, covenants, justification, sanctification, and worship. Today, some Presbyterians do not like the term “Reformed Baptist” because they consider paedobaptism a necessary part of the system of Reformed theology. For them, the term “Reformed” must be reserved for a particular group of churches who hold certain confessions of faith.

Yet the term “Reformed Baptist” accurately describes the confessional Baptists who emerged from English Independency. Reformed Baptists are not merely soteriologically Calvinistic Baptists, but they are committed to their Reformed confessions of faith, especially the Second London Confession. They are firmly committed to the distinctive elements of the confessions that are not affirmed by other soteriological Calvinists or ecclesiastical Baptists.

Conclusion

Reformed Baptists find themselves within the stream of the historic biblical and catholic faith. Reformed Baptists received the ancient doctrines of the biblical canon, human nature, effectual grace and predestination. They also received Reformed theology’s insistence that the church’s doctrine and worship must be based on Scripture alone, and that we are justified before God by faith alone and not by any human works of any kind.

So Reformed Baptists are not a sect but embrace all of the essential doctrines of the Reformation, which the Reformers found in the Scriptures, retrieved from the historic catholic church, further clarified in light of controversy, and enshrined in their confessions of faith. Any study of Reformed Baptists, therefore, must begin with a study of confessionalism in general, which is the subject of the next chapter.

1. While these are “Baptist” confessions, the first Baptists in London did not think of themselves as Baptists. Thus, these confessions were not originally titled “Baptist” confessions, but were simply identified as London confessions.
2. Some think the First London Confession and Second London Confession differ on the doctrine of God’s law, that the Second London Confession is strong on God’s law and the Sabbath while the First London Confession does not teach these doctrines. But scholars have proven this to be wrong. Jim Renihan gives five reasons that there is no substantial theological difference between the two. First, the method of editing the confessions was the same. Second, the writings of the men who edited the confessions articulated the same theology. Third, many of the men signed both confessions, showing there is no substantial difference. Fourth, the preface to the Second London Confession expressly says that its substance is the same as the First London Confession. Fifth, the First London Confession was highly scrutinized by those who held to the Reformed doctrine of law, and it was not found to have a different position. See James M. Renihan, “No Substantial Theological Difference between the First and Second London Baptist Confessions,” Founders Ministries, Accessed February 14, 2024, https://founders.org/articles/there-is-no-substantial-theological-difference-between-the
-first-and-second-london-baptist-confessions/.
3. The term “catholic” does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church (the Papacy) but to the true church universal, which has existed throughout history. “Catholic Christianity” refers to the body of doctrines and practices of the historic Christian faith, which are either expressly set down in Scripture or necessarily contained in it.
4. One of the best entry-level introductions to the story of church is history is Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, 6th edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2021).
5. An excellent history of doctrine, or theology, is Bengt Hägglund, The History of Theology, 4th rev. ed. (St. Louis: Concordia, 2007). Another very good doctrinal history is John D. Hannah, Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001).
6. For an excellent treatment of the biblical canon, see Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012).
7. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Part 1, Vol. 1, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Confessions, Book 10, Chapter 29 (New York: New City Press, 1997), p. 263.
8. See Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow: Canon, 2001).
9. Matthew C. Bingham, Orthodox Radicals: Baptist Identity in the English Revolution (New York: Oxford, 2019), 4, 40–49.
10. Bingham, Orthodox Radicals, 22.
11. Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013). See also David F. Wright, Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective (Eugene, Wipf and Stock, 2007); David F. Wright, What Has Infant Baptism Done to the Church? (London: Paternoster, 2006). Both of these were mentioned in James Renihan, “Believers’ Baptism (Part 5): Considered Within Church History,” Theology in Particular podcast, July 18, 2022, https://theologyinparticular.libsyn.com/episode-50-believers-baptism-part-5-considered-within-church-history.
12. Lactantius, Divine Institutes in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7., ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1886), 5.20.
13. James Renihan, “What is a Reformed Baptist?,” Theology in Particular podcast, March 28, 2022, https://theologyinparticular.libsyn.com/episode-34-what-is-a-reformed-baptist.
14. Richard Muller, “John Gill and the Reformed Tradition” in The Life and Thought of John Gill (Boston: Brill, 1997), 51.

Confessionalism

Reformed Baptists are confessional because their churches subscribe to written confessions of faith. A confession of faith is a brief summary of the Bible’s theology that expresses a church’s standard of teaching for church officers and members. Confessions of faith also serve to protect against heresies and errors. Many of the early Baptists, both in England and in America, embraced the Second London Confession. The Second London Confession, based on the Westminster Confession (Presbyterian) and the Savoy Declaration (Independent), was originally edited and published in 1677, perhaps by Nehemiah Coxe and William Collins, at the Petty France church in London. The London General Assembly formally adopted it in 1689 after English persecution ended.

The Second London Confession’s theology is continuous with the First London Confession, which is evident from their theological content. Furthermore, many of the signatories of the first also signed the second, showing that there is no substantial difference of doctrine. The Second London Confession includes a great deal of the language found in the Savoy and Westminster confessions, showing the widespread doctrinal solidarity the Baptists shared with the Reformed orthodox.15

The Second London Confession contains the theological insights of the church throughout its history, including the doctrine of the biblical canon, orthodox Nicene Trinitarianism and Christology, the Augustinian doctrine of human nature, and the Reformed doctrines of the sufficiency of Scripture and salvation by grace alone, as well as a congregationalist doctrine of church government. Its only distinctively Baptist doctrine is that credibly professing believers alone should receive the sacrament of baptism and join a local church. As such, the doctrinal content of the Second London Confession is the fruit of some of the most gifted and faithful theologians throughout church history, and it is the confessional standard of the Reformed Baptists.

The Hermeneutics of Reformed Confessionalism

The confessions of the Reformed tradition grew out of a commitment to a proper theology of biblical interpretation (or hermeneutic). The Reformers held that the Bible is God’s perfect and sufficient special revelation to men (2 Tim. 3:16–17) and that Scripture describes realities that exist beyond itself, namely, God and creation. Scripture progressively reveals God’s unchanging nature as well as His activities in creation, providence, and especially salvation throughout history.

A Hermeneutic of New Testament Priority

Because God is the Bible’s primary Author (Auctor primarius), the Reformers were committed to understanding the Bible as a single unified and organic whole. Thus, while they engaged in careful grammatical historical exegesis, the Reformers were also firmly committed to reading the Bible theologically, always working to understand the divine Author’s intention. The theological interpretation of the Reformers observed that later revelation clarifies what is less clear in earlier revelation, and that later revelation makes explicit what is only implicit in earlier revelation. Every book written by a human author explains earlier passages of the book in later passages, and the Bible is no different. Describing the Reformed hermeneutic on the relationship between the testaments, Louis Berkhof rightly says, “The Old and New Testament are related to each other as type and antitype, prophecy and fulfillment, germ and perfect fulfillment.”16 This same hermeneutic was taught by Augustine, who said, “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.”

A Christ-Centered Hermeneutic

As a result of viewing the Bible as a unified whole, the churches of the Reformation affirmed a Christ-centered hermeneutic. Many passages teach that Christ is the theological center of Scripture. Luke 24:27 says that when Christ was with His disciples on the road to Emmaus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.”17 And 1 Peter 1:10–12 says,

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.

The Old Testament prophets spoke of Christ’s sufferings and resurrection because the “Spirit of Christ” was in them (1 Peter 1:11). These Old Testament prophets were moved to write and prophesy of Christ by Christ Himself. Other passages teach the same thing. Colossians 2:3 says that in Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” No treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found outside of Jesus Christ. We see in 2 Corinthians 1:20 that “all the promises of God find their Yes in Him.” No promises of Scripture find their “yes” outside of our Lord Jesus. The apostle John tells us that Jesus is the “Word” of God (John 1:1) and that “he has made him known” (John 1:18). The words “made him known” could be translated “explained Him,” meaning that Jesus explains God. Jesus reveals God. Jesus is the final Word on God. All of Scripture reveals Jesus and points to Jesus as the revelation of God Himself. Therefore, if we would understand the Scriptures, we must understand how all of Scripture reveals God Himself, pointing to the chief revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

The Old Testament reveals Christ in various ways, but three stand out most prominently. First, it reveals Christ in clear promises of the coming Messiah. Second, it reveals Christ through types and shadows, including but not limited to the old covenant patriarchs, prophets, kings, priesthood, and sacrificial system. Third, it reveals Christ through His pre-incarnate appearances, often by the presence of the angel of the Lord.

A Hermeneutic of Necessary Logical Consequences

Another important aspect of the theological interpretation of the Reformers involves necessary inferences from biblical revelation. The Protestant Reformers did not believe the meaning of God’s Word is limited to the explicit words of the Bible, but that it also includes all doctrines that can be drawn from the Bible by proper hermeneutics and sound reason. Acts 2:31, for example, makes a logical inference from Psalm 16:10 in words not used in that Psalm, and it reads the Old Testament in light of Christ in the New.

The Second London Confession speaks of the whole counsel of God in terms of what is “either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture” (2LCF 1.6). The Bible, therefore, reveals the whole counsel of God in two ways. First, it does so by what is “expressly set down” in the Scriptures. But second, it reveals God’s mind by what is “necessarily contained” in the Scriptures. The words “necessarily contained” refer to doctrines that are made logically necessary by what the Scriptures explicitly say, but are not taken from the Scriptures verbatim. Doctrines necessarily contained in the Scriptures include the biblical canon, God and the Trinity, the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption, the covenant of grace, and others. An early English Particular Baptist, Benjamin Keach, said, “That which by a just and necessary consequence is deduced from Scripture, is as much the mind of Christ as what is contained in the express words of Scripture.”18 Keach was saying that what is correctly deduced from Scripture is as much divine revelation as Scripture itself.

If the Bible were written by human authors who contradicted themselves, or if it had conflicting narratives and doctrines, or if God revealed Himself outside the Bible through changing prophecies or church traditions, then no unified or coherent system of doctrine could possibly be drawn from the Bible. Thus, the Reformed confessions of faith are only possible because the Bible is one book, written by one unchanging divine Author, who reveals Himself perfectly in sacred Scripture. The Reformed faith takes seriously Christ’s promise in John 16:13: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.”

Sola Scriptura: Scripture Alone

Many people wrongly think the very concept of confessionalism contradicts the doctrine of sola Scriptura. These anti-confessionalists cry, “No creed but the Bible!” They claim to believe in sola Scriptura, Scripture alone, and therefore they do not believe there is any need for confessions of faith, and they believe that confessions of faith tacitly add human traditions to the Bible.

But the Reformers never intended the doctrine of sola Scriptura to exclude biblical confessions of faith. Rather, sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is the supreme authority for the church; that it is sufficient for all saving knowledge of God, faith, and obedience; and that it is the standard by which all church doctrines and traditions are to be tested. The Reformers said that the Bible is the norma normans, the rule that rules. But creeds and confessions of faith are a norma normata, a rule that is ruled. That is, the Bible alone is the supreme standard of our faith, but there are subordinate standards that are themselves subject to the Bible.

The Second London Confession teaches the Reformed doctrine of sola Scriptura:

“The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” (1.1)

The “former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.” (1.1)

“The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits [personal opinions], are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.” (1.10)

In opposition to sola Scriptura, during the late Middle Ages as well as in the time of the Reformation, the papacy insisted that both Scripture and extra-biblical church tradition have equal authority for the formulation of church doctrine. Rome claimed that Scripture may not be used to critique official church tradition because both Scripture and church tradition come from the church and therefore have equal authority. This allowed the papists to assert authority for unbiblical doctrines, such as purgatory, indulgences, the veneration of relics, transubstantiation and the mass, prayers to Mary and the saints, and papal infallibility.

The Protestant Reformers countered these false teachings by insisting that God gave the Scriptures alone to the church as sufficient special revelation. They firmly held that no human tradition has authority equal to the Bible. This allowed the Reformers to critique church tradition with the Bible and to purify the church by eliminating unbiblical doctrines and practices.

Sola Scriptura for the Whole Church

The Protestant Reformers viewed sola Scriptura as a doctrine of the church, not merely of individual private Christians. Sola Scriptura never meant that individual Christians may study the Bible in isolation from the church and come to private conclusions apart from wise and godly teachers of the church, who themselves speak according to the Word of God. The Reformers taught that the Bible is clear enough for anyone to understand the basic message of salvation (Ps. 19:7; 2 Tim. 3:15), but the Bible as a whole is only best understood within the church. How do we know this is true? With few exceptions, God gave the New Testament letters not to individuals, but to churches or leaders of churches. The Bible is complex, and due to sins and weaknesses, even sincere believers can misunderstand it (2 Peter 3:15–16).

The Reformers knew that individual Christians understand the Bible most fully when they listen to faithful teachers of the church, both past and present, whom God gifted and called to teach the Bible and warn against error. Hebrews 13:7 makes this point when it says, “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.” Faithful teachers in the church never add to the meaning of the Bible (1 Cor. 4:6). Rather, they explain it plainly so God’s people can see in the text for themselves what the Bible teaches (2 Tim. 2:15). Ephesians 4:11–16 says that qualified teachers and preachers are gifts of Christ to His church. To disregard Christ’s teachers is to disregard Christ’s good gifts and Christ Himself.

Church tradition, therefore, in the view of the Reformers, is nothing other than the witness of great teachers throughout church history, including church fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine, Anselm, and others, as well as the creeds and confessions. These teachers and documents have been wrong at certain points, but their faithful insights into Scripture are invaluable. And when the Bible is read in conjunction with the great Bible teachers of the past and present, it becomes easier for individual Christians to see for themselves what the Bible really means.

Richard Muller writes:

Sola Scriptura was never meant as a denial of the usefulness of the Christian tradition (traditio, q.v.) as a subordinate norm in theology and as a significant point of reference for doctrinal formulas and argumentation. The views of the Reformers developed out of a debate in the late medieval theology over the relation of Scripture and tradition, one side of the debate viewing the two as coequal norms, the other side of the debate taking Scripture as the sole source of necessary doctrine, albeit as read in the church’s interpretive tradition. The Reformers and the Protestant orthodox followed the latter understanding, defining Scripture as the absolute and therefore prior norm, but allowing the theological tradition, particularly the earlier tradition of the fathers and ecumenical councils, to have a derivative but important secondary role in doctrinal statements. They accepted the ancient tradition as a useful guide, allowing that the trinitarian and christological statements of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon were expressions of biblical truth, and that the great teachers of the church provided valuable instruction in theology that always needed to be evaluated in light of Scripture.19

How Confessional Christians Study the Bible

Consider how individual Christians ordinarily come to understand the meaning of the Bible. Imagine a faithful Christian man who reads his Bible at home. He also comes to church Sunday after Sunday, and he listens to his pastor, who carefully preaches the Word of God. As this man listens to sermons at his church, he’s also looking at his Bible and comparing what he’s hearing with the Bible. He’s thinking about his pastor’s hermeneutic, explanations, and applications while he listens. He is learning the Bible in the context of the church by a faithful pastor. If he can see that what his pastor is teaching is in the Bible, then he believes it. He looks at the grammar, context, and overall theology of the Scriptures to understand the meaning of any given text. On the other hand, if he can’t see that what his pastor is teaching is found in the Bible, he will reject what he’s being taught. Christians come to understand the Bible, more and more fully, within the church.

That is what the Protestant Reformers understood happened throughout church history. Pastors and teachers have been studying the Bible for more than two thousand years. They have been preaching sermons and writing books about what the Bible means, putting it all together, dealing with difficult passages, and finally showing how it all leads to a greater knowledge of God, worship, and faithful obedience.

The church wrote down the most valuable teachings of its leaders in its creeds and confessions. Thus, the Protestant Reformers heavily weighted the creeds as a secondary authority, subordinate to Scripture. That is why the Reformers explained the Bible in light of the church’s creedal tradition, believing the ancient creeds to arise from Scripture itself, even while humbly examining them on the basis of the Bible. This is what it means to be confessional. The classic confessions of faith summarize the wisdom of the church from ages past, and confessional churches read the Bible in light of those confessions, even while examining those same confessions based on the Bible.

A Reformed confessional church, therefore, is simply a church that believes the doctrine of sola Scriptura as it was originally intended by the Protestant Reformers.

When Reformed Baptists come to the Bible, they study it while presupposing their church’s confession of faith, which contains the substance of the church’s orthodox creedal tradition along with the recovered insights of the Protestant Reformation and the doctrine of the church. If a Reformed Baptist is studying the Bible and thinks he finds something that contradicts his confession, he doesn’t immediately reject his confession. Instead, he humbly assumes that he has misunderstood the Bible. He then studies the Bible along with good commentaries, both old and new. He especially tries to understand how his Reformed Baptist forefathers explained whatever passage is in question. That is an important step because unless one understands how a confessional doctrine was derived from the Bible in the first place, then it would be hasty to reject it. In the course of study, he might find that he made an interpretive mistake and discover that his confession of faith was right all along. Alternatively, it is possible that he ends up disagreeing with his confession based on Scripture, and depending on the significance of the disagreement, he might take an exception to the confession, or choose no longer to identify as a Reformed Baptist. Both of these are faithful outcomes, but the procedure of carefully studying how historic confessional doctrines were derived is what makes one Reformed in his study of Scripture.

Against Nuda Scriptura

The Reformed faith and Reformed Baptists oppose the doctrine of nuda Scriptura. This is a term used to describe a position that rejects Reformed confessionalism. Nuda Scriptura means “naked” or “bare” Scripture. It is the idea that people should faithfully approach the Bible and interpret it without any traditions, presuppositions, or prior theological commitments at all. In fact, that is impossible, since every interpreter approaches Scripture with some set of presuppositions. The only question is whether the interpreter is aware of his presuppositions so that he can examine them with the Bible. Another term for nuda Scriptura is “biblicism.”20 D.B. Riker defines biblicism in the following way: “Biblicism is the rejection of everything not explicitly stated in the Bible, and the dismissal of all non-biblical witnesses (Fathers, Creeds, Medieval Doctors, councils, etc.).”21

The cry of those who hold to nuda Scriptura, or biblicism, is “no creed but the Bible!” Students of history will recognize that this statement is not historically Baptist, since Baptists have had many confessions of faith throughout their history.22 The sentiment behind the phrase “no creed but the Bible” is related to the Restoration Movement led by Alexander Campbell, the founder of the Churches of Christ, during the Second Great Awakening (1790–1840). Those of the Restoration Movement say, “No creed but Christ; no book but the Bible.” Ironically, the Churches of Christ, who inherit the legacy of Alexander Campbell, have a definite unwritten creed, which includes an Arminian soteriology and the necessity of baptism for regeneration, along with other distinctive doctrines that all cohere within a complete theological system that is not written down. The fact that the Churches of Christ do not have a written creed does not mean they do not have a creed. Ironically, the slogan “no creed but the Bible” is not in the Bible. It is itself a creed—human words about the Bible.

The point is that every church has a confession of faith, whether it is stated or unstated, written or unwritten. Biblicist churches all believe the Bible means something, and they have distinct perspectives on salvation, baptism, church membership, and Christian obedience that they think are nothing other than what the Bible teaches. However, because these churches do not clearly distinguish between their beliefs (confession) and the Bible, they tend to confuse their beliefs about the Bible with the Bible itself. Confessional churches, on the other hand, believe it is clearer and more honest simply to write down their confession of faith for all to see so that it can be examined by the Word of God.

Carl Trueman writes,

I do want to make the point here that Christians are not divided between those who have creeds and confessions and those who do not; rather, they are divided between those who have public creeds and confessions that are written down and exist as public documents, subject to public scrutiny, evaluation, and critique, and those who have private creeds and confessions that are often improvised, unwritten and thus not open to public scrutiny, not susceptible to evaluation and crucially, ironically, not, therefore, subject to testing by Scripture to see whether they are true.23

Some Problems with Nuda Scriptura

The lack of a confession of faith in a church can lead to a number of problems. One problem is that pastors and teachers who call themselves biblicists approach the Bible independently, without consulting the great Bible teachers of the past. Carl Trueman wisely warns the biblicist pastor,

Do not precipitately abandon creedal formulations which have been tried and tested over the centuries by churches all over the world in favor of your own ideas. On the whole, those who reinvent the wheel invest a lot of time either to come up with something that looks identical to the old design or something that is actually inferior to it. This is not to demand capitulation before church tradition or a rejection of the notion of Scripture alone. Rather, it is to suggest an attitude of humility toward the church’s past which simply looks both at the good that the ancient creeds have done and also the fact that they seem to make better sense of the testimony of Scripture than any of the alternatives.24

Another problem is that biblicism can lead to pastoral authoritarianism. Non-confessional pastors often represent their teaching of the Bible as the one true meaning of God’s Word. As a result, church members who differ from the pastor’s teaching might be viewed as rebelling against the Word of God. Another problem is that the pastor’s doctrine might change over time. And since he views his doctrinal change as growth, he may ask the congregation to change its beliefs, too. This is authoritarian because it makes the pastor the one who determines the meaning of the Bible. When a church is confessional, however, the whole church votes to receive a particular written confession of faith that expresses that church’s understanding of the Word of God. A confessional pastor is required to take a vow to uphold the church’s confession, and if his doctrine changes, then he is required to offer his resignation.

Yet another possible problem in biblicist churches involves heresy and division. Churches without a confession of faith may have an insufficient unifying doctrinal center, such that church members hold a wide variety of beliefs on significant issues. Church members might think they believe the Bible, even though they embrace serious doctrinal errors or heresies. Many professing Christians today unwittingly hold serious errors such as social trinitarianism, extra-biblical revelation, forms of Pelagianism and Gnosticism, legalism, antinomianism, etc. A diversity of aberrant beliefs and practices will lead to great divisions within a church. But when a church is confessional, the church’s confession of faith is the formal unifying center of its doctrine. Members have the liberty to differ on non-confessional matters, but no member may promote any doctrine contrary to the church’s confession of faith. This real agreement on the central doctrines of the faith is the basis for great unity within the church.

Thus, confessional Christians believe written confessions of faith protect the supreme authority of Scripture, guard members against authoritarianism, and help to preserve the unity of the church. Confessionalism draws a sharp distinction between human interpretations of the Bible (a confession of faith) from the Bible itself. Reformed Baptists confess in the first sentence of the Second London Confession of Faith that the confession is not the Bible. This clear distinction allows the confession of faith to be seen for what it is—a human document—and then critiqued by the Bible.

A Biblical Case for Confessions

The Bible teaches that the church is responsible to confess its understanding of the meaning of the whole Bible. The Bible says that the church is “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15, NASB), which means that the church must declare, explain, and defend the truths of the Bible with human words. Jude commands the church “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Paul says that the essence of spiritual warfare is that “we destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5). One of the basic qualifications of a pastor is that “he must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9).

1. The Basic Biblical Requirement of Confession

The Scriptures teach that Christians are to confess their faith. In the Old Testament, a basic confession of faith is found in the Shema.
Deuteronomy 6:4 says, “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

In the New Testament, we see the content of a basic confession in Romans 10:9–10, which says, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.”

So, at a fundamental level, a confession of faith in Christ as Lord and Savior is required for salvation. But this basic confession will expand as Christians grow in their understanding of Scripture and as they disclaim doctrinal errors.

2. The Five Trustworthy Sayings

Consider the Bible’s five “trustworthy sayings,” which were oral tradition before they were written down in the Bible. These were early, miniature confessions of faith that deal with a variety of theological truths that involve the gospel, church order, and godly living. The originally man-made sayings were so accurate that, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul included them in the Bible.

1 Timothy 1:15 is a clear and simple statement of the gospel: “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.”25
1 Timothy 3:1 speaks to the importance of good order and faithful leadership in churches: “The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.”
1 Timothy 4:7–9 deals with the essence of the true faith applied. “Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance.”
2 Timothy 2:11–13 speaks of the promises of God: “The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful—for he cannot deny himself.”
Titus 3:4–8 gives us something of an early confessional statement: “But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.”

The fact that these “trustworthy sayings” were written in the Bible proves not only that Scripture approves of confessions of faith, but that it encourages and praises them. It also proves that human words about the Bible can be as true as the Bible itself.

3. The Pattern of Apostolic Teaching

Scripture shows that the apostles taught summaries of the whole Bible. It speaks of “the deposit entrusted to you” (1 Tim. 6:20), “the good deposit entrusted to you” (2 Tim. 1:14), “the words of the faith” and “the good doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:6), “the traditions” (2 Thess. 2:15), and “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). Acts 20 says that Paul taught the whole counsel of God to the Ephesian church over the course of three years (Acts 20:31). Three years does not seem long enough for an exposition of every verse of the Bible, but it seems to be about the amount of time that would be needed to teach a comprehensive summary of Scripture.

Not only did the apostles teach summaries of the Bible, but the Bible also requires pastors to adhere to a pattern of doctrine that arises from the Bible. Paul commands Pastor Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:13–14, “Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.” What does Paul mean by “the pattern of sound words?” He is referring to a well-organized body of doctrine. The Greek word “pattern” (hupotuposis), related to the Greek word tupos, means “type” or “form.” It was not enough for Pastor Timothy to have the Bible in his mind, and to teach and guard the words of the Bible; he was also required to follow an organized summary of the Bible. This is a command to follow a sound confession of faith about the Bible.

It is not only pastors who ought to hold to a biblical confession of faith, but whole churches should too. In Romans 6:17 Paul tells the church, “But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed.” The word “standard” is tupos, which we saw above in 2 Timothy 1:13. It refers to a type or form of teaching. Paul’s point is not that the Bible itself is the “standard,” since the Bible is not a “form” or “pattern” of human teaching, but the very Word of God. Instead, Paul is saying that the church had received and was committed to a comprehensive summary of biblical teaching that was faithful to the Scriptures, but distinct from it.

Thus, both pastors and churches should confess a robust doctrinal summary of the Bible in their confessions of faith, which Paul calls a “pattern” (2 Tim. 1:13) or “standard” (Rom. 6:17).

One other proof of the validity of confessions of faith comes from Acts 17:11, which says that the Bereans “were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (emphasis added). These Bereans had received the “word” of the apostles, the apostolic summary of biblical theology. But then they nobly tested that word by examining the Scriptures to see whether or not the word was true. The same should be done with confessions of faith.

4. The Nature of Biblical Confessions

Not only did the church have positive confessions of biblical doctrine, but it also confessed the faith over and against errors and heresies that were threatening the church. When everything the Bible says about confessions of faith is considered, we find that it requires the church to make a robust confession of biblical truth that summarizes the whole counsel of God. Here are a few that are found in Scripture.

A Confession Against Judaism. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul combines the church’s confession that there is only one God with the confession that there is one Lord Jesus Christ. He says, “There is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” In this confession, the church affirms monotheism just as Judaism would. But in order to distinguish itself clearly from the Jews who denied the deity of Christ, the church also affirmed Christ as Lord and Creator of all things.

A Confession Against Division. Some professing Christians in the early church would have divided the church between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. But the apostle Paul confesses in Ephesians 4:4–5, “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” This confession affirms the oneness, or catholicity, of all who are united to Christ.

A Confession Against Gnosticism, Asceticism, and Paganism. We see a further expansion of the church’s confession in 1 Timothy 3:16, which says, “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by the angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” This confession was written as the church faced additional heresies, including Gnosticism, asceticism, and paganism (see also 1 John 4:2–3). Acts 19:28 records a false confession of paganism, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” but the church confessed, “Great . . . is the mystery of godliness.”

It is never a question of confession or non-confession. The only question is whether the confession is true. The church confronted these newer heresies even as it also confronted the older error of Judaism. The church needed to confess that Christ is Lord, contrary to Judaism. But it also needed to declare the full humanity of Christ over and against Gnosticism. It needed to affirm the sufficiency of Christ’s work to save, contrary to asceticism. And it needed to confess that God is one, over and against the polytheism of paganism.

The point is that the church not only positively confesses the faith of the Bible, but it also confesses the faith over and against heresies that threaten the church. The church must remain vigilant against new destructive heresies that originate in the kingdom of darkness attempting to undermine sound doctrine and the health and life of God’s beloved people.

A Robust Confession of Faith. Finally, if the church is required to confess the whole faith over and against error, then the church’s confession of faith should not be minimalistic. Rather, it ought to be robust, like the great Reformed confessions, including the Second London Confession. Consider what we can learn about this from the book of Romans. Paul had not yet been to Rome, so he wrote a letter that presents a summary of necessary Christian doctrine.

Consider what Paul says in Romans 16:17: “I appeal to you brothers to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught: avoid them.” When Paul speaks of “the doctrine that you have been taught,” he’s referring to everything he had just taught them in the book of Romans. Romans is a compendium of theology, and it is what Paul considered necessary for the life and health of the local church in Rome. Here are some of the doctrines taught in Paul’s letter to the Romans:

Romans 1–2 teaches the doctrine of the fall and sin, that all are condemned under the law of God.
Romans 3–4 teaches the doctrine of justification by faith alone on the basis of Christ’s imputed righteousness.
Romans 5 teaches the doctrine of the federal headships of Adam and Christ.
Romans 6–8 teaches the doctrine of sanctification, grounded in union with Christ.
Romans 9–11 teaches the doctrine of the relation between the Old Testament people of God and the New Testament people of God, as well as the doctrine of unconditional election to salvation.
Romans 12–16 teaches about life in the church, submission to authorities, Christian liberty, and missions.

Since Romans is Paul’s summary of “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), and since churches are to confess and proclaim the whole counsel of God, then a church’s confession of faith needs to contain a fullness of doctrine, with categories similar to what we find in Paul’s letter.

B.H. Carroll writes,

A church with a little creed is a church with a little life. The more divine doctrines a church can agree on, the greater its power, and the wider its usefulness. The fewer its articles of faith, the fewer its bonds of union and compactness. The modern cry: “Less creed and more liberty,” is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy. Definitive truth does not create heresy—it only exposes and corrects. Shut off the creed and the Christian world would fill up with heresy unsuspected and uncorrected, but none the less deadly.26

How a Church Might Subscribe
to the Second London Confession

I recommend the following manner of subscribing to the Second London Confession in local churches, though I recognize that some faithful Reformed Baptists will disagree on some of these matters.

1. Any believer should be allowed to join a local church, provided he does not have a divisive spirit.

A local church should be a “professors church.” That is, all who have a credible profession of faith are fit candidates for church membership (Rom. 10:9–10). Credible profession involves (1) a true articulation of the gospel along with (2) a testimony of sincere faith and repentance of sin and (3) evidence of a holy life. The Second London Confession teaches that a credible profession of sound conversion is a prerequisite to membership. Chapter 26, paragraph 2 says,

All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.

Most historic Baptists have also held that those who give a credible profession of faith should be biblically baptized before they join a local church (see 1 Cor. 12:13). That is also my personal view, but it is not a requirement of the Second London Confession, which leaves the question open. The early Baptists who subscribed to the confession were divided on whether baptism by immersion upon a person’s credible profession must precede membership.

Beyond the two requirements of (1) a credible profession of faith and (2) biblical baptism, there may be a great deal of disagreement about many doctrines among the members of a local church, even on the doctrines in their confession. Yet the church can still enjoy great unity in the gospel of Christ.

2. Churches that subscribe to a detailed confession should use a “subscription of unity” among church members.

As we have seen, the book of Romans teaches a robust system of doctrine that is a summary of biblical truth, the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). Paul wrote the epistle to the church at Rome, expecting the elders to teach its total content and expecting the whole church to believe and practice what it says. At the end of the letter, Paul says to “watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). What “doctrine” is Paul talking about? He means the robust doctrine of the whole book of Romans, which touches upon most doctrines of the faith.

Notice that Paul does not say to avoid those who “do not understand” or “do not positively and accurately affirm every doctrine” in the book of Romans. Instead, he says to avoid those who “cause divisions” or “create obstacles” to the doctrines in his letter. Thus, the church of Rome could receive new believers who were still growing in their understanding of what Paul had written. But while they were still working out their understanding of biblical truth, the members of the church needed to agree to maintain unity in Christ. They were not permitted, therefore, to “cause divisions and create obstacles” about anything in the book of Romans. Divisive members need to be avoided. Titus 3:10–11 says, “As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once, and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

Churches should subscribe to a robust confession in a similar way. The ultimate goal is that all church members will agree wholeheartedly with the whole counsel of God. Members should understand when they join that the teachers of the church will be consistently teaching the Bible as a whole and showing how the Bible supports the church’s confession of faith, since the teachers of the church believe that the confession is an accurate summary of the Bible.

1. Therefore, at a minimum, all church members need to have a teachable spirit, willing to sit under and learn from those who teach the Bible in a way that expresses all the doctrines of the church’s agreed upon confession of faith.

2. They should agree not to teach against the confession of faith, distribute literature against it, campaign against it on social media, etc.

3. They must agree not to cause divisions or strife in the church about anything in the confession of faith (Rom. 16:17; Titus 3:10–11).

4. They should not be settled in strong opposition to anything taught in the confession of faith.

This kind of subscription among members allows for a great deal of doctrinal diversity, together with robust doctrinal confession.

A non-Calvinist, for example, who disagrees with the Second London Confession’s teaching on unconditional election, but who has a teachable spirit and is not hardened in opposition to the church’s confession, is free to join the church. Similarly, a paedobaptist who has himself been biblically baptized as a believer (it is my view that he must be biblically baptized), and is open to learning from the Word of God and to changing his position on baptism to the one explained by the Second London Confession, is also free to join.

Credible profession of faith in Christ, together with a teachable spirit of unity in Christ, is all that is required for church membership. This manner of subscription is rooted in the moral law of God, which forbids a factious spirit and calls for unity in Christ. A divisive spirit is murderous, thieving, deceptive, covetous, etc., but God commands us to be united in Christ in love. Those who have the Spirit of Christ may certainly disagree about secondary doctrines without causing strife in the church because of their love for Christ and for one another.

Furthermore, all faithful churches have procedures for discussing and changing their confessions of faith, which are outlined in their constitutions or bylaws. Confessions are not infallible and are always subject to correction by the Word of God. Members who follow the agreed-upon procedures for debating and changing a confession of faith with a humble spirit are not being divisive, provided they do so in love, with humility, and grace. The Scriptures, not the confessions, are the final word on sound doctrine. A confession of faith is the church’s effort to accurately express what the Scriptures mean. And any human statement can be wrong. Therefore, faithful churches have mechanisms in place to change their confession, if so warranted by the Bible.

3. The officers of a church ought to embrace a “full subscription” to the confession of faith.

“Full subscription” for officers, elders and deacons means that they affirm every doctrine in a church’s confession of faith. Paul says that elders in the church must proclaim “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). And a church’s confession of faith is that church’s understanding of “the whole counsel of God.” Pastors are not free to teach whatever version of the “whole counsel of God” they personally believe. They must preach what the church believes. They are under the church’s authority to teach the Bible in a manner consistent with the church’s confession. The church as a whole adopts its confession, partly as a check on pastoral authority. Confessions of faith, thus, prevent pastoral authoritarianism. The Scripture as confessed by the church is what elders are charged to believe and teach (see Tim. 1:13–14).

Deacons, too, are required to “hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience” (1 Tim. 3:9). “The faith” is the total body of revealed truth (see Jude 3), and a church’s understanding of the Bible’s truth is expressed in its confession of faith. Thus, deacons, as leaders in the church, should fully subscribe to a church’s confession of faith. All church officers should publicly vow to personally adopt and defend the church’s confession of faith. If a church officer changes his views at any point in his tenure, he should make that change known to the elders and be humbly willing to withdraw from his office, if necessary. He would certainly be free to remain a member of the church as long as he does not cause division over his disagreements with the confession.

A church, therefore, may confess its understanding of “the whole counsel of God” while making room for a great deal of theological disagreement and walking with those who have a simple but sincere profession of faith in Christ. This is, in fact, what Scripture requires the church to do: confess the whole counsel of God with a godly spirit of unity in the essentials, of liberty in non-essentials, and of love in all things.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Bible requires the church to confess the faith with human words about the Word of God. Confessions of faith are essential to protect the authority of Scripture. When the church expresses its confession of faith, it is distinguishing between Scripture and its understanding of Scripture so that the confession can be judged. Confessions of faith are also part of the church’s defense of biblical truth over and against error. Further, confessions help preserve the unity of the church when church members are received based on a credible profession of faith, but are also asked to learn from and submit to the church’s confession as the standard of teaching.

Reformed Baptists hold to the Second London Confession, which was the most influential confession of faith among early Baptists. In the next chapter, we will turn to the doctrine of the law of God. A clear understanding of the law of God is the basis of a clear understanding of the gospel.

15. The best commentaries on the First London Confession and Second London Confession include James M. Renihan, For the Vindication of the Truth: A Brief Exposition of the First London Baptist Confession of Faith (Cape Coral: Founders, 2021); James M. Renihan, To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: An Exposition of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (Cape Coral: Founders, 2022); Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 5th ed. (Grand Rapids: EP Books, 2016).
16. Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950), 133.
17. Notice the emphasis on the totality of Scripture in this verse. Jesus began with “Moses and all the Prophets.” He used “all the Scriptures” in His teaching. The trip to Emmaus was hours long, so Christ would have had a great deal of time to touch upon many Old Testament connections to Himself. Christ doubtlessly left out many of the Old Testament types, shadows, and allusions to Himself, since this walk would not have been long enough to explain everything in the Scriptures concerning Himself. Christ used all the Scriptures on this long walk to Emmaus to explain many of the things concerning Himself to His disciples.
18. Benjamin Keach, The Rector Rectified (London: printed and sold by John Harris, 1692), 33.
19. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids: Baker), 338.
20. Some may use the word “biblicism” in a positive sense to mean that the Bible alone is the final authority over one’s philosophical and theological presuppositions. But in this context, it refers to an interpreter’s blindness to his philosophical and theological presuppositions.
21. D. B. Riker, A Catholic Reformed Theologian (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 4, fn 17.
22. See William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1969).
23. Carl Trueman, The Creedal Imperative (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012) 15. For another excellent volume on the importance of creeds and confessions, see J.V. Fesko, The Need for Creeds Today: Confessional Faith in a Faithless Age (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2020). To understand the story of the church’s development of creeds and confessions, see Donald Fairbairn and Ryan M. Reeves, The Story of Creeds and Confessions: Tracing the Development of the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2019).
24. Trueman, Creedal Imperative, 107
25. Emphasis added in this section.
26. B. H. Carroll, An Interpretation of the English Bible, Volume 6 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), 140.

The Law of God

Sadly, the law of God is no longer taught in many Baptist and evangelical churches. Too often God’s law is replaced with pragmatic “how to” sermons, self-help, human psychology, or subjective leadings of the Spirit, or it is reduced to use in evangelistic programs alone. More recently, the law of God has been replaced with vague ideas about “gospel living,” but there is no definite word from God about what such gospel living entails. Too often, it is the preacher who tells people how to live according to the gospel, rather than God speaking in His law. Christians need to recover a clear understanding of God’s law so that they can understand who God is and what He requires of them. Otherwise, God’s people will have a weak understanding of God, His Word, sin, Jesus Christ, justification, sanctification, judgment day, eternal condemnation, and eternal life. When God’s law is poorly understood, the gospel will also be poorly understood.

Any study of God’s law must begin with God Himself. So that is where we will begin. Then, we will look at God’s Old Testament law and its threefold division. Finally, we will consider the perpetuity of God’s moral law, summarized in the Ten Commandments, together with the threefold use of this moral law.

The God Who Is Righteous

To understand God’s law, we have to start with God Himself and with what is called “eternal law.” Eternal law is in God. According to Franciscus Junius, eternal law is “the immutable concept and form of reason existing before all time in God the founder of the universe.”27 God’s eternal being is the ground of His eternal law, which is revealed in nature and in Scripture. God’s eternal law revealed in nature is called natural law, which is seen in creation and in human consciences (Rom. 1–2). God’s eternal law revealed in Scripture is called moral law, which is summarized in the Ten Commandments. The Bible teaches that God’s natural and moral law are the revelation of His own perfect goodness. Psalm 25:8 says, “Good and upright is the Lord.” God’s law is His perfect standard of righteousness and justice because God Himself is righteous and just. Psalm 11:7 declares, “For the Lord is righteous; he loves righteous deeds.” God’s law is a law of perfect love (Matt. 22:36–40). God is love in Himself (1 John 4:8); thus, God’s eternal character of love is the substance and basis of His good law.

God’s holy law, therefore, is the transcript of His character. It reveals the manner in which His image bearers ought to relate to Him and to one another in order to be filled with His fullness and to manifest His likeness. Another way of putting it is that God’s natural law, revealed in creation and conscience, and His moral law, summarily revealed in the Ten Commandments, teach us what the true image of God looks like. God made human beings in His image, and His law directs them to the end for which they were created. It reveals the path on which human beings must walk to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Or we might say that God’s law is the blueprint of true human life, which involves communion in love to God and other human beings. So, in God’s law, He teaches us the nature of true humanity, and we see true humanity most perfectly in the Lord Jesus Christ, the supremely lawful one.

Consider that Christ’s perfect lawfulness reveals Him to be lovely and glorious. Our Lord stood opposed to the idolaters in the temple who oppressed God’s beloved people, and He honored and worshiped the one true God. He kept the Sabbath day perfectly, resting with His disciples, opening the Scriptures and preaching the gospel in the temple and the synagogues. Jesus never rebelled against His heavenly Father, but submitted to Him in everything, accomplishing our redemption according to the terms of the covenant of redemption. He never murdered anyone, but protected human life and even raised the dead, and gave up His life so that we could live forever. He never once sinfully took advantage of women, but always treated them with perfect respect and kindness. He never stole anything, but freely gave His life for sinners. Jesus refused to lie, but told the truth plainly to all, even at great cost to Himself. He never coveted what did not belong to Him, though He had no place to lay His head, but instead was content with the fullness of God, and He gave fullness of life to all who believe. Jesus loved God and loved men throughout His life, and His lawfulness in communion with God and men, according to His human nature, was His glory. Christ’s perfect fulfillment of the law of God qualified Him to be the perfect atoning sacrifice for those who have broken God’s law. Those who trust in Christ and His perfect atonement are immediately justified, freed from the curse of the law, and clothed with the perfect righteousness of Christ before God forever.

The Threefold Division of Old Testament Law

Christians often raise questions about God’s law. For example, does the fact that God’s law reflects His character mean that Christians should obey every law in the Bible? What about the Old Testament law that says not to eat shellfish (Lev. 11:9–12)? What about the law that forbids mixing fabrics (Deut. 22:11) or trimming the edges of our beards (Lev. 19:27)? How about those laws that are hard to understand, such as not boiling a goat in its mother’s milk (Ex. 23:19)? To answer such questions, we need to distinguish carefully.

The Difference Between Moral Law and Positive Law

To think rightly about God’s law in the Bible, first we have to grasp a basic twofold distinction of law and then a threefold division. First, the Bible recognizes a basic twofold distinction of (1) moral/natural law and (2) positive law.

Moral Law. Moral and natural law are both immutably grounded in God’s moral character, which human beings know by nature because God created them in His image.28 The law of nature and the moral law have the same basic content. God’s moral law commands our conformity to the moral aspects of His communicable attributes, which are summarized in the Ten Commandments, but are also revealed to human consciences and in the principles and basic structure of creation more generally. Romans 2:14–15 speaks of moral law imprinted upon human nature at creation:

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

Paul says all people “by nature do what the law requires,” and “the work of the law is written on their hearts.” But what does Paul mean when he speaks of “the law” in this passage? The context shows that he is talking about the Ten Commandments, which are a summary of moral law. Romans 2:21–24 says,

You then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Emphasis added.)

These moral laws never change. False worship, murder, adultery, stealing, and lying are immutable and always wrong because they are grounded in God’s own moral nature. In other places of Scripture, this moral law is also called “the law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal 6:2), the “law of liberty” (James 1:25; 2:12), and the “royal law” (James 2:8).

Positive Law. In contrast to moral/natural law, God’s positive laws are those that He decrees, or posits, by way of kingly fiat. He often does this by issuing them within the various biblical covenants. But God also gives immediate direct commands outside of the covenants, such as the time he commanded Jonah to go to Nineveh, or when the angel of the Lord spoke to Philip in Acts 8:26 about going to Gaza.

It has been said that God commands moral law because it is right, but positive law is right because God commands it. That is a good way to put it. Unlike moral law, God’s positive laws are conditioned by His providential purposes and covenants, and they change either when His providential purposes change or when the covenants change. Positive laws are inherently managerial and circumstantial, bound to their particular place in redemptive history, especially with reference to whether they are before or after the coming of Christ. Since positive laws are given by way of divine fiat, human beings would never know to obey a positive law apart from God’s special revelation.

Examples of the Distinction between Moral
and Positive Law

Consider some of the biblical evidence for a distinction between moral and positive law. In Romans 2, Paul explicitly distinguishes between them. Romans 2:26 says, “So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?” This is an important passage because it says a believing Gentile can keep “the law” without obeying the old covenant command to be circumcised. This proves the Bible does not view the Old Testament law as a simple unity. We have already seen that Paul speaks of “the law” in Romans 2 in terms of the Ten Commandments, which is moral law, and the work of that moral law is written on the hearts of all (Rom. 2:14–15). But circumcision was a command revealed in old covenant law. The Israelites would never have known to be circumcised had God not commanded it in the covenant of circumcision (Gen. 17). But the Israelites knew by nature not to murder, steal, lie, etc. Romans 2:26, therefore, shows that the command to be circumcised is positive law, distinct from the moral precepts of the law (i.e., the Ten Commandments). Paul makes the same point in 1 Corinthians 7:19: “For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.”

To give some more biblical examples of this distinction, consider the laws given to Adam in the garden of Eden. Being made in God’s image, Adam knew by nature not to worship false gods, not to steal, and not to murder. That is why God never gave any special revelation of those moral commands in the garden of Eden, but He did reveal them to Adam’s conscience. Nevertheless, Adam would not have known to refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil without God’s positive command in the covenant of works (Gen. 2:17).

To provide a new covenant example, all Christians know they ought to love God and neighbor, observing the moral law of the Ten Commandments (Heb. 8:8–10). But Christians would never know to receive baptism, join a local church, take the Lord’s Supper, follow the leadership of pastors and deacons, practice church discipline, etc., if it were not for the new covenant, which issues those positive laws that govern the church. The positive laws of the new covenant are not written on the hearts of new covenant believers, but they are plainly revealed in the pages of the New Testament.

Since God’s moral law is grounded in God and revealed in creation and human consciences, it transcends all biblical covenants. Fallen human beings suppress their knowledge of natural and moral law, which is why they need Scripture to reassert and clarify it. Even unbelievers are not completely ignorant of God’s natural law. Positive law, on the other hand, is issued by divine fiat, and it must be specially revealed to be known at all. Since many, or most, of God’s positive laws are bound to the various biblical covenants, when God’s covenants change, positive laws also change (Heb. 7:12), but moral or natural law never changes (Matt. 5:18–19).

The Threefold Division of Old Testament Law: Moral, Ceremonial, and Judicial

We need to make one more distinction among God’s laws. So far, we’ve seen the basic twofold distinction between moral and positive law. In the Old Testament, positive law breaks down into two kinds: ceremonial law and judicial law. Thus, Old Testament law has a threefold division: moral law, which is the basis of all law; ceremonial law, which is positive law about worship; and judicial law, which is positive law given to govern old covenant people for life in the land. In theology, these distinctions are sometimes called the tripartite division of Old Testament law.29

Consider the nature of the ceremonial and judicial laws of old covenant Israel. Israel’s ceremonial laws were an application of the first table of the Ten Commandments (the first through fourth commandments), which are about the worship of God. Old covenant ceremonial law revealed Israel’s duties of worship, including the layout of the temple along with all the articles of worship, the system and function of the priesthood, and the sacrificial system.

While the ceremonial law was about Israelite worship, the judicial law was about the government of Israelite society. It also distinguished old covenant Israel from the nations around them. Judicial law is a covenantal application of the second table of the Ten Commandments (the fifth through tenth commandments). These laws provided a system of government peculiar to the nation of Israel, according to her unique and holy purpose in the history of redemption. They were given to a particular nation in a particular time for a particular reason. But with the fulfillment and abrogation of the old covenant in Christ (Heb. 8:13), both kinds of old covenant positive law have now expired (Heb. 7:12; 10:9), and only the moral aspects that derive from the Ten Commandments remain in effect for the new covenant people of God. This is the law God writes on the hearts of all new covenant believers (Jer. 31:31–34; Heb. 8:8–10).

Second London Confession 19.2–4 speaks of this threefold division of old covenant law:

Moral law

Paragraph 2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

Ceremonial law

Paragraph 3. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties, all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away.

Judicial law

Paragraph 4. To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use.

It is important to see that when the Reformed confessions speak of the threefold division of Old Testament law, they do not intend to imply that any given law, or verse, of the Old Testament can always be neatly slotted into one of the three categories. Rather, any given Old Testament law could involve all three aspects of law, or it might involve only one or two. The point is not to identify which biblical law fits into which category, but to recognize the distinction between the moral, civil, and judicial aspects of Old Testament law so that we can understand what those laws are doing, which aspects are abiding and perpetual for the believer, and which aspects serve a unique purpose in the old covenant.

This way of thinking about the Old Testament law is consistent with what ancient mainstream Christianity taught. For example, Irenaeus (130–202), an early church father, held to this division of Old Testament law. He wrote, “The words of the Decalogue . . . remain permanently with us, receiving by means of his advent in the flesh, extension and increase, but not abrogation.”30 Irenaeus also wrote about the positive laws of the old covenant: “The laws of bondage, however, were one by one promulgated to the people by Moses, suited for their own instruction or for their punishment . . . for bondage, and for a sign to them, He cancelled by the new covenant of liberty.”31

The Biblical Basis for the Threefold Division
of Old Testament Law

Some claim that the Old Testament treats its law as a pure unity and that there is no Old Testament basis for any division of its law. But that is not true. For example, Deuteronomy 4:13–14 says, “And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and rules, that you might do them in the land you are going to possess” (emphasis added). Here, the Ten Commandments are distinct from other designations of Old Testament law: “statutes” and “rules.” This text teaches a basic distinction between the Ten Commandments and the other positive laws of the old covenant.

Similarly, Moses writes, “Now this is the commandment—the statutes and the rules—that the Lord your God commanded me to teach you, that you may do them in the land to which you are going over, to possess it” (Deut. 6:1). These three kinds of laws—commandments, statutes, and rules—overlap in their semantic range, but they are not identical. “Commandments” (mitsvah) are codes of law; “statutes” (hoq) are ordinances; “rules” (mishpat) are case laws. Therefore, it is not correct to say the Old Testament does not divide its laws into categories.

The order in which God revealed the law in the book of Exodus strongly implies the classic threefold division of law. First, God gave the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. Then, in Exodus 21–23, God issued the judicial laws. And then beginning in Exodus 25, God provided the ceremonial laws about the tabernacle. Thus, in the book of Exodus, the Ten Commandments stand out as distinct and primary law, while all other laws of the old covenant are subsequent and subordinate to them. The ceremonial laws correspond to the first table of the Ten Commandments, while the judicial laws correspond to the second table.

Moral Law: Ten Commandments Higher
than Other Old Testament Law

Other places in the Old Testament teach that the moral law summarized in the Ten Commandments is higher than all other law. It would be incorrect to think of the Ten Commandments as a random set of the 613 commandments of the Old Testament. The Ten Commandments are not the same as other Old Testament law, and here are four reasons.

First, God revealed the Ten Commandments in a unique way. Unlike any other laws, God gave the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai with sounds of thunder, flashes of lightning, a thick cloud, and a “very loud trumpet blast” (Ex. 19:16). No other laws were revealed this way. It was a striking and emotional experience for those who were there. God wanted it to be memorable. He intended the Ten Commandments to stand out in the minds of His people above all other laws. He wanted to impact their senses so that they would never forget the distinctive importance of these ten words. Furthermore, only the Ten Commandments were spoken by God to the whole congregation (Deut. 4:12–13). The other commands were spoken through Moses.

Second, God wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger. The Lord gave Moses “tablets of stone, written with the finger of God” (Ex. 31:18; see 24:12; 32:16; 34:1). Deuteronomy 9:10 also speaks of “the two tablets of stone written with the finger of God.” God wants us to know that these Ten Commandments are closer to Him and His immutable character than the other laws. The other laws of the Old Testament were divinely inspired and written with the stylus of Moses on papyrus. But God engraved the Ten Commandments on “stone” to communicate that they are fixed and permanent.

Third, God required the Ten Commandments to be put inside the ark of the covenant. But He said to put the other laws beside the ark: “Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant” (Deut. 31:24–26). This was to show that the Ten Commandments are at the heart of all the other Old Testament commandments. The ceremonial and judicial laws were only to be kept in the land of Canaan (Deut. 5:30–33), but the Ten Commandments were written on the hearts of Old Testament believers, and were kept wherever the people went (Ps. 37:31; 40:8; Isa. 51:7).

Fourth, the Ten Commandments were recognized and obeyed in the Old Testament before God gave the Ten Commandments of the Sinai covenant. Tertullian (155–230) wrote, “Before the Law of Moses, written in stone-tables, I contend that there was a law unwritten, which was habitually understood naturally and by the fathers was habitually kept.”32 The Decalogue was not unique to the Old Covenant, but is trans-covenantal.

No other gods: In Genesis 6:9, Noah walked with God rather than the pagan gods and was favored by God.
No idols: In Genesis 31:34–35, Rachel stole the household gods and sat upon them, showing that they are no gods at all and that they are unclean.
Do not take God’s name in vain: In Genesis 4:26, the people called upon the name of the Lord. In Genesis 24:3, to swear by God’s name was the ultimate oath.
Remember the Sabbath: In Genesis 4:3, the Hebrew says that “at the end of days,” Cain and Abel went to the gate east of Eden to offer sacrifices and worship. In context, the “end of days” must refer to the end of the days of the week, or the Sabbath. Additionally, in Exodus 16:4–5, the people of Israel collected manna before the Sabbath day so that they did not have to work on the Sabbath.
Honor your father and mother: In Genesis 9:20–27, God condemns dishonoring parents, when Ham dishonors Noah’s nakedness.
Do not murder: In Genesis 4, God condemns Cain for murdering Abel.
Do not commit adultery: In Genesis 2, the two (Adam and Eve) become one flesh. In Genesis 12, Abraham is willing to allow Pharaoh to commit adultery with Sarah, and God sees this as a great evil.
Do not steal: In Genesis 30–31, Jacob defrauds Laban. Then Laban defrauds Jacob, and Rachel steals from her father. All of this is evil.
Do not bear false witness: In Genesis 12, Abraham sinfully lies to Pharaoh about Sarah being his wife.
Do not covet: In Genesis 4, Cain sinfully envies Abel because God accepted Abel’s sacrifice.

In light of the preceding biblical evidence, it is clear that the Ten Commandments are unique among God’s Old Testament law. That is because the Ten Commandments are a summary of God’s moral law (Rom. 2:14, 21–24) and are not limited to the old covenant but precede it and, as we will see, continue after it. In addition, God judged the pagan nations not by His positive law, but according to the moral law of the Ten Commandments (Jer. 46–51; Ezek. 25–32; Amos 1–2; Obadiah; Jonah; Nahum; Hab. 2, a taunt song against the Babylonians; Zeph. 2).

The Nature of God’s Moral Law

The nature of God’s moral law has various facets. These include the fact that the moral law commands our obedience. It is given in both the old and new covenants. It is also a gift of God’s kindness, and it teaches us what sin is so we are not left guessing about it. While the moral law can be viewed in terms of particular commandments, ultimately the moral law is one because God is one. Here are five important facets of the nature of God’s moral law.

First, God’s moral law is imperative instruction that tells us how to live unto Him. That is, it commands us in what is right and godly. Psalm 119:1 says, “Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord!” Psalm 119:29 says, “Put false ways far from me and graciously teach me your law!” Psalm 119:34–35 says, “Give me understanding, that I may keep your law and observe it with my whole heart. Lead me in the path of your commandments, for I delight in it.” Psalm 119:97 says, “Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day.” In those passages, the word “law” often refers to the whole Torah, or the Old Testament, but it includes God’s good commandments or laws.

Second, God’s moral law transcends all the biblical covenants. We have seen that the Old Testament required people to obey God’s moral law, but the New Testament affirms it as well. Romans 7:12 says, “The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.” Romans 3:31 says that the law is not overthrown by the gospel: “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”

Third, God’s moral law is God’s kind gift. Consider God’s kindness in revealing His law so His people are not left to wonder about the definition of sin. Without God’s law there would be no way to define sin with any degree of certainty. Some want to define sin as acting in unloving ways, or disobeying the Holy Spirit, or not glorifying God. But those measures fail to provide a clear standard by which to define sin. Saying that sin is defined by love, the Holy Spirit, and the glory of God all leave us wondering whether we have sinned or not. Was that a truly loving act? Did I really glorify God? Did the Spirit move me to do that, or was it my own desire? Sadly, such subjective standards can lead people to justify immoral behavior. Some claim they have done wicked things in love (e.g., sexual immorality) or by the Spirit’s guidance (e.g., abortion).

According to Scripture, we can only know the definition of sin by reference to God’s good law. Romans 3:20 says, “Through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Romans 4:15 says, “Where there is no law there is no transgression,” and Romans 5:13 says, “Sin is not counted where there is no law.” First John 3:4 plainly states, “Sin is lawlessness.” The children’s catechism correctly declares, “Sin is any transgression of the law of God.” It is vital to understand that God’s law is more than a list of things we should not do. Sin is not only doing what God forbids, but also neglecting what God requires. God’s law requires us to do something. So if it forbids stealing, for example (Ex. 20:15), that same command also requires hard work and giving to those in need (Eph. 4:28).

Fourth, God’s moral law commands everything about us, including our internal thoughts and feelings as well as our outward behaviors. The moral law teaches us what we should be and how we should live. I have met some who seem to think that God’s moral law merely issues external commands that require behavioral modification. But according to the Bible, God’s law is spiritual (Rom. 7:14), which means it not only commands our outward behaviors, but it also commands our inward state of mind and heart. For example, when the law forbids murder, it also forbids murderous and hateful thoughts, intentions, and words (Matt. 5:21–22; 1 John 3:15).

Properly understood, the law of God is the very definition of love. It begins in the heart, leading to acts of service toward others. To “love” is to delight in what is good in others and to sincerely desire what is best for them. The Lord Jesus Christ tells us that the law of God teaches us how to love God and our fellow human beings (Matt. 22:36–40). The moral law of God also includes and implies every Christian virtue (2 Peter 1:5–7), including the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23) as well as the theological virtues of faith, hope, and love, and the cardinal virtues of wisdom, justice, fortitude, and temperance. Thus, God’s law is comprehensive, directing every part of the human being toward its true end, which is to be God’s very image for His great glory.

Fifth, God’s moral law is a perfect unity. The various commandments of God’s moral law are particular manifestations of its oneness. James 2:10–11 says, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of 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.” Ultimately, each commandment of the law relates to the higher law of love and justice toward others. In this way, we can say that to murder is to act without love and to commit adultery is also to act without love and so forth. Thus, the law of God is one.

But it is also true that each of the Ten Commandments often involves the others. As an example of the unity of God’s law, consider a man who commits adultery with a woman. He has not only broken the seventh commandment, which explicitly forbids adultery, but he has also rebelled against God, breaking the first commandment. Moreover, he is lying to the woman, breaking the ninth commandment. Sex is a sign of marital love, a word that declares, “I give myself to you in all sincerity and love.” The man who commits adultery is coveting and stealing what God has not given him. He has murdered the woman, treating her like she is nothing more than an object for his gratification. His self-centered lust is a false god, and he is misusing another image bearer, leading her into false worship with him. To break one of the commandments is to break the whole law of God (James 2:10–11).

The Perpetuity of the Moral Law

The moral law of God, summarized in the Ten Commandments, continues into the new covenant. Consider some of the biblical grounds for this doctrine.

First, Jesus taught that the Ten Commandments will never be abolished (Matt. 5:17–48). He said, “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law” (Matt. 5:18). What law is Christ speaking about? Our Lord goes on to list various laws from the Ten Commandments: do not murder (Matt. 5:21–26), do not commit adultery (Matt. 5:27–32), do not lie (Matt. 5:33–37), etc. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ expounds the ethic of God’s true people, which is none other than the ethic of the Ten Commandments.

Second, the Lord Jesus said that the two tables of the Ten Commandments summarize God’s law. In Matthew 22:36–40, a Pharisee asks Jesus, “‘Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?’ And he said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.’” In these two exhortations to love, Jesus refers to the first and second tables of the Ten Commandments. The first four of the Ten Commandments summarize our duties of love to God, while the last six summarize our duties of love to men. Jesus Himself practiced these commandments, and we are commanded to follow His example (1 John 2:6).

Third, Paul said that all who exercise true love sincerely keep the Ten Commandments toward others. In Romans 13:8–10, he writes:

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

In other words, it is impossible to love your neighbor if you break any of the commandments against him. Notice that while Paul is listing some of the commandments in Romans 13, he then says “any other commandment,” implying that the other laws of the Ten Commandments are included as well.

Fourth, Paul taught that Christ died in order to rescue His people from lawlessness. Titus 2:14 says that Jesus “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.” That is, Christ not only died to forgive our sins but also to give us the Holy Spirit, who makes us more and more lawful, and eager to do good works as defined by the law.

Fifth, in the new covenant, the law is written on our hearts. God blesses His new covenant people by quoting from Jeremiah 31: “I will put my laws into their minds and write them on their hearts” (Heb. 8:10). Literally, “write them” means “carve them,” calling to mind how God carved the Ten Commandments into tablets of stone. While the whole old covenant has been abrogated in Christ (Heb. 8:13), the moral law of the old covenant is written on the hearts of believers (2 Cor. 3:3).

Sixth, on judgment day God will judge His people according to the law of liberty, which is summarized in the Ten Commandments. James 2:11–12 says, “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. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.”

The Christian Sabbath

God’s wonderful Sabbath commandment about rest and worship has fallen into disfavor, which makes it necessary to teach again what the Bible says about it. How strange that this commandment is so often derided as legalistic, when it does nothing other than say that our God is not a slave driver, that He does not require His people to work without rest but graciously gives them a full day of rest from their ordinary labors and in the gospel of His Son with His people.

The Sabbath commandment occupies an important place in the Decalogue. The first commandment teaches that God alone is the proper object of worship. The second commandment teaches the manner in which God is to be worshiped. The third commandment teaches the heart and speech required in worship. But the fourth commandment, the Sabbath, provides God’s people with time to gather for public worship. If we lose the doctrine of the Sabbath, then we also lose the time to cease from our ordinary labors for the sake of worshiping God.

Second London Confession 22.1 says this about the Sabbath:

The light of nature shows that there is a God, who has lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and does good to all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.

Consider the following scriptural truths that establish the perpetuity of the Sabbath commandment for Christians.33

First, the Sabbath day is a creation ordinance. Just as God instituted marriage and work in the garden of Eden, so He also instituted Sabbath observance at creation. God set one day in seven aside for rest and worship at the very beginning of the Bible’s story. Genesis 2:3 says that “God blessed the seventh day and made it holy.” When God rested on the seventh day, He provided an example of rest for His creatures. When He “made it holy,” or “sanctified it,” He instituted that day as a day of public worship. The Hebrew word “holy” when used in reference to days in the Old Testament always refers to corporate worship.

Just as we continue to observe the pattern of marriage found in Genesis 2, we should continue to observe the pattern of Sabbath observance found in Genesis 2. Thus, the pattern of the Sabbath ordinance is prescriptive, just as marriage is prescriptive. To neglect the Sabbath is to neglect God’s very creational design and something vital to human nature. We are not created to work with no rest, and we need one day every week to rest from our work in the common mode of Christ’s kingdom. We also need one holy day in the redemptive mode of Christ’s kingdom on which to formally worship the one true God.34

Second, God grounded the Sabbath in both creation and redemption. Exodus 20:8–11 grounds the Sabbath in creation: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. . . . For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Note the preposition “for.” It means God gave the Sabbath command on the basis of creation. Here we also see the day has a twofold purpose. The fact that it is called the Sabbath day means it is a day of rest from ordinary labors. The fact that it is called a holy day means that it is a day of formal corporate worship.

In Deuteronomy 5:15, God grounds this same command in redemption: “You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.” The redemption of God’s old covenant people is typological of Christ’s redemption of His people in the covenant of grace.

Third, our Lord Jesus taught the abiding nature of the Sabbath commandment. I have heard it said that the Sabbath command is never given in the New Testament. But that is false. In Mark 2:27, Jesus says, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” Jesus is speaking to Jews in that passage, but He doesn’t say, “The Sabbath was made for the Jews.” Instead, He says, “The Sabbath was made for man.” Literally it means, “The sabbath was made for the man,” which indicates God made the Sabbath for Adam, the first man.

Jesus further explains that God did not make human beings to be slaves on the Sabbath day to hurt or burden them. He says, instead, that mankind was not made “for the Sabbath,” showing that the slavish Jewish traditions added by the Pharisees are contrary to the fourth commandment. Jesus is saying that from the beginning God gave mankind one holy day in seven on which to rest and worship God for their good. Christ’s words show that the Sabbath continues into the New Testament.

Then, in Mark 2:28, He says, “The Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” Just as Christ is Lord of the church, Lord of the family, and Lord of all creation, He is also Lord of the Sabbath. Many of Christ’s controversies with religious leaders had to do with the Sabbath, and He spent a great deal of time defending the true nature of the Sabbath—which makes no sense if He was going to abolish the law entirely.

Fourth, Jesus taught that Sabbath will continue in the new covenant. Speaking to His disciples, Jesus says in Matthew 24:20, “Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath.” This text warns about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It seems to imply that there will still be a Sabbath day during the time of the new covenant, even though the old system will perish. Thus, it would not be fitting to the purpose of that day to flee, even if it is permissible.

Fifth, in the new covenant, the Sabbath is transferred from Saturday to Sunday. The Sabbath commandment contains a moral element and a positive element. The moral element, which is grounded in creation, is that God requires our rest and worship one day out of every seven. But the positive element of the Sabbath commandment is conditioned by God’s covenants, assigning the Sabbath to a particular day of the week.

Under the old covenant, the Sabbath was observed on Saturday, but under the new covenant, the day is transferred to Sunday. The Old Testament anticipated the transfer of the Saturday Sabbath to the Sunday Sabbath, particularly in eighth-day Sabbath observances, such as Pentecost. Leviticus 23:3–8 teaches that Passover involves an eighth-day Sabbath, or a Sunday Sabbath, prefiguring Christ and foreshadowing the change of day. Isaiah 56:1–8 anticipates a new covenant observance of the Sabbath day, even while Hosea 2:11 foretells the cessation of Israel’s covenantal sabbaths.

Sixth, in the new covenant, Christ and His apostles observed the transfer of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. He established a pattern of Sunday worship when He appeared to His disciples on Sunday in John 20:1, and then again on the next Sunday in John 20:19. The book of Acts teaches that the church observed the Sabbath on Sunday, the first day of the week, to celebrate Christ’s glorious resurrection. Acts 20:6–7 says,

But we sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days we came to them at Troas, where we stayed for seven days. On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. (Emphasis added)

Notice that they were in Troas for seven days, so they could have chosen to meet on Saturday. But instead, they met “on the first day of the week,” where they received the Lord’s Supper and heard a sermon from Paul. Paul confirms this transfer of Sabbath observance from the last day of the week to Sunday in saying that the church met “on the first day of every week” (1 Cor. 16:2). Revelation 1:10 speaks of the “Lord’s Day,” which refers to a day of the week that uniquely belongs to the Lord Jesus, just as the Lord’s Supper refers to a meal that uniquely belongs to the Lord.

Seventh, the book of Hebrews establishes the transfer of the Sabbath to Sunday. Hebrews 4:9–10 says, “So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.” But the passage could be translated to read: “So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For the one who has entered His rest has Himself also rested from His works [in the resurrection], as God did from His [at creation].” This passage, thus, speaks of God’s rest at creation and Christ’s rest in His resurrection on the first day of the week. The Sabbath rest that remains for God’s people is, therefore, a Sunday Sabbath.

Reasons to Work or Be Absent from Worship on Sunday

Though God commands us to rest and worship on the Sabbath day, the Bible also tells us that there are times when we may have to work or miss corporate worship for other reasons. In Matthew 12:1–14, Jesus gives three categories of activity that require work on the Sabbath.

The first is necessity. When there are real emergencies or practical needs that cannot wait for another day, then Christ commands us to do those things on the Sabbath day (Matt. 12:1). Obviously, Christians should plan ahead so that there are no emergencies. But sometimes, unexpected circumstances arise, and it is keeping the Sabbath to tend to such needs on the Lord’s Day.

The second is piety. Pastors have to work on Sunday in order to serve God’s people. But church members also have to work. They have to get up to be at church on time. They have to work to listen to the sermon, to pray, to fellowship with the church. Corporate worship is not inactivity, but it requires a kind of holy work unto the Lord. Christ teaches that this kind of work on Sunday is right and good (Matt. 12:5).

The third is mercy. When people need help on Sunday, the Sabbath command requires us to help them. To refuse to tend to people’s physical health on the Lord’s Day would be breaking the sixth commandment, which says, “Do not murder.” Various passage teach that God desires mercy, which demands moral obedience, even over sacrifice or ceremonial observance (Matt. 12:7; Hos. 6:6; Mic. 6:6–8).

Second Worship Service on the Sabbath

In light of the fact that God commands one full day of rest from our ordinary labors in the common kingdom and gathering with God’s people in corporate worship, Reformed churches have generally held to the importance of two worship services on Sunday. One service begins the day in worship. The second service closes the day in worship. God has given us a day for worship, not just a couple of hours. When churches only gather to worship for a short time in the mid-morning on Sundays, they are neglecting God’s gracious provision for resting in Christ and observing the means of grace throughout the day.

In the Old Testament, there were to be morning and evening sacrifices (Ex. 29:38–43). Ezra 3:3 says that “they offered burnt offerings on it to the Lord, burnt offerings morning and evening.” Similarly, 1 Chronicles 16:40 says they gathered “to offer burnt offerings to the Lord on the altar of burnt offering regularly morning and evening, to do all that is written in the Law of the Lord that he commanded Israel.”

Psalm 92:1–3 is expressly called a Sabbath psalm and is an important passage about the first and second services in the temple on the Sabbath day. It says, “It is good to give thanks to the Lord, to sing praises to your name, O Most High; to declare your steadfast love in the morning, and your faithfulness by night, to the music of the lute and the harp, to the melody of the lyre.” Psalm 134:1 pronounces a blessing on those who worship in the evening with God’s people: “Come, bless the Lord, all you servants of the Lord, who stand by night in the house of the Lord.” (Emphasis added)

I am convinced that the reason so many churches no longer have a second service on Sunday is that they have lost the biblical doctrine of the Sabbath and the ordinary means of grace. Too many churches today offer services to suit individual preferences. Some churches have services on Thursday or Friday evenings. Many only hold one fairly brief service on Sunday morning. Very few observe a full day of worship unto the Lord. But that is how the Bible teaches us to worship.

Biblical Objections to the Sabbath

Having briefly sketched the Bible’s doctrine of the Sabbath day, we now turn to several biblical objections. Those who say Christians are not obligated to observe the Sabbath day often point to three key New Testament passages to make their case: Romans 14:1–9, Galatians 4:10–11, and Colossians 2:16. Though I won’t provide extensive exegesis here, we will briefly consider these one at a time.

Romans 14:1–9 says, “One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. . . . One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike.” These verses teach that Christians have liberty to observe Jewish feast days or not. Paul speaks of “foods” and “days” together, which means the subject of the passage pertains to the feast days (festivals) of the old covenant, not the moral law of the Sabbath. Also, if the anti-
sabbatarians are correct that this passage teaches that absolutely every day is alike in Christ, then it seems to prove too much. I know of no anti-sabbatarian who teaches that Sunday, the Lord’s Day, should simply be treated as any other day of the week, and that Christians have no obligations on that day.

Galatians 4:10–11 says, “You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.” This passage does not seem to be dealing with Sabbath observance within the sphere of Christian sanctification. Rather, Paul is teaching, contra the Judaizers, that justification and adoption do not come by the observance of “days and months and seasons and years.” Paul’s argument is that justification and adoption are by faith alone (Gal. 2:15–16; 4:1–9), so he isn’t dealing with God’s law as a rule of sanctification. He is confronting the legalistic error of justification by works.

Colossians 2:16 says, “Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.” Here Paul addresses a serious heresy in the church of Colossae that involved the worship of angels, the reception of visions from angels, and the practice of asceticism on Jewish feast days and Sabbaths not associated with the moral law (Col. 2:18–23). In these verses, Paul rejects this system of Jewish-Gnostic heresy, not the moral law of the Sabbath day. The terms “festivals, sabbath, and new moon” often appear as a “package” in the Old Testament. Contextually, therefore, Paul is not referring to the moral Sabbath in Colossians 2:16, but only to the Old Testament ceremonial Sabbaths.35 When Paul says to “let no one pass judgment on you,” he means that the false teachers in Colossae have no right to judge the salvation of the Colossians for refusing to enter into pagan practices or for refusing to observe Old Testament ceremonial laws.

Practical Application of the Sabbath

Believers should ask themselves questions about their Sunday observance. Am I observing the Sabbath day? Am I observing a whole day unto the Lord with God’s people, attending all of His commanded means of grace? The Sabbath is a whole day of rest and worship, not just a few hours. Am I preparing during the week for Sabbath observance? Do I get my work done on six days of the week so I can rest spiritually and worship on the seventh with God’s people? Do I structure my whole life around God’s design for six days of work (at home, at work, in the community) and one day of rest and worship (with the church), unless providentially hindered?

Do I allow God’s creational rhythm to organize my time and existence in God’s world? Or do I believe that I am lord of my own time? Am I willing to sacrifice regular weekend getaways, sports, and entertainment for the church’s assembly on the Lord’s Day? There is nothing wrong with occasional weekend getaways. But do I allow such things to interfere with God’s appointment of one day in seven for physical and spiritual rest and worship? When I need to work or miss church on Sunday, is it because of a real emergency, health reasons, or another necessary providential hindrance? Do I delight in the Lord’s Day, faithfully seeking to draw near to God in faith, to worship Him in spirit and truth by the means of grace, and to fellowship with His beloved people for our mutual benefit and His glory? Do I look forward to the Sabbath as the best of all days, the “market day” of the soul, a day to hear the Word of Christ and to serve others in His name?

The Three Uses of Moral Law

Having established that the moral law of God is perpetual and transcends all covenants, now we need to see that there is a threefold use of the moral law: civil, pedagogical, and normative.

The Civil Use of Moral Law

The moral law’s civil use is to restrain the evil of sinners and promote the common good. Scripture teaches that the moral law ought to guide civil government in rewarding good and punishing evil for the well-being of human society (Rom. 13:3–4; 1 Tim 2:1–2). John Calvin wrote that “function of the law is this: at least by fear of punishment to restrain certain men who are untouched by any care for what is just and right unless compelled by hearing the dire threats of the law.”36

While under the old covenant the civil government of national Israel was to enforce public religion and punish false worship (Deut. 13:12–18), God does not give Gentile governments that responsibility (John 18:37), but instead He requires them to uphold religious liberty according to the first table of the Ten Commandments (Matt. 13:24–30) and enforce public justice according to the second table (Rom. 13:1–5).

This first use of the law is also related to natural law. When God created the world, He built penalties into nature for those who would break the moral law. These penalties threaten the wicked and keep them chastened somewhat (though there are cycles of foolishness). The wisdom literature of the Bible teaches this natural law principle (see Proverbs and Ecclesiastes). While the civil use of the law is most plainly seen in relation to the civil government, it is also used in home government (e.g., the discipline of children) and church government (e.g., church discipline), since every human society must enforce external standards for the sake of the group as a whole. The external application of God’s law cannot change the heart. Only the gospel does that. But the civil or external use of God’s law does restrain evil for the temporal well-being of the individual and the group. It also can help to protect the group as a whole from the temptations that come from unrestrained external evils.

The Pedagogical Use of Moral Law

The moral law is a child instructor, or pedagogue, when by the Holy Spirit it convinces sinners of their sin and drives them to trust in Christ alone (Rom. 7:7–11; Gal. 3:10, 24). In his commentary on Galatians 2:17, Martin Luther (1483–1546) wrote,

The proper use and aim of the Law is to make guilty those who are smug and at peace, so that they may see that they are in danger of sin, wrath, and death, so that they may be terrified and despairing, blanching and quaking at the rustling of a leaf. . . . If the law is a ministry of sin, it follows that it is also a ministry of wrath and death. For just as the law reveals sin, so it strikes the wrath of God into a man and threatens him with death.37

Calvin similarly wrote,

The law warns, informs, convicts, and lastly condemns, every man of his own righteousness . . . After he is compelled to weigh his life in the scales of the law, laying aside all that presumption of fictitious righteousness, he discovers that he is a long way from holiness, and is in fact teeming with a multitude of vices, with which he previously thought himself undefiled. . . . The law is like a mirror. In it we contemplate our weakness, then the inequity arising from this, and finally the curse coming from both—just as a mirror shows us the spots on our face.38

At the right time, the Holy Spirit opens the eyes of the elect to their unlawfulness through the preaching of God’s law and leads them to the gospel of Jesus Christ, His cross and resurrection, so that they see and delight in the goodness and holiness of God and agree with the law’s judgment upon them, such that they cast themselves upon Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of their souls. This second use of the law of God shuts the sinner out of any hope of salvation by his own works so that he has no way to be right with God and eternally saved but through Jesus Christ.

God uses this twofold preaching of law and gospel to convert sinners, such that they live the rest of their lives in obedient joy and thanksgiving for the great grace of God in Jesus Christ. Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:1–2 teach us to pray for the civil government to bring order so we may live a quiet life in all godliness and dignity. God’s law restrains evil and provides religious liberty so that Christ’s churches may worship Him as He commands. Paul does not say that we should pray to overcome the government and establish a Christian government so that we may live freely (1 Peter 2:13–17; 1 Thess. 4:11–12).

The Normative Use of Moral Law

The third use of the moral law is its normative or instructive (didactic) use, which serves as a rule of life, guide, or standard of conduct for believers, authoritatively directing them in the manner of life that is pleasing to God. In His great kindness, God does not leave believers to wonder about what He expects of them as Christians. Rather, He clearly tells us what He requires of us. And His requirements fit the pattern of His redemption. The normative use of the law makes sense when we consider the fact that our sins against God’s moral law broke our relationship with God. That is why Jesus, the Savior, had to offer Himself as an atoning sacrifice for us. But Christ’s atonement for our sins against the moral law implies that the same moral law, summarized in the Ten Commandments, is our standard of faithful living toward God and others. We know how we ought to live for God because we know what sins sent Jesus to the cross.39

In the book of Romans, Paul says that believers willingly submit to God’s law as their rule of life and conduct. In Romans 7, Paul speaks of his personal fight with indwelling sin as a believer, and in verse 16 he says, “I agree with the law, that it is good.” In Romans 7:22, he says, “I delight in the law of God in my inner being.” In verse 25, he says, “I serve the law of God.” Paul goes on to explain that Christ died for our sins, “in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4). Notice that he does not say that the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled for us, but in us. In other words, by the Spirit, believers learn to keep God’s law faithfully. In Romans 8:7, Paul explains that only unbelievers refuse to submit to God’s law: “The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.” Whoever refuses to submit to God’s law proves that he is an unbeliever. Thus, it is clear that the moral law authoritatively binds the consciences of believers, who never look to the law for their justification, but only as an instrument and authoritative rule in sanctification.

When Paul begins to apply the gospel to the church of Ephesus in chapter 4, he teaches that those under grace in Christ should keep the Ten Commandments as the expression of their faith in Christ. True believers should “put away falsehood,” the ninth commandment (Eph. 4:25); “be angry and do not sin,” the sixth commandment (Eph. 4:26); “no longer steal,” the eighth commandment (Eph 4:28); abstain from “sexual immorality,” the seventh commandment (Eph. 5:3); refrain from “covetousness,” the tenth commandment (Eph. 5:3). A true believer is not to be an “idolater,” which generally refers to the first through third commandments (Eph. 5:5). A believer is to “honor your father and mother,” the fifth commandment (Eph. 6:2). Clearly Paul is thinking through the Ten Commandments when he teaches the Ephesian church how they should live as Christians.

Martin Luther affirmed the third use of the law in his catechism, which expounded the Ten Commandments for the believer. Calvin affirmed it as well in the Genevan Catechism, where he wrote, “[The law] shows the mark at which we ought to aim, the goal towards which we ought to press, that each of us, according to the measure of grace bestowed upon him, may endeavor to frame his life according to the highest rectitude, and, by constant study, continually advance more and more” (Q 229).

The Second London Confession says the following in 19.6:

Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience; it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigor thereof. The promises of it likewise shew them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man’s doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace.

The key distinction in this section of the confession is between the law as a covenant of works and the law as a rule of life for the believer who is in Christ and under the covenant of grace. The second use of the law refers to the law as a covenant of works. It says, “Do this and live.” And if you do not do this, you will die. You need Jesus. But the third use of the law issues no threat of condemnation, no curse, and no promise of the right and title to eternal life. The normative use of the law is the naked commandment. It says, “Do this because life is already yours.” The law comes with all sorts of motives and promises to the believer, but every motive of obedience to God’s law is grounded in the gracious gospel promises of Christ’s death and resurrection, justification, adoption, communion with Him, knowledge of Him, joy in Him, and blessings in Him.

Second London Confession 19.7 says, “Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it, the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.”

How do the law and the gospel “sweetly comply”? The gospel not only promises our justification by faith, but it also promises our sanctification by faith through the instrumentality of the law. The gospel is not only the promise of Christ for us, but also of Christ in us.

God graciously accepts our attempts to obey the law by His Spirit, while clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Second London Confession 16.6 says,

Yet notwithstanding the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreprovable in God’s sight, but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have seen that God’s law reveals God. It further reveals the nature of a true image of God. God’s moral law is the blueprint of a true human being, and therefore is the transcript of Christ’s character. It is the standard to which every Christian should be growing in their sanctification.

We have also seen that God’s Old Testament law has a threefold division: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. God’s moral law transcends every biblical covenant and is revealed in nature and summarized in the Ten Commandments. The ceremonial and judicial laws of the Old Testament had moral elements, but they are unique to the old covenant and the people of Israel. Therefore, Israel’s ceremonial and judicial laws expired when the old covenant was fulfilled and abrogated at the death of Christ.

Finally, we saw that God’s moral law—summarized in the Ten Commandments, revealed in nature, and fully revealed in Jesus Christ—is perpetual and eternal, transcending every biblical covenant. This moral law of God has a threefold use. First, it restrains the wickedness of men in every station of human society. Second, it convicts sinners of sin and points them to Jesus for salvation. Third, it serves as the rule of life and conduct for believers, teaching them how to express love to God and love to men. Thus we see the necessity of preaching the law’s condemnation to unbelievers and pointing them to the gospel of Christ, as well as preaching obedience to the law under grace to facilitate the sanctification of those who seek to be conformed to the image of Christ. In the next chapter, we turn to the doctrine of the Bible’s overarching covenants, which have the law of God at their center.

27. Franciscus Junius, The Mosaic Polity (Grand Rapids: Acton, 2015), 42.
28. For an excellent treatment of “moral law,” see Ernest F. Kevan, Moral Law (Escondido: den Dulk, 1991). For a full treatment of the Puritan understanding of the law of God, see Ernest F. Kevan, The Grace of Law: A Study in Puritan Theology (Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria, 1999).
29. For a comprehensive discussion of the tripartite division of Old Testament law, see Philip S. Ross, From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of Law (Ross-shire: Mentor, 2010). For a classic treatment of the law of God, see Patrick Fairbairn, The Revelation of Law in Scripture (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1996).
30. Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” vol. 1, ch. 16.4, Anti-Nicene Fathers, trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, ed. Arthur Cleveland Coxe (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1885), 482.
31. Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” ch. 16.5, 482.
32. Tertullian, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), vol 3, ch 2, 153.
33. For a robust defense of the Sabbath commandment, which helpfully engages many arguments to the contrary, see Richard C. Barcellos, Getting the Garden Right: Adam’s Work and God’s Rest in Light of Christ (Cape Coral: Founders, 2017). For a briefer but classic defense of the perpetuity of the Sabbath commandment, see Robert Haldane, Sanctification of the Sabbath: The Permanent Obligation to Observe the Sabbath or Lord’s Day (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2022).
34. See Jon English Lee, There Remains a Sabbath Rest for the People of God: A Biblical, Theological, & Historical Defense of Sabbath Rest as a Creation Ordinance (Cape Coral: Founders, 2024).
35. See 1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4; 31:3; Neh. 10:33; Isa. 1:13–14 (cf. Isa. 58:13–14); Hos. 2:11; Ezek. 45:17.
36. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol 2 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 2.7.10.
37. Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1988), 101.
38. Calvin, Instit. 2.7.6–7.
39. For a marvelous classic exposition of the Ten Commandments as the rule of life for the believer, see Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments (Carlisle: Banner, 1995).

Covenant Theology

God rules history through His covenants, which are revealed in the Bible. Reformed Baptist theology, together with all of Reformed theology, understands that the covenants organize Scripture.40 Therefore, interpreters of Scripture need to thoroughly understand the covenants because good exegesis depends on it. Covenant theology arises from the Reformed hermeneutic of New Testament priority and serves as one key element of the Reformed grid for the theological interpretation of Scripture.

The word “covenant,” in both Hebrew (berit) and Greek (diatheke), refers to a sworn oath. A covenant might also be defined as a “guaranteed commitment” or a “divinely sanctioned commitment.”41 Charles Spurgeon expressed the importance of covenant theology when he said, “The doctrine of the covenants is the key of theology.”42 One might say that the essence of Reformed theology is nothing other than covenant theology.

What follows is a brief exposition of the Bible’s overarching covenants that deal with eternal life, including the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption, and the covenant of grace. The moral law of God, studied in a previous chapter, cuts through all of these covenants. In the covenant of works, God required Adam to keep His moral law perfectly for eternal life. In the covenant of redemption, Christ kept the moral law in our place to accomplish His own resurrection to life, and to achieve eternal life for His chosen people. In the covenant of grace, God imputes Christ’s perfect law-keeping to us as the ground of our justification and to serve as the legal basis of the Holy Spirit’s work in us for our sanctification, by which we become more and more conformed to God’s moral law. Therefore, a clear understanding of the law of God is foundational to understanding the overarching covenants of the Bible.

While the Old Testament implies and alludes to these covenants, the New Testament reveals them more explicitly. The three main overarching covenants can be seen in the book of Romans. Chapters 1–3 describe the effects of the broken covenant of works with Adam upon the whole world. Chapters 3–5 teach that Christ fulfills the strict terms of the law in the covenant of redemption. Romans 5:12–21 reveals the overarching covenantal structure of Scripture in the federal, or covenantal, headships of Adam and Christ, in which Adam is the federal head of the covenant of works, and Christ is the federal head of the covenant of grace. Romans 6–8 explains the twofold blessing of union with Christ in the covenant of grace: justification and sanctification.

These same covenants are evident in the book of Ephesians. Ephesians 1 reveals the great Trinitarian doctrine of election and the covenant of redemption with Christ. Ephesians 2:1–3 reveals the effects of Adam’s fall in the garden of Eden, which brought about the curse of the covenant of works. Ephesians 2:4–10 expresses the blessings we receive in Christ based on eternal election and applied in the covenant of grace.

Consider a brief summary of the biblical data concerning these covenants of Reformed theology.

The Covenant of Works

The Reformed confessions of faith all affirm that God made a covenant of works with Adam in the garden of Eden. For example, Second London Confession 20.1 explicitly refers to this covenant: “The covenant of works, being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life . . .” Second London Confession 19.1 provides a helpful summary of the covenant of works:

God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

Nehemiah Coxe, the early English Particular Baptist, agreed. He writes, “It is evident that God dealt with Adam not only upon terms of a law, but in way of covenant, and that this transaction was of a federal nature.”43 Nevertheless, some aren’t sure this doctrine is found in the Bible. This section will set forth some of the main arguments for the covenant of works found in Holy Scripture.44

Evidence from Genesis

Consider the creation of the first man in Genesis 2:7–8, which says, “Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.” God created the man before He planted the garden. Then, in Genesis 2:15, God “put” the man in the garden. So God made Adam outside of the garden in a state of nature, outside of any covenant relationship with God. But then God put Adam in the garden, and we will see that God made a covenant with him. From the beginning, God created Adam to be in covenant, but he wasn’t technically in covenant when he was created.

In Genesis 2:16–17, God issued a threat of death for violating the terms of the covenant. These verses say, “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 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.’” This threat is the curse of the covenant. The fact that Adam could die implies something about Adam’s natural state. Prior to eating from the tree, Adam was mutable. He could have sinned or not sinned. He was able to die or to live.

The Genesis account not only reveals the threat of death in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but it also reveals the promise of eternal life in the tree of life. Genesis 3:22–24 says:

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

This promise of “forever” or “eternal” life shows that Adam might have obeyed God to obtain the blessing of life. The promise of eternal life in Genesis 3 also implies that the death threatened in Genesis 2:16–17 was “eternal” death. The promise of eternal life further shows us that something about Adam’s nature would have changed had he obeyed God. We have already seen that prior to obtaining the promise of eternal life, Adam had a mutable nature that could have sinned or not sinned. But if Adam obtained eternal life, the text tells us that he would have lived forever. That necessarily means that he would be unable to fall or die. He would have obtained an immortal state of glory.

Some say there can be no covenant in Genesis 2 because the word “covenant” (berith) does not appear in the chapter. But that assertion contains some assumptions. It assumes that a word has to be present for a doctrine to be present. This is called the “word-thing fallacy.” A word does not have to be present for a thing to be present. Consider these reductio ad absurdum arguments applied to the idea that a word has to be present in a text for the doctrine to be present. The word “Trinity” does not appear in Genesis 1, but does that mean that the Trinity didn’t create the world? Of course not. We know from later revelation that the Trinity created the world, which means the Trinity is in Genesis 1:1. The word “marriage” does not appear in Genesis 2, but clearly there is a marriage covenant between Adam and Eve. We know that marriage is a covenant from later revelation (Mal. 2:14). The words “sin” and “fall” do not occur in Genesis 3, but we know that Adam sinned and fell in Genesis 3 because later revelation defines sin as a transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4). If a word must be in a passage for the doctrine to be in the passage (a logical fallacy), consistency would demand that people deny the existence of the Trinity in Genesis 1, the existence of marriage in Genesis 2, and the existence of sin in Genesis 3.

There are clearly elements of a covenant in the Genesis narrative. There were two parties: God and Adam. Adam was the federal head of all mankind. There was a command: Don’t eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This was a test in which Adam was required to obey God. There was a threat: you will surely die. And it had a promise: eternal life.

Evidence from All of Scripture

Hosea 6:6–7 expressly speaks of a covenant with Adam. This is a case of later revelation explaining earlier revelation. It says, “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. But like Adam, they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.” Some interpreters translate this to say “like men” they transgressed the covenant, since the Hebrew word for Adam can also be translated “man.” But it makes no sense to suggest that men could sin in a way other than “like men” sin. Can men sin like animals, or like angels? Israel could only have sinned “like men,” since they were men. Other interpreters say that Adam was a city where Israel sinned. There was a city called Adam. But there is no biblical record of Israel sinning at a town named Adam. Therefore, it is best to take Hosea 6:6–7 as teaching that the Israelites transgressed their covenant, just like Adam transgressed his covenant. Job 31:33 does not specifically mention a covenant, but it certainly refers to Adam in a similar way (visible in some translations of the Bible, including the KJV and LSB).

Isaiah 24:5–6 explains that there is a covenantal curse devouring the whole earth, not just the nation of Israel. This passage provides strong evidence of a covenant with Adam, which was broken. The context shows that all nations of the whole earth are in view (see Isa. 24:13). It says, “The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt; therefore the inhabitants of the earth are scorched, and few men are left.” Which covenantal curse devours the whole earth? It was not the Israelite covenant, since that covenant was only made with the nation of Israel. Rather, this is the curse of the covenant with Adam.

Romans 3:27–28 teaches that there is a contrast between a “law of works” and a “law of faith.” In theological terms, this contrasts the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The contrast demonstrates that there are fundamentally two different ways of life or justification. Either you rely on your own works for justification and are condemned because you are a fallen sinner in Adam, or you trust in Christ and His works for your life and justification. That is why we call the Adamic covenant a covenant of “works.” Adam’s work was necessary for life, but he sinned, bringing the curse upon all mankind. In the covenant of grace, Christ’s works secure life for us, and in Him we work from life and not for it.

Romans 5:14–19 is also important in the doctrine of the covenant of works. Romans 5:14 says, “Adam . . . was a type of the one who was to come,” and Romans 5:18–19 says, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 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.”

Notice that Adam was a type of Christ. Christ is the substance, while Adam prefigured Him. Adam did not do what God commanded. But Christ did. Just as Christ obeyed God perfectly for life, Adam was supposed to obey God perfectly for life.

1 Corinthians 15:21–22 says, “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” In Adam all die. Adam’s federal headship brings humanity into solidarity with him and to death through his sin. By contrast, all in Christ are made alive. Those in Christ, in the covenant of grace, will live forever.

Galatians 3:10–12 says, “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’ Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’ But the law is not of faith, rather ‘The one who does them shall live by them.’” This passage demonstrates two principles. First, the old covenant required obedience to the law for temporal life in the land. In that sense, the old covenant contained types of the original covenant of works. Complete obedience to the law was required for life. But sin brought about the curse. Second, in contrast, these verses show the nature of the covenant of grace, that God gives the blessing of justification and eternal life to those who believe, not because of their works, but by grace alone.

A final proof for the covenant of works is that the old covenant promised temporal life in the land of Canaan for obedience to the law of God (Lev. 18:5). The old covenant promised that if its people outwardly obeyed its law, God would bless them with life in the land of Canaan. To be clear, the old covenant was not itself the covenant of works. Rather, it contained a pattern of the “do this and live” principle of the original covenant of works in its requirement of obedience for life in the land. The apostle Paul knew this, which is why he referred to the old covenant’s works principle in his letters as part of his proof for the covenant of works (e.g., Gal. 3:1–12). The “do this and live” principle of the land inheritance is clearly taught in the old covenant (see Deut. 4:1, 40; 5:33; 6:24–25; 8:1; 11:8–9, 22; 30:1–5).

So if the old covenant was not the covenant of works, what was it for? It was not a covenant that offered eternal life at all. Instead, it was a temporal covenant given to preserve the physical line of the promised seed until the coming of Christ. It was the vehicle through which God would bring Jesus into this world. The old covenant also had a revelatory purpose. It was to reveal, or proclaim, the terms of the original covenant of works—the law—as well as the promises of the covenant of grace, the gospel (Heb. 12:18–29). Therefore, the people of the old covenant could be reconciled to God and eternally saved, but not by virtue of that covenant itself. Rather, those who were saved under the old covenant were saved by the covenant of grace.

Three Aspects of the Covenant of Works

First, the covenant of works provided the context and terms for friendship with God. You can see this from the nature of the garden of Eden. Many have noted that Genesis 2:8–14 describes a temple where God is manifestly present and Adam and Eve could walk in communion with Him. Water flowed from the garden. This indicates that Eden was elevated on a mountain. God’s manifest presence is frequently located on mountains throughout the Bible. Consider Mount Sinai, Mount Zion, and the temple of Ezekiel. The Jerusalem above is a high place, where a river flows from God’s throne.

Scripture also mentions precious stones in the garden. The stones are connected to the aesthetic beauty of the tabernacle and temple, Aaron’s breastplate, and the new Jerusalem, showing that the garden of Eden is a temple. The passage also mentions trees. The trees in the garden are represented by the menorah, which was within the temple and made to look like almond trees with branches and blossoms. We also see the tree of life in the new Jerusalem. God made Adam a prophet, priest, and king in the garden temple.

Adam was the mediator in this temple arrangement. He was the prophet who received revelation from God. He was a priest in that he communed directly with God in the temple as the federal head of His covenant people. He was the king who was to rule and subdue the whole earth. God’s garden sanctuary was to be a place of perfect purity and holiness. Adam had to be perfectly holy and pure to live in communion and joyful relationship with God. God walked with Adam in the cool of the day. It would be unthinkable for the holy God of heaven to commune with someone who lived in sin and rebellion against Him. Adam was also responsible to guard the garden temple, to “work it and keep it,” which in Hebrew are the same two words used of priests in Numbers 3:6–10. So the first purpose of the covenant or works was to set the terms of life and friendship with God.

Second, the covenant of works promised glorification to Adam and his posterity. God created Adam in a state of nature outside of the garden and then put Adam into the garden and graciously made a covenant in which Adam could be glorified and obtain eternal life, and from which he could never fall. In the covenant, Adam was to obey God and be translated into an incorruptible state of nature. Even without sin, Adam needed to enter into a state of glory, or else he would always be in a mutable state, lacking the fullness of life and glory for which God made him. There is a hint of the need for glorification in Romans 3:23: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” The phrase “the glory of God” in Paul’s writings often refers to glorification. Sin is a problem because we “fall short” of eternal glory, which was the end of the covenant of works. And what is glorification? It is a sinless state in which our souls and bodies become unable to sin and die, while we are in perfect, full communion with God, beholding Him in the beatific vision (1 Cor. 13:12; Rev. 22:4). The saints in the new Jerusalem are glorified and enjoy the glory of God.

We have seen in Romans 5:14 that Adam was a type of Christ. Just as the end of Adam’s covenant of works was to be eternal glory, so the end of Christ’s covenant was to enter into God’s glory. Luke 24:26 says it was necessary for Christ “to enter into his glory.” And 1 Peter 1:11 says that the prophets predicted “the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.” Christ perfectly obeyed the terms of the covenant of redemption to achieve resurrection and eternal life for His people.

As a type of Christ, Adam was also in a covenant that promised final glory. When we look at the Genesis account, we find that Adam and Eve were to populate the world with God’s image (Gen. 1:28), just as Christ would do through the redemption of His people in the new covenant. As an obedient son, Adam was to perfectly obey God and live forever (Gen. 3:22), just as Christ would do later. He was to work in the garden, expand its borders, and turn the earth into a paradise, achieving the glory of God through his work, which is what Christ does in obtaining the new heavens and the new earth for His people. God says, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion” (Gen. 1:28). So in the covenant of works, Adam was to subdue the earth. After Adam had completed this work, he would have obtained eternal life, and he would have entered into the rest and glory of the final state.

Third, the covenant of works threatened death for sin. Adam was the federal head of the covenant of works, which means that he represented all of humanity. If Adam had obeyed, he would have brought the blessing of eternal life to himself and to the whole human race. But since he disobeyed, he brought the curse of sin, misery, and eternal death to himself and the whole human race. All of creation is cursed in Adam. As a result of the curse, natural disasters, including earthquakes, fire, and damaging winds cause great destruction. The waters don’t keep their boundaries and they flood the land. The world doesn’t work as God designed it to work. Everything is corrupted, making it physically impossible for Adam’s race to subdue and rule the whole earth as we were originally designed to do.

An Objection Answered

Could Adam have boasted, if he had obtained eternal life through his obedience? Some object that if Adam had to be personally, perfectly, and perpetually holy to obtain eternal life in the garden, then he would have been able to boast before God. He could say, “See how holy and righteous I am, and look at the life I achieved.”

But Adam could never have boasted before God, for several reasons. First, God created Adam and provided everything for Adam. What did Adam have except what he received? Second, the establishment of the covenant of works was due to God’s kind condescension, even though its terms were of strict justice and works. God freely gave the promise of eternal life to Adam, which means that Adam could never have obtained eternal life apart from God’s promise. Adam’s holiness and works did not induce God to establish the covenant with him. Adam could never have obtained glory apart from the covenantal promise of God. Second London Confession 7.1 says, “The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to Him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.” Third, God providentially upheld and directed Adam in all that he did. Whatever holiness Adam possessed was the result, not the cause, of God’s providence toward him. Adam was dependent upon God to sustain him and provide for him.

Therefore, Adam could never have boasted in his relationship with God or in his own holiness. Adam was only doing what he should have done in obeying God, like a faithful servant. Luke 17:10 says, “So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’”

These facts lead some people to identify the covenant of works as a covenant of grace. Yet we should not call this a covenant of grace because Adam’s continuing relationship with God in the covenant, and obtaining the promise of life and glory, depended on Adam’s own perfect works of obedience to God, which is what God’s justice required. God freely and kindly established the covenant of works with Adam, but Adam’s perfect good works were the requirement of the covenant.45 There was no provision for the redemption of sinners in the covenant of works. Therefore, this covenant should not be confused with the covenant of grace.

Maintaining a clear distinction between the covenant of works and covenant of grace is essential for a number of reasons. Adam’s perfect works were the precondition of eternal life in the covenant of works. But our imperfect faithful works of obedience to God are the result of the free gift of eternal life in the covenant of grace. In the covenant of works, Adam was to obey God perfectly by faith in God and His promise of reward for obedience. In the covenant of grace, we are justified freely by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, who satisfied God’s law and gives us His Spirit to sanctify us. The distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace is the distinction between the law and the gospel. The covenant of works commanded Adam: Obey to obtain eternal life. The covenant of grace promises us: God freely gives you eternal life in Christ so you can obey Him.

The Covenant of Redemption

The covenant of redemption is God’s purpose to redeem His chosen people through Jesus Christ.46 Temporally speaking, the covenant of redemption, or “counsel of peace” (Zech. 6:13), among the persons of the Trinity comes before the establishment of the covenant of works with Adam. Thus, the covenant of redemption is an aspect of God’s eternal decree and precedes time and history. But logically speaking, the covenant of redemption comes after Adam sinned and broke the covenant of works. The covenant of redemption is only necessary because Adam broke God’s law of perfect obedience in the covenant of works. In the covenant of redemption, Christ perfectly obeyed God’s law, and He died to pay the penalty deserved by lawbreakers who are under the curse of the covenant of works.

Considered from eternity, in His great mercy the Triune God lovingly and graciously decreed that His chosen people would be redeemed through the blood of Jesus. In this eternal decree, the three persons of the Trinity all willingly agreed, each according to His mode of subsistence, to accomplish the redemption of the elect. As a result of this eternal decree, the eternal Son of God assumed a human nature, was born of a virgin, suffered under Pilate, died on the cross for His people, and rose from the dead. The incarnate Son of God thus accomplished the redemption of His chosen people in obedience to God’s commands in the covenant of redemption.

Second London Confession 8.1 describes the nature of the covenant of redemption:

It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, according to the covenant made between them both, to be the mediator between God and man; the prophet, priest, and king; head and savior of the church, the heir of all things, and judge of the world; unto whom He did from all eternity give a people to be His seed and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.

Nehemiah Coxe said that God’s purpose to redeem a people was “transacted in a way of Covenant between the Father and the Son, even in a Covenant of Redemption.”47 This covenant of redemption reveals God’s gloriously good character, showing us that He is a great and loving Father who was willing to pay the highest price to purchase the freedom of His people. It also reveals the Son’s gracious sacrifice, perfect compassion, and love for the world. It reminds us that God never set aside His holiness or His justice to save us. Our God never saves a sinner in spite of His justice, but always on the ground of His justice. God is not only a tenderhearted Redeemer, but He is also a righteous Judge who never compromises His holy law. He saved us, not at the expense of His holiness and justice, but in a way that puts His holiness and justice on full display. Christ merited the blessing of His holy law. He paid its terrible penalty. In this way, His own uncompromising justice is completely satisfied. Our great salvation exalts God’s worth and glory above all else, and our souls can only rightly respond to this truth with reverent and joyful worship of His holy name, proclaiming that He is eternally righteous, just, and good.

Scriptural Evidence for the Covenant of Redemption

The Old Testament. In Psalm 40:6–8, David rejoices that God rescued him from the pit, blessed him, and filled his mouth with songs of God’s goodness. The writer of Hebrews picks up on David’s words and tells us that they are ultimately spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Hebrews 10:5–7 says:

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, Behold I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.”

These words reveal two promises between the two parties in the covenant of redemption. First, God promised Christ a human body in the incarnation, perfectly fitted to identify with human beings so that He could be our representative and substitute, able to identify with our human weaknesses and temptations, and so that He could die for our sins.48 Second, Christ promised to do the will of God; He agreed to do all that God commanded Him to do. The writer of Hebrews says, “And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all” (Heb. 10:10). These promises between God and Christ are the very substance of the covenant of redemption. God graciously promises Christ all that is necessary for His redemptive mission, and Christ promises perfect obedience to God to accomplish that mission.

Isaiah 42:1–9 is a Servant Song, where God makes promises to Christ in the covenant of redemption. In Isaiah 42:1, God says, “Behold, my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him.” God chose Christ to receive certain blessings. He lovingly and graciously promised to uphold Christ in His mission. He promised to delight in Christ as He fulfilled all righteousness. He promised to fill Christ with the Spirit to perform all the duties of the covenant. Here we see the trinitarian nature of the covenant of redemption. God chose Christ, and the Spirit indwelt and upheld Christ in His earthly mission to redeem His people.

Isaiah 49 is another Servant Song of Christ. In verse 8, God says to His Servant, “I will keep you and give you as a covenant to the people.” Christ, the Servant, then speaks of God’s promises to Him in the covenant: “He made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand he hid me” (Isa. 49:2). “I will make you as a light of the nations that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (Isa. 49:6). This covenant is not merely about national Israel. It extends to all the elect of all the nations for their salvation. Ultimately, this is about the promise, who is Christ Himself, and His covenant that redeems His people from every tribe and tongue. Isaiah 49:15–16 says, “Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you. Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands.” In the covenant of redemption, Christ not only saves God’s people but preserves them and guarantees that He will never cast them off.

Isaiah 53–54 is a key passage that reveals Christ’s work in the covenant of redemption. Isaiah 54:10 says, “For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed.” The “covenant of peace” is the covenant between God and Christ (Isaiah 53), which accomplishes “peace” between a merciful God and His rebellious people. This is the covenant of redemption.

But how does God make “peace”? Isaiah 53:5 explains, “He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.” His death reconciles His people to God so that there is peace between them. Isaiah 53:11 says Christ will “make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.” This salvation will extend to all the nations. Isaiah 54:3 says, “Your offspring will possess the nations.” Isaiah 53–54 clearly tells us of a covenant that is about the redemption of God’s people.

The New Testament. In Luke 22:29, Christ says to His disciples, “I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom.” The Greek word translated “assign” is related to the Greek word “covenant.” Thus, this passage might be rightly rendered, “I covenant to you as the Father covenanted to me, a kingdom.” Notice that there are two covenants mentioned here. There is a covenant with Christ, and there is a covenant with His people. These are the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, respectively. Here is yet another place where the Bible explicitly teaches that there is a covenantal arrangement between God and Christ about the redemption of the elect people.

Many passages in the gospel of John speak of the covenant of redemption, emphasizing the agreement between God and Christ in which Christ agrees to obey God’s commands and willingly keeps them during His earthly mission. In John 4:34, Jesus says, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work.” In John 5:30, Jesus says, “I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me,” and in verse 36, He says, “The works that my Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me.” He also says in John 6:38, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.” In John 10:17–18, Christ says, “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” He says in John 14:31, “I do as the Father has commanded me.” All of these passages show an arrangement between God and the incarnate Christ to save His people from their sins.

Another important text about the covenant of redemption is found in Christ’s high priestly prayer. John 17:1–5 says,

Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. . . . I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

God gave the Son work to do, and the Son will “give eternal life to all whom you have given him.” The Son “accomplished the work,” giving eternal life to God’s chosen people and warranting the Son’s resurrection to glory. These are the elements of a covenant.

Ephesians 1:3–14 is about the blessings that flow to God’s elect people from the work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the eternal covenant of redemption. God’s eternal election is appropriated to the Father (Eph. 1:4–5). The Son redeems the elect by His blood (Eph. 1:7). The Holy Spirit seals Christ’s redemption to the elect as a guarantee of their heavenly inheritance (Eph. 1:13–14). Thus we can see the missions of the three persons of the Trinity in the economy of redemption, to God’s great glory, in the covenant of redemption.

The Nature of the Covenant of Redemption

The Parties of the Covenant of Redemption. Second London Confession 7.3 mentions “that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect.” John Owen (1616–1683) wrote that the Father was the “prescriber, the promiser and lawgiver; the Son was the undertaker upon his prescription, law, and promises.”49 The Holy Spirit is also a party to the covenant of redemption in that His mission during the incarnation was to dwell within Christ, strengthening Him in His obedience to God. Thus, the parties of the covenant of redemption include the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But temporally speaking, at the incarnation of the Son, the parties, more properly speaking, include God and Christ.

The Time of the Covenant of Redemption. The time of the covenant of redemption may be considered from two perspectives: timeless eternity and temporal history. From the perspective of timeless eternity, 2 Timothy 1:9 says that salvation came through Jesus Christ “before the ages began.” Titus 1:2 likewise says that God promised life “before the ages began.” In God’s eternal decree, the three persons of the Trinity all willingly agreed to accomplish the redemption of the elect. Thus, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit eternally willed, each according to His eternal relation of origin and mode of personal subsistence, to accomplish the redemption of the elect.

But in time and history, there was a formally established covenant of redemption between God and Christ, according to His human nature, which was indwelt by the Holy Spirit to fulfill the law of God and to accomplish the redemption of the elect. In 2 Timothy 1:10, we see that God’s eternal decree about the redemption of the elect “now has been manifested [in time] through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”50 Similarly, 1 Peter 1:20 says, “He was foreknown [foreordained or chosen] before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you.” While God eternally decreed that Christ would come into this world in the covenant of redemption, in time, God established this covenant with the incarnate Christ and blessed His earthly ministry. The Lord Jesus Christ perfectly obeyed God’s commanded will throughout His life, death, and resurrection, all in the power of the Holy Spirit, to accomplish the redemption of the elect for the glory of God.

This distinction between eternity and time in the covenant of redemption is theologically important because, in eternity, there was no relation of authority and submission between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but only perfect agreement among them, each willing redemption according to His mode of subsistence. In time, however, Christ, according to His human nature, submitted to and obeyed God’s commands in the covenant of redemption. This must be carefully articulated because God only has one will, but authority and submission imply two wills, which would imply parts and divisions in God. Therefore, a relationship of authority and submission only exists between the will of God and the will of the incarnate Christ. The Lord Jesus submitted to God’s will, not according to His divine nature, but according to His human nature. In Luke 22:42, Jesus prayed to God, saying, “Not my will, but yours, be done.”

The Promises of the Covenant of Redemption. God made a number of promises to Christ in the covenant of redemption. He promised to appoint Christ to be the Prophet by whom the Father “has spoken” (Heb. 1:2), the Priest who satisfies God’s justice by “making purification for sins” (Heb. 1:3), and the King who “upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Heb. 1:3) and who “loved righteousness and hated wickedness” (Heb. 1:9). God promised Jesus a human body (Heb. 10:5) so He could identify with human beings, be tempted like them, sympathetically endure the weaknesses of human nature, and die as their substitute (Heb. 2:14–18). God also promised to anoint Christ with the Holy Spirit (Isa. 42:1). The Holy Spirit equipped Christ in His office as Mediator and strengthened Him for obedience through suffering to fulfill all righteousness (Heb. 5:8) and to accomplish redemption through His death and resurrection (Heb. 2:9–10).

The Essence of the Covenant of Redemption. It is crucial to understand that the terms of the covenant of redemption were not terms of grace, but terms of works that were required to satisfy divine justice for the redemption of the elect. For Christ, the covenant of redemption was a strict covenant of works, though God gave Christ many gifts in this covenant, and it resulted in grace for God’s beloved people. Christ willingly agreed to obey God’s commands in the covenant of redemption to earn its blessing for Himself in His own resurrection to eternal life, and to earn every life blessing for His chosen people. Edward Fisher rightly notes,

And thus did our Lord Jesus Christ enter into the same [terms of the] Covenant of Works that Adam did to deliver believers from it: He was contented to be under all that commanding, revenging authority, which that covenant had over them, to free them from the penalty of it; and in that respect, Adam is said to be a type of Christ, as you have it (Rom 5:14), who was the type of him to come.51

Though the covenant of redemption was a covenant of works for Christ, it was a covenant of free and pure grace to the elect. Christ’s satisfaction of divine justice in this covenant purchased the redemption of the elect, which is the legal ground upon which the Holy Spirit necessarily applies Christ’s redemption to the elect at the appointed times by uniting them to Christ in the covenant of grace. Christ accomplished redemption by His meritorious works, while the elect receive redemption by free grace alone in the covenant of grace.

Paul explains the connection between the covenant of works (with Adam) and the covenant of redemption (with Christ) in Romans 5. Adam failed to merit the blessing of the covenant of works, but Jesus Christ merited the blessings of the covenant of redemption, which include all of His saving graces to His people. Romans 5:18–19 says, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 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.” Adam sinned against the covenant of works and incurred condemnation and death for all in him. But Christ obeyed the covenant of redemption, obtaining justification and life for all in Him. This is why Second London Confession 8.5 says,

The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit once offered up to God, has fully satisfied the justice of God, procured reconciliation, and purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father has given unto Him.

The Terms of the Covenant of Redemption. The incarnate Lord Jesus perfectly obeyed the terms of this covenant. The Bible teaches that Christ agreed to keep God’s moral law, summarized in the Ten Commandments and required of Adam in the covenant of works, along with all of the laws of the old covenant. Christ said, “Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matt. 5:17–18). After making this statement, Christ proceeded to expound on the Ten Commandments in the Sermon on the Mount.

Christ not only obeyed God’s moral law, but He also obeyed all the unique positive commands of the covenant of redemption, including the commands of the Sinai covenant (since He was an offspring of Abraham and born into the old covenant), as well as God’s command that He die a substitutionary death for His people. Galatians 4:4–5 says, “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.”

The Probation of the Covenant of Redemption. Just as God tested Adam in the probation of the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:4–6), so also the Holy Spirit tested Christ in the wilderness and throughout His earthly life. But where Adam sinned, Christ obeyed. Matthew 4:1 says, “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.” Hebrews 4:15 says, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” Hebrews 5:7 says, “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.”

Christ’s probation was crucial to His work of redemption. In order to obey God’s law, Jesus had to be sufficiently tempted to break God’s law, or else He would not have been able to obey it over and against every opportunity to sin against it. Christ’s temptations gave Him the necessary opportunities to break each aspect of God’s law, but they also gave Him every opportunity to keep it. Though Jesus was tempted to break the terms of the covenant of redemption, He never once sinned inwardly or outwardly, but obeyed God in perfect holiness (Heb. 4:15). Indeed, because Jesus is God the Son, the very second person of the Godhead, He was impeccable, which means He could not have sinned. Yet He was truly tempted. Hebrews 5:8–9 says, “Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation.” Jesus learned the way of obedience through temptation and suffering. He obeyed the fullness of God’s law, and in that way He became a perfect representative for us and so merited our eternal life, accomplishing our redemption.

Why was this probation necessary? In order to obtain justification, eternal life, and glorification, Christ not only needed to die for our sins, but He had to accomplish perfect obedience to the law, which means He had to have every opportunity to break the law, and every opportunity to keep it. Unlike Adam, who failed his probation in the garden of Eden through the temptation of the devil, Jesus passed through His probation during His earthly life in perfect holiness, thus rendering active obedience to the whole law of God. Christ’s active obedience (keeping the law) and passive obedience (suffering), in turn, are together Christ’s whole righteousness and the ground of our total redemption, the substance of our justification before God, and the legal basis and cause of the Spirit’s righteous work in sinful people to make them holy.

The Effects of Christ’s Obedience in the Covenant
of Redemption

Christ Overcame the Curse of the Covenant of Works. Christ’s obedience in the covenant of redemption overcame the curse of the covenant of works. His death on the cross paid the penalty of the covenant of works and satisfied God’s eternal wrath. Christ’s elect people will not go to hell because of His perfect life and substitutionary death. But Christ not only overcame the curse for individuals, He also overcame the curse upon all of creation (Rom. 8:18–22). One day, in the new heavens and the new earth, there will be no suffering or misery of any kind (Rev. 21:4) because all of creation will be consummated under Christ (Col. 1:20).

Christ Secured the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace. Christ’s obedience in the covenant of redemption is also the ground upon which God established the covenant of grace and its blessings for His chosen people (Rom. 8:32–39; Gal. 2:20). Because of Christ’s work in the covenant of redemption, God joins His people to Christ in the covenant of grace, in which they are regenerated, converted, justified, adopted, sanctified, preserved, and glorified.52 The covenant of grace bestows Christ’s merited blessings upon His people. But the covenant of grace benefits not only human beings, but also the whole created order. In the new heavens and the new earth, there will be a new and perfect society, which is nothing other than the church triumphant, in a world where the spiritual and material realms are closely joined! This material world will no longer reel with disaster and decay but will be constant and joyful, a means by which God’s people will enjoy Him forever. All of this is the fruit and blessing of Christ’s obedience to the covenant of redemption, which flows from the covenant of grace.

Christ’s Work in the Covenant of Redemption Leads to Worship. God’s people respond to Christ’s great and gracious work in this covenant by worshiping Him. In Romans 8:31–37, the apostle Paul says the following about Christ’s work in the covenant of redemption:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 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. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? . . . No in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

Thanks be to the great God of heaven and earth who accomplished the salvation of His people by His Son’s work in the covenant of redemption and who will certainly apply all Christ’s benefits to them by the Holy Spirit in the covenant of grace. To Him be the glory forever and ever!

The Covenant of Grace

The covenant of grace refers to God’s sworn oath to save His chosen people from the curse of the covenant of works on the basis of Christ’s work in the covenant of redemption. In the covenant of grace, the Holy Spirit applies what Christ accomplished in the covenant of redemption. The covenant of redemption is the legal foundation of the covenant of grace. Every blessing of life God gives to His people in the covenant of grace comes on the basis of Christ’s work in the covenant of redemption. How can God justly give the blessing of life to sinful people through the covenant of grace when all they deserve legally is punishment and death? He can do so because Christ paid their legal penalties and obtained their legal benefit in the covenant of redemption. The only way God can justly pronounce sinners justified (the verdict of life) and make sinners more and more sanctified (the actual gift of life) in the covenant of grace is because Christ satisfied divine justice for them in the covenant of redemption, freeing God from the charge of injustice when He gives life to sinners in the covenant of grace (Rom. 3:26). And because Christ merited eternal life for the elect in the covenant of redemption, God the Spirit is now legally bound and self-obligated to give them every life blessing, including justification (the life verdict), sanctification (inward life), and glorification (life eternal).

The covenant of grace is a doctrine that shows, from Genesis to Revelation, that there is only one gospel, one saving promise, which announces Jesus Christ crucified for sinners and risen from the dead. The Old Testament points forward to Christ in various types and shadows, while the New Testament reveals Him explicitly. The covenant of grace is the doctrine that declares there is only one gracious saving promise in the Bible, the gospel of Jesus Christ, that weaves like a golden thread through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

A Biblical and Theological Argument for One Covenant
of Grace

Scripture teaches that the new covenant saved saints who were under the old covenant. In covenant theology, the new covenant is nothing other than the fullest historical revelation of the covenant of grace. Another way of putting it is that the covenant of grace in the Old Testament was the seed of the new covenant. The new covenant is the covenant of grace in full bloom. The covenant of grace is the new covenant, and the new covenant is the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace is not additional, overarching, or distinct from the new covenant. Rather, in the old covenant, the covenant of grace was nothing other than the power of the new covenant reaching back into history. Membership in the covenant of grace, or the new covenant, is nothing other than saving union with Christ. Hebrews 9:15 helps us to see this when it says, “Therefore, he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant” (emphasis added).

Hebrews 9:15 is an important text for understanding the covenant of grace because it explains that Christ’s mediation and death in the new covenant saved believers under the first covenant. Old covenant saints, therefore, were not saved by the Old Testament covenants with Israel (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic), but by Christ and His work in the new covenant, which is what God promised through the revelation of the old covenant. Another way of putting it is that there was a retroactive application of the redemptive benefits of Christ for the old covenant believer that they received in their day. Old Testament saints, during their earthly lives, were savingly united to Christ as members of the covenant of grace and therefore regenerated, converted, justified, sanctified, and preserved in faith.

The Old Testament covenants with Israel could not save because membership in them was not union with Christ. Their purpose was to sustain the physical line of the promised offspring, preserving the people of Israel, and giving them temporal life until the promised Christ came from them. It was impossible for the Old Testament sacrifices of bulls and goats to take away sins before God for eternal salvation (Heb. 10:4). Old Testament sacrifices did, however, purify the flesh and forgive ceremonial violations against the ceremonial law of the old covenant so that the people of Israel could worship at the earthly temple (Heb. 9:13). The blood of bulls and goats, along with all of the types and shadows of the Old Testament covenants, actually revealed the promise of a different covenant, the covenant of grace, which was not the same as the Old Testament covenants themselves, but was the new covenant proclaimed in the old for the salvation of God’s people. This promise of the new covenant, ratified in the blood of Jesus, has always been the only way of salvation.

Second London Confession 7.3 describes the covenant of grace:

This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.

This paragraph teaches that the promise of the covenant of grace was first revealed in Genesis 3:15, and then “by farther steps” throughout the Old Testament. But the covenant of grace was fully revealed in Christ through the new covenant. Therefore, the elect of all ages have been saved by this one covenant of grace, which is nothing other than God’s saving oath in the new covenant.

Some may wonder how the Old Testament saints could be saved by the new covenant, since the elect of the Old Testament were never required to obey new covenant positive laws about public worship, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, local church government, or the distinctive mission of the new covenant. How could Old Testament saints be saved by the new covenant when they were not under the distinctive positive laws of that covenant? First, because the distinctive laws of the new covenant are not what save us. Second, Hebrews 8:6 says that at the death of Christ, the new covenant “is enacted” (legally established). The positive laws of the new covenant only come into effect at the death of Christ. Prior to its legal enactment at the cross, God did not require the elect to obey new covenant positive laws, but they were saved by its promises by virtue of new covenant revelation in the types and shadows of the old covenant (Heb. 8:5; 10:1; 12:22–24). Old covenant believers were saved by faith in the coming Messiah, whom the types and shadows prefigured and preached.

The New Testament. To understand the promises of the covenant of grace in the Old and New Testaments, we must begin with the promises of the new covenant. This is how we should read the Bible. Later revelation guides our understanding of earlier revelation. Hebrews 8:8–12, quoting from Jeremiah 31:31–34, expresses the unconditional and inviolable promises of the new covenant, the covenant of grace. It is set in contrast to the conditional and breakable nature of the old covenant:

For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”

These glorious words say that God made a new covenant “for they did not continue in my covenant” (Heb. 8:9, emphasis added). The old covenant, which God made with Abraham and Israel, was a breakable covenant. Its promises did not guarantee that any individual Israelite would continue in the covenant. That’s why God made a new covenant with better promises, promises that effectually save and preserve every individual member. Hebrews 8:6 says, “But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.”

Verse 8 gives a name to the people of the new covenant. It says God makes the new covenant with “the house of Israel,” showing that the church of the new covenant is true Israel. The Bible confirms that the new covenant is made with the church in a number of other places. Jesus said, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20). Since the Lord’s Supper is an ordinance of the church, we know that the new covenant is made with the church, not with geopolitical Israel (1 Cor. 11:25). God also calls the church “Abraham’s offspring” (Gal. 3:29), showing that the church is true Israel. Galatians 6:16 says, “And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” (emphasis added). In other words, those who walk according to “this rule” (the church) are “the Israel of God” because of the case agreement between the pronoun “them” and the noun “Israel.” Thus, God does not have two different peoples, Israel and the church. He only has one people.53 The people of the new covenant, including Old Testament saints and New Testament saints, are true Israel. All the promises of God in the Old Testament find their final and ultimate fulfillment in Christ and in the church, His true people.

Hebrews 8:8–12 tells us that there are four promises in this covenant of grace.

First, everyone in the covenant of grace is effectually called. God unites His people to Christ and so makes them members of the new covenant by virtue of their effectual calling. Every other blessing of the new covenant stems from this initial grace. In verse 10, God says, “I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” This is the covenant formula of the Bible. In the old covenant, there was a shadow of this promise, in that God was king over the nation of Israel. But the formula of the new covenant, unlike the old, refers to the certain salvation of God’s people. Every member of the covenant of grace will be saved and enter into eternal glory. “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God” (Rev. 21:3). Second London Confession 10.1 helpfully summarizes effectual calling:

Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, He is pleased in His appointed, and accepted 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 to them a 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.

Second, everyone in the covenant of grace is converted (by faith and repentance). Hebrews 8:11 says that everyone in the new covenant “shall know the Lord.” The word “know” refers to a saving knowledge of Christ, which includes conversion. The old covenant contained believers and unbelievers, saved and unsaved. But the covenant of grace only has believers in it. Everyone in the covenant of grace, in the time of both testaments, knows Christ, communes with Him, and delights in Him. This is Christ’s own interpretation of Jeremiah 31:34. In John 6:45, He refers to this passage and says, “It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.”

Third, everyone in the covenant of grace is justified. That is because the covenant of grace is based on Christ’s effectual atonement. Hebrews 9:12 explains that Christ “entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (emphasis added). The blood of the new covenant, the covenant of grace, effectually secures redemption for everyone in this covenant and thus secures their justification. Scripture says, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). Hebrews 8 tells us that every member of the covenant of grace is forgiven of his sins (Heb. 8:12). Second London Confession 11.1 gives a wonderful description of the Reformed and biblical doctrine of justification. It says,

Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.

Fourth, everyone in the covenant of grace is being progressively sanctified. He puts His laws into their minds. He writes (literally “carves”) them on the hearts of the covenant members. The word “law” here refers to the Ten Commandments, which God carved on tablets of stone in the first covenant but carves on human hearts in the second covenant. Under the old covenant, God commanded His people to put His law upon their hearts (Deut. 6:6). But in the covenant of grace, He writes His law upon our hearts so that we freely and willingly obey it more and more (Ps. 110:3). In the covenant of grace, God causes us to want to obey His law because Christ has won our hearts and called us to faithful obedience. Second London Confession 13.1 describes sanctification this way:

They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally, through the same virtue, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts of it are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

Even though these promises are most fully revealed in the established new covenant, they were first given during the time of the old covenant. Ephesians 2:12 speaks of “the [Old Testament] covenants of [in Greek] the promise.” The Old Testament covenants were not themselves “the promise.” Rather, they were covenants of the promise. They carried the promise of an offspring. They preserved the line of promise. They revealed, declared, and pointed to the promise of Jesus Christ to come in the new covenant. And that promise, or oath, of the new covenant is the only promise by which anyone was ever saved in the Old Testament or New.

The Old Testament. Consider that God first gave the promise of the covenant of grace in Genesis 3:15, after Adam and Eve sinned in the garden of Eden. He said to the serpent, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” The ungodly offspring of Satan strive against the godly offspring of the woman. We see this strife played out in Cain’s murder of Abel (Gen. 4). Then we see God providing further offspring in Seth, whose name means “elect.” The woman’s “offspring” include all believers in the Old Testament from whom Christ would ultimately come (Luke 3:23–38). Thus, the woman’s “offspring” ultimately refers to Christ (Gal. 3:16), who will finally deal the death blow to Satan at the cross and undo the curse of sin and condemnation.

There are echoes of this first gospel found in the New Testament as well. Romans 16:20 says, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” And 1 Corinthians 15:25 says, “For he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” Hebrews 2:14 says, “Through death he [Christ] might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil.” Genesis 3:15 is often called the protoevangelium (first gospel) because that is where God preached the gospel (good news) of the covenant of grace for the first time in the Bible. John Owen declared that in this first gospel promise “the whole covenant of grace was virtually comprised.”54

In Isaiah 61:8–10, we read, “I will make an everlasting covenant with them. . . . I will greatly rejoice in the Lord; my soul shall exult in my God, for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation; he has covered me with the robe of righteousness as a bridegroom decks himself with a beautiful headdress, and as a bride adorns herself with jewels.” Here is God’s promise to establish an “everlasting covenant” with His people in which they will receive Christ’s “garments of salvation” and “robe of righteousness.” This seems to be a clear revelation of the covenant of grace.

In Habakkuk 2:4, the prophet utters some of the most delightful words found in the Bible: “The righteous shall live by his faith.” In its immediate context, this refers to God saving a remnant from Nebuchadnezzar’s razing of Jerusalem. Those who had faith in God’s promise were spared. It would not be their obedience to the law that would save them; rather, they would be saved by faith. Hundreds of years after that, the apostle Paul understood that this passage was an old covenant type of justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Habakkuk’s words point to nothing other than the good news that sinners are justified, or declared righteous, not on the basis of their works, but by grace through faith alone.

Paul used Habakkuk’s words as the thesis of his treatise to the Romans: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it, the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith’” (Rom. 1:16-17). The book of Romans is about how justification is at the center of the gospel. It teaches that sinners are justified on the ground of Christ’s righteousness alone, received by faith alone.

Paul quoted Habakkuk 2:4 again in his letter to the Galatians: “Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by law, for ‘The righteous shall live by faith’” (Gal. 3:11). So we see that the promise of justification by faith alone in the covenant of grace was revealed under the old covenant and every person who was ever saved under the old covenant was declared righteous because of Christ’s righteousness, His obedience and blood, as the mediator of the new covenant. That is the central promise of the covenant of grace.

Some Instances of Personal Salvation by the One Covenant
of Grace in the Old Testament

Noah. In Genesis 6:8–9, God graciously saved Noah through this same covenant of grace. It says, “But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. . . . Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.” Notice the order. First, Noah received God’s grace or favor (v. 8), and then, “Noah walked with God” (v. 9). First comes God’s gracious application of His saving promise, and second Noah becomes holy and walks with God. Throughout the Bible, God’s grace precedes any human response to the covenant of grace.

Hebrews 11:7 also speaks of Noah’s salvation. It says he “became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.” Even before Christ came into the world, Noah received Christ’s righteousness by faith alone. He looked forward to Christ’s coming, and Christ’s graces were retroactive to save him (Heb. 9:15), and thus Noah was saved by faith in Christ. Peter calls Noah “a herald [preacher] of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5). He lived among a wicked people, but God’s covenant of grace saved him, and he was changed into a man of God.

Abraham. Genesis 15:6 says of Abraham, “And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” God forgave Abraham of his sins and clothed him in Christ’s righteousness. The New Testament tells us that God’s promise to Abraham was the “gospel” proclaimed to Abraham in the Old Testament. Galatians 3:8 says, “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham.”

Romans 4:1–5 teaches something similar about Abraham:

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work, but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.

Hebrews 11:10 confirms that Abraham “was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.” He was looking for “a better country, that is, a heavenly one” (Heb. 11:16). Not only was Abraham saved by grace through faith, but all of the patriarchs were as well (Matt. 22:32).

Moses. In Exodus 15:2, after God delivered Israel from Egyptian captivity, Moses wrote a song saying, “The Lord is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation; this is my God and I will praise him, my father’s God and I will exalt him.” Moses was not only singing about his temporal salvation from Egypt. Hebrews 11:26–27 says, “He [Moses] considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible.” Moses left Egypt by faith in Christ! He knew and understood the promise of Genesis 3:15. He was looking forward to his eternal reward with the “invisible” Christ. Moses believed God’s promise, and God saved him by grace alone through faith alone on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone, well before Christ came into this world to accomplish redemption.

As the author of the first five books of the Bible, Moses was thoroughly acquainted with the covenant of grace. God had taught Moses the history of salvation, and Moses preached this gospel to God’s people. Sadly, the vast majority of the nation did not believe. Hebrews 4:2 tells us, “For good news [the gospel] came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them because they were not united by faith with those who listened.”

David. Psalm 32:1–5 is one of the great declarations of the gospel in the Old Testament. It is a psalm of David in which he says,

Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man against whom the Lord counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. . . . I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,” and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.

God saved David, not through animal sacrifices of the old covenant or on the basis of his good works. Rather, God saved David by forgiving his sins completely (justification) and by giving him a renewed spirit (sanctification) on the basis of Christ’s work. Paul quotes this psalm in Romans 4 and says that “David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works” (Rom. 4:6). This too is the covenant of grace, which saved God’s chosen people under the old covenant.

Psalm 51:14–17 is also about David’s salvation by grace through faith. It says,

Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, O God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of your righteousness. O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise. For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

David understands that God saves him not by his own righteousness but by God’s righteousness. He understands that animal sacrifices cannot eternally save him. What saves is a humble heart that trusts in God rather than in oneself. David also understood the proper function of the old covenant sacrificial system. In Psalm 51:7, he says, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” David knew that no old covenant sacrifice could atone for his sins of murder and adultery, and he appeals to the old covenant sacrificial ceremony of cleansing a leper (purging with hyssop) for God to purge him of his sin. David knew he needed forgiveness beyond the ceremonial cleansing of the old covenant, though that same ceremonial system taught him that he needed atonement of his moral transgressions.

In the Covenant of Grace but Not in the Abrahamic, Mosaic, or Davidic Covenants

Many in the Old Testament were saved by God’s covenant of grace but were never in the covenant of circumcision, or the old covenant. The Old Testament manifestation of the covenant of grace was not limited to the covenants with Abraham, Moses, and David, and membership in those covenants was not necessary to being in the covenant of grace. This fact proves that the covenant of grace in the Old Testament was not identical with or tied to any outward, structural, tribal or national covenant. Consider these examples:

Pre-Abrahamic Patriarchs—Adam, Eve, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah (Gen. 3–6): God saved Adam and Eve and they taught their children about true worship. Abel worshiped the one true God. Seth continued the line of promise who called upon the name of the Lord. Enoch walked with God and was taken into heaven. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
Melchizedek (Gen. 14): He worshiped the one true God. He was the king of righteousness in Jerusalem.
Jethro (Ex. 18): The Midianite father-in-law of Moses trusted in the one true God.
Caleb (Num. 32:12): The great hero of Judah was a Kenizzite, from one of the Canaanite tribes (Gen. 15:19).
Rahab (Josh. 2): She was a Canaanite prostitute who was converted to worship the Lord.
Ruth the Moabite: One of the major themes of the book of Ruth is that she was a Moabite, not an Israelite.
Queen of Sheba (1 Kings 10): She seems to have trusted and worshiped the Israelite God, though not herself an Israelite.
Widow of Zarapeth (1 Kings 17): The poor widow was supplied with food by Elijah and trusted the Lord, but she was not an Israelite.
Naaman (2 Kings 5): The Aramean commander came to Elisha for healing and trusted in the Lord, but he was not in the covenant of circumcision.
Job: The nationality of Job and his friends is not known, but they hailed from the location of Edom. Job, a man of great faith, was not an Israelite.
Sailors in Jonah (Jonah 1:16): The sailors who threw Jonah into the sea feared the Lord, even though they were not Israelites and formerly worshiped false gods.
People of Nineveh (Jonah 3): The people of Nineveh believed God at the preaching of Jonah.

Thus, the covenant of grace reaches far beyond the boundaries of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. While those covenants revealed the covenant of grace, and carried the line of Christ, they were not themselves saving covenants.

The Nature of the Covenant of Grace

The Parties of the Covenant of Grace. The two parties of the covenant of grace are (1) God and (2) His elect people. God is the first party, and He lovingly initiates the covenantal relationship. God powerfully joins His people to Christ in their effectual calling and proceeds to give them Christ’s inheritance. God’s elect people are the second party who always willingly respond to God’s initiative. They trust in Christ, receive His righteousness, and keep His commandments, loving God and loving others because God first loved them. The apostle John captures the covenantal relationship between the two parties and shows how the Father initiates, while God’s people certainly respond: “By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers” (1 John 3:16); “Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:11); “So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 John 4:16); “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19).

The Nature of the Covenant of Grace. At the heart of this covenant is grace, which is a free gift from God to His people. The Bible tells us that the covenant of grace has the form of a will or testament (Heb. 9:15–17). Membership in this covenant and the gifts of this covenant do not depend on any preconditions in Christ’s people. Rather, Christ died for His people and willed that His inheritance be given freely to His beloved bride. As a testament, the covenant only has free promises in it. Christ died, and His people receive His inheritance as a promise. The covenant of grace does not have any curses, only gracious blessings (Heb. 8:8–12). In The Marrow of Modern Divinity, Edward Fisher writes,

And in this covenant there is not any condition or law to be performed on man’s part, by himself; no, there is no more for him to do, but only to know and believe that Christ hath done all for him. . . . I beseech you to be persuaded that here you are to work nothing, here you are to do nothing, here you are to render nothing unto God, but only to receive the treasure, which is Jesus Christ, and apprehend him in your heart by faith.55

The covenant of grace is not like the covenant of works or the covenant of redemption. Those were covenants of strict justice. In the covenant of grace, however, God’s sinful people cannot obtain blessings on the terms of strict justice. Rather, Christ alone deserves the blessings of this covenant. Having purchased every blessing in the covenant of redemption, He gives all of them freely to His chosen people in the covenant of grace.

In the covenant of works, God made demands of Adam without ensuring that Adam would obey. In the covenant of grace, however, God freely gives all things necessary for life and godliness, guaranteeing the preservation and perseverance of everyone in the covenant of grace (1 Cor. 1:4–8; 15:10; Phil. 1:6; Heb. 13:20–21). Second London Confession 17.2 says,

This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

The Covenant of Grace as Unconditional. The covenant of grace is unconditional. God unconditionally brings His people into it. The Spirit unites them to Christ in their effectual calling, gives them the gift of regeneration (Titus 3:5), and then grants them the free gift of faith (Eph. 2:8; Phil 1:29). He graciously declares them righteous by faith alone (Rom. 3:28; 4:5) and freely gives them the gift of the Spirit who makes them more and more like Christ over time (1 Cor. 15:10) and able to enjoy more and more communion with Him. He preserves them in this great salvation, keeping them from finally falling away (1 Peter 1:5). In the end, He glorifies them, making them into the very image of Christ, incorruptible in soul and body, and dwells with them forever in heaven (1 Thess. 5:23–24). These are God’s certain gracious blessings to His beloved people. We can see these gifts summarized in the “golden chain” of salvation found in Romans 8:29–30: “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified, he also glorified.”

These blessings, however, come in a definite order, and in that sense alone the later blessings are conditioned upon the previous ones. Faith can be said to be the condition of justification (Rom. 5:1) only because faith, as resting in and receiving Christ, comes before justification. Both faith and justification are given freely by God, but God effectually gives faith before He gives justification. Therefore, “faith” may be said to precede justification as the instrument of justification, but it is not a cause or legal ground of justification.

Similarly, growth in sanctification is the condition of growing in fellowship with Christ (John 14:21). Here again, God effectually gives both sanctification and fellowship with Christ freely and absolutely, but He gives one before the other, logically speaking, such that there is a connection and correspondence between them. Holiness, likewise, comes before we see God in glory (Heb. 12:14). Therefore, holiness can be said to be necessary for eternal glory, but only in the sense that God gives one before the other, grace upon grace, the first grace fitting and preparing us for the second. Scripture says, “He became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him” (Heb. 5:9). That is because our obedience in sanctification precedes eternal life in heaven.

The Bible further teaches that faithful, loving, and humble good works must be present for us to receive God’s favorable verdict on judgment day (John 5:29; Matt. 25:31–36; Gal. 6:8-9; Rev. 20:12) because they are evidence of Christ’s work in us (James 2:18). The good works of a believer do not in themselves deserve God’s favorable verdict of not guilty and righteous on judgment day; rather, they prove and demonstrate our union with Christ and point to and glorify Him and His gracious work in us. God provides each of these graces, powerfully and effectively, in His elect people, but He produces them in a definite order. Only in that sense are there conditions in the covenant of grace. They are not conditions for receiving the blessing of the covenant, but conditions for those who have already received the blessing. It is not a condition that can disinherit us from the blessing. But it is a condition of order and of fitness within the covenant from one grace to the next, though each is an absolute grace from God.

The fact that God gives all of these free blessings does not imply that we are not responsible to exercise our minds and wills to do them ourselves. We should never wait to feel that God is working in us before we obey His revealed commands. God commands us to believe (Mark 1:15), but faith is God’s gift (Eph. 2:8–9). So we must exercise belief, but we do so knowing that God is at work in us. God commands us to repent (Mark 1:15). So we are responsible to repent, but we do so knowing that God gives the gift of repentance freely to His people (Acts 5:31; 11:18), and we deserve no credit for it. God requires us to obey His commandments (John 14:15), but our obedience flows from the work of the Holy Spirit within us (John 14:16; 1 Cor. 15:10). So we are required to strive under grace and exert effort to believe, repent, and obey all of God’s commandments, but when we do, we have no reason to feel proud because we know that God works them all in us. He gets all the glory. Philippians 2:12–13 says, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

The Effects of the Covenant of Grace

The Free Offer of the Gospel. Though the parties in the covenant of grace are God and His elect people alone, the covenant also extends a free offer of salvation to all men without exception or distinction. The gospel proclaims the promises of this covenant to the children of believers, to our communities, and to every tribe and tongue. God invites, outwardly calls, and commands all men to come to Christ for salvation. In Isaiah 45:22, God says, “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.” Acts 17:30 says, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” Revelation 22:17 says, “The Spirit and the Bride say ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.” The Second London Confession 7.2 says, “It pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.”

The Salvation of the Elect. The covenant of grace completely saves all of God’s beloved elect people. Not one of them is lost. They are saved, made into Christ’s likeness, and finally given new bodies in the resurrection to eternal life. In John 6:37, Christ says, “All that the Father gives to me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” In John 10:27–29, He says, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” And 2 Thessalonians 2:13–14 says, “But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers, beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Thus the covenant of grace ensures the salvation of the elect.

The Establishment of the Church. God not only saves individuals, but He gathers them together into local churches where they will hear His Word proclaimed, worship Him publicly according to His commandments, and fellowship with His people. In the new covenant, God joins His people in individual local churches (Acts 16:5), which are particular expressions of the one universal church (Eph. 5:29).

The New Heaven and New Earth. The final reward of God to His chosen people is found in the new heaven and new earth in which only righteousness dwells. There the curse will be completely lifted. God will give every blessing to His people and dwell with them in perfect fellowship and love. Revelation 21:1–4 says,

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

This is the fullest and final blessing of the covenant of grace. In the new heaven and the new earth, God completes His plan to reverse the effects of Adam’s first sin and overturn the curse of the covenant of works. God will make all things new and perfectly restore what was lost in the fall. The new heaven and the new earth are a perfect and glorified creation filled with perfect and glorified saints who will worship Jesus Christ to all eternity.

Conclusion

The Reformed grammatical, historical, and theological hermeneutic, discussed earlier in connection with confessionalism, sees three overarching covenants in the Bible that deal with eternal life. In the covenant of works, Adam broke God’s law and deserved eternal condemnation and death. In the covenant of redemption, Jesus Christ perfectly obeyed God’s law to accomplish the redemption of His chosen people. In the covenant of grace, the Holy Spirit applies Christ’s work, imputing Christ’s perfect law-keeping for their justification (obedience and death) and working in them to keep the law more and more for their sanctification and communion with God.

These three covenants are essential to confessional Reformed orthodoxy as they form the backbone of the Bible and serve as the theological grid through which the Scriptures are to be read. When these covenants are rejected, Reformed theology itself and all of its most cherished doctrines are threatened. As we will see in the next chapter, these theological covenants are the basis of the Reformed law/gospel hermeneutic, which in turn is the basis of Reformed confessional preaching and piety.

40. There are several excellent book-length Reformed Baptist treatments of covenant theology. For a wonderful comparison of English Particular Baptist covenant theology with paedobaptist covenant theology, see Pascal Denault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism, revised edition (Vestavia Hills: Solid Ground, 2013). For a biblical and theological defense of a Reformed Baptist covenant theology, see Samuel Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom (Cape Coral: Founders, 2019). For a wonderfully well-researched historical discussion of the covenant theology of early English Particular Baptists, see Samuel D. Renihan, From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642–1704) (Regent’s Park College: Oxford, 2018).
41. Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Overland Park: Two Ages, 2000), 2.
42. As quoted in Peter Golding, Covenant Theology: The Key of Theology in Reformed Thought and Tradition (Scotland, UK: Christian Focus, 2004), 9.
43. Nehemiah Coxe, A Discourse of the Covenants (London: J.D., 1681), 21.
44. Three excellent works on the covenant of works include John Colquhoun, The Covenant of Works (Orlando: Northampton, 2021); Richard C. Barcellos, Getting the Garden Right: Adam’s Work and God’s Rest in Light of Christ (Cape Coral: Founders, 2017); John Colquhoun, The Covenant of Works (Orlando: Northampton, 1821, reprint 2021); Rowland S. Ward, God and Adam: Reformed Theology and the Creation Covenant (Wantirna, Australia: Melbourne Press, 2002).
45. If we define “grace” as God’s demerited favor, then there is no grace before the fall. But if we define “grace” as God’s unmerited kindness, then we can say that God graciously established the covenant of works, even though its terms were terms of strict justice and works.
46. For a wonderful recent discussion of the covenant of redemption, see J.V. Fesko, The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption (Fearn: Mentor, 2016). For an older treatment, see Samuel Willard, The Covenant of Redemption (Orlando: Northampton, 1693, reprint 2022).
47. Coxe, A Discourse of the Covenants, 36.
48. The original Hebrew of Psalm 40:6 reads “you have given me an open ear,” not “you have prepared for me a body.” But both phrases are found in the Bible, so both are inspired. In the original Hebrew of Psalm 40:6, the Father prepared Christ’s ears so that they would hear all His commandments. When the book of Hebrews refers to Psalm 40:6, we learn that the Father’s preparation was not only limited to Christ’s ears but extended to His whole body as well.
49. John Owen, Exposition of Hebrews, in The Works of John Owen, D.D. (Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1850–1855), 19:85.
50. Emphasis added in this paragraph.
51. Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Scotland: Christian Focus, 2009), 65.
52. This is why the unconverted elect are still “in Adam” and are not eternally justified. Though Christ paid for our sin at the cross, the Holy Spirit only brings us into union with Christ, in the covenant of grace, at our effectual calling.
53. While in the time of the old covenant, God did have a typological kingdom in which He reigned over national Israel, that covenant has been fulfilled and abrogated with the coming of Christ. During that time, God had two peoples. He had an outward, physical typological nation, but He also had His true people, the elect, eschatological Israel.
54. John Owen, Justification by Faith, in The Works of John Owen, D.D. (Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1850–1855), 5:193.
55. Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Scotland, UK: Christian Focus, 2009), 132.

The Law and the Gospel

We have seen that the three overarching covenants of works, redemption, and grace summarize the whole counsel of God. But they also give rise to the law/gospel contrast, on which the great Reformed doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone is based. It teaches that, in Christ, we are not justified by our works of the law, but on the basis of Christ’s works of obedience to the law. In other words, we are not justified by the law but by the gospel. The Reformed doctrine of sanctification by grace through faith is based on the gospel/law continuum in sanctification. In sanctification, the gospel frees us to obey God’s good law more and more, under grace—not to clear our guilt or obtain righteousness, but to know Christ more, to enjoy Him, and to reflect Him to others.

Understanding biblical and Reformed covenant theology, together with its law/gospel framework, is essential to living a faithful Christian life, to the communion of the saints, and to faithful pastoral ministry. The Bible’s law/gospel theology is one great fruit of Reformed covenant theology. It helps the believer to learn the difference between legal obedience and gospel obedience, between legal faith and gospel faith, between legal repentance and gospel repentance, and between legal works and gospel works. The Christian is on a journey to put off the old legalistic way of life that he lived under Adam and to learn to live faithfully under the grace of the gospel for the glory of Jesus. It takes a lifetime to put the legal temper to death and to put on the gracious, joyful frame of mind that we learn under the gospel of Christ.

Second London Confession 13.3 speaks of the gospel/law continuum in sanctification. It teaches that sanctification involves “pressing after an heavenly life, in evangelical obedience to all the commands” (emphasis added). When the confession was written, “evangelical obedience” (meaning gospel obedience) was a term that was always set in contrast to “legal obedience.” Unless the believer lives upon the finished work of Christ, he will be tempted to return to the law as a means of clearing his guilt, satisfying God, and achieving righteousness. But in Christ, our obedience to God’s law is to be motivated by the gospel of grace, not by trying to clear our guilt, overcome slavish anxieties, or win God’s righteous verdict.

Second London Confession 21.1 speaks of the law/gospel contrast. It says, “The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel, consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the rigor and curse of the law” (emphasis added). The gospel, therefore, frees us from the curse of the law. Second London Confession 19.7 describes the gospel/law continuum, saying, “Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it” (emphasis added). The gospel leads to fulfilling the law.

To understand the law and the gospel, we have to understand that the three overarching covenants of Scripture reveal the law as a covenant (covenant of works), the gospel as a promise (covenant of redemption), and the gospel as a covenant (covenant of grace). We might speak of these covenants more loosely in terms of the law, the gospel, and gospel (or evangelical) obedience. Evangelical obedience in the covenant of grace is faithful obedience to God’s good law on the basis of and in light of Christ’s free and gracious redemption. Or as it has been said: guilt, grace, and gratitude. This law/gospel theology is distinctively Reformed and is the teaching of the Reformed Baptist confessions of faith because it flows directly from the overarching covenants of Reformed theology. Without a clear grasp on this law/gospel theology, rooted in the covenants, Christians will not have all the resources they need to fight off the assaults of Satan, the world, and the flesh, and to live faithfully before God and others.

The Reformed Tradition on Law and Gospel

Proper orthodox Reformed hermeneutics leads to a sound doctrine of law and gospel. In commenting on Romans 10:9, John Calvin wrote the following:

Do you see how he makes this the distinction between law and gospel: that the former attributes righteousness to works, the latter bestows free righteousness apart from the help of works? This is an important passage, and one that can extricate us from many difficulties if we understand that that righteousness which is given us through the gospel has been freed of all conditions of the law.56

Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor in Geneva, said the following about the law and the gospel:

We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the “Law,” the other the “Gospel.” For all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings. . . . Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity.57

He believed “this Word” is divided into law and gospel. He was speaking of hermeneutics. The great Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck said, “But the Word of God, both as law and gospel, is the revelation of the will of God, the promulgation of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.”58 He continued, “God uses His Word to make His will known in the area of morality and spirituality, and it must be differentiated as law and gospel.”59 Bavinck then went on to describe the relationship between the law and the gospel:

The law proceeds from God’s holiness, the gospel from God’s grace; the law is known from nature, the gospel only from special revelation; the law demands perfect righteousness, but the gospel grants it; the law leads people to eternal life by works, and the gospel produces good works from the riches of the eternal life granted in faith; the law presently condemns people, and the gospel acquits them; the law addresses itself to all people, and the gospel only to those who live within its hearing.60

Sadly today, many believe that the distinction between the law and the gospel is a Lutheran distinction. But Louis Berkhof, a Reformed theologian, correctly said,

The churches of the Reformation from the very beginning distinguished between the law and the gospel as the two parts of the Word of God as a means of grace. This distinction was not understood to be identical with that between the Old and the New Testament, but was regarded as a distinction that applies to both testaments.61

Historic Reformed Baptists held firmly to this principle of the Reformation, which is evident throughout their writings. For example, Benjamin Keach wrote,

That doctrine which confounds the terms of the law and the gospel together in point of justification, is a false and corrupt doctrine. But the doctrine that mixes sincere obedience or works of any kind done by us with faith in point of justification, confounds the terms of the law and the gospel together in point of justification; therefore, that doctrine is a false and corrupt doctrine.62

The great English Baptist, Charles Spurgeon, was very strong on the need to distinguish rightly between the law and the gospel. He said,

There is no point upon which men make greater mistakes than upon the relation which exists between the law and the gospel. Some men put the law instead of the gospel: others put the gospel instead of the law; some modify the law and the gospel, and preach neither law nor gospel: and others entirely abrogate the law, by bringing in the gospel. Many there are who think that the law is the gospel, and who teach that men by good works of benevolence, honesty, righteousness, and sobriety, may be saved. Such men do err. On the other hand, many teach that the gospel is a law; that it has certain commands in it, by obedience to which, men are meritoriously saved; such men err from the truth, and understand it not. A certain class maintain that the law and the gospel are mixed, and that partly by observance of the law, and partly by God’s grace, men are saved. These men understand not the truth, and are false teachers.63

In his recent work on covenant theology, Sam Renihan, a Reformed Baptist, has a discussion of the law and the gospel near the beginning of his book. Regarding the doctrinal distinction between law and gospel, he writes,

The law and the gospel are two opposite paths to a righteous standing before God: a perfect record of personal obedience, or a perfect record of imputed obedience. This substantial distinction between the law and the gospel is the foundational bedrock and common denominator of Reformed covenant theology. If rejected, the heart of the “protest” against Rome is rejected.64

If you would like to do some further reading on the doctrine of the law and the gospel, I highly recommend A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel by John Colquhoun.65 Colquhoun (pronounced ka-hoon) held to the Scottish marrow theology, which has sometimes been accused of denying definite atonement or of being a form of sneaky antinomianism. But, in fact, the marrow controversy (1717–1720) was nothing other than a Reformed orthodox and confessional correction to the neonomianism (legalism) that had developed in Scottish Presbyterianism.66 The heart of the marrow theology was to call the church away from legal obedience and to return to evangelical obedience, which is obedience to Christ’s good law in step with the gospel (Gal. 2:14).67

What the Law/Gospel Distinction is Not

The doctrinal distinction between the law and the gospel is not the same as the distinction between the Old and New Testaments. While in a historical sense, there is a proper distinction between the old covenant as law and the new covenant as gospel, that is not what is intended by the doctrinal or theological distinction between law and gospel. Doctrinally speaking, both testaments contain God’s good law and gracious gospel.

Furthermore, the distinction between law and gospel does not deny the absolute importance of the law of God in the life of the believer. Some antinomians wrongly teach that the law is bad while the gospel is good. They say that if the law is preached, it should only preached as a way to convict sinners of guilt in order to prepare them to hear the gospel. When it comes to the sanctification of believers, antinomians think that believers only need to hear the gospel and no longer need the preaching of the imperatives of God’s good law. But as we saw in the chapter on the law of God, the Bible teaches the normative use of the law (third use), which directs the believer in love and good works.

Additionally, the distinction between the law and the gospel does not relegate the gospel to evangelizing unbelievers or appropriate the law by itself to discipling believers. That is legalism. Both law and gospel (the whole Word of God) are necessary for the evangelism of unbelievers and the discipleship of believers. The true distinction between the law and the gospel does not separate them, as though either may be emphasized, taught, or even understood without the other. Rather, the Bible teaches that both the law and the gospel are good and holy and that both are absolutely necessary for the conversion of sinners and the sanctification of saints. Faithful preachers proclaim both law and gospel in their right relationship. That is what it means to proclaim the whole counsel of God.

The Law “Largely Speaking”
and the Law “Strictly Speaking”

To understand the distinction between the law and the gospel, we need to look at the two different ways the Bible speaks of the law; then we will look at the two ways the Bible speaks of the gospel. First, consider the two ways the Bible speaks of the law: “largely” and “strictly.” This distinction can be found in the writings of the English Puritans, including Anthony Burgess, John Colquhoun, and the early Particular Baptist John Gill.

The Law, Largely Speaking

The law, largely speaking, includes God’s law as well as His promise to reward obedience and punish disobedience. The law, in this broad sense, is sometimes called the “law covenant,” which is the covenant of works. What makes the law a covenant is the fact that it has a promise of life attached to its commands. The law, largely speaking, commands perfect obedience and promises eternal life to those who obey it perfectly, but it also threatens eternal death to those who break it.

We find Scripture speaking of the law as a covenant in various passages. Romans 10:5 says, “For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandment shall live by them.” Notice that God promises “life” to those who “do” the commands. Galatians 3:12 says, “The law is not of faith, rather, ‘The one who does them shall live by them.’” Galatians 3:10 threatens the curse of death to those who break the law: “For all who rely on the 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.’” So the law, largely speaking, is the covenant of works, which promised justification and eternal life to perfect obedience of the law but threatens eternal death for any sin at all.

The Law, Strictly Speaking

The law, strictly speaking, is God’s law without any promises or threats attached to it. The law in this sense still comes with God’s authority, but threatens no harm and offers no blessing in itself. This is the “law as a standard” or “rule of life.”

Sometimes this strict law, or non-covenantal law, is called the “naked law” or the “bare law.” The law, strictly speaking, is the moral law summarized in the Ten Commandments as well as any positive laws that God gives to His people. Scripture speaks of the law in this strict sense in several places. In Romans 7:22, Paul says, “For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being.” Romans 8:4 says that Christ came “in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us.” Paul says that we are not “outside the law of God but under the law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21). Believers are told to “fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). James speaks of “the law of liberty” (1:25; 2:12) and the “royal law” (2:8), both of which refer to the Ten Commandments (2:10–11). In the new covenant, the law in its strict sense is written on our hearts. God says, “I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel. . . . I will put my laws into their minds and write them on their hearts” (Heb. 8:8–10). Notice that none of these passages refer to the law as the way to justification and eternal life, but only as a guide, or rule, to direct the believer in his sanctification.

The Gospel “Strictly Speaking”
and the Gospel “Largely Speaking”

Just as we can speak of the law strictly and largely, so also we can speak of the gospel strictly and largely. The gospel strictly is the gospel as a promise, while the gospel largely includes the promise of the gospel in relation to the law as a standard. Consider the difference between the gospel strictly and the gospel largely.

The Gospel, Strictly Speaking

The gospel, strictly speaking, is a pure promise of redemption, and there are no commands involved at all, while the gospel, largely speaking, commands obedience on the basis of God’s promise of eternal life. The gospel, strictly speaking, is nothing other than Christ’s fulfillment of the law in the covenant of redemption by His earthly life of obedience, death on the cross, and resurrection. The gospel, strictly speaking, is the announcement of Christ’s accomplished redemption along with the promises offered on that basis.

Paul says, “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel . . . that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:1–4). This passage speaks of Christ’s keeping of the law as a covenant by His obedience in the covenant of redemption in order to obtain the blessing of eternal life, which included resurrection for Himself and every grace for His people. Where Adam sinned against God’s law in the covenant of works, Jesus obeyed the command to “do this and live” in the covenant of redemption. Jesus perfectly kept all of God’s laws, including the moral law, summarized in the Ten Commandments, as well as the positive laws of the old covenant. He also died for the sins of His people against the law of God, paying the death penalty they deserve, becoming a curse for them on the cross. How do we know that Christ earned eternal life by His obedience? He rose from the dead to an eternal and glorified life! Jesus kept the law to achieve resurrection life. His resurrection proves that He perfectly fulfilled the terms of the law as a covenant in the covenant of redemption.

Scripture often speaks in that strict way about the gospel. For example, Christ “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). “My Father gives you the true bread from heaven” (John 6:32). “This is the promise that he made to us—eternal life” (1 John 2:25). So the gospel, strictly speaking, is about God’s work for us in Christ and the absolutely free gift of our justification and eternal life in Him.

The gospel, strictly speaking, is the reason justification is by faith alone and not by works of obedience to the law. Christ fulfilled the law’s demands in our place and thereby satisfied divine justice, which is why God justifies Christ and all who are in Him by faith alone. No other works can possibly be added to Christ’s justice-satisfying works for our justification because no other works can possibly be necessary. Jesus did it all.

The Gospel, Largely Speaking

While Christians today seem to be able to articulate much of what has been said above, there is a great need to recover the doctrine of “evangelical obedience” as set over and against “legal obedience.” The gospel, largely speaking, is about the framework of “evangelical obedience.” The gospel, largely speaking, is the gospel as the covenant of grace, or the new covenant. It includes a promise of redemption, leading to the commands of the law. This is similar to the way the law, largely speaking, includes promises and commands. But while the law, largely speaking, says “do this and live,” the gospel, largely speaking, says “live and do this.” Notice how the promise of eternal life and commands of the law are inverted under the gospel. The law, largely speaking, says, “Keep all the commandments perfectly, and you will be justified and live forever.” But the gospel, largely speaking, says, “Because of Christ’s obedience, death, and resurrection, you are justified freely and will live forever; now keep His commandments by faith and with the assurance of salvation!” Under the gospel as a covenant (largely speaking), promise of eternal life and redemption comes first, and then come the commandments. This covenantal framework is the structure of “evangelical obedience,” and it is precisely what keeps believers from slipping into false, dead, legal works.68

Consider some passages that teach the gospel, largely speaking. Hebrews 8:6 says that the law of the new covenant is “enacted on better promises.” That is, the commands of the new covenant are based on God’s effectual, saving, and justifying promises, which produce faithful, grateful, loving obedience to God in reverential and filial fear. Additionally, 2 Thessalonians 1:7–8 says to “obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” Romans 10:16 speaks fearfully of those who “have not all obeyed the gospel,” along with 1 Peter 4:17, which says that some “do not obey the gospel of God.” The command to obey the gospel is principally the command to believe on the Lord Jesus, but it includes all of the commands of God in faithfulness to Him. When the Bible speaks of obeying and disobeying the gospel, it is referring to the gospel in this large sense: “Live and do this.”

When people hear and believe the gospel that Christ lovingly died for sinners and rose from the dead so that all who believe in Him will live forever, and they hear the command to believe in Him, to repent of their sins in love for Jesus, and to live grateful lives of obedience to all of His commandments, they will gladly obey. How could they live in sin against such a great Savior? They are completely convinced of Christ’s love for them, so they know that all of His commands are for their good, and they want to obey their Lord from hearts of love and gratitude. Sin brings death, but Jesus brings life. The gospel, in the hand of the Holy Spirit, produces love to Christ and joy in Him in the hearts of His people, which leads them to obey Him and His law more and more because it shows them how to love the one who loved them first (1 John 4:19). We do not love Him so that He will love us. Rather we love Him, and thus obey Him, because He loved us first, winning our love and loyalty because He is so good.

John Gill (1697–1771) held to precisely this distinction between the gospel largely and strictly. He writes,

The gospel, taken in a large sense, as has been observed in the beginning of this chapter, includes both the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel; and the one, as well as the other are taught, and directed to be observed; here, all good works which the law requires, are moved and urged unto in the ministry of the gospel, upon gospel-principles and motives: the gospel of the grace of God, which brings the good tidings of salvation, instructs and urges men to do good works, and to avoid sin (Titus 2:11; 3:18).

But the gospel, strictly taken, is a pure declaration of grace, a mere promise of salvation by Christ. All duty and good works belong to the law; promise and grace belong to the gospel; the works of the law, and the grace of the gospel are always opposed to each other (Rom 3:20, 24, 28; Eph 2:8).69

In sum, the gospel, largely speaking, says, “Live and do this,” while the gospel, strictly speaking, says, “Live because Christ has done all.” The gospel, largely speaking, includes commands, while the gospel, strictly speaking, is stripped of all commands and holds forth the promise of justification and eternal life.

The Law/Gospel Contrast in Justification

When the Bible speaks of the law/gospel contrast, it refers to the contrast between the law, largely speaking, and the gospel, strictly speaking. Or we might speak of the contrast between the covenant of works with Adam and the covenant of redemption with Christ. Under the law, largely speaking, perfect obedience was required for justification and eternal life. Under the gospel, strictly speaking, Christ kept the law to obtain and freely give justification and eternal life to all of His people as a pure promise.

So the contrast between law and gospel is about two different ways to be justified and have eternal life. A person may either sinfully try to keep the law in its broad sense to earn the promise of eternal life himself, or he can look to Christ who kept the law for us and promises justification and eternal life as a free gift in the gospel, strictly speaking.

The Bible frequently makes a distinction between the law, largely speaking (as a covenant of life), and the gospel, strictly speaking (as a pure promise of life). Consider just a few examples of sharp contrast between law and gospel found in the book of Romans. Romans 3:27–28 says, “Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works [i.e., the law, largely speaking]? No, but by the law of faith [in the gospel, strictly speaking]. For we hold that one is justified by faith [in the gospel promise] apart from the works of the law [to obtain justification and eternal life].” Romans 4:5 says, “And to the one who does not work [under the law, largely speaking] but trusts him who justifies the ungodly [by trusting the gospel, strictly speaking], his faith is counted as righteousness.” Romans 10:4 says, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness [the law, largely speaking] to everyone who believes [in the gospel, strictly speaking].” Romans 10:5–6 says, “For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandment shall live by them [that is, the law, largely speaking]. But the righteousness based on faith says, ‘Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” ’ [That is, trust the gospel, strictly speaking, rather than trying to ascend into heaven by your own works.]” So, the law/gospel contrast is about justification, the verdict that gives us a right and title to eternal life. Now we turn to the gospel/law continuum in sanctification.

The Gospel/Law Continuum in Sanctification

While there is a law/gospel contrast in justification, there is also a gospel/law continuum in sanctification. The gospel/law continuum exists within the covenant of grace, the new covenant, where God unites His elect to Christ, justifies them, sanctifies them, and gives them His law, which is written on their hearts to command their obedience under grace.

When we speak of the continuum between the gospel and the law, we are referring to the gospel, largely speaking. Within the gospel largely (the covenant of grace), God’s people are given the gospel as a promise (gospel strictly) and the law as a standard (law strictly), in that precise order. There is no separation between the gospel, largely speaking, and the law, strictly speaking, for the believer’s sanctification in union with Christ and His righteousness. In the covenant of grace, the gospel and law tell the believer: “Receive this free gift of justification and eternal life (gospel strictly) and keep the commandments from a heart of love to God (law strictly).” Both the gospel strictly (gospel as a promise) and the law strictly (law as a standard) come to the believer in the gospel largely (covenant of grace).

The gospel/law continuum teaches us that in sanctification, believers must keep the law of God because God has already promised them eternal life. Believers, therefore, obey Christ’s law from a heart of love and gratitude because Jesus has saved them. Their love for Jesus and obedience to Him gives evidence of their faith in Christ’s promise before men and the angels. In sanctification, in the covenant of grace, the law has no curse and no promise of eternal life. It is only a rule of life, teaching the believer how to express love for Christ and grow in communion with Him. There is no threat or condemnation in the law, strictly speaking. Scripture is clear that believers must and will keep God’s commandments because of Christ’s love for them and because they love Christ. In Luke 7:47 Jesus said of the sinful woman, “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” In Galatians 2:20, Paul says, “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

Consider a few passages from the apostle John that teach evangelical obedience in the covenant of grace. In John 14:15, Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” And in John 14:21, “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” John 15:10 says, “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love.” And 1 John 2:3 says, “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments,” while 1 John 3:7–8 adds, “Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil.”

The Law/Gospel Contrast in Justification
Assures the Fearful and Humbles the Proud

We have seen some of the differences and similarities between the law and the gospel, both largely and strictly. Now, let’s look at the uses of this distinction. Why is it so important for believers to understand?

Many believers live in a state of fear and depression because they are not sure whether they actually belong to Christ. Too often, they can only see the sin in their hearts. And they fear that their good works are not really good because they seem to come from mixed motives. But the law/gospel contrast in justification teaches sinners to look away from themselves and their good works and rest in Christ alone and His good works for justification and eternal life. The gospel, strictly speaking, is the very foundation of our assurance of salvation before God. Because of Christ’s obedience and blood, we can have a certain and unshakable hope that heaven belongs to us, if we only look to Him in faith, resting in Him for justification.

When our sinful hearts accuse us, we should preach Christ to ourselves, looking to Him and His righteousness alone for our acceptance before God. When Satan accuses us of evil and hypocrisy, we can say with Christian in The Pilgrim’s Progress, “All this is true; and much more which you have left out: but the Prince whom I serve and honor is merciful and ready to forgive.”70

Some are proud and self-righteous like the Pharisees. They think of themselves as good people because they are religious, because they perform religious rituals, and because they do outwardly good works. They don’t trust in Christ alone for their justification but are partly trusting in their own works (Luke 18:9–12).

But the law/gospel contrast humbles proud sinners. The law, largely speaking, demands absolute perfection for justification and eternal life. When proud people come face to face with their own sin in light of the law in the hand of the Holy Spirit, they see that their hearts are wicked, and they give up every hope of trying to justify themselves. They can only throw themselves on the mercy of Christ alone for justification in the sight of God, which is offered by the gospel, strictly speaking (Luke 18:13–14).

The Gospel/Law Continuum in Sanctification Directs
and Motivates Our Obedience to Christ

The relationship between the gospel promise and the law as a standard in the covenant of grace has been compared to a sailboat. The gospel is like the sails on the boat, which propel it, moving it forward. The law is like the rudder on the boat, which has no power to propel but is necessary to give the boat direction. We might also compare the gospel/law continuum in the covenant of grace to a train as it runs on its tracks. The engine of the train is like the gospel, which provides all the power of Christian obedience. The tracks on which the train runs are like the law, which takes the train in the direction it needs to go.

This idea was expressed by John Berridge (1716–1793), who wrote the following lines:

Run, John, and work, the law commands,
yet finds me neither feet nor hands,

But sweeter news the gospel brings,
it bids me fly and lends me wings!

The Gospel Rightly Motivates Sanctification

A clear understanding of the gospel/law continuum for sanctification in the covenant of grace ensures that believers will render evangelical obedience rather than legal obedience. Evangelical obedience is obedience to God’s law based on the promises of eternal life. The greatest motivation to obey Christ is that He has freely and lovingly given Himself and eternal life to those who belong to Him. We love Him because He first loved us! We keep His commandments because He has shown us that He is good. He reconciles us to God. He gives us His Spirit to regenerate and indwell us. He communes with us. He prays for us. He causes all things to work for our good. He gives us the sure hope of resurrection unto life. He promises to manifest Himself to us more and more as we commune with Him in love and conformity to His commandments.

Because of these promises, we know He loves us. A person can only trust someone if he believes that person loves him. Because the gospel persuades us that Christ loves us, we can trust Him to give us commandments for our good so that we gladly obey them. As 1 John 5:3 says, “His commandments are not burdensome” to the believer. The reason they are not burdensome is that we never try to obey them for our justification or to obtain life in the first place. Rather, we obey His commandments because we know that He has given them to us as the way to know Him more, to experience more and more of life in Him, to commune with Him, to become more like the one we love, and to enjoy Him forever.

The apostle Paul says, “For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:19–20).

What Paul means is that through the curse of the law as a covenant of works, he died to any hope of obtaining justification and life through his own obedience to the law. Paul had to die to the law as a covenant in order to live the Christian life. Now, in Christ, in the covenant of grace, Paul lives by faith in light of Christ’s love for him and Christ’s death for him. This is how every Christian must live.

The Law Rightly Directs Sanctification

The gospel/law continuum directs the Christian in how to express love for the Savior who bought him. Many Christians wonder what God expects of them. They love Him, but they are not sure exactly what God wants them to do, so they end up doing what seems right to them apart from any sure direction. But that is not the biblical approach. Christians should express their love for Christ by keeping His moral law summarized in the Ten Commandments and the positive laws of the new covenant.

The law of God directs the Christian’s obedience in sanctification. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). The word “keep” in that verse means “to watch, guard, or have respect to.” Faithful Christians express their love for Jesus by thinking about how to keep His good law in every circumstance. They grow wise by constantly turning God’s law over and over in their minds, and learning how to apply its different aspects to every decision they make. As they actually obey Christ’s commandments more and more, they learn through practice what is good (Heb. 5:14).

The Law/Gospel Relationship Keeps Us
from Legalism and Antinomianism

Practical and experiential legalism and antinomianism are two different stages of decline from genuine and normative biblical Christianity. They are only avoided when a Christian rightly distinguishes between law and gospel.

Normative Christianity

Faithful Christians see the absolute holiness and beauty of God, and they see His good law as a perfect revelation of His holy character. They agree with God and His law that they are sinners, and they join God in condemning their sins, even while they look to Jesus Christ who willingly and lovingly made full atonement for sins to reconcile them to God who loves them and welcomes them. In light of such a great salvation, faithful Christians welcome God’s law as their rule of life, or standard of conduct, to teach them how to love God and love others. They gladly live lives of faith, repentance, and grateful, joyful obedience to Christ, who bought them with a price.

Legalism

When Christianity is first in decline, it descends into legalism. Legalists doubt the goodness and love of God in Jesus Christ. Instead of trusting God to give commands for our good, legalists secretly do not believe the goodness of God’s commands and trust themselves more than God. They look at God’s commands as what they must obey to have a good life, to have God’s temporal and eternal favor, and so they work to keep God’s commands outwardly, expecting life from them even while they have no heart of sincere trust and love for Jesus on the basis of what He has done for them. They do not ultimately look to Jesus for life, but to their own outward obedience.

The result of legalism is self-righteousness, pride, and contempt for people who are not as outwardly obedient as they are. Legalists base their sense of personal righteousness not on Christ and His righteousness, but on their outward obedience. Thus, legalism is the first stage of descent away from obedience to God’s law. They relax God’s law. The externals of the law and religion are maintained, while the law’s requirement of a heart of faith, humility, love, and kindness are relinquished for a self-trusting pride. Legalism is, at heart, a pretentious antinomianism, or lawlessness.

Antinomianism

Antinomianism is the second stage of decline from normative Christianity. Antinomians see and despise the pride and hypocrisy of formalistic legalism. Their answer is to assert the free grace and love of Christ for people just as they are, without working to conform them to God’s law for their own good. Antinomians completely abandon God’s law and preach a message of love and acceptance of wicked people in their sins. Antinomians, therefore, have exactly the same problem as legalists. They do not trust the holy God of the Bible; they trust themselves—their own minds, their own feelings and impulses—and they insist that God loves, accepts, and approves of them as they obey their personal standards.

Interestingly enough, antinomianism has exactly the same problem as legalism. Antinomians are proud, self-trusting individuals who insist that others approve of their righteousness. They look down upon others with contempt, when they do not approve of antinomian violations of God’s law. While legalists follow their hearts as they pretend to follow God outwardly, antinomians follow their own hearts and outwardly express their lawlessness for others to see. Legalists maintain the outward form of the true Christian faith, while having no heart behind it. Antinomians maintain a self-centered religion of the heart and create their own personal outward form in keeping with their hearts.

The Solution to Legalism and Antinomianism

The solution to legalism and antinomianism is the same. It is to see and believe the power and supreme goodness of Jesus. Only when sinners see that Christ is good and powerful, Savior and King, will they trust Him to save them and rule them. They must come to see the goodness of Christ, His perfect holiness, as reflected in His law. They must also see the goodness of Christ in the gospel, His infinite grace in His death on the cross for poor sinners who will trust in Him. In beholding this great and good Savior, and trusting in Him, their self-righteousness will die more and more because they are clothed with His righteousness and have nothing to prove on their own. In looking upon their good and great Savior, they learn to bend the knee and keep His commands because they are completely convinced that His commands are good and for their good. The more believers learn of Christ, the more they trust Him, the more they long to know Him, and the more they want to be conformed to His likeness to learn of His love and to love others, and so to glorify His name on earth before men and the angels in heaven.

Conclusion

To sum up, so far we have seen four categories of law and gospel:

1. Law as a covenant (covenant of works): Do this and live.

2. Law as a standard (rule of life): Do this.

3. Gospel as a promise (covenant of redemption): Live.

4. Gospel as a covenant (covenant of grace): Live and do this.

We have also seen one law/gospel contrast and one gospel/law continuum:

1. Law/gospel contrast (in justification): law as a covenant or gospel as promise

2. Gospel/law continuum (in sanctification): gospel as a promise and law as a standard

The law/gospel contrast is the contrast between the covenant of works and the covenant of redemption. The gospel/law continuum takes place within the covenant of grace and involves the gospel as a promise as the basis of the law as a standard. The fact that the gospel/law continuum takes place in the covenant of grace, and that the covenant of grace runs through the whole Bible, means that we must adopt a law/gospel hermeneutic. This is necessary so that we do not falsely motivate Christians to obey God’s law from any passage of Scripture without grounding that obedience in the precious promises of Christ revealed in the gospel. Guilt-driven obedience to the law is not true obedience, and it harms people by implying that they can overcome their own guilt, which turns them away from Christ to themselves.

Therefore, pastors must have law and gospel theology in their minds when they preach from every text, whether it contains a gospel promise or a command or both. The gospel’s promises call us to rejoice in justification by faith alone and complete redemption and reconciliation to God under God’s grace. A command calls us to examine ourselves, to flee to Christ for mercy, and to obey Him under grace. This is the heart of Christ-centered preaching in all the Scriptures. Having looked at the Bible’s overarching covenants and the law/gospel hermeneutic that flows from them, we will now consider the great doctrines of grace that flow from the Bible’s great covenants.

56. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 3.11.17
57. Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, trans. by James Clark (Focus Christian Ministries Trust, 1992), 40–41. Published first at Geneva in 1558 as the Confession de foi du chretien.
58. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 448.
59. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 450.
60. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 453.
61. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2000), 612.
62. Benjamin Keach, The Marrow of True Justification: The Biblical Doctrine of Justification without Works (Birmingham: Solid Ground, 2007).
63. Charles Spurgeon, “Grace and Law” in New Park Street Pulpit, vol. 1, accessed February 2024 at https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/law-and-grace.
64. Sam Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom (Cape Coral: Founders, 2019), 20.
65. John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Soli Deo Gloria, 2009). For another excellent treatment of the relationship between the law and the gospel, see Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1994).
66. See Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Whole Christ: Legalism, Antinomianism and Gospel Assurance—Why the Marrow Controversy Still Matters (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016).
67. The book that ignited the marrow controversy was Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Ross-shire: Christian Focus, 2009). Every Christian should read this book along with Thomas Boston’s notes. For another excellent book on the Marrow theology’s understanding of law and gospel, see Ralph Erskine, Law-Death, Gospel-Life (London, 1724).
68. Some do not prefer to speak of the gospel as a covenant containing any commands at all, though they acknowledge that gospel promises of redemption precede the commands God gives to believers. In my judgment, this is a semantic disagreement, and I believe the substance of the two positions are the same.
69. John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity (Paris: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1995), 377.
70. John Bunyan, The Pilgrim’s Progress (Ulrichville: Barbour, 1985), 61.

Calvinism

Reformed Baptists are Calvinists. Calvinism is not the gospel, but it is the theological framework of the gospel. The term Calvinism, when applied to the doctrine of salvation, is a way of talking about the biblical basis of the gospel. One may certainly believe the gospel without being a Calvinist. But one cannot sufficiently explain and defend the gospel without those great biblical doctrines that go by the nickname of Calvinism. Perhaps an illustration would help. You can drink from a water faucet without understanding the plumbing that causes the water to flow from the faucet. In the same way, you can drink of the water of life by the gospel without understanding God’s sovereign grace that is the basis of the gospel.

Among some, however, Calvinism is a bad word. It conjures thoughts of a fatalistic God, an arbitrary despot who controls and lords over others. People sometimes wrongly accuse Calvinists of making God into the author of evil who approves of sin. In light of Calvinism’s bad reputation, some might say we should use a different word.

But I suggest that Calvinism offends human pride not because of the word, but because of the biblical doctrines it represents. If we were to choose another word, very soon whatever word we chose would become equally offensive to naturally rebellious human nature. The doctrines of Calvinism offend because they declare that God is God and human beings are His subjects. God rules everything. Biblical Calvinism asserts that God is freer than human beings, and that human beings are completely under His control. Calvinism says that God effectively governs every molecule of creation. He does not ask anyone for permission to rule. He does not wait for us to decide whether we will allow Him to do as He pleases. God’s kingdom is not a democracy. Rather, the good, loving, holy, and just God of the Bible does whatsoever He pleases, no matter what anyone says or thinks about it. These truths offend naturally proud and sinful people.

I suspect Calvinism especially offends American individualists who think of human freedom as the supreme value. While human freedom may be a supreme American value, it is certainly not God’s supreme value. Rather, God values what is actually true, good, and beautiful, whether human beings freely agree or freely disagree. God’s greatest delight is in His own perfectly good being. The Bible insists that God always acts in creation to shine forth, or glorify, the full range of His own attributes for all eternity. In Isaiah 48:11, God says, “For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And I will not give My glory to another” (NASB). God repeats the phrase “for My own sake” for emphasis. He is telling us that His greatest end is His own glory, which is simply to say that His greatest end is Supreme Goodness itself.

That is at the heart of the angst about Calvinism. Some think God exists to make much of people. But the Bible tells us that God’s highest end is God. How could it be otherwise? God is the first and best of beings. For God to value or glorify anything above Himself would make Him a false worshiper. It would make Him into a god who values something other than the highest good. But God glorifies God because God alone is infinitely and supremely good. God alone is worthy of worship, including God’s own self-glorification.

Now, it is important to understand that this truth does not pit God against people. Rather, God’s commitment to Himself is good news for us. It means God will never do wrong. He punishes the wicked who are outside of Christ because He loves what is good. But if we are in Christ, we can trust God to do what is very best for us. God’s commitment to the good means He hates evil and will deal justly with it. That is good news to those who are afflicted by the wicked and long for justice. God will certainly give perfect justice on the last day. God’s commitment to the true Good, to Himself, is the reason the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, assumed a human nature to suffer the just punishment for our sins and to rescue us from what is not good. God’s love of goodness is the reason God is committed to making us, His people, truly good, which is best for us. He does this in a legal sense by justification, and then within us by sanctification. That is how He brings us back to Himself. He makes us good legally and makes us good within so that we can have loving and joyful communion with Him. Ultimately, God brings us into His heavenly presence, where we will enjoy fullness of life with Him forever. God does all of this with absolute certainty, power, and love. This is Calvinism.

Thus, Calvinism, in the theological sense, is not about the beliefs of John Calvin. Very few who call themselves Calvinists believe everything John Calvin believed. Rather, Calvinism is a technical theological term that refers to the Bible’s God-centered theology, particularly to God’s sovereign grace in salvation. At its heart, Calvinism declares that God saves sinners. Since Calvinism is nothing other than a name for a particular biblical doctrine, some may wonder why we should use the word Calvinism at all.

Let me suggest three reasons to keep using the word Calvinism. First, we have to use some word to dispense with the need for long definitions each time we refer to the biblical doctrines it represents. Second, Calvinism is the proper historical-theological term. Third, using the word Calvinism in a pastoral context may help to remove its negative stigma so that opponents of these truths may be thwarted in their efforts to shock, confuse, and trouble God’s people by using the term as a pejorative.

Today, the word Calvinism is almost synonymous with the “doctrines of grace” and the “five points of Calvinism.”71 The five points of Calvinism are a popular summary of the Dutch Reformed response to Arminianism in the seventeenth century. Calvinism, or Reformed theology, had been a positive articulation of the Bible’s God-centered theology. But after the Arminians challenged Reformed orthodoxy at the Synod of Dordt, the Dutch Calvinists responded in the Canons of Dordt (1618–1619), which are a presentation of Calvinism’s doctrines over and against doctrinal error.

Not all agree that the five points of Calvinism are a helpful way of articulating the doctrines of the Reformation. A problem with the five points is that they are a list of doctrines that do not necessarily show their connection with the rest of theology. One might think he can choose among the five points, or that these points are merely derived from isolated proof texts when, in fact, the doctrines of grace are all nested within the Bible’s theology as a whole. The five points of Calvinism are inextricably linked with the doctrine of God, the Bible’s covenants, the nature of Christ’s work, justification, sanctification, the church, the last things, etc.

Another problem with summarizing Calvinism in terms of five points is that they are a response to the error of Arminianism. Thus, one might wrongly think that Calvinism’s doctrines are fundamentally oriented against their rival theology. While it is true that the five points of Calvinism are a polemic against Arminianism and don’t convey the constructive and positive nature of the Bible’s own presentation of these doctrines, they are, I believe, useful in responding to Arminianism because Arminianism is still so prevalent today.72

Often the five points of Calvinism have been arranged by the acrostic “TULIP,” which stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. That way of ordering these doctrines has a certain pedagogical value. But this chapter will arrange them differently, to be more consistent with the Bible’s own framework as well as with their first appearance in the Canons of Dordt. It will begin with the Reformed doctrine of God’s eternal decree and then move through the major covenants of Reformed theology to show how they are connected to the Bible’s theological structure, overarching narrative, and hermeneutic.

God’s Sovereign Rule and Unconditional Election

Reformed theology acknowledges that God is the supreme sovereign of heaven and earth, the King of Creation who upholds, directs, and governs all things according to His infinite power with perfect goodness and wisdom. God meticulously renders certain everything that comes to pass according to His wise providence, down to the last detail, by His good and sovereign will. He eternally decreed the end of all things from the beginning of time (Isa. 46:10), and His eternal decree is the basis of His exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all future events (Isa. 46:11). Ephesians 1:11 says that God “works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Job 42:2 declares, “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.”

Second London Confession 3.1 says,

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.

The Bible declares God’s absolute sovereignty, which is His supreme authority to do with creation whatever He pleases because He is its good Creator. Psalm 115:3 says, “Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.” Psalm 135:6 says, “Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.” Daniel 4:34–35 says,

His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”

God’s Sovereignty Displayed in His Universal Providence

The Bible teaches that God sovereignly exercises total control over everything He created. His providence is His sovereign government of all things. John Calvin famously said, “It is certain that not one drop of rain falls without God’s sure command.”73 Second London Confession 5.1 says,

God the good Creator of all things, in His infinite power and wisdom does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, to the end for the which they were created, according unto His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will; to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, infinite goodness, and mercy.

The Bible says God causes and withholds dew and rain (Lev. 26:3–4; Deut. 11:13–14; 28:12; Job 28:26; Matt. 5:45). Hail, snow, and thunderstorms are from God (Job 37:5–10; Ps. 107:25; Isa. 28:2). He directs the winds (Num. 11:31; Jonah 1:4) and causes grass and crops to grow (Ps. 104:14–15). He oversees the lives of sparrows (Matt. 6:26; 10:29) and nourishes and feeds every animal (Job 38:39–41; Ps. 104:10–30).

He created and sovereignly rules rational beings, including the angelic beings of the heavenly places. He created them to administer the divine rule and government over all creation, tasking them with revealing the Word of God (Luke 1:11–19; Acts 8:26; 10:3–8, 22; 27:23–24), executing judgment on His behalf (2 Sam. 24:16–17; Acts 12:23), and fighting His battles (Dan. 10:13). The righteous angels are subject to God’s government, but He also exerts total control over evil spirits (1 Sam. 16:14–15; 1 Kings 22:20–23; Job 1:6, 12; Isa. 19:14).

God not only rules the angels, but He also governs every detail of the lives of human beings. Both wealth and poverty come from the Lord (Deut. 8:11–20; 1 Sam. 2:6–8; Ps. 113:7–8). He assigns position and status, humbling men and lifting them up (1 Sam. 2:6–8; Ps. 75:6–7; 113:8). He causes barrenness among women, and He is also the source of their ability to have children (Gen. 30:2; Ps. 113:9). The Lord both grants and denies food according to His sovereign will (Ps. 136:25; Isa. 3:1). He watches over us as we travel (Ps. 146:9) and causes us to fall asleep (1 Sam. 26:12).

God directs the minds and hearts of human beings (Ps. 33:14–15). He turns the hearts of kings wherever He wishes (Prov. 21:1). He removes understanding (Job 12:24) and causes faintheartedness (Lev. 26:36). To accomplish His purposes, He hardened the heart of Pharaoh (Ex. 9:12), and He put it in Absalom’s heart to devise an evil scheme against his father, David (2 Sam. 12:11; 16:22). God thwarts the good counsel of His enemies (2 Sam. 17:14) and causes their wisdom to perish (Isa. 29:14). He stiffens men’s hearts in order to destroy them (Josh. 11:20), and, for good reasons, He turns the hearts of men to hate others (Ps. 105:25). The Bible says that if a prophet is deceived, then God deceived him (Ezek. 14:9). As punishment for sin, God gives wicked men over to corrupt minds (Rom. 1:28) and sends delusions to make them believe what is false (2 Thess. 2:11).

Furthermore, God sovereignly directs human actions and choices. A man’s way is not in himself; rather, all the ways of men are from God, who rules them (Jer. 10:23). The Lord determines every step a man takes (Ps. 37:23; Prov. 20:24), and all his movements are the result of the divine will (James 4:13–16). God caused Cyrus to invade and conquer Babylon (Isa. 45) even though Cyrus had no knowledge of the part he played in God’s sovereign design (Isa. 45:4). The speech of a man’s tongue is from the Lord (Prov. 16:1), and his every decision is according to the comprehensive providence of God (Prov. 16:9; 19:21; Jer. 10:23). Reformed theology unflinchingly confesses this great God of the Bible. Because God is the absolute all-wise Creator and Ruler of all things, we owe Him all worship and obedience.

God rules over and controls the sinful choices of angels and men, but the Bible also teaches that God is neither the author nor approver of sin (Ps. 45:7; Hab. 1:13; James 1:13, 17). While God’s decree makes sinful acts of men certain (Luke 22:22), He decrees that men sin freely, according to their own wills, and in such a way that they alone are responsible for the sins they commit (Ezek. 18:20).

Genesis 45:1–8; 50:20. God decreed that Joseph’s brothers would freely sell him into slavery and that they would be guilty for the sin they committed.
Exodus 4:21–23. God decreed that Pharaoh’s heart would be freely hardened and that he would be responsible for his sin.
Isaiah 10:5–15. God decreed that the Assyrians would freely invade the northern kingdom of Israel and that the Assyrians would be responsible for their sin of unjust warfare.
Jeremiah 25:8–14. God decreed that Nebuchadnezzar would freely invade Judah and that Nebuchadnezzar would be responsible for his injustices in war.
Luke 22:21–22. God decreed that Judas would freely betray Jesus and that Judas would be guilty for his betrayal.
Acts 2:23; 4:27–28. God decreed that the Jews, Gentiles, Herod, and Pontius Pilate would freely murder Jesus and that they would be responsible for the murder of Jesus.
Revelation 17:17; 18:1–24. God decreed that the nations would freely turn their power over to the beast and that they would be responsible for their sins.

Such passages of Scripture may raise questions about God’s relationship to evil.74 Scripture teaches that God decrees all things to fulfill His wise and good purposes, including evil. He has a morally sufficient reason for the evil He decrees (Gen. 50:20). But God Himself never does evil and is never to be blamed for evil (James 1:13–14, 17). He rightly blames and judges creatures for what they do (Isa. 66:3–4). God forbids us to do any evil because it harms us and others (Matt. 6:13; James 5:19–20). These truths are a great mystery, but Scripture plainly teaches them. God ordains that human beings freely sin and that they are responsible for the sins they commit, but God neither sins nor approves of sin. As it has been said, “Sin is not good, but it must be good that sin is, or it would not be.”

Second London Confession 5.4 says,

The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in His providence, that His determinate counsel extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, which also He most wisely and powerfully binds, and otherwise orders and governs, in a manifold dispensation to His most holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceeds only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

God’s Sovereignty Displayed in His Unconditional Choice
of Some Sinners to Save

God’s gracious eternal decree of unconditional election is the basis of God’s salvation of sinners. Unconditional election means that God chooses to save sinners not because of any foreseen goodness, merit, or praiseworthy conditions in them, but only because of His good pleasure to redeem a people for Himself for their good and His glory. Could there be better news for believers? We didn’t do anything to get God to choose us, which means we can’t do anything to get Him to choose against us! He loved us with a saving love even when we were not lovely. He chose us even though we were far from choice. Romans 11:5–6 says, “So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” This is the great Reformed doctrine of unconditional election.

Second London Confession 3.5 says,

Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving Him thereunto.

Speaking of unconditional divine election, Paul writes in Romans 9:10–13,

And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

In these words, Paul illustrates God’s gracious unconditional election from an Old Testament narrative. There were two children in Rebekah’s womb. They had done nothing, either good or bad. There was not one thing in these children to commend them to God one way or the other. But God chose Jacob for salvation and rejected Esau according to His own “purpose of election.” Why did God choose one and not the other? Paul says God’s choice was not conditioned on anything in the children, since they had done nothing good or bad. He concludes, “So then it [meaning election] depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Rom. 9:16). In other words, divine election is unconditional.

That answer may be troubling to some. Why does God choose to save some and not others? If there is no reason, then His choice would be arbitrary. But nothing God does is arbitrary. God is the first cause of all things. Therefore, God Himself is the reason for His choices, and no cause can be sought behind Him. Paul says, “He has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” (Rom. 9:18). In truth, God is the reason for every choice He makes and for everything He does. The ultimate answer to every question about why something is the way it is, rather than some other way, is nothing other than God Himself, the first cause of all.

Other Passages that Speak of Election

The Word of God teaches the doctrine of election in a number of places. Psalm 65:4 says, “Blessed is the one you choose and bring near, to dwell in your courts!”75 Matthew 11:27 says, “No one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” Matthew 22:14 says, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” John 15:16 says, “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide.” Ephesians 1:4–5 says, “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.” 1 Thessalonians 1:4–5 says, “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.” 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says, “God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.”

What about Foreknowledge?

Some object to unconditional election because they believe God chooses people for salvation on the basis of His foreknowledge that they would choose Him. They base this view on Romans 8:29, which says, “Those whom He foreknew He also predestined.” Arminians say that this passage means God looked into the future and foreknew who would respond favorably to the gospel. Predestination for Arminians means that God chose to save those whom He knew would choose Him.

But the word “foreknew” in Romans 8:29 is about God knowing persons, not merely facts about persons. It says “whom he foreknew,” not “what he foreknew.” It does not say God knew the fact that a person would choose Him, and that is the reason He chose him first. Rather, it says God knew the person himself.

Moreover, the word for foreknowledge in Greek means “to foreordain” or “to choose beforehand.” Thus, Romans 8:29 means that those whom God chose beforehand, He predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ in the future. God eternally and unconditionally chose those whom He destined to become like Christ.

Furthermore, the idea that God chose people based on foreseen faith contradicts passages of Scripture that say faith is the result of election, not the precondition of election. For example, in John 10:26 Jesus tells the unbelieving Jews, “You do not believe because you are not among my sheep.” He does not say, “You are not my sheep because you do not believe.” Similarly Acts 13:48 says, “As many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” It does not say, “As many
as believed were appointed to eternal life.” These texts demonstrate that God’s election is the source and cause of belief, not the other
way around.

From a theological perspective, if the Arminians are right that God chose us because of something in us, whatever that might be, it would be the beginning of salvation by merit. If He chose us because we did not resist His drawing, or if He chose us because we first chose Him, or if He chose us because we accepted the message of the gospel, then God chose us because of something good in us. Conditional election would mean that God chooses good people to be saved, which would in turn mean we are not saved by grace alone and God does not get all the credit and glory for our salvation. Rather, it would mean that God chooses some people and saves them because they are better than other people who did not choose Him.

On the other hand, some people might see this problem and insist that what we do for salvation is in no sense meritorious or good. They might say that God chose us because of our faith, which is not a good work and is not morally righteous, but only a neutral act. But if faith is morally neutral, then a morally neutral act is what brings some people into heaven! The lack of that morally neutral act is what sends others to hell for all eternity! But it would be unthinkable for God to send some human beings to heaven and others to hell because of a morally insignificant act. This is not a good solution for non-Calvinists.

Biblically speaking, faith is not morally neutral. We know this because God commands us to believe in Christ (Acts 16:31), which means it is sinful and disobedient not to believe in Christ. If we obey God’s command to believe, then we are doing something good when we believe. Faith is one aspect of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Faith is, therefore, a virtue. People who exercise saving faith are doing something morally good. Thus, those who say that God’s eternal election rests on foreseen faith make election depend on moral goodness in the creature, and that means salvation is not by grace alone to the glory of God alone, but is instead grounded in a person’s goodness that is not determined by God alone, but by the person. Such a position forces God to share His glory with the creature and gives His creatures a ground on which to boast.

Consider too that the doctrine that predestination is based on foreseen faith does not do the theological work that many want it to do. Often, those who teach predestination based on foreknowledge want to keep God from being blamed for people going to hell. But consider that all orthodox Christians believe in God’s perfect foreknowledge (Ps. 139:1–6; Heb. 4:13). If God foreknew who would reject Him, and if He created them anyway, then God created some people knowing full well that they would reject Him and go to hell. Why wouldn’t God simply choose not to create those whom He knew would reject Him? The fact that He created people He knew would go to hell implies that God created some people for the very purpose of rejecting Him and going to hell. Therefore, the notion that God’s predestination is based on foreseen faith does not free God from the charge that He created some people for destruction (Prov. 16:4; Rom. 9:17–18, 22).

Finally, there is a very significant theological problem with the doctrine of predestination based on foreseen faith. It violates the doctrine of God’s independence, or self-existence. The biblical doctrine of God declares that God does not depend upon creation for any of His perfections. If any of God’s attributes depends on anything outside of God, then God would depend on things outside of God to be God. That is why classical theology teaches that every perfection that is in God is God. This is the doctrine of simplicity. Thus, God’s attribute of infinite knowledge, His omniscience, cannot depend upon creation, or else God depends on creation. If God’s decree of election depends on God’s knowledge of the choices of His creatures, then God is dependent on creation, and He is not God. Therefore, it is impossible that God foreknew what people would choose in the future based on an independent free will that originates contra-causally. Instead, the Bible teaches that God decrees, or chooses, what people will choose, and that is how God knows what they will choose (Isa. 46:8–11). God does not decree the future choices of men because He knows them. Rather, He knows the future choices of men because He decrees them. Thus, the Bible teaches that God’s knowledge is independent of His creation and does not depend on independent human choices.

Implications for the Christian Life

This great doctrine of God’s sovereign and gracious election leads to holiness of mind, heart, and conduct. The fact that God would choose wretched sinners to save, and that we would do nothing to save ourselves apart from His effectual grace, humbles us into the dust. It also leads our hearts to deep gratitude and joy. God saved us out of our filth and sin. We were rebellious, running far from Him, but He chose us and lovingly chased us down in spite of ourselves, not because of ourselves. The biblical doctrine of unconditional election is part of the very ground of worship. We worship God not because we chose Him, but because He chose us. What would we have to sing about in worship if our choices, our goodness, were the determining factor of our salvation? Could we sing praises to God about our own free and wise choices, our goodness and movement toward God? What would that even sound like? “We thank you God that we chose you for our salvation.” No! Rather, we sing God’s praises for His conquering love, for His gracious choice, for His free gift of salvation. So our song shall ever be.

Moreover, the doctrine of election forms the deepest, most foundational basis of our assurance of salvation. How could we be sure of our salvation if, in the end, salvation depends upon our vacillating free will? Our will is fickle and changing and can form no firm basis of assurance. Full assurance of salvation, rather, depends entirely upon God’s immutable and gracious election. Our Lord Jesus Himself speaks plainly in this regard. In John 6:37, He says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” How can we be sure we will endure to the end? Only because our salvation, from beginning to end, was never based on our choice of God, but on God’s choice of us. This certain assurance of salvation gives us the strength to live the Christian life and to endure to the end (Heb. 6:11–12).

The Covenant of Works: Total Depravity

God’s sovereign decree is the eternal basis of our salvation, but God’s covenants are the historical framework through which God sovereignly works His purpose to save His people. He established the covenant of works with Adam in the garden of Eden. The covenant of works was to be a covenant of life and friendship between Adam and God. But things went badly awry. To understand our need of God’s sovereign saving grace, we have to understand what happened to humanity as a result of Adam breaking this first covenant.

Covenant of Works

The human race is “totally depraved” as a result of Adam’s sin in the covenant of works. Total depravity means that from the moment sinners are conceived in their mother’s wombs, they are depraved and opposed to God in body and soul, mind, heart, and will. In the beginning, before Adam sinned, God lovingly created Adam in His image. Adam was the covenantal representative (federal head) of all who descend from him by ordinary and natural generation. God lovingly wrote His good law on Adam’s heart, teaching Adam how to love God and others (Rom. 2:14). God walked with Adam in the garden and communed with him in love (Gen. 3:8). God gave Adam every good gift. He promised Adam eternal life for perfect obedience (Gen. 3:22), but He also threatened Adam with eternal death for disobedience (Gen. 2:17).

Sadly, instead of trusting God and obeying Him, Adam rebelled against God, refused to love God, refused to love his wife and his future children, and broke God’s law. Therefore, God cursed Adam, together with all his natural descendants, with eternal death. Paul writes, “Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12). This curse means that Adam’s natural descendants inherit totally depraved natures that have no love for the true God and no desire to come to Him for salvation and life. “In Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22). Therefore, because of Adam’s sin in the covenant of works, all humanity is cursed with “total depravity.”

Scripture teaches that this sinful human condition begins at conception. In Psalm 51:5, David says, “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 58:3 declares, “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.” Why is that? It is because God justly cursed the world—all mankind—in Adam, the federal head of humanity.

Total Depravity

Consider the term “total depravity.” The word “total” refers to every part of a person. People in Adam are depraved in mind, heart, and will—the totality of their persons. But we need to be careful here. Total depravity does not mean sinners are as depraved as they can possibly be. Sinners outside of Christ are depraved extensively in every part of their persons, but they are not depraved to a maximum degree of intensity. The Bible teaches that some sinners are more wicked than others (Matt. 10:15; Ezek. 8:6). It is only God’s common grace that keeps sinners from sinning more than they do (e.g., Gen. 20:6). So total depravity means that those in Adam are sinfully corrupt in every part of their persons, even though they are depraved to different degrees.

Romans 3:10–12 provides a helpful description of total depravity in a negative sense. It says, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” Notice that this text says the heart, the mind, and the will are depraved. No one in Adam is “righteous,” or lawful, from the heart. No one in Adam “understands” God’s truth with his mind. No one in Adam “seeks for God” with his will. That is total depravity in a negative sense.

But in a positive sense, total depravity means that natural people, outside of Christ, are only and always sinning. Everything an unbeliever does is sin. Romans 14:23 says, “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” Hebrews 11:6 says, “Without faith it is impossible to please him.” Referring to the character of sin in fallen humanity, Genesis 6:5 says, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

At this point, someone may raise an objection. What about the unbeliever who kindly helps an older woman cross a busy street? Hasn’t that unbeliever done something good? In reply, yes, that unbeliever has done relative good, when compared to the other human beings who did not help the lady cross the street. But the unbeliever has not done absolute good relative to God and His perfect law. A good work before God involves three elements. First, it requires a right motive, which is faithful love to God. Second, it requires a right action, which is obedience to God’s law. Third, it requires a right end or goal, which is to glorify God. An unbeliever does not act, to any degree, out of faith in God, in love to God, or to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). Therefore, an unbeliever who helps a lady to cross a street is sinning before God, even though he is doing relative good before man.

Total Inability to Act for Salvation

But another question might arise. How sinful are Adam’s descendants? We have seen that people are sinners by degree. Some wrongly think of sinners as very sick in their sin, still able to do something to obtain salvation. The biblical picture, however, is not that human beings are sick. It is that they are dead, unable to do anything at all to save themselves (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13). Sinners don’t need a doctor. They need God to raise them from the dead.

Consider this metaphor. Some think of sinners as drowning in the deep end of a pool. Poor sinners are thrashing in the water, close to death. But the lifeguard provides them with much needed help by throwing them a life preserver. At this point, the person has a choice. He can take hold of the life preserver, graciously provided by the lifeguard, or he can stubbornly refuse it and choose to drown in the pool. But this is not a good metaphor for how salvation works. Biblically speaking, human beings are not drowning in their sins. They are lying stone cold dead at the bottom of the deep end of the pool. Ephesians 2:1 says, “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins.” There is nothing any lifeguard can do to save a dead man. Dead people can’t do anything to save themselves. They need to be brought from death to life. That is the condition in which totally depraved sinners find themselves. They are completely unable to save themselves.

Scripture teaches that no natural person will ever seek God, embrace the gospel, or do any good whatsoever relative to God (1 Cor. 2:14). This doctrine is called “total inability,” which is a subset of total depravity. Isaiah 64:7 says, “There is no one who calls upon your name, no one who rouses himself to take hold of you.” No one in Adam calls upon God sincerely. Jeremiah 13:23 asks rhetorically, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.” A sinner can no more change his sinful nature than a leopard can change his nature. Similarly, Job 14:4 asks, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.” Job 25:4–6 expresses this same truth with remarkable clarity:

How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure? Behold, even the moon is not bright, and the stars are not pure in his eyes; how much less man, who is a maggot, and the son of man, who is a worm!

It is not merely that sinful man will not be right and pure before God, it is that he cannot be right and pure before God. Romans 8:7 says, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.” And 1 Corinthians 2:14 says, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” He is not able to understand.

Therefore, no human being in Adam can do anything toward his own salvation. Natural men are completely lost and without hope of salvation in themselves. They cannot choose Christ because they will never want to choose Christ, apart from effectual grace. They cannot come to Him because, by nature, they will never come to Him.

Second London Confession 6.2–4 helpfully expresses this doctrine of total depravity.

2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

3. They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.

4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

Implications for the Christian Life

The doctrine of total depravity and its subset of total inability serve to humble our natural pride. The fact that God’s sovereign grace alone can change our hearts leads us to fall on our faces before the God of heaven in gratitude and worship for such a great salvation. Ian Hamilton wrote a helpful reflection on the doctrine of total depravity in the Christian life. He says,

Calvinism challenges the residual pride in human hearts. We are naturally and natively far more comfortable with Arminianism, which allows us to make a contribution to our salvation. To be confronted by the truth of our total inability is deeply humbling, but it is the truth of God’s own Word, not a notion that John Calvin concocted in Geneva. Becoming persuaded of this and casting ourselves solely on God’s mercy in Christ knocks (in large measure) the pride out of us and teaches us to live as men and women who glory in the God of grace. This is simply another way of saying that Calvinism puts God where he belongs and puts us where we belong. This is the test of authentic, biblical Christianity.76

The Covenant of Redemption: Definite Atonement

For Calvinists, there may be no doctrine more precious than the doctrine that Christ’s death actually and completely accomplishes the total salvation of His people. Just before Christ died on the cross, He said, “It is finished” (John 19:30). If Christ’s death only makes salvation possible, and if its efficacy depends on something we have to do, then, in the end, we will have to trust in ourselves for redemption. If Jesus atoned for everyone in general, but for no one in particular, it would mean that Christ does not have any special interest in or love for His bride, the church, but is equally interested in everyone, including those who will never be saved. But thanks be to God, that is not the case! Ephesians 5:25 says, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (emphasis added). Husbands are not to give themselves up for all women, but only for their wives. Husbands are not to love any other women in the way they love their wives. Why? Because a husband’s relationship to his wife should reflect the relationship between Christ and His church. Jesus didn’t give Himself up for all, but only for His beloved bride, the church.

Covenant of Redemption

Christ’s definite atonement for His chosen people is rooted in the covenant of redemption. In this glorious covenant, God appointed the incarnate Christ to fulfill the law of God, to die on the cross, and to rise from the dead three days later on behalf of His chosen people. Christ freely agreed to accomplish God’s will and obey Him completely (John 17:4). Isaiah 53 is about Christ’s obedience to this covenant of redemption, and Isaiah 54:10 explicitly calls it the “covenant of peace.”

Hebrews 9:12 tells of what Christ accomplished by His death in the covenant of redemption, saying that He saved His people “by means of His own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.” What precious words! Christ’s blood not only makes redemption possible, but it actually secures redemption. Further, His blood secures eternal redemption—not temporary redemption, not possible redemption. All who are redeemed by Christ’s blood will certainly dwell with Christ forever in heaven. This passage means that Christ’s redemptive work secures eternal salvation for every person for whom Christ died.

Second London Confession 8.5 and 8.8 teach the doctrine of definite atonement for the elect. Paragraph 5 speaks of Christ’s obedience and sacrifice “for all those whom the Father has given unto Him.” It says,

Paragraph 8 shows that Christ applies redemption to all those for whom He definitely accomplished redemption. It says,

To all those for whom Christ has obtained eternal redemption, He does certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, making intercession for them; uniting them to Himself by His Spirit, revealing to them, in and by His Word, the mystery of salvation, persuading them to believe and obey, governing their hearts by His Word and Spirit, and overcoming all their enemies by His almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation; and all of free and absolute grace, without any condition foreseen in them to procure it.

Definite Atonement

Definite atonement is sometimes called “limited atonement” (limited to the elect) or “particular redemption” (for Christ’s particular, chosen people). Definite atonement means that God intended to save a definite group of people—the elect and only the elect—through the work of Christ. Over and against definite atonement, Arminians advocate for a universal or unlimited atonement. They believe God decided that Christ would atone for everyone’s sins on the cross, even though not everyone will be saved. An Arminian theologian, Roger Olson, summarizes:

Arminius answers, “For the sins of those for whom Christ died were in such manner condemned in the flesh of Christ, that they, by that fact, are not delivered from condemnation, unless they actually believe upon Christ.” In other words, God decided that the sins of all people would be expiated by Christ’s death in such a way that only if people believe on Christ would their sins actually be forgiven.77

Arminians, therefore, hold that God chose to condemn all sins in Christ, but no one is actually saved unless he believes. This position raises questions about the sufficiency of Christ’s death to save and limits the power and efficacy of the atonement to save, in the name of widening its scope. Arminians believe in an indefinite atonement; that is, Christ died indefinitely for everyone, not definitely for His chosen people.

Now, some who believe in unconditional election reject the doctrine of definite atonement. I have often found, however, that these so-called “four-point Calvinists” misunderstand the classical doctrine of definite atonement. They think definite atonement means that Christ did not die in any sense for all mankind. But in historic Reformed theology, the doctrine of definite atonement refers to God’s sovereign intention to save His chosen people through the all-sufficient work of Christ on the cross. The classical doctrine of definite atonement teaches, however, that Christ’s death is sufficient suffering for the sins of the world.

Consider what the Canons of Dordt originally taught. Canons of Dordt, Second Head, Article 3, on definite atonement, speaks of the universal sufficiency of Christ’s death. It says, “This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.”78 But while Christ’s death is more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the world, Canons of Dordt, Second Head, Article 8 declares that God intended to save only the elect through Christ’s death. It says, “It was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all the elect, in order that God might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation.”

We can say that Christ’s death is of such infinite value that had God chosen more people to be saved, Jesus would not have had to do any more to pay for their sins than what He has already done at the cross. Since the Son of God is of infinite value, then His death must also be of infinite value. That means Christ’s death is sufficient to atone for any and all sinners. But definite atonement teaches that God only intends to save the elect by Christ’s death. Another way of putting this is to say that only the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ on the cross (1 Peter 1:1; 2:4), and no others. The doctrine of definite atonement joyfully declares that God intended Christ’s death to effectively purchase every life blessing for His beloved chosen people, including new birth, faith, justification, adoption, and repentance, as well as an enduring holy life (Rom. 8:31–39).

Other Passages that Speak of a Definite Atonement

Other biblical passages speak to the definite scope of the atonement, which is particular to the elect. Matthew 1:21 says, “He will save His people from their sins.” Matthew 20:28 says that “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” In John 10:15, Jesus says, “I lay down my life for the sheep.” Acts 20:28 speaks of “the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” Christ did not obtain everyone by His blood, only the church. In John 17:24, Jesus prays, “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.” Christ’s priestly work of atonement and prayer is limited to the elect alone.

Certain texts explain what Christ actually accomplished by His death. He did not die merely to make redemption possible or to potentially reconcile people to God if they choose to believe. Rather, He died to actually redeem and reconcile His people to God. Romans 5:10 says, “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.”79 Galatians 1:4 says that Jesus “gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.” Colossians 1:21–22 says, “And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him.” Titus 2:14 teaches that Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.” Christ alone accomplished the full salvation of all of his people.

Some Objections to Definite Atonement Answered

Universal Atonement. Some insist that God counts all the sins of every person in the world against Christ on the cross. They teach that Jesus received the punishment for the sins of every single person who has ever lived or will ever live.

Advocates of universal atonement point to passages that say Christ died for the “world.” For example, 1 John 2:2 says, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” But in reply, the word “world” in the Bible does not refer to everyone who has ever lived or will ever live. Rather, it often simply refers to a great number of people, or to both Jews and Gentiles (see Rom. 1:8; Col. 1:5–6). When 1 John 2:2 says that Christ was the propitiation for the sins of the world, it means that Christ not only died for the Jews, but also for the Gentiles.

Those holding to a universal atonement also point to passages that say Christ died for “all” (e.g., 2 Cor. 5:14; Heb. 2:9). In reply, when the Bible uses the word “all” with respect to the object of Christ’s atonement, it refers to all of a definite group, not all of every human being who ever has lived or ever will live. For example, in 2 Corinthians 5:14 we are told that Christ died for all of “us,” that is, the Corinthian believers, and that the effect of His death for the believers at Corinth is that they will also certainly die to the guilt and power of their sin. Similarly, Hebrews 2:9 says that Christ tasted death for “everyone” (or all). But the next verse tells us that Christ died to bring “many sons to glory” (a limited number), so the word “all” of verse 9 refers to the “sons” of verse 10.

Another passage, 2 Peter 2:1, could appear to teach that Christ actually died for people who are condemned. It says, “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” This passage, however, refers to the Jews who had been bought out of Egypt by God, their Master (Ex. 15:13, 16; Deut. 32:6). Never does this term “Master” refer to the incarnate Christ.

From a theological perspective, John Owen skillfully refutes the doctrine of universal atonement in his book The Death of Death.80 The following argument draws upon Owen. If Jesus was punished on the cross for all the sins of everyone in the world, and yet some people are punished for their sins in hell, then God is unjust because He is requiring a double payment. God would be punishing the same sins twice, once on the cross and a second time in hell. But God cannot justly punish the same sins twice. Therefore, Jesus must not have paid for all of the sins of all men.

If the response is that Christ’s atonement was enough yet people must believe in order for Christ to pay for their sins on the cross, then the question becomes whether unbelief is a sin. Of course, unbelief is a sin, since God commands all men to believe, and to disobey His command is a sin. But if Jesus paid for all sins, then He also paid for the sin of unbelief, and we have the same problem as above. How can unbelievers justly pay for their sin of unbelief in hell, if Jesus has already paid for that sin on the cross? If the answer is that Christ did not pay for the sin of unbelief on the cross, then Jesus did not die for all sins, and the argument for universal atonement is relinquished, since Christ did not die for all of the sins of all men. His death would be a partial atonement that does not pay for all of the sins of all men and is ineffective to save.

Free Offer of the Gospel. Some think Christ’s atonement must be universal for there to be a free offer of the gospel to sinners. They ask how Christ can be offered to every sinner, if the atonement is limited to the elect. I answer in two ways.

First, as discussed above, definite atonement does not mean Christ’s blood lacks sufficient value to save every sinner. Christ would not have to suffer any more than He did to save every single sinner in the world, and if God had imputed the sins of every person to Christ on the cross, then every person would be saved. In that sense, the blood of Christ may be offered to all. Evangelists and missionaries can sincerely declare that Christ’s death is available to all who come to Him.

Second, it is not clear how an ineffectual universal atonement gives support to the free offer of the gospel to sinners. If Christ’s blood universally and actually atones for the sins of every person in the world on the condition of their belief, then a truthful offer might sound something like the following: “Come to Jesus Christ and receive His blood, which is ineffectual to save anyone. Trust in the blood that covers millions of people who are currently suffering under eternal torments. Come and trust that blood with your eternal future, which has no power in itself to save, unless you do something yourself.” Such a “free offer,” in reality, casts the sinner back on his own faith and obedience to make up for what is lacking in Christ’s atonement. It subtly turns poor sinners away from Christ and His atoning work and tells them that their salvation depends on themselves and their obedience, rather than upon Christ and His work alone. Rather, only a definite atonement can possibly be the ground of a free offer of the gospel.

Implications for Christian Life

This doctrine, perhaps more than any of the other doctrines of grace, leads to worship. Romans 5:10 says, “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” How do we respond to the glorious truth that Christ laid down His life to save hell-deserving sinners? There is no response but to fall on our faces with joy and gratitude for so great a salvation.

The Lord Jesus is altogether lovely! What a Savior! He does not draw a line in the sand and say, “If you cross this line, then I’ll love you enough to atone for your sins.” Rather, He crosses the line Himself, and before we do anything good, He gives His life away to save us completely! He knows everything about us, all of our wretched sins, and in great love, He still died for us. His death for us means our salvation is completely accomplished. Nothing we ever do, no sins we ever commit, can possibly nullify what He accomplished on the cross! He reconciled us to God! He will bring us into glory with Himself forever. So what do we do? We worship Him because He is good and worthy of worship. We love and adore Him, and we live the rest of our lives for His great glory.

The Covenant of Grace: Effectual Grace
and Perseverance of the Saints

The doctrines of effectual grace and the perseverance of the saints are precious to the believer. They mean that God graciously works in us for our salvation so that we will actually be saved from beginning to end. Philippians 1:6, expressing the truth of both effectual grace and perseverance of the saints, says, “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” God began our salvation in His effectual grace by regenerating us, and He continues our salvation by working sanctification in us.

Covenant of Grace

In Reformed covenant theology, the doctrines of effectual grace and perseverance of the saints are blessings of the covenant of grace. God made the covenant of grace with His elect people to save them from their sins. The blessings of the covenant of grace flow out of Christ’s work in the covenant of redemption. Christ accomplished redemption in the covenant of redemption. Christ applies redemption in the covenant of grace. When the Holy Spirit joins us to Christ in the covenant of grace, He gives us not only the objective graces of justification and adoption, but He also gives the subjective graces of effectual calling, regeneration, sanctification, and perseverance to the end.

Hebrews 8:10–12, which quotes Jeremiah 31:31–34, summarizes the graces God gives to His people in the covenant of grace. It tells us that God irresistibly draws His people to Himself: “I will put my laws into their minds and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God and they will be my people” (Heb. 8:10). God monergistically converts the hearts of His people. God says “I will” do these things. In the covenant of grace, God irresistibly draws His people to Himself.

The elect are also given the gift of perseverance in the covenant of grace. Hebrews says, “They shall not teach each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more” (Heb. 8:11–12). God forgives the sins of His people and He preserves all members of the covenant of grace in the knowledge of Himself to the very end. Jeremiah 32:40 says, “I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.”

Therefore, the covenant of grace provides the blessings of effectual grace and the perseverance of the saints to those God chose for salvation from the foundation of the world.

Second London Confession 10.1 speaks of effectual calling. It says,

Second London Confession 17.1 speaks of the perseverance of the saints and shows how it flows out of effectual calling. It says,

Second London Confession 17.2 argues that the perseverance of the saints is not only connected to God’s sovereign election but is part of the covenant of grace. It says,

This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace, from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

Effectual Grace

“Effectual grace,” or “irresistible grace” as it is sometimes called, means that God effectively, or certainly, brings His chosen people to salvation. Without such effectual saving grace, even God’s chosen people would resist salvation to their deaths because they all inherited fallen and depraved natures from Adam. “Perseverance of the saints” means that God effectively causes His chosen people to remain saved and that they continue to live holy lives.

Effectual grace is logically necessary in light of the fallen nature of human beings. Because human beings are totally depraved and, therefore, totally unable to do anything to bring themselves to God, the only way for them to be saved and remain saved is for God to provide a powerful, conquering kind of grace that overcomes all natural human resistance to first and final salvation. Biblically speaking, a prevenient, resistible grace would not be sufficient to save totally depraved sinners.

John 6:44 is an important text for understanding the relationship between total inability and effectual grace. It says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day” (emphasis added). Remember the important difference between “can” and “may.” Jesus is not saying that no one is allowed to come to Him. Rather, He is saying that no one is able to come. The natural state of human beings, under the curse of Adam’s sin in the covenant of works, is that they do not have the capacity to come to Christ.

But then Jesus adds a wonderful word: unless. This is amazingly good news! No one can come to Christ, unless something is done. But what must be done? Jesus says no one can come to Him unless the Father “draws him.” Now some think the word “draws” only means that the Father enables or helps people to come to Christ. But the Greek word translated “draw” is helko, which means “to drag or impel.” In other places of the Bible, that same word is used to speak of Peter drawing a sword (John 18:10). Peter did not merely enable or help his sword to come out of its scabbard. No, Peter pulled it out effectually! Similarly, the disciples drew in their nets (John 21:6, 11), but they did not just enable their nets to come. They forcefully hauled in the nets, which were full of fish. Paul and Silas were caught and drawn before the rulers of the city (Acts 16:19; 21:30; see also James 2:6). They were not helped to the rulers, but dragged to them forcibly.

Therefore, John 6:44 is teaching that the Father must and does effectually bring people to Christ, if they are to be saved at all, since no one is capable of coming to Christ without Him. Every sinner naturally resists God’s effectual grace with all of his power, but no sinner can ever successfully resist the effectual grace of God. That is because God’s effectual grace powerfully and certainly conquers human resistance and causes hardened sinners to embrace Jesus Christ freely and willingly. Some misunderstand the doctrine of effectual grace to teach that God forces men against their wills to come to Christ. But effectual grace never works against the human will; rather, it changes the will, causing men to want to come to Christ, to trust and love Him, though they previously opposed and hated Him.

The Canons of Dordt, Third and Fourth Heads, Article 16 declares:

Just as by the fall humans did not cease to be human, endowed with intellect and will, and just as sin, which has spread through the whole human race, did not abolish the nature of the human race but distorted and spiritually killed it, so also this divine grace of regeneration does not act in people as if they were blocks and stones; nor does it abolish the will and its properties or coerce a reluctant will by force, but spiritually revives, heals, reforms, and—in a manner at once pleasing and powerful—bends it back.

Biblical Connection Between Irresistible Grace
and Perseverance of the Saints

The Scriptures frequently link irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints. Jesus said, “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day” (John 6:39), and, as we have just seen, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). Also, Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand” (John 10:27–29).

Some people deny irresistible grace but insist on a doctrine that says no believer can lose his salvation. Yet in the Bible, these two doctrines frequently appear together. The reason the saints persevere is that God irresistibly brought them to salvation in the first place. It is quite strange that many separate these two doctrines, denying irresistible grace but affirming the perseverance of the saints. Such a position is not rooted in careful biblical theology.

Perseverance of the Saints

The Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is not the same as “eternal security” or “once saved, always saved.” Reformed theology teaches those things, but it also teaches that God keeps His chosen people by continuing to work in them so that they live holy lives, even through many storms and great trials and difficulties. The Reformed doctrine of perseverance is the opposite of “easy believism” because it teaches that while God works every grace in His people, they must and always do, by grace, responsibly continue in the faith. The Bible speaks of the perseverance of the saints in two ways. First, it speaks of God’s preservation of the saints or, we might say, God’s perseverance for the saints. Second, it tells us of the perseverance of the saints in faithful holy living to the end.

There are a number of passages describing God’s certain preservation of the saints. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1:8–9 that Christ “will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.”81 In 1 Corinthians 15:10, Paul says, “But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.” Philippians 2:12–13 says to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” In 1 Thessalonians 5:23–24, Paul writes, “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it.” And 1 Peter 1:3–5 says that the elect are born again “to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

Additionally, the Bible teaches that because God works in the saints, they must and will actually persevere to the end. Jesus says in Matthew 3:8 to “bear fruit in keeping with repentance.” In Mark 13:13, He says, “The one who endures to the end will be saved.” In John 15:8, He says, “By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.” Romans 6:22 teaches that union with Christ “leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.” Romans 8:13 says, “For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” Hebrews 12:14 commands, “Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” Revelation 2:7 says, “To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.” Revelation 14:12 says, “Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.”

Second London Confession 17.1 says,

Those whom God has accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, from which source he still begets and nourishes in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon; notwithstanding, through unbelief and the temptations of Satan, the sensible sight of the light and love of God may for a time be clouded and obscured from them, yet he is still the same, and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being engraved upon the palm of his hands, and their names having been written in the book of life from all eternity.

Some Objections to Perseverance of the Saints Answered

The Bible records what appear to be actual cases of people falling away from Christ (1 Tim. 1:19–20; 2 Tim 2:17–18; 4:10). But Scripture teaches that those who fall away from Christ are falling away from a false profession of faith and were never true Christians (1 John 2:19; Rev. 3:1). The Bible warns us that there will be “false brothers” (2 Cor. 11:15, 26; Gal. 2:4), and it gives many warnings against falling away. In each case, the warning is against falling away from a profession of faith in Christ and from an outward association with Christ and His people.

The book of Hebrews, for example, gives many warnings against falling away (Heb. 2:1–3; 3:12; 4:1–2; 6:4–9; 10:26–31). But the book of Hebrews was written to baptized, confessing Christians, to the visible church (Heb. 3:1; 4:14; 10:23). Not all within the church of the Hebrews were true Christians. The author was warning the visible mixed church against renouncing their profession of faith, denying the true gospel, and turning to Judaism. What is the purpose of the Bible’s warnings? They are preached to the visible church for two purposes: (1) to exhort the unbelievers to believe and (2) to exhort the believers to press on in faith. It is not in the power of unbelievers to believe or believers to keep on believing apart from grace. But God uses means, including the warnings of the Bible, to cause both to happen by the gracious power of the Holy Spirit.

Implications for the Christian Life

The Canons of Dordt have much to say about the implications of this doctrine for Christian holiness. Canons of Dordt, Fifth Head, Article 10 shows that the doctrine of perseverance provides great assurance to believers through the promises of God. It explains,

Accordingly, this assurance does not derive from some private revelation beyond or outside the Word, but from faith in the promises of God which are very plentifully revealed in the Word for our comfort, from the testimony of “the Holy Spirit testifying with our spirit that we are God’s children and heirs” (Rom. 8:16–17), and finally from a serious and holy pursuit of a clear conscience and of good works. If God’s chosen ones in this world did not have this well-founded comfort that the victory will be theirs and this reliable guarantee of eternal glory, they would be of all people most miserable.

Canons of Dordt, Fifth Head, Article 12 shows that the doctrine of perseverance is an incentive to godliness. It says,

This assurance of perseverance, however, so far from making true believers proud and carnally self-assured, is rather the true root of humility, of childlike respect, of genuine godliness, of endurance in every conflict, of fervent prayers, of steadfastness in crossbearing and in confessing the truth, and of well-founded joy in God. Reflecting on this benefit provides an incentive to a serious and continual practice of thanksgiving and good works, as is evident from the testimonies of Scripture and the examples of the saints.

Canons of Dordt, Fifth Head, Article 13 says the doctrine of perseverance does not induce God’s people to carelessness.

Neither does the renewed confidence of perseverance produce immorality or lack of concern for godliness in those put back on their feet after a fall, but it produces a much greater concern to observe carefully the ways which the Lord prepared in advance. They observe these ways in order that by walking in them they may maintain the assurance of their perseverance, lest, by their abuse of God’s fatherly goodness, the face of the gracious God (for the godly, looking upon that face is sweeter than life, but its withdrawal is more bitter than death) turn away from them again, with the result that they fall into greater anguish of spirit.

Conclusion

In closing, the Bible’s covenant theology demonstrates that the five points of Calvinism are not a narrow teaching of the Bible, limited to certain proof texts or an aspect of systematic theology. The five points of Calvinism are deeply rooted in the very superstructure of the Bible, which means that the whole of Scripture is about the glorious doctrines of God’s sovereign redeeming grace.

Unconditional election is an aspect of God’s eternal decree. Total depravity is one of the results of the curse of the covenant of works. Christ accomplished a definite atonement in the covenant of redemption, and He applies His merits in the covenant of grace by giving the gifts of effectual grace and the perseverance of the saints to the end.

These doctrines of sovereign grace are all interconnected. Total depravity means that if we are to be saved at all, God must act to save us, since we cannot save ourselves. God acts to save us first in His unconditional election of some sinners and the appointment of Christ’s definite atonement to redeem them. Christ’s atoning work secures the blessings of effectual grace and perseverance of the saints.

When God applies these glorious graces to His beloved people in the covenant of grace, He joins them together in Christ and they covenant together in local churches, where they worship Him freely from the heart and grow together in God’s persevering grace. The church will be the subject of the next chapter.

71. It’s not certain when the term “five points of Calvinism” first emerged, but probably sometime in the early 1900s. Consider the following sources for excellent discussions of the five points of Calvinism: Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951); David N. Steel, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended and Documented, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2004); Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, enlarged edition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972).
72. The best early Reformed Baptist book-length response to Arminian exegesis and theology is John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth (Paris: Baptist Standard Bearer, 1992).
73. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.16.5, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 204.
74. For an excellent and thorough treatment of the problem of evil, see Scott Christensen, What About Evil?: A Defense of God’s Sovereign Glory (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2020), and his shorter summary of the same argument in Scott Christensen, Defeating Evil: How God Glorifies Himself in a Dark World (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2024).
75. Emphasis added throughout the next several paragraphs.
76. Ian Hamilton, “Winsome Calvinism,” The Banner of Truth 526 (2007).
77. Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006), 227.
78. Emphasis added throughout this paragraph.
79. Emphasis added throughout this paragraph.
80. See John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2007), 135.
81. Emphasis added throughout the next two paragraphs.

The Church

The church is the bride of the Lord Jesus Christ, joined to Him in the new covenant to receive all of His graces, to grow into His likeness, to worship and to commune with Him forever and ever. When Adam sinned and the whole human race fell in Adam, God could justly have left us all to die in our sins. But instead, He graciously chose a particular people to bring back to Himself. He did not merely choose individuals, but He chose those individuals to be gathered into a people, His church, to bring them back to Himself as a community of redeemed believers.

The church is on a journey back to God (Heb. 12:1–17). We are not alone on this journey, and that is a good thing because we need each other. We need the church—its God-given ordinances, structure, and fellowship—as we travel this perilous road because there are many powerful enemies lurking in the shadows. The church must battle against Satan, the world, and the flesh, who never rest in their efforts to harm us, distract us, and lead us away from the Lord Jesus. We can only battle these enemies successfully with the means God has given to the church, especially the Word of God, the sacraments, prayer, and the communion of the saints. With these weapons, the church makes its way through a wilderness of sin and devils until it reaches the promised land of eternal glory. The destination we are seeking is the knowledge of God and communion with Him in a new and incorruptible kingdom where we will dwell in perfect peace with God and His people. But in this present evil age, together we have to fight under grace to become partakers of the divine nature, to know true joy and real eternal life in Him, to become truly human, just as God made us to be—perfect images who live in real relationships of love and joy with God and with each other, in part here but fully in the hereafter.

That is why the church is so important. We live in a separated, individualistic time. Our phones, televisions, and social media, along with many other distractions and temptations, have the effect of separating us from one another. Our world has become radically individualized, such that our identities are more anchored in our personal desires than in our relationships to God and to one another. But the Bible teaches that Christ is our Brother and the church is our eternal family. The church is at the very center of the Christian’s true identity. If a Christian is asked, “Who are you?” his first two thoughts ought to be “I am Christ’s” and “I am a member of the church.” While a Christian’s identity includes a particular God-given and fixed gender, a family, a calling, and a nation, the primary aspects of a Christian’s identity are first, his relationship to God, and second, his relationship to other believers because no other human relationship necessarily carries on into eternity. This chapter will study the church’s nature, summarizing the Reformed Baptist doctrine of the church.82

The Foundation of the Church

Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. He is its Creator, Savior, Lord, and Bridegroom. His shed blood as the mediator of the new covenant secures reconciliation to God, the gift the Holy Spirit, and the hope of eternal glory. Matthew 16:13–20 says,

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. (Emphasis added)

Peter gave the good confession. When Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16), Christ told him that he had answered well and replied, “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). Christ builds His church upon Peter’s apostolic profession that Christ is the Son of the living God. The apostles’ teachings in the pages of the New Testament explain who Christ is and what He has done, but they also show how the whole Old Testament points to Christ. That is what Peter’s profession is about. Christ builds His church on Peter and all of the apostles as they profess Christ and His teachings (Eph. 2:20).

The Holy Spirit unites the church to Christ by means of Scripture—law and gospel. Through the Word of God, the Holy Spirit fits the church to be the place of God’s presence (not a building, but the people). Because God justifies His church by grace through faith alone, it is just for Him to dwell with His people by His Spirit, and as Christ sanctifies His people through faith, He fits them more and more to enjoy and benefit from God’s presence among them. The church is God’s temple on earth, the people within whom God’s manifest presence dwells by His Word and Spirit.

The Marks of the Church

The Nicene Creed provides the four classical marks of the church. It says, “I believe in (1) one, (2) holy, (3) catholic, and (4) apostolic church.”

The first mark declares that the church is one because there is one covenant of grace, and one people of God, throughout all time. Ephesians 4:4–6 says, “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”

The second mark declares that the church is holy. The church is holy because it is set apart from the world in Christ. God’s people are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and have regenerate hearts. Everywhere the Bible refers to the church as “saints,” it means they are holy (e.g., Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1).

The third mark of the church is catholicity. The word “catholic” does not refer to the Roman Catholic church, but to the universality of the true church of the Lord Jesus Christ. It means that no matter where the church exists, no matter when the church exists, and no matter what nationalities contribute to its composition, it is the same church (Gal. 3:28). The true church, which believes the orthodox faith of the past, is one and the same as the true church of today, which means the church of heaven is one with the church on earth (Heb. 12:23). The church in China is one with the church of Brazil and the United States. The catholicity of the church means that everyone, everywhere, who trusts in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen for sinners, is part of the catholic church. Irenaeus describes this in the following way:

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [It believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father.83

The fourth mark of the church is apostolicity. The apostolic nature of the church means that the officers of the universal or catholic church are the apostles of Jesus Christ who wrote the New Testament to explain Christ’s ministry and the Old Testament Scriptures in light of the coming of Christ (John 14:26). Thus, the true church is grounded in the teachings of Scripture. It reads the whole of Scripture in light of Christ and the inspired apostolic teaching of the New Testament.

The Reformers clarified and expanded this fourth mark. They said that a truly apostolic church is centered on the gospel of Jesus Christ, which declares that we are justified by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone to the glory of God alone. This doctrine of justification that lies at the heart of the gospel leads to love for Christ and to a life of gospel obedience.

On the basis of the gospel recovered by the Reformers, they taught that the true church has three distinctives. First, all true churches preach the true gospel. Second, all true churches administer the sacraments as signs of the true gospel. Third, all true churches discipline anyone who formally or practically renounces the true gospel. Any so-called church that does not have all three of these distinctives is no church of the Lord Jesus, but is an imposter, a synagogue of Satan.

The Threefold Purpose or Mission of the Church

The Bible teaches that the church has a threefold mission or purpose: worship, edification, and evangelism. These three elements of the church’s mission represent a comprehensive account of the church’s relationships: God (worship), other believers (edification), and those who do not believe in Christ (evangelism). There is an order of priority among these relationships. Worship describes the church’s relationship to God, which is the most important relationship; therefore, it is the most important aspect of the church’s mission. The other elements of the church’s mission all flow from worship and serve the goal of worship. Edification describes the relationship of church members to one another. Believers edify one another as they worship God together. Evangelism describes the relationship of believers to those who do not believe. Believers evangelize unbelievers so that they might become worshipers of the one true God. Let us consider each of the three elements of the church’s mission.

God-Centered Worship

The Lord Jesus Christ must be the center of Christian worship. Rather than seeking entertainment, warm feelings, or personal gratification, faithful churches seek to receive God’s Word and honor Him in our public worship (Rom. 15:5–6; 16:25–27). The book of Psalms teaches us to sing hymns that declare God’s character, glory, and works. Churches should pray to express their love for God and hear His perfect Word explained in order to live in submission to it (Heb. 4:2). They strive to do all things decently and in order and believe that the acceptable way of worshiping the one true God is instituted by Him and limited by His own revealed will in the Holy Scriptures.

God-Centered Edification

When Christ saves sinners, He calls them to join local churches for the purpose of mutual edification and nurture (Col. 1:28). Christians gather together not for selfish ends, but to serve one another in love. Christians are to pray for one another, to bear each other’s burdens, to live in harmony with one another, to regard one another as more important than themselves, to meet each other’s needs, to rebuke and correct one another when necessary, to exercise their spiritual gifts toward one another, and to glorify God together with one voice, in love and unity that Christ may be all in all.

God-Centered Evangelism

Too much evangelism today emphasizes what God can do for you—give you “your best life now,” pay your bills, eliminate suffering, and make your life easy. Man-centered evangelism turns God into a vending machine who exists to satisfy felt needs, rather than recognizing Him as the Creator, Judge, and Savior of sinners. God-centered evangelism, on the other hand, focuses on God’s greatness as the sovereign Creator (Matt. 28:19–20). He is the righteous Judge who opposes sin. He is the merciful Savior who rescues us from our sins, and the wise King, who defends us and commands our lives in this world. True evangelism calls people to repent of their sins, to believe in Jesus Christ as the only way to escape from the wrath to come, and to obey God’s commandments in every part of their lives. God-centered evangelism seeks to win Christians who will love Christ and keep His commandments for His glory.

Having looked at the mission of the church, we now turn to consider the nature of the church, both universal and local.

The Universal and Local Church

The Universal Church

The universal, or catholic, church includes all of the elect of all ages, which will only be fully assembled in heaven on the last day. Ephesians 5:25 refers to the universal church when it says, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Paul isn’t saying that Christ died only for the local church of Ephesus, but for the whole bride of Christ, the church universal. For now, the universal church is invisible because it has no outward or visible structure, though God’s true people, who are part of the church universal, make themselves known by their holy speech and conduct. Second London Confession 26.1 says,

The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that fills all in all.

In this present evil age, the catholic church is the church militant. It is engaged in an ongoing battle against the enemies of its soul: Satan, the world, and the flesh (2 Cor. 10:5–7; Eph. 2:1–2; 6:12). But the church of heaven is the church triumphant, Christ having triumphed over all its enemies, and having brought it into a state of everlasting peace with Him (Heb. 12:23).

Local Churches

Individual local churches are the only divinely authorized institutional expressions of the universal church. A local church is a covenanted assembly of credibly professing believers. In order for a local church to exist, its people must have mutually agreed to believe and obey the Word of God together.

The Greek word translated church (ekklesia) means “assembly.” The etymological roots of the word ekklesia mean “called out,” and the word refers to God’s people being called out from a community into a gathering or assembly of professing believers. Think of a church bell summoning people in the community to gather for worship on Sunday. While the church is still the church, whether it is assembled on the Lord’s Day or scattered among various places during the week, the church assembles on the Lord’s Day for corporate worship and mutual edification in the Word of God.

The New Testament teaches that churches are associated with specific locations where they gather to meet and worship according to Christ’s commandments. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is addressed “to the church of God that is in Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2). Paul addressed Galatians to a group of churches who were closely connected to each other throughout Asia Minor. He does not refer to that closely associated group of churches as “the Galatian church [singular],” as though an association of churches were only one church. Rather he addressed the letter “to the churches [plural] of Galatia” (Gal. 1:2). He used the plural because each particular assembly was a separate local church. Similarly, when Paul wrote to the church in Thessalonica, he addressed his letter “to the church of the Thessalonians” (1 Thess. 1:1). Second London Confession 26.2 recognizes this and refers to local churches in terms of “particular congregations.” It says,

Every believer who professes the gospel and walks in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ ought to join himself to a particular local church. John Owen writes, “It is the duty of every one who professes faith in Christ Jesus, and takes due care of his own eternal salvation, voluntarily and by his own choice to join himself unto some particular congregation of Christ’s institution, for his own spiritual edification, and the right discharge of this his commands.”84

Regenerate Membership in the Local Church

The Scripture teaches that local churches ought to be composed of regenerate members. Nevertheless, unbelievers—“false brothers” who feign a credible profession of faith in Christ (e.g., Gal. 2:4)—might actually join local churches, but they do not belong in local churches. They have no right to be members. Only believers have a right to be church members. When Paul addressed the Ephesian church, he addressed them as “the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 1:1, emphasis added), showing that only faithful saints ought to be members of the church in Ephesus. Similarly, when he wrote to the church at Colossae, he spoke of them as “saints and faithful brothers in Christ” (Col. 1:2). Thus, the local church does not include curious or visiting unbelievers or visiting believers, those the Scripture calls “outsiders or unbelievers” (1 Cor. 14:23–24). It does not include unbelieving children, though they are certainly welcome to attend. Rather, the church’s membership is reserved exclusively for professing “saints”—which means they are regenerate. Only those who are faithful—that is, believers—have a right to be members and to covenant together to be a local church.

Scripture is clear about the regenerate nature of the local church, as 1 Corinthians 1:2–3 shows:

To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul provides several important facts about the church at Corinth. First, they are said to be “sanctified,” which means they have regenerate hearts and are justified before God. Second, they are “in Christ Jesus,” which means they are vitally united to Christ in the new covenant. As we have seen, the new covenant is a covenant of believers only (Heb. 8:10–12). Third, they are “called to be saints,” which means God effectually called them to salvation. Fourth, they are a people who sincerely “call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” They are true worshipers.

When Paul speaks of them this way, he does not mean that there are no false professors in the church of Corinth. Instead, he is extending a judgment of charity, speaking of them in terms of what they profess to be and whom they ought to be.

Paul makes it clear that he regards them to be believers in 1 Corinthians 1:4–9. He writes,

I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge—even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you—so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. (Emphasis added)

These verses show that the members of the Corinthian church were examined and found to have a credible profession of faith. Paul says he is thankful for them because of their “speech” and “knowledge” of Christ. The members of the church of Corinth were able to speak of the gospel, and what they said about Christ proved that they had a true knowledge of Him. But how did Paul know that? He says, “The testimony about Christ was confirmed among you” (1 Cor. 1:6). Evidently, before joining, each prospective member of the Corinthian church had to give a testimony about Christ. Their testimony was confirmed not just by the elders but by the church as a whole. We see the same thing in the book of Hebrews, which was written to those who confessed faith in Jesus (Heb. 3:1; 4:14; 10:23).

As a result of their credible profession of faith, the Corinthian church could enjoy the promise that Christ “will sustain you to the end” (1 Cor. 1:8). Paul is teaching that local churches ought to be composed of believers who will endure to the end. Logically, that means none but true believers may join a local church. It further means that churches should guard their memberships by conducting membership classes and interviewing prospective members so that, as far as it depends on them, each individual who joins the church has an orthodox, sincere, and credible profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Benjamin Keach writes, “The person [applying for membership] must give an account of his faith; and of the work of grace upon his soul before the church; and also a strict inquiry must be made about his life and conversation (Ps 66:16; Ac 9:26–27).”85

Reasons for and Implications of
Regenerate Church Membership

Regenerate church membership derives from certain theological principles, which in turn result in various implications. When churches fail to guard the “front door” of membership, there will be deleterious effects on the life of the church, and important biblical church practices will become unintelligible. The most foundational and essential doctrine of the church, after the gospel, is the doctrine of regenerate church membership.

Reasons to Guard Regenerate Church Membership

1. Pure Worship

The church’s primary mission is to worship God. But there can be no pure worship without a regenerate church membership, since unbelievers cannot worship God. God despises the pretentious worship of unbelievers (Isa. 1:14; 29:13; Amos 5:21). Thus, the church of the Lord Jesus Christ must be regenerate in order to hear the Word of God sincerely, sing His praises with a pure heart, and edify one another in Christ. Romans 15:5–7 says,

May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. (Emphasis added)

An unregenerate church cannot glorify God with one voice. Only a church full of those who are convinced that their sins deserve God’s judgment, and that God has graciously saved them through the precious blood of Christ, will be able to worship and glorify God with joy and gratitude together. Only a church that actually worships Christ together will be able to encourage one another toward Christ, live in harmony with one another, and welcome one another in Christ to God’s glory. Unbelievers in a church have a different agenda and a hostile mind toward Christ. They worship different gods, and they will distract from the worship of the church.86

2. Unity in Orthodoxy

An unregenerate church cannot love the truth. At the risk of stating the obvious, unbelievers do not believe the gospel. Unbelievers do not trust the one true God or His Word. That means they cannot sincerely hold to the ancient creeds or subscribe to any orthodox confession of faith. They may deceive themselves and claim to do so, but they cannot believe the Bible’s truths from the heart.

Any church, therefore, that intentionally allows unbelievers into its membership will lose the gospel, along with all of biblical orthodoxy, within a generation or two. Unbelievers in a church will first start whittling away at the more difficult biblical truths, especially the ones most offensive to sinners and those most socially unacceptable at the moment. They will chafe against the Bible’s doctrines of an eternal hell and unconditional election, which are offensive to human pride. They will resist the Bible’s teaching about the distinction and roles of men and women, especially the doctrine that only qualified men may be pastors (1 Tim. 2:12) and that wives should submit to their husbands in the Lord (Eph. 5:22). They will resist the Bible’s teaching about the sin of homosexuality (Rom. 1:26–27). Next they will begin denying the gospel, while still using a facade of orthodox language. In the end, unbelievers in the church will formally abandon the gospel. That is why a regenerate church membership is absolutely necessary to uphold and defend the Word of God (1 Tim. 3:15).

Why is the preservation of orthodoxy so important? God’s people need the whole counsel of God for their lives. Deuteronomy 32:47 says, “It is no empty word for you, but your very life.” Our Lord Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). True life, in this world and the next, depends entirely on maintaining a robust biblical orthodoxy, and the church must insist upon a regenerate church membership in order to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

Unity in the truth is also essential for interpersonal unity within the church. In 1 Corinthians 1:10, Paul writes, “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment” (emphasis added). When church members do not all agree from the heart with the whole counsel of God, they will not agree about how to relate to each other and do the church’s mission together. There will be fights and conflicts unless the church believes Christ and holds faithfully to His Word as a whole.

3. Congregational Church Government

Congregational church government means that church members vote to decide the most important matters in church life, including who may join the church, who may be a church officer, and who should be disciplined by the church. The Didache declares, “Therefore, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord . . .” (ch. 15). The fact that it says “elect for yourselves” means that the earliest expressions of Christianity were congregational. Congregational churches vote to decide on their confessions of faith, constitutions, leaders, and yearly budgets. Congregationalism, however, is not a democracy. Rather, it is a monarchy, under the rule of Christ through His Word. Church members are not free to vote according to their personal preferences and opinions but are bound to vote only in obedience to the Word of God and in submission to the Lord Jesus Christ.

An unregenerate church, however, cannot possibly vote to decide the important matters of church life according to the mind of Christ. If a congregational church is unconverted, it will choose unbelieving leaders for itself, and its godless leaders will lead it further and further away from Christ (2 Tim. 4:3; Matt. 23:15). Such a church will likely fight and quarrel in congregational meetings as the passions of its members drive them to seek their own ways, rather than the way of Christ. Congregational government does not work without a regenerate church membership.

Congregational government is deeply biblical. In Acts 6:3, the apostles asked the church in Jerusalem to “pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty [of attending to the Hellenistic widows].” The apostles did not think of themselves as having the authority to appoint these first deacons unilaterally. Rather, the church was entrusted with choosing these men. Paul told the churches of Galatia that they were responsible for identifying true and false teachers (Gal. 1:8–9), which implies that the church must choose its pastors.

Regarding the need for churches to choose their officers, Second London Confession 26.9 says,

The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the office of bishop or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself; and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands
of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein; and of a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition
of hands.

Moreover, the Bible teaches that the whole congregation of a church must vote on matters of church discipline. In 2 Corinthians 2:6, speaking of an excommunicated man, Paul says, “For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough.” A majority of the members of the church at Corinth decided to discipline a man, and therefore, he was excommunicated from the assembly.

So we see that there are several doctrines that require a regenerate church membership. The fact that these doctrines are all interconnected proves the truthfulness of them and of the Word of God as a whole.

Implications of Regenerate Membership

Just as there were several theological reasons to guard regenerate church membership, there are also several practical consequences.

1. Baptism of Disciples Alone

Since only believers may be members of a local church, only believers should be baptized. While paedobaptist traditions say that the children of believers should receive baptism, the Bible does not teach that anywhere. Reformed paedobaptists teach that the children of believers have always been included in the covenant of grace, and therefore they should receive the covenant sign. In a previous chapter, however, we saw that the covenant of grace always and only included believers. The new covenant only has believing members in it (Heb. 8:10–13). Therefore, only believers should receive the new covenant sign of baptism.87

John 4:1–2 says, “Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples) . . .” In Christ’s ministry, only disciples were baptized. Jesus taught His disciples to baptize disciples alone.

Again in Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands His disciples, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Who is to be baptized? Only individuals who become disciples from among the nations. Some have said that in Matthew 28:19 Jesus is commanding the church to “disciple the nations” and to “baptize them.” But whole nations cannot be baptized, and we have no example of baptizing a nation anywhere in Scripture. Rather, throughout the book of Acts, individuals become disciples and they are baptized. Further, the parallel text on the Great Commission in Luke 24:47 requires individuals from among the nations to repent of their sins.

The Bible everywhere teaches that discipleship is individual, not familial or national. Individuals must personally, and voluntarily, commit to be Christ’s disciples. The Lord Jesus says in Luke 14:26–33,

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, “This man began to build and was not able to finish.” Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

In other words, a person must be old enough and mature enough to commit to Christ, even if his own family does not follow Christ. If he cannot commit to Christ as an individual, Christ says, “he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). That means he cannot receive baptism (Matt. 28:19). He must be able to “count the cost” of discipleship (Luke 14:28), or else he cannot be Christ’s disciple.

This biblical requirement of the baptism of disciples alone means that churches should not baptize just anyone who comes for baptism. In some Baptist churches, there has been an unbiblical tradition of immediately baptizing those who profess faith in Christ without any examination of their faith. But in light of the fact that only disciples should be baptized, pastors should carefully examine candidates for baptism (Luke 14:26–33; 1 Cor. 1:6). Those who come for baptism ought to give a credible profession of faith before the church as a whole prior to being received into church membership. The baptism of believers is the ancient tradition of the church. The Didache says, “Before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before” (ch. 7). The fact that “the baptized” should prepare himself by fasting indicates that the baptism of infants was not in view. Moreover, there is no mention whatsoever of the baptism of infants in this early church instruction manual.

2. Church Discipline

Regenerate church membership implies church discipline. Regenerate membership requires “front door” discipline to ensure that only credibly professing believers join the church. Regenerate membership also requires formative discipline in the Word of God, and all of the ordinary means of grace, to feed and strengthen believers. It necessitates corrective discipline if any member loses his credible profession of faith, either by embracing heresy or by committing gross unrepentant sin. The Bible’s teaching about church discipline makes no sense without regenerate church membership.

But Scripture is clear that churches are to practice discipline. Two key passages about corrective church discipline are Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5. Matthew 18:15–17 says,

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Emphasis added)

Christ is speaking of personal and private sins between two individuals. Ordinarily such sins involve inter-personal conflicts, disputes, and petty offenses where Christians are not treating each other as they should. What may begin with small offenses can lead to great divisions and strife within a church, unless the people involved repent of their sins.

But when it comes to public offenses, which involve gross heresy or high-handed sins against God and the faith itself, the Bible outlines a different procedure. Some sins are of such an egregious nature that the whole church has an immediate interest, and if the sinning member does not clearly demonstrate repentance, the church must confirm every fact and excommunicate him. Edward Hiscox writes, “A public offense is one claimed to be a breach of Christian morals, or a violation of covenant faith or duty. It is not an offensive act committed against an individual, of which that individual might complain. It is an injury to the cause of piety, a scandal to the Christian name and profession.”88 Describing public sin, 1 Corinthians 5:9–13 says,

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people – not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler – not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

The sins listed in this passage are not sins of the heart, nor are they small. These are all great sins, including soul-damning heresy (idolatry), sex outside of lawful marriage, murder, theft, gross or public drunkenness, perjury, etc. When church members commit such sins, they are not mere personal offenses. Rather these sins are an offense to God and to the whole church because they strike at the heart of the faith. Without deep remorse and repentance, such members must be excommunicated. All discipline should be conducted in love and grace toward all parties involved. The goals of church discipline are (1) to glorify Christ, (2) to warn and protect the church, (3) to be a means of grace to the sinning member, and (4) to be a witness of the holiness of God’s people to the community.

3. Evangelism and Missions

Regenerate church membership also implies that the church cannot grow without evangelism. Evangelism involves preaching the law and the gospel to sinners and praying for their conversion. That means churches do not grow when families have babies. They do not grow by military conquest. Churches do not grow when cultural Christianity makes it popular or socially advisable to join. Churches grow through no other means but conversion. Conversion only happens through the means God has ordained: the preaching of Christ crucified and risen for sinners.

Therefore, while there may be many good and faithful Christian things to do, such as digging wells for those who do not have clean drinking water, adopting children, resisting abortion, donating blood, or feeding the hungry at a soup kitchen, such kind acts are not the mission of the church. They may at times help to serve the mission of the church. But the church’s mission is to proclaim Christ and Him crucified and risen for the conversion of sinners and the building up of the church (Acts 5:42; 6:2; 8:4, 40; 9:28; 10:42; 14:7; etc.).

Another important consideration is that Christ gave the Great Commission to the leaders of the church, not merely to individual Christians (Matt. 28:19–20). True missions is, therefore, always churchly. Biblical mission work never tries to evangelize individuals without reference to any local church. Rather, biblical missions seeks to reproduce whole churches among the nations, to see sinners converted, baptized, and joined to local churches where they will be taught all that Christ has commanded. This is why faithful missionaries are always members of particular local churches, under their oversight, care, discipleship, and discipline. Faithful missionaries report back to their local churches about the progress of their work.

4. Separation of the Church from the State

Another necessary implication of regenerate church membership is that the church is separate and distinct from the state. This is not to say that God is separate from civil government, but that the institutions of the church and the state have distinct jurisdictions. The state, a civil jurisdiction or temporal government in the world, always and necessarily includes believers and unbelievers, but Christ tells us that the church may only be composed of believers. This means that the church and the state are to be governed differently and to different ends. The purpose of the state is to order human beings to temporal life, under God (Gen. 9:1–7). The purpose of the church is to order believers to eternal life through the redemptive work of Jesus (Col. 1:28).

Therefore, God has not given the state any authority to regulate the elements and ordinances of the worship or government of the church. The state is not competent to meddle in such matters, and whenever it has tried, it has done great harm to the church and attempted to use the church as a political pawn. On the other hand, God has not given the church any authority to use the powers of the state to impose worship on the general public. Christ’s redemptive kingdom cannot grow and true worship cannot be brought about by mere temporal means, the raw power of the sword or human devices of any kind. God has ordained that true worship can only be established by the Word of God in the hand of the Holy Spirit when He brings people to sincere faith in Christ. But this is not to say that the church and the state have no positive relation to one another. When the state and the church are rightly ordered, the state provides a stable temporal context and platform for the advancement of Christ’s redemptive kingdom, and Christ’s redemptive kingdom serves and helps to stabilize the state, if God provides the necessary common grace. The church and the state, therefore, are both under God and serve one another when each does what God requires it to do. But neither has formal authority to rule over the particular duties assigned to the other, and each has distinct jurisdictional boundaries.

Christ spoke of the state’s jurisdiction. He taught that the state has the right to collect taxes, for instance. In Mark 12:17, Jesus said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” This implies that the state has other unique responsibilities as well, such as the duty to wield the sword against evildoers (Rom. 13:4; cf. Gen 9:6). But if the civil power commands anything contrary to the Word of God, the church must say with Peter and the apostles, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Otherwise, Christians are cheerfully to submit to the civil government. The apostle Peter writes,

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (1 Peter 2:13–17)

These are strong words. Christians should have a posture of subjection to every human institution for Christ’s sake.89 Why? To silence the enemies of Christ.

The Word and Sacrament

Reformed Baptist churches believe that God has provided ordinary means of grace to the church: the Word and the sacrament. These two ordinances are God’s speech to us. God speaks to us in His Word the Bible, but God also speaks to us through the sacraments, which are the Word of God in visible form. Prayer, congregational singing, and fellowship are the church’s grateful response to God’s Word. In the Word and sacrament, God speaks to us. In prayer, singing, and fellowship, we speak to God and to one another.

The Word of God

The Word of God read and preached (1 Tim. 4:1–5, 13) is the means by which Christ builds up His church (Rom. 16:25–27). The goal of preaching is worship. Therefore, the preaching of Christ and Him crucified and risen from the dead from all of Scripture is the centerpiece of Christian worship. Such preaching strengthens the church by the Holy Spirit. Preaching, therefore, ought to explain particular passages in light of the whole counsel of God, which means it should be Christ-centered because Christ is the center of the Bible, both the Old and the New Testaments. Reformed preaching employs sound grammatical-historical theological exegesis, taking into account the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Christ, as well as the law/gospel contrast in justification and the gospel/law continuum in sanctification. Faithful preaching always works to wisely apply the Word of God to the believing soul and life, both exposing sin to bring about conviction and holding forth Christ as the great and sufficient hope of life and salvation for poor sinners (Heb. 4:12–13).

Biblical and Reformed preaching avoids leading people to guilt-driven obedience, opining at length on political and social issues, or dealing in vague abstractions or tenuous theological speculations. Rather, Reformed preaching seeks the glory of God by directing the minds and hearts of God’s people to worship Christ and to grow into His image in all of life. Biblical preaching calls unbelievers to Christ and exhorts believers to live balanced lives in love to God and love to others for his great glory.90

The Sacraments

The term “sacrament” refers to a sacred mystery. The term “ordinance” refers to an element of worship that is ordered, or commanded, by Christ. Reformed Baptists are happy to use the two terms interchangeably. According to Scripture, the only two sacraments Christ authorized for the church are baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These ordinances should be administered only within the church by those who are called and qualified to administer them (2LCF 28.2). Jesus commissioned the apostles, the leaders of the church, to baptize (Matt. 28:19–20). The apostle Paul says that the leaders of the church are “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1). The Lord’s Supper should only be taken by local churches “when you come together” (1 Cor. 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34) and never by private individuals or in settings outside the formal assembly of the church.

The two ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper are “visible words” that preach the gospel of Jesus Christ in visible form. Baptism preaches Christ by dipping the believer into water, signifying the union of the believer with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The Lord’s Supper preaches Christ when the believer eats of the bread and drinks from the cup, signifying the union of the believer with Christ’s broken body and poured out blood.

Reformed Baptists agree with Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper as a means of grace.91 Calvin taught that the Lord’s Supper is not a mere symbol. Rather, when a believer takes the Lord’s Supper, the Holy Spirit effectually administers the benefits of the body and blood of Christ who is glorified and has ascended into heaven. The Holy Spirit brings the benefits of Christ in heaven to believers on earth by means of the Lord’s Supper. Thus, the Lord’s Supper is a means of grace. It is effectual for the salvation, or sanctification, of the elect in the sense that when a believer takes the Supper, the Holy Spirit strengthens and nourishes his faith as he participates in real fellowship or communion with Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). Christ is really present at the Lord’s Supper, not physically but by the Holy Spirit who conveys the benefits of Christ’s physical body and blood to the believer.

Second London Confession 30.1 says,

The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and showing to all the world the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other. (Emphasis added.)

Second London Confession 30.7 says,

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. (Emphasis added.)

Reformed Baptists also believe that baptism saves, but only in the sense that it is a sanctifying ordinance to the believer, just as the gospel is a sanctifying word to the believer (1 Peter 3:21). Baptism is not a converting or regenerating ordinance; rather, it is effectual for the sanctification of those who have already been converted. Moreover, the gospel that is proclaimed in baptism leads the faith of the believer to Christ so that Christ’s blood and forgiveness is brought near to his conscience once again, and his faith is reassured of his salvation through the promise of the gospel (Luke 3:3; Col. 2:12–14).92

The Baptist Catechism adds:

Q 93: What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?

A: The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the word, baptism, the Lord’s supper, and prayer; all which means are made effectual to the elect for salvation (Mt. 28:19, 20; Acts 2:42, 46, 47).93

Q 96: How do baptism and the Lord’s supper become effectual means of salvation?

A: Baptism and the Lord’s supper become effectual means of salvation, not for any virtue in them, or in him that does administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ (1 Pet. 3:21; Mt. 3:11; 1 Cor. 3:6, 7), and the working of the Spirit in those that by faith receive them (1 Cor. 12:3; Mt. 28:19).94

So we’ve seen that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are means of grace. But these two sacraments are also important for church discipline. Baptism is “front door” discipline inasmuch as only those who credibly profess faith in Christ may receive baptism, and baptism precedes church membership (Acts 2:41; 1 Cor 12:13). The Lord’s Supper is part of the church’s formative discipline, but it also plays a role in the church’s corrective discipline. It is part of formative discipline because it is a means of grace through which the Spirit forms believers more and more into Christ’s likeness. It is part of corrective discipline because the church should withdraw table fellowship from members who walk in a disorderly way, violating their professions of faith. Paul writes, “I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one” (1 Cor. 5:11, emphasis added).

The Two Offices of a Local Church

Christ has appointed only two offices in the local church: elders and deacons. Those who hold these offices are recognized and chosen by a congregational vote, according to scriptural qualification. Church officers are gifts of God to His churches to lead them, according to Christ’s commands, and to strengthen them in every grace (Eph. 4:11–16). The officers of the church are to lead as servants, just as Christ commanded. Mark 10:42–45 says,

And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Humility is the chief mark of a man qualified to be an officer in the church of the Lord Jesus. He is a man who submits to Christ and His Word, and rather than lording it over others in the church, he serves them in love and prays for them.

Pastors/Elders/Bishops

The Bible uses the term “elder” interchangeably with “pastor” and “bishop” or “overseer” (Acts 20:17, 28).95 These words refer to different functions of the same office. Pastor refers to an elder in regard to his responsibility to shepherd God’s flock. He nourishes the church by feeding them on the Word of God (John 21:17), praying for the people and serving them (Acts 6:4), and leading them (1 Peter 5:1–4). He does this by loving the sheep, setting a good example of faithfulness, and proclaiming the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). A pastor also defends the flock from false teachings and wolves who would devour them (Acts 20:29; Titus 1:9). The Bible teaches that pastors must be qualified men who are godly and able to teach the Word of God with wisdom and grace (1 Tim. 3:1–7).

The term bishop, which means “overseer,” refers to the responsibility of an elder to govern the church. Only the elders are authorized, called, and qualified to rule the church, under Christ, by the appointment of the church. Elders are to lead the church, under grace, as servants of Christ and His people, according to the authority of God’s Word (Titus 2:15). They are required to lead the church to accomplish its threefold mission to worship God, edify the saints, and proclaim the gospel at home and abroad. On the importance of the presence of the bishop for all matters connected with the church, Ignatius wrote,

Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.96

The term elder is the most frequently used word in the Bible to refer to this office. The word refers to one individual who is a member of the larger governing body of the church, called an eldership. The New Testament ideal is that each local church will have more than one elder, or pastor. The eldership is the only governing body of the church, especially administering the church’s worship, order, and discipline. Acts 14:23 says, “They had appointed elders [plural] for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.” That is, every church called a plural number of elders. The biblical term elder is much like our term “congressman.” The name implies that he is a member of a body. In spite of the modern controversy, God does not permit women to be elders, or overseers, of His churches. Only qualified men may lead the churches of Jesus (1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:12–15).

Churches are to support their pastors by praying for them faithfully (Eph. 6:18–20), obeying them in the Lord and submitting to them as they order the church (Heb. 13:17–18), following their godly example (1 Cor. 4:16), standing by them in all trials, and defending them against lies (2 Tim. 4:16). Churches should also pay their pastors a comfortable supply, a just salary, which is taught in the Word of God (1 Cor. 9:9–12; 1 Tim. 5:18).

Deacons

Deacons are the second office of a local church. The term deacon means “servant.” Their office originates in Acts 6:1–4, which says,

Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

The apostles appointed the first deacons to care for the Hellenist widows, in order to reduce the burden on pastors. In some churches today, pastors function as CEO administrators and neglect prayer and the hard work of studying God’s Word. But biblical pastors study the Scriptures diligently and pray for the church. Therefore, the highest responsibility of deacons is to care for the practical needs of the church so that pastors are free to pray and minister the Word of God.

Furthermore, deacons are under the authority and oversight of the pastors and are not in any sense overseers of the pastors or the church. Some churches sinfully follow the lead of corporate America, and the deacons function like a board of directors, evaluating the pastors, determining their responsibilities, and unilaterally setting their salaries. Such a system turns pastors into little more than hirelings. But Alexander Strauch helpfully writes,

Identifying the role of New Testament overseers (= elders) is especially important because in many churches today deacons are the governing board of the church. In such circumstances, deacons act as quasi-overseers. When deacons are made overseers and overseers are made deacons, the church is left with neither biblical overseers nor biblical deacons.97

Thus the elders are responsible to oversee the deacons, and the deacons should submit to the biblical leadership of their pastors while they tend to the practical affairs of the church. The Bible requires deacons to be godly and wise men because they must serve others in such a way that their work does not foment division or difficulty in the church. If deacons encounter gossip, slander, or other kinds of conflict, their wisdom and godliness should help to produce peace and calm in the church.

Deacons are officers who serve the church in managing its practical and material affairs. They oversee the distribution of church funds in accordance with the agreed-upon church budget. They are especially responsible to care for the poor and needy in the church, including widows and orphans. Deacons help to oversee the building and grounds of the church. In public worship, they may ensure that practical affairs are prepared before any baptisms, and that tithes and offerings are collected. They may help to distribute the elements of the Lord’s Supper.

The Church’s Instruction of Families

Local churches are to teach families how to be families. The Word of God reveals what families are to be, and the church must proclaim the whole counsel of God. The Bible contains clear instruction about how to be a godly husband, father, wife, mother, and child. Therefore, faithful pastors will plainly teach what the Bible says about these responsibilities in light of Christ and the gospel.

Pastors should teach husbands to love their wives and serve them in a Christlike way, and to encourage their wives in the sure promises of the gospel. Husbands should lead their wives and their children, according to the Word of God, under grace. Fathers should never provoke their children to anger, but “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Pastors ought to encourage the older women in the church to teach younger women to “love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled” (Titus 2:4–5). Proverbs 1:8 commands children, “Hear, my son, your father’s instruction, and forsake not your mother’s teaching.”

Family Worship

Pastors should urge husbands and fathers to lead their homes in daily family worship. Psalm 78:5–6 says, “He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children, that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children.” Joshua called upon God’s people to worship Him in their homes. Joshua 24:14–15 says,

Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

The Hebrew word “serve” could be translated “worship.” Joshua says that every man must decide whether he and his family will worship the gods of the nations or the one true God. What does faithful family worship look like? Family worship should include daily reading of the Bible, a brief explanation of the text (Deut. 6:6–7; 11:18–19), and prayer (Jer. 10:25 NASB). Fathers should then ask simple practical questions of their children and make clear practical applications. Family worship should conclude with song (Ps. 118:15). I recommend using the church’s hymnal in family worship so that children can more easily learn the church’s hymnody. At our church, we use the Baptist version of the Trinity Hymnal. Godly fathers who lead their families in worship will ordinarily see the fruit of their faithfulness.98

The Centrality of the Local Church
in the Life of the Believer

The Bible teaches, and Reformed Baptists believe, that the local church is the center of the life of the believer. Scripture teaches that the believer’s life should revolve around his local church.99 A believer should order all the other affairs and engagements of his life around his local church, Lord’s Day to Lord’s Day. If a Christian has to move, his first consideration in moving should be whether or not there is a solid, orthodox, godly local church for him to join.

Relationships in the church are a central part of a believer’s identity and life, which is why he doesn’t want to miss any gatherings on the Lord’s Day. He looks forward to building into the lives of his brethren. The local church is the divinely ordained context in which believers are sanctified and learn how to love, confess sin, repent, and forgive fellow church members. Christ’s people are only sanctified while living in the community of the local church, not as independent individuals who fit the church in as a second thought.

Because of these things, faithful Christians only reluctantly plan vacations, business trips, family events, or community activities on the Lord’s Day. While occasionally such absences may be unavoidable, faithful believers know that their absence affects the whole church, and that church members all need each other. They also understand that their consistent faithful presence at church encourages other believers to persevere in the faith.

The so-called “one another” statements in Scripture demonstrate the centrality of the local church in the life of the believer. Each of the “one another” statements is addressed to a particular local church. They were not written for living as a Christian outside the context of a local church. These statements, rather, are explicitly about relationships among Christians in local churches because they are contained in letters to particular local churches. Therefore, Christians must be committed to faithful attendance and relational engagement every Lord’s Day if they are taking these biblical commands seriously.

Some of the “one another” statements include the following.

Romans 12:10 says, “Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.”
Romans 14:13 says, “Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.”
Romans 15:7 says, “Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.”
1 Corinthians 12:25 says, “That there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.”
Galatians 6:2 says, “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.”
Ephesians 4:32 says, “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.”
Colossians 3:9 says, “Do not lie to one another.”
Colossians 3:16 says, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”
1 Thessalonians 5:11 says, “Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing.”
Hebrews 3:13 says, “But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ‘today,’ that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.”
Hebrews 10:24 says, “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works.”
James 4:11 says, “Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.”
James 5:9 says, “Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the door.”
James 5:16 says, “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another.”
1 Peter 5:14 says, “Greet one another with the kiss of love. Peace to all of you who are in Christ.”
1 Peter 4:9 says, “Show hospitality to one another without grumbling.”
1 Peter 4:10 says, “As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace.”
1 Peter 5:5 says, “Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.’”
1 John 1:7 says, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.”

All of these passages show that at the heart of a faithful church are church members who love each other. Churches are not merely preaching stations, but communities of believers who are friends, seeking each other’s well-being and eternal life. They encourage and lovingly exhort one another to see the beauty of Christ and His promises and become true images of God, under grace, in loving relationship with Christ and with one another. They try to set a good example for others, realizing that our time in this world is short, and that we exist here together in local churches to be prepared and formed to live eternally in the hereafter.

Conclusion

This chapter has sought to show that Christ is the foundation of His church. The church universal includes all the elect of all times and all place, but the universal church manifests itself in particular local churches. True and faithful local churches are composed of regenerate members who have covenanted to live together in love under qualified pastors with faithful deacons, practicing biblical polity. True churches preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and practice formative and corrective church discipline, though not all true churches are as clear about these matters as others.

In sum, true churches are places where God’s people join together with their friends in Christ to remember His gracious gospel and to walk in His good commandments for His great glory. In the next chapter, we will consider the regulative principle of worship, which is the Bible’s principle of rightly ordering corporate worship in local churches. Rightly ordered worship requires a clear understanding of the law of God, the relationship among the covenants, and the mission of the church.

82. Some excellent resources on the doctrine of the church include James M. Renihan, Edification and Beauty: The Practical Ecclesiology of the English Particular Baptists, 1675–1705 (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2009); John L. Dagg, Manual of Church Order (Harrisonburg: Gano, 1990); Edward T. Hiscox, Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1980); John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005); R. Stanton Norman, The Baptist Way: Distinctives of a Baptist Church (Nashville: B&H, 2005).
83. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 1, chapter 10, paragraph 1.
84. John Owen, An Inquiry into the Original, Nature, Institution Power, Order and Communion of Evangelical Churches in The Works of John Owen, vol. 15 (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1991), 320.
85. Benjamin Keach, The Glory of a True Church (Conway: Free Grace, 1697), 33.
86. See Matthew Ward, Pure Worship: The Early English Baptist Distinctive (Eugene: Pickwick, 2014).
87. For an excellent book-length defense of believer’s baptism over and against paedobaptism, see Fred A. Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism, revised and expanded edition (Cape Coral: Founders, 2007).
88. Hiscox, Principles and Practices, 180.
89. For a good Reformed Baptist treatment of the nature and responsibilities of the civil government, see Oliver Allmand-Smith, Under God, Over the People: The Calling and Accountability of Civil Government, A Confessional Perspective (Padstow: Broken Wharf, 2022).
90. For an excellent work on Reformed preaching, see Joel R. Beeke, Reformed Preaching: Proclaiming God’s Word from the Heart of the Preacher to the Heart of His People (Wheaton: Crossway, 2018).
91. Keith A Mathison, Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2002).
92. See Richard Barcellos, The Lord’s Supper as a Means of Grace: More than a Memory (Christian Focus: Fearn, 2013); Michael A.G. Haykin, Amidst Us Our Beloved Stands: Recovering Sacrament in the Baptist Tradition (Bellingham: Lexham, 2022).
93. Emphasis added.
94. Emphasis added.
95. The best book on pastoral ministry is Charles Bridges, The Christian Ministry with An Inquiry into the Causes of its Inefficiency (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1997).
96. Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 8.
97. Alexander Strauch, Paul’s Vision for the Deacons: Assisting the Elders with the Care of God’s Church (Littleton: Lewis and Roth, 2022), 35.
98. Two wonderful booklets about family worship include Joel R. Beeke, Family Worship (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2009) and Donald S. Whitney, Family Worship (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016).
99. See Donald S. Whitney, Spiritual Disciplines within the Church: Participating Fully in the Body of Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1996).

Regulative Principle
of Worship

In the second chapter, we saw that the churches of the Reformation applied sola Scriptura to their confessions of faith, but now we will see how they applied sola Scriptura to corporate worship in the regulative principle of worship.100 The regulative principle teaches that God forbids the church to practice any element of worship except those that He expressly institutes in sacred Scripture. The Second London Confession 22.1 states the doctrine as follows:

The acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.

The regulative principle of worship stands over and against what theologians call the “normative principle” of worship. The normative principle claims that the church has the authority to institute whatever elements of worship it deems wise unless the Word of God expressly forbids it. Historically, the Reformed orthodox and Lutherans strongly disagreed on this very point. Lutheranism sought a “conservative Reformation,” which conserved the worship traditions of the late Middle Ages and the papacy. Lutheran worship, therefore, includes many forms and rites that are similar or identical to that of Rome. The Anglicans also adopted the normative principle of worship.

Calvin and the Reformed tradition, however, denied that any elements of medieval worship should be retained, except for what the Word of God expressly requires. The Reformed orthodox believed that Lutherans and Anglicans neglected sola Scriptura in the church’s public worship. In The Necessity of Reforming the Church, Calvin explains the Reformed doctrine:

If we would have [God] to approve our worship, this rule, which He everywhere enforces with the utmost strictness, must be carefully observed. . . . The Lord, in condemning and prohibiting all fictitious worship, requires us to give obedience only to His own voice. . . . God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned in His Word.101

The Second Commandment: Moral Law

The regulative principle of worship issues from the second commandment, which forbids idolatry and requires people to worship God according to His commands. The first commandment relates to the object of worship, commanding us to worship God alone. The second commandment speaks to the manner, or way, in which God must be worshiped. The second commandment is part of God’s moral law, grounded in His eternal character, and revealed in creation to every human conscience. That is why the Second London Confession 22.1 says,

The light of nature shows that there is a God, who has lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and does good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might.

God requires a certain posture and attitude in corporate worship. Worship may never be silly, light-hearted, or bombastic. Its purpose is not to lift up the worshiper or make him feel happy, but to honor the one true God of heaven and earth. True worship, according to Scripture, draws one near to God with humility, reverence, and awe. Hebrews 12:28–29 says, “Thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.” Psalm 2:11 says, “Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.” Isaiah 66:2 says, “But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.” The Bible teaches us to rejoice in the Lord (Ps. 97:12), but faithful rejoicing is never divorced from reverential fear. To worship God in any other way is to worship a false god of our imaginations.

Exodus 20:4–6 teaches the second commandment:

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Consider the two aspects of the second commandment:

First, there is a prohibition. Human beings may not invent ways (or means) of worshiping God. God forbids all images, ideas, pictures, forms, statues, and shapes as any means of worshiping the one true God (Acts 17:29).
Second, there is an implied requirement. The second commandment implies that we must only worship God according to what He commands. God reveals and prescribes the way in which we must worship Him (Deut. 12:32).

The early church faithfully rejected all images in worship, but by the late 700s, churches began to incorporate images in worship, along with relics (especially the remains of the saints and martyrs). Church buildings began to include icons of Jesus, Mary, the angels, and the saints, where these images were honored, loved, and venerated. Late medieval art even included images of God the Father and the Trinity.

The Reformed tradition firmly renounces all images in worship, including images of Christ. The Second Helvetic Confession, chapter 4, says, “Although Christ took upon Him man’s nature, yet He did not, therefore, take it that He might set forth a pattern for carvers and painters. He denied that He came ‘to destroy the law and the prophets,’ but images are forbidden in the Law and the prophets.” The Reformers insisted that Christ’s incarnation does not give us license to make pictures or statues of Jesus. Jesus Christ is a divine person; therefore, to make a picture of Him would be an attempt to portray divinity, which is expressly forbidden by the second commandment.

Philip Ryken explains some of the problems associated with images in public worship today. He writes,

What the image always wants to do in worship is distract us from hearing the Word. The crucifix, the icon, the drama, and the dance, these things are not aids to worship, but make true worship all but impossible. In a visual age, we need to be all the more careful not to look at the image, but to listen to the Word.102

Covenantally Regulated Worship: Positive Laws

While the second commandment is God’s eternal, unchangeable, moral, and natural law, transcending all of God’s covenants with man, God institutes particular worship elements by His positive law in the different historical covenants. Positive laws are the laws that God posits, or decrees, by way of covenant. Without God’s special covenantal revelation of positive worship laws, no human being would know the right way to worship God. Positive laws, which institute worship elements, can and do change depending on the biblical covenant and its relation to Jesus Christ. The old covenant had one set of elements for worship, but the new covenant has a different set of elements.

The regulative principle exists in both covenants. But worship moved from a shadowy typological revelation of Christ in the old covenant to a more direct revelation of Christ in the new covenant. In the old covenant, God commanded a highly external and sensory form of worship that included a priesthood, animal sacrifices, ceremonial washings, candles, incense, and various rituals. This physical and sensory worship of the old covenant was a type of the more inward and spiritual worship of the new covenant. God instituted old covenant worship to stimulate bodily senses through types and shadows, but He instituted new covenant worship to stimulate the faith of His people by the Word of God and the full revelation of Jesus Christ. The old covenant types and shadows did not save in themselves but pointed to the promise of the covenant of grace, which did save. Old covenant saints were required to trust in the Savior to come.

The Old Covenant Regulative Principle

Deuteronomy 12:29–32. The book of Deuteronomy contains the regulative principle of worship for the old covenant:

When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations whom you go in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, take care that you be not ensnared to follow them, after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, “How did these nations serve their gods?—that I also may do the same.” You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.

This passage warns against worshiping pagan gods and engaging in their detestable practices. It also forbids God’s people to worship God in the manner of the pagans. Verse 32 is prescriptive for the true worship of God in the old covenant, and by implication, in any covenant. God says, “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take away from it.” God’s people were absolutely forbidden to add or take away from God’s commandments for worship. That is the regulative principle of worship.

Leviticus 10:1–3. These verses are an example of what happened when God’s old covenant priests violated the regulative principle of worship.

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them. And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord has said: ‘Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.’” And Aaron held his peace.

Nadab and Abihu were priests of the Lord, serving in the temple and making an offering to God. But they sinned by offering strange fire, and the Lord consumed them. It is important to see that God did not put these priests to death for worshiping God in a way that He had expressly forbidden. Rather, they offered fire that God had never authorized. They offered God something He did not command. The result was swift punishment.

1 Kings 12:33. King Jeroboam instituted a worship feast that he devised in his own heart. Scripture records, “He went up to the altar that he had made in Bethel on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, in the month that he had devised from his own heart. And he instituted a feast for the people of Israel and went up to the altar to make offerings.” King Jeroboam violated the regulative principle when he “devised” a form of worship “from his own heart.” He worshiped God in a way that He had never commanded. What was the result? Because of Jeroboam’s sin, he provoked God’s anger and brought God’s judgment upon all of Israel (1 Kings 15:30).

The New Covenant Regulative Principle

While we have seen that the old covenant teaches the regulative principle of worship, we now consider it in the new covenant. The Bible teaches that God’s positive covenantal worship laws change with the institution of the new covenant because it has a new Priest. Hebrews 7:12 says, “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” Hebrews 8:13 says, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete.” When the old covenant passed away, its positive worship laws passed away with it, too. Consider some of the main New Testament passages that teach the regulative principle of worship.

John 4:24–26. One of the most important passages in the New Testament demonstrating the regulative principle in the new covenant is found in John 4:21–26. Our Lord Jesus speaks to the woman at the well, saying,

“Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But 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.” The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”

Jesus explains that the old covenant worship of the Jews in Jerusalem is coming to an end. At Christ’s death, the old covenant form of worship would expire because He would institute a new covenant form of worship (Heb. 9:17). In the old covenant, the nation performed acts of worship, which contained types and shadows of Christ. But in the new covenant, worship must be in “spirit and truth” (John 4:24). In the Greek, these two words convey one idea, which is that new covenant worshipers will worship God with a true knowledge of Christ revealed most clearly in the apostolic teachings of the New Testament. New covenant worship is governed by the New Testament revelation of Christ.

Colossians 2:20–23. This is another important passage that establishes the regulative principle for the new covenant.

If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

This passage teaches that the church may never practice any form of “self-made religion.” Some translations render it “will worship” because the false teachers in Colossae were worshiping God according to the choices of their own human wills. However, God strictly forbids all innovations in worship, no matter how well-intended they may be. Some church leaders might have been deeply sincere in their man-made commands: “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch.” But God’s people must do only what He requires in public worship, no more and no less.

1 Timothy 3:14–15. Here Paul writes to Timothy and explains that he is not to be an innovator in the church or creative in worship. Rather, he is to be obedient to God’s Word.

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.

Notice that Paul explicitly teaches the regulative principle when he writes to tell Timothy “how one ought to behave in the household of God.” There is a manner in which churches must conduct themselves in submission to what God requires.

Hebrews 12:28–29. In this sermon written to the church of the Hebrews, the writer makes it clear that the church must worship God acceptably. Deuteronomy 4:15–24 expressed the regulative principle of the old covenant, saying that “God is a consuming fire,” which is the same phrase used in Hebrews 12:29. The God who regulated old covenant worship regulates new covenant worship. Consider Hebrews 12:28–29:

Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.

The Greek word translated “acceptable” means “in a manner well-pleasing.” Worship is only “acceptable” when it is done in the manner that God commands, which means human preference has no place in acceptable worship. Worship must be done reverently, according to what God expressly institutes in His Word, and in awe, with a proper posture of humble reverential fear.

Thus, the second commandment establishes the transcendent moral law, which teaches that we must worship God according to what He requires, without any human additions or false worship of any kind. But the particular covenants in redemptive history determine which elements God requires by way of positive law.

New Covenant Elements and Circumstances of Worship

New Covenant Elements of Worship

New covenant elements of worship are the aspects of worship that God expressly institutes in the New Testament. In the new covenant, God commands the reading of Scripture: “Devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture” (1 Tim. 4:13). He commands the preaching of the Word of God: “Preach the Word; be ready in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2). He commands prayer: “Pray then like this . . .” (Matt. 6:9); “My house shall be called a house of prayer” (Matt. 21:13). He commands the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Col. 3:16). He commands baptism: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). He commands the Lord’s Supper: “Do this in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24). He commands tithes and offerings: “On the first day of the week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up” (1 Cor. 16:2). He requires public confessions of faith: “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness” (1 Tim. 3:16). He also teaches solemn oaths and vows in public worship (1 Thess. 5:27). Thus, religious vows in ordinations are done in obedience to the regulative principle.

The central element of new covenant worship is the Word of God. The supernatural gifts present in the early days of the new covenant, including prophecies, tongues, interpretations, and revelations, were the very Word of God. The high point of public worship in the new covenant is the preached Word of God. Every other element of worship depends on God’s Word. We take the sacrament, which is a visible word of the gospel. We pray according to God’s Word. We are to sing according to God’s Word. We are to confess the doctrines of God’s Word. We give our offerings with gratitude in light of the promises of God’s Word.

New Covenant Circumstances of Worship

There is an important difference between the elements of worship and the circumstances of worship. Elements are commanded in the New Testament. They must be done. But circumstances of worship may vary from church to church. Here is how the Second London Confession 1.6 describes circumstances: “There are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

In other words, the Bible does not speak to the circumstances of worship, though it does say in 1 Corinthians 14:40 that “all things should be done decently and in order.” Services of worship should be ordered by the light of nature and godly wisdom.

What are circumstances of worship? They are attending factors or events that support the elements without diluting the elements or making themselves a prominent factor in worship. A circumstance exceeds its boundary when it begins to usurp an element in any way. The role of circumstances is to serve the elements as much as possible, while remaining in the background.

Circumstances might include factors such as lighting, seating, the length of the sermon, the style of the sermon, air conditioning, the time of the corporate gathering, and the details of the organization and administration of worship. The light of nature and wisdom determine the necessary circumstances of worship.

I believe instrumentation is a circumstance of worship, which means it should never overpower congregational singing, a commanded element. While instruments are never commanded, Colossians 3:16 says the church should sing “psalms.” The word “psalm” in Greek means to play upon a stringed instrument, or it is at least derived from a root with that meaning. Musical instruments are therefore not commanded, but they seem to be implied as a circumstance, which is only permitted to support congregational singing and should never occupy the prominent place in the worship service. Instruments in worship should be limited, if used at all, and only carry the congregational singing. When an instrument begins to overpower the congregation’s voices, then a circumstance has been converted into an element.

Liberty of Conscience

Some say the regulative principle is restrictive and binding. But, in fact, the opposite is true. The regulative principle is a doctrine of Christian liberty. It says that your leaders do not have the authority to make you do anything in public worship that the Bible does not say you have to do.

I know of a church where the worship leaders asked everyone to sing and do the hokey pokey, putting their right hand in and their right hand out, shaking it all about, etc. A number of years ago, the worship leaders of a large church led the congregation to sing “Let it Go” from Disney’s Frozen for Christmas. Another church spun a prize wheel to see which visitor would win a free Xbox.

Sadly, church leaders often implement such violations of the regulative principle to appeal to more people, to increase the sizes of their congregations and even their own salaries. However, the regulative principle teaches that churches are free from having to submit to any elements of worship that the Bible does not institute.

Liberty from Pagan Worship

Pagan worship works to stimulate human passions and appetites. Pagans used drums and repetitive music to create feelings of encounters with the gods, as various human cravings were correlated to different gods of the pantheon. Horrible and detestable practices and immoralities would accompany pagan worship. Sadly, what takes place in some churches today has more in common with pagan practices than with biblically instituted worship.

Over and against pagan worship, Christian worship does not aim to excite or satiate human passions and cravings, but to engage our minds and intellects with the Word of God and to lift our affections to Him (John 4:24). Rather than beginning with the emotional fluctuations and longings of created human beings, Christian worship begins with the transcendent God in Jesus Christ, who is eternal and personal Truth, Goodness, and Beauty and who calls His creatures to behold Him in His Word by His Spirit, commune with Him, glorify Him, and conform to His holiness.

Liberty from Infant Baptism

The regulative principle of worship is one of the main reasons Reformed Baptists separated from the Independent paedobaptists. The Reformed Baptists come from Puritanism, which sought to reform the English church, especially its worship, according to God’s Word. When that became impossible due to the Anglican archbishop William Laud (1573–1645), who opposed the Puritans by great persecution, they separated or were removed from the English church.

Within the Independent wing of Puritan separation, some of the Independents saw a need to apply the regulative principle of worship to infant baptism as well, considering this to be the consistent outworking of the Puritan mindset. That is how the Reformed Baptists emerged in their historical context. Reformed Baptists came to believe that the new covenant never institutes the baptism of infants; therefore, it is a forbidden worship practice.

Liberty from Papal Innovations

The papacy thinks that God is united to His people through the church by the seven sacraments, which involve the application of holy materials that miraculously elevate human beings to the divine. The waters of baptism remove original sin. The body and blood of Jesus, when eaten during mass, raise human nature into union with God, preparing it for eternal glory.

But Reformed churches understand that God unites Himself to His people by way of His saving covenant of grace, His sworn oath to redeem His people, which is revealed in the Bible. Therefore, the Word of God must be central in His worship, and God’s Word must limit worship because His covenant people are united to Him and grow in His grace through His Word by His Spirit. The regulative principle centers the Word of God in worship and forbids all unbiblical, unwarranted, superstitious practices.

Liberty from Government Interference

Since God instituted the elements of Christian worship and gives the church the keys of the kingdom, the civil government has no authority whatsoever to interfere with, change, or substitute those elements God has instituted for worship. In the seventeenth century, the monarchs of England sometimes sought to impose forms of worship on the churches, demanding that they use and conform to the Book of Common Prayer and other man-made traditions and ceremonies, but churches faithful to Christ’s regulative principle of worship refused to be bullied into submission by the edicts of tyrants. Christ is Lord of His church, and it is bound to obey only His commands for worship in the new covenant.

Liberty from Pragmatism, Silliness, and Manipulation

Some evangelical churches add elements to their worship services that may be well-intended but are not divinely instituted for Christian worship. Sam Waldron warns against “mundane or silly announcements in the middle of worship, the unwise tradition of hand-shaking in the middle of worship, badly organized testimony times, clown shows, mime, liturgical dance, movies and drama . . . deafening worship bands and the predominance of special music.”103 To this list, one might add laser light shows, smoke machines, and puppet shows. I have even heard of staff arm wrestling contests as part of public worship. All of these things violate the regulative principle of worship.

A number of years ago a certain Baptist church installed a baptistry (since removed) for children shaped like a fire truck with red paint and lights. As soon as a child was baptized, streamers and confetti exploded from the truck and its lights began to flash. Church leaders hoped this would make baptism more interesting to children, and it must have succeeded! I am sure every child in the church wanted to be baptized. Of course, such a manipulative device was never instituted by God. It turns a circumstance (a baptistry) into an element, making the baptistry itself the main event in order to get children to receive baptism and increase a church’s baptismal numbers.

I know of another church where the pastor stood on the stage wearing a white apron with a tall baking hat on his head. He was surrounded by movable ovens that were cooking something that smelled delicious. After a few introductory words, the lights dimmed and the church watched several movie clips about the baking preparation, where the cooking staff had made quite a mess in the back. The pastor’s short message provided one thought from one part of a verse from the Bible. The partial Bible verse was, “All things work together for good for those who love God” (Rom. 8:28). The pastor’s thought from this text was that “God can take your mess and turn it into something delicious.” He explained that even though the staff made a mess in the back, there are now delicious cookies for everyone to enjoy. Each person received a cookie on the way out of the building. Of course, this violates the regulative principle because the church neglected the true elements of worship, especially preaching the Word, and because God never commanded the things that were done.

Ordinary Means of Grace Ministry

Many churches design elaborate programs and creative ministries hoping it will increase their numbers and reach the community for Christ. Most of this kind of programming is well-intentioned. But when churches shift their focus to methodologies not revealed in the Bible, they often neglect the things God calls them to do. Confidence in man-made methods can far too easily replace confidence in what God has required of the church.

Liberal churches think the Bible’s message needs to be fitted to modern man, especially by deemphasizing sin, the cross of Christ, and repentance. They focus instead on helping the needy. Pragmatic churches believe the church’s methods need to be updated to reach each new generation. They may poll the community to find out what lost people want and how to reach them. But faithful churches submit themselves to the means of ministry that God prescribes in His Word. This is the only way a church can grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. Ministry centered on the ordinary means of grace is simple. It does what God says, and it trusts God with the results.

The regulative principle of worship establishes an ordinary means of grace ministry in the church.104 The means of grace are called “means” because they are the ways God distributes Christ’s saving graces to His people through the Spirit in the church. Christ saves His people by grace alone through faith alone, but the ordinary means of grace are the tools or instruments by which Christ gives His grace to those who put their faith in Him. These means of grace are called “ordinary” for three reasons. First, because they are ordained by God in His Word. That is, God commands, or orders, His churches to practice them in Scripture. Second, God ordinarily, almost exclusively, uses these particular means to save and sanctify His people, though in His sovereignty, God is free to operate apart from these means. Third, the means are called ordinary because there’s nothing spectacular or extraordinary about them. God uses the seemingly weak and ordinary things to accomplish His great purposes of saving grace.

Acts 2 is one passage classically used to explain the ordinary means of grace. After Peter preached the gospel at Pentecost, Acts 2:41 says that many “received his word” and after that “were baptized,” and then three thousand souls “were added” to the local visible church in Jerusalem. Notice that there’s a clear order of progression here. First, they received the Word of Christ. Second, those who received the Word were baptized. And third, baptized believers joined together in a local church.

Acts 2:42 goes on to tell us what the church members did when they gathered together as a church. It says, “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” The Greek word translated as “devoted themselves” means that these early Christians were strong and steadfast in giving constant attention. They gave themselves to certain primary disciplines together in the local church.

The ordinary means of grace in this passage are the Word and the sacrament, while the other activities refer to the church’s response to these means. The apostles’ teaching (the Word of God), baptism, and the breaking of bread or the Lord’s Supper (the sacrament) are means of grace.105 When God’s people receive these gifts of grace, they reflexively respond with faithful prayer and fellowship. They share in congregational singing, and they sing to God in prayer. They give material gifts to God when they give their offerings, and they share in those gifts when the church distributes them to those in need.

In 1 Timothy 4:11–16, the apostle Paul exhorts pastor Timothy in an ordinary means of grace ministry. Paul says,

Command and teach these things. Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

The Second London Confession 3.6 speaks of means in connection to the salvation of the elect. It says,

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so He hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. (Emphasis added.)

Conclusion

The regulative principle of worship grows out of the Bible’s sufficiency to govern the worship of God’s people. Corporate worship is based on the moral law of God, but its particular elements are regulated by the Bible’s positive laws, which are rooted in particular covenants. Thus, while all corporate worship is characterized by devotion to the one true God, without any idolatry and with holy speech on the Sabbath day, corporate worship differs between the old and new covenants due to their historical relationships to Christ’s coming.

The regulative principle is also a principle of Christian liberty from man-made innovations in corporate worship, in that it frees the church from tyranny and helps to unite God’s people under His Word. In the new covenant, the regulative principle is closely associated with an ordinary means of grace ministry, which are the Word and the sacrament. These means of grace lead worshipers to the means of gratitude, including prayer, fellowship, congregational singing, etc. In the next chapter, we will explore the great doctrine of Christian liberty, which is the culmination of Reformed theology.

100. For a good resource on the regulative principle of worship, see Terry L. Johnson, Worshipping with Calvin: Recovering the Historic Ministry and Worship of Reformed Protestantism (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2014). See also, Sam Waldron, How Then Should We Worship?: The Regulative Principle and Required Parts of the Church’s Corporate Worship (Leyland, England: Evangelical Press, 2022). For a classic work, see Jeremiah Burroughs, Gospel Worship (Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria, 1990).
101. John Calvin, “The Necessity of Reforming the Church,” Selected Works, 1:128–129.
102. Philip Graham Ryken, Written in Stone: The Ten Commandments and Today’s Moral Crisis (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 81.
103. Waldron, How Then Should We Worship?, 112–113.
104. See J. Ryan Davidson, Green Pastures: A Primer on the Ordinary Means of Grace (Palmdale: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2019).
105. For a brief historical account of how the early Baptists viewed the sacraments, see Michael A.G. Haykin, Amidst Us Our Beloved Stands: Recovering Sacrament in the Baptist Tradition (Bellingham: Lexham, 2022). See also an exegetical treatment in Richard C. Barcellos, The Lord’s Supper as a Means of Grace: More Than a Memory (Fearn: Mentor, 2013).

Christian Liberty

Reformed theology leads to Christian liberty because the doctrines of the Reformation liberate God’s people from enslavement to the doctrines and commandments of men both in their justification and sanctification. The Reformers formulated the doctrine of Christian liberty over and against the backdrop of the abuses of papal authority. They understood that when people insert themselves between God and others, they bring harm because they rebelliously set themselves up as little gods. Such tyrants demand that people follow their unbiblical or extra-biblical rules, falsely promising rewards for obedience and threatening consequences for disobedience. Their promises and threats tempt people to obey them over Christ and His sufficient Word. They try to make others conform to their self-asserted dictates, which have no basis in the nature of God, His Word, natural law, or any transcendent reality. Tyrants and authoritarians issue arbitrary doctrines or commands to accomplish self-serving ends.

While authorities in the home, church, state, and other institutions could rule tyrannically, ordinary members of these groups might also assert their wills in such a way that they gain a following, unlawfully usurp power for themselves, and tyrannize legitimate leaders and other members. In other words, while a leader may be a wolf, an ordinary member within an institution can be a wolf, too. Furthermore, sometimes individual Christians tyrannize themselves. They lay up heavy and unbiblical burdens on themselves due to misunderstanding the Bible or poor or confused teaching in the past, or because they have a tormented conscience. It has been said, “There is a pope in every man’s heart.” The Reformed doctrine of Christian liberty was formulated from the teachings of Scripture to address such errors.

John Owen said,

The second principle of the Reformation, whereon the Reformers justified their separation from the Church of Rome, was this, that Christian people were not tied up unto blind obedience unto church guides, but were not only at liberty, but also obliged to judge for themselves, as unto all things that they were to believe and practice in religion and the worship of God.106

Samuel Bolton (1606–1654) wrote,

There are two great things Christ hath entrusted into the hands of his church: First, Christian faith. Secondly, Christian liberty. And as we are to contend earnestly for the maintenance of the faith, as the Apostle says, Jude 3. So also for the maintenance of Christian liberty, against all oppugners and underminers of it.107

Christian Freedom from All Bondage in Christ

Reformed theology teaches that Jesus frees us from every kind of bondage. John 8:36 says, “If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” Christ frees us from the dominion of the guilt of our sins, the power of our sins, and the punishment of our sins. This is freedom from the law as a covenant of works. The great biblical doctrine of justification declares that we are free from the guilt of our sins. We are justified by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. Romans 8:33–34 says, “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn?” God also frees us from bondage to the power of sin as He sanctifies the believer over a lifetime. Additionally, God so frees the saint from liability to punishment that we are delivered even from the evil of our sufferings. While Christians suffer, our sufferings cannot destroy us, which is why they are not evil. Rather, God always causes them to lead us back to Him in the end. In Luke 4:18, Jesus says, “He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives” to sin. In John 8:32, He says, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Romans 6:22 says, “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.” Galatians 5:1 exhorts us, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” to righteousness based on law.

Christian liberty, in its broadest sense, refers to freedom from the dominion of all of our enemies: Satan, the world, and the flesh. The Lord Jesus frees us from this present evil age, and to the glorious age to come in the new heavens and new earth. In the new covenant, Christ also frees us from the slavish demands of the old covenant (Acts 15:10–11; 13:39), especially from the requirement of ceremonial purification to draw near to God in worship (Heb. 10:1–10). Second London Confession 21.1 says:

The liberty which Christ has purchased for believers under the gospel, consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the severity and curse of the law, and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the fear and sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation: as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind.

All which were common also to believers under the law for the substance of them; but under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of a ceremonial law, to which the Jewish church was subjected, and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.

Liberty of Conscience

There is a distinction between Christian liberty and liberty of conscience. Christian liberty, or Christian freedom, is a broad category, including every kind of freedom Christ bought for us through His life, death, and resurrection. Liberty of conscience is a subset of Christian liberty. Liberty of conscience means that God alone has the authority to define sin through His law, and that our consciences are free from the arbitrary laws of men. Scripture says, “For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15, emphasis added). Similarly, Romans 3:20 says that “through the law comes knowledge of sin.” God’s law, not our own personal law, not the law of the church, not the law of a husband or a father, or of anyone else, determines what is absolutely right and wrong. We are, therefore, only guilty, or liable to punishment, when we break God’s law. It says in 1 John 3:4 that “sin is lawlessness.” The Baptist Catechism rightly asks and answers, “Q. What is sin? A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.” Our consciences should, therefore, only feel guilt when we break God’s law, not when we violate arbitrary or tyrannical commandments imposed by men.

It is also important to understand that any truly necessary logical consequences of God’s law are also God’s law. That which is “necessarily contained” in God’s law is God’s law. For example, it is bearing false witness to accuse someone of wrongdoing without two or three witnesses or two or three independent lines of evidence. A necessary logical consequence of this biblical law would be that it is wrong to accuse your child of lying and to discipline him for it without two or three witnesses or two or three lines of evidence. This is true even though the Bible does not expressly say that you must parent your children in this way. In other words, when the Bible limits sin to transgressions of God’s law, it does not deny the subordinate use of the light of nature, or reason, to arrive at necessary logical implications and applications of God’s law for a whole life ethic. That having been said, we ought to be extremely cautious about enforcing our fallible human deductions about sin from God’s law upon others, and we should not give our consciences away to the fallibly reasoned conclusions of others.

The New Testament teaches liberty of conscience throughout. In 1 Corinthians 10:29, Paul asks rhetorically, “Why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience?” Galatians 2:4 warns of “false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery.” We are in great sin if we give our consciences away to any other human being. Rather, our consciences must be captive to Jesus Christ, speaking in His good and all-sufficient Word.

Second London Confession 21.2 and 21.3 helpfully express the biblical teaching on liberty of conscience. It says:

21.2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word, or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also.

21.3. They who upon pretense of Christian liberty do practice any sin, or cherish any sinful lust, as they do thereby pervert the main design of the grace of the gospel to their own destruction, so they wholly destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of all our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our lives.

These two paragraphs teach five truths about liberty of conscience. First, only God has authority to bind the human conscience. God created us in His image and, therefore, we belong to Him and not to any other. Second, all of God’s commands that are needed for life and godliness are necessarily contained in the Bible. Third, any teaching or commandment that contradicts the Bible, or adds any doctrine or command not necessarily contained in it, has no authority to bind our consciences. Fourth, when people allow anyone else, whether it be a father or mother, pastor, teacher, or even an angel from heaven, to bind their consciences apart from the Word of God, they commit a great sin against God. To give any mere creature that kind of authority is to violate the first commandment and to make that person into a god. Fifth, true liberty of conscience is never lawless but always seeks to honor God and His law by the exercise of liberty.108

Liberty, Law, and Wisdom

Christian liberty is not an absolute liberty. It is “Christian” liberty. Extreme liberalism, or we might say consistent liberalism, teaches that freedom to choose is in itself the highest good, even when there is no absolute or transcendent moral content governing that freedom. In this way of thinking, people are free to choose their morals and their greatest loves, whether or not their morals and loves correspond to human nature or to the character of God Himself.

But liberty without law is the flawed modern concept of pluralism. Pluralism says that each person and group is free to choose their beliefs and loves without respect to God, absolute truth, goodness or beauty. One problem with pluralism is that without God’s moral law of love, it inevitably leads to irresolvable strife between people and groups. It promises freedom and happiness but leads to conflict. When people and groups choose apart from God’s absolute law of love, they freely oppose, dislike, and disagree with each other. The only way to have true love, peace, and unity among people is by means of God’s absolute law of love ruling and restricting liberty. The freedom to choose all by itself, as taught by pluralism, is ultimately self-centered, unloving, and dishonoring to God.

The Word of God warns us against licentious abuses of Christian liberty. Galatians 5:13 says, “For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” In other words, we should be more careful about loving our brothers and sisters in Christ, according to His commands, than practicing our liberties. Lawfulness comes before liberty, and liberty only exists within lawfulness. As 1 Peter 2:16 says, “Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.”

In my pastoral ministry, I have run across Christians who were raised in legalistic fundamentalist families and churches. Then they discovered the wonderful doctrine of Christian liberty and liberty of conscience. They understood that they were freed from the petty rules of their past. That was a very good thing! But I have found that some of them practice certain lawful liberties to excess. It is possible to practice a liberty for the purpose of indulging one’s sinful passions, and to love one’s liberties more than God, which is idolatry. Christians might even allow themselves to become enslaved to their liberties, rather than exercising them out of love for God and others. The invisible sins of self-centeredness, pride, covetousness, and idolatry of the heart easily creep into the practice of liberties when a Christian is not careful to make sure that his eyes are set upon the Lord Jesus Christ, love for Him, and His good Word.

It is foolish to use liberty without the virtue of moderation or self-control. Those who live in submission to Christ always seek to restrain their liberties to ensure that nothing gets dominion over them and that they are not enslaved or addicted to anything in this world. In 1 Corinthians 6:12, Paul says, “‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be dominated by anything.” What he means is that while all lawful things are lawful, not all lawful things are helpful, and we should never be ruled by anything, even if it’s lawful.

Similarly, if liberties draw us into self-indulgence and away from love for others, then we are no longer using our liberties lawfully. Paul adds, in 1 Corinthians 10:23, “‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things build up.” We should practice our liberties in ways that edify ourselves and others in the Lord Jesus Christ. Love is the rule of liberty.

Christian Ethics

Thus, true Christian liberty and liberty of conscience are always restricted and governed by God’s transcendent moral law and its wise application. Christians in the new covenant look not only to God’s moral law to govern their lives, but also to the positive commands and teachings of the new covenant (public worship, mutual love within a local church, etc.). Liberty of conscience must always be understood within the context of Christian responsibilities and duties, especially within the God-given structures of the home, the church, and civil government.

Biblical Christian ethics involves three elements. First, a morally good act requires the right motive. The Lord Jesus teaches that our motive in all things ought to be love for God and love for others. As 1 Corinthians 16:14 says, “Let all that you do be done in love.” Second, the action itself must be good. The law of God defines right actions for humankind. It reveals the rights we must justly give to others. Good works are strictly defined by the revelation of God’s Word, particularly in His law. Third, a morally good act requires the right end or goal. The proper end of all ethical actions should be the glory of God. As 1 Corinthians 10:31 says, “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” That is, the goal of the believer should be to shine forth the character and likeness of God toward others.

The question of whether or not to engage in a liberty falls in the realm of wisdom. A wise act is performed under God’s law with an understanding of human nature and the world in which we live. A wise person fears God. He is not only deeply acquainted with God’s Word, but he also understands people and wants to live in a way that honors God and loves people. Wise people are careful not to enflame or irritate others unnecessarily by the practice of their liberties. Instead, they use their liberties to love God and other people. They have learned by constant practice how to live in this world, under God and for His glory.

A Practical Example

So what does the practice of liberty of conscience look like, under the law of God? Consider the act of playing the piano. The Bible never forbids or commands playing the piano. That means playing the piano is good in itself and is a matter of liberty. Some might say you should only play the piano if you are playing hymns or other Christian songs. That may sound spiritual, but the Bible never teaches it. Therefore, a Christian is free to play the piano and to play all sorts of music. Anyone who says you may only play hymns on the piano is going beyond what the Bible teaches. We are not to add to the teaching of Scripture (1 Cor. 4:6). Someone might say that all music, including the music of the piano, is of the devil. They may warn you against developing any skill in musical arts and suggest that if you do so, you are opening yourself up to attacks from Satan. Of course, the Bible never teaches such a thing, and teachings that go beyond the Bible, or what is necessarily contained in it, violate liberty of conscience.

But even though the act of playing the piano is good and is a liberty in itself, it must always be done with the motive of loving God and others and with the goal of glorifying God. Consider a scenario in which you might play the piano with wrong motives. What if you are playing the piano in your home to keep from doing other responsibilities? If that is the case, then your motive is not love for others to the glory of God. Instead, you are selfishly avoiding the work God has given you to do. Or perhaps you are playing a particular tune on the piano that you know someone in the house sincerely dislikes, and you are only playing that tune to annoy them. That would be an unloving thing to do. As 1 Corinthians 13:5 tells us, love is not rude. So playing the piano is a liberty, but if you do it from a wrong motive, then your conduct is sinful, even though the specific act of playing the piano is good.

Now consider a scenario where you are playing the piano with a wrong goal. Let’s say you are playing the piano to get so good at it that you can be the center of attention and have everyone stand in awe of your abilities. You are not learning how to play so that you can give glory to God, but you are trying to excel in your skill so that you can have all the glory for yourself. That would be a terribly sinful goal, and you do not have the liberty to play the piano with such a goal.

Or let us say you have decided to play the piano inside an abortion clinic. The abortion workers hired you because they say live piano music provides them with a soothing atmosphere, helping them to do their work peacefully and quickly. Even though you personally disagree with abortion, you decide to take the job because you need the money. You know abortion is wrong, but you are in a difficult place financially and, after all, God knows you do not approve of abortion. But if playing the piano at such a place provides a helpful atmosphere for the abortion workers, you are providing direct support to something evil. Ephesians 5:11 says to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness.” And 1 Timothy 5:22 says not to “take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure.” All of that is to say that playing the piano is a liberty in itself. It is never a sin in itself. But you must practice your God-given liberties within the boundaries of God’s moral law (summarized in the Ten Commandments) with the right motive (love for others) and the right goal (the glory of God).109

Liberty and Human Authorities

The Reformers understood that one of the major applications of liberty of conscience has to do with the authority of the church. Liberty of conscience means that church members are free from any church authority coercing their beliefs or practices in the name of God. It does not follow, however, that the church may issue no practical rules, or positive laws, for the sake of good order in the church. The church has to make practical rules to govern its worship and practice. As 1 Corinthians 14:40 says, “All things should be done decently and in order.”

Liberty and Authority in the Church

The Bible teaches that the church must meet on Sundays. That is God’s law. But God does not tell us exactly what time or how many times the church should meet. Rather, the Bible charges the church’s elders to decide such circumstances of the church’s assembly and worship (Heb. 13:17). Similarly, Christ commands the church to read and preach the Word of God when it gathers on the Lord’s Day. He does not say exactly how long the sermon should be; nevertheless, the sermon must have some length. The Bible does not tell us what to preach each Lord’s Day, but every sermon must have some text of Scripture. Christ commands His churches to do many things in the worship service—such as sing, pray, observe the Lord’s Supper, practice baptism, collect offerings, etc.—but the Bible does not provide an exact order of worship. The elders have no choice but to decide such circumstances.

I am trying to show that while God gives us His law, human authorities often must order the circumstances for a group in which God’s law is obeyed. Such circumstances should be ordered wisely according to the light of nature, or human reason (2LCF 1.1). These man-made rules are liberties because they are a matter of wisdom and might be decided differently in different churches. There is more than one way to do things. Some kind of rule has to be followed, but the rules themselves are morally indifferent. Elders should try to order the church and its worship as simply and conveniently as possible for the benefit of the church as a whole, in order to accomplish Christ’s commands.

But pastors and churches should never speak as though practical decisions about church order and worship are moral commands from God. They should never make rules about polity or an order of worship that go beyond what is absolutely required to accomplish what Christ commands. I have heard of a religious group that requires all the women to wear their hair in a very specific style of braid. Other groups forbid the eating of certain foods or drinking of certain drinks. Others require specific kinds of dress. Some may be strict about entertainment choices or insist upon peculiar or idiosyncratic practices in the home. Such man-made rules violate liberty of conscience because they have nothing to do with what is necessary for good order in the church under Christ’s biblical commands. Rules like that are dangerous because the leaders are binding the consciences of church members in things indifferent and irrelevant to the commanded elements of church worship and order. Leaders who make such rules are sinfully adding to God’s law. In Mark 7:7–8, our Lord Jesus says, “‘In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

What if church members disagree with a decision their elders make? Perhaps the elders decide to change the worship time on the Lord’s Day. They made the choice to accommodate the unique circumstances of their church’s membership, but perhaps you do not agree with that decision. The new times make attending the worship service a little more difficult for you, even though it makes it easier for others. Church members are perfectly free to disagree with their elders on such things. If a church’s elders were ever to claim that any practical judgment is the only right way to obey God, they would be usurping God’s authority, and the whole church should refuse to follow them. To obey a church’s elders out of blind obedience is a sin.

Christian liberty also means we are free in Christ to submit to decisions with which we disagree out of love for the brethren and to keep the peace in the church, as long as it is not sinful to do so. This is what the Bible requires church members to do. Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.” And 1 Thessalonians 5:12–13 says, “We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.” These passages are not saying that elders have absolute authority over church members. Rather, they are teaching that the elders have authority to teach the Word of God to the church and, under the Word of God, to manage the circumstances of church worship, order, and discipline for the good of the church as a whole.

On the other hand, if an individual church member insists on his own way and demands that the elders or the church follow him in his individual views, then that member is himself acting in an authoritarian way. Strangely, in such cases, the member often claims that the church is authoritarian, or legalistic, for not agreeing to follow the individual member. But in reality, if the church is holding to its agreed-upon confession of faith and constitution, then any member who attempts to draw a following after himself is violating Christian liberty and asking the whole church to violate its conscience in favor of the demanding individual. If the church were to submit to such an individual, it would be surrendering its conscience and sinning against God.

In confessional Reformed Baptist churches, not every doctrine is equally important. Primary doctrines include those you must believe and not deny in order to go to heaven. Such doctrines include the Trinity, the doctrine of Christ and His work, justification by faith alone, repentance, and the authority of Scripture. Secondary doctrines involve all the doctrines of the church’s formal confession of faith, which summarizes the Bible, the whole counsel of God. These are the doctrines that the church believes the Bible teaches are necessary for the health of a Christian and the church. Examples of such doctrines include the doctrines of grace, regenerate church membership, baptism, and other ecclesiastical distinctives. Tertiary beliefs and practices are important matters of Christian liberty and wisdom that are not addressed by the church’s confession, such that Christians may differ even within the same church. Examples of tertiary doctrines and practices include the specific timing of eschatological events and the doctrine of Christ’s descent into Sheol, along with practical matters such as the education of children, questions of modesty, etc. In confessional Reformed Baptist churches, non-confessional matters are matters of Christian liberty.

Liberty and Authority in the Home

These same principles of Christian liberty and liberty of conscience hold true in the home. To understand the kinds of rules that should be made in a Christian home, we have to understand the goal of the home. A Christian home has a twofold end: temporal well-being (in the common mode of Christ’s kingdom) and pointing toward abundant life in Christ (parents are evangelists of the redemptive mode of Christ’s kingdom). The common mode of Christ’s kingdom is common, or shared, between believers and unbelievers. Christ orders His common kingdom through human authorities who lead so as to promote temporal life and well-being in this world. The redemptive mode of Christ’s kingdom, on the other hand, is Christ’s sovereign rule and grace to accomplish the eternal redemption of the elect. While unbelievers in a home are not in the redemptive mode of Christ’s kingdom, if the father or mother is a believer, then the others in the home are under the proclamation of that kingdom and are being called into it. That having been said, the primary way God ministers His Word to children is through the ordinary means of grace in the church.

Every household should be managed with household rules that direct the home to the proper ends of the household, even though the specific rules are not revealed in the Bible. For example, when it comes to temporal life, every family has to eat enough food for life and health, and someone has to do the dishes. Thus, there needs to be some kind of plan for cooking and washing. Families have to sleep, so there will be bedtimes. Family members have to wear clothes, so someone needs to do the laundry. Houses have things break from time to time, so someone has to repair them. The grass in the lawn grows, which means someone has to cut it. The children in a family need a proper education, and they also need to be taught basic manners and social graces so that they can learn how to live well with others in the world. The list goes on. There has to be some way in which such things are done, and authorities in the home must decide how to do them because these things are not revealed in Scripture, but they are to be wisely decided based on the light of nature.

In terms of ordering the home toward life in Christ, God expects fathers to lead their families in reading the Bible and praying together (Josh. 24:14–15; Ps. 78:5–6). But the times and structure of family worship are not revealed in the Bible. Parents are to discipline their children for sin (Heb. 12:9), but Scripture does not reveal every detail of the process of discipline. Husbands are the heads of their homes, and it is their responsibility to decide these things in discussion with their wives. Scripture says that both husbands and wives are required to manage their households (1 Tim 3:4; 5:14), but they should only manage their homes in a way that serves the family as a whole, including the children. Bad house rules are rules that serve only the leaders in the home and are not needed for the proper functioning and good of the home.

The moment a husband and wife turn household management rules into absolute laws, they have violated liberty of conscience. They must never imply that their rules are equal to the moral law of God and are therefore matters of godliness. While children need guidance on many things, some parents become overly strict about eating times, food choices, or clothing. Or they may become convinced of extra-biblical parenting philosophies and techniques from books they have read or conferences they have attended. I am aware of some Christian families who were persuaded that if they did everything just right, according to strict rules that are not found in the Bible, their children would most certainly become faithful Christians and live godly lives as adults. But the Bible never teaches any such thing. Such a mindset in the home has the result of turning parents into little gods, and tempting children to trust in their parents as gods or to rebel and make gods out of themselves. Children who live in legalistic homes are often crushed under legalistic rules, becoming despondent, proud, or both.

Examples of Violations of Christian Liberty

The Reformers insisted on Christian liberty over and against the papist doctrine of “implicit faith” in the church. Implicit faith is a doctrine that says that Christians should trust in the church to the extent that they are ready to believe whatever it teaches, even before they know or understand its teachings. The Reformers said that this violates Christian liberty and binds the conscience to human authorities. Rather than having implicit faith in the church, Christians should have implicit faith in the Word of God and be ready to believe whatever the Bible teaches. We should be ready to believe what the church teaches only in so far as it reflects the teaching of Scripture.

Evangelical and Reformed churches today are not likely to require an implicit faith like the papacy does. But they might violate Christian liberty by requiring Christians to obey unbiblical or extra-biblical commands.

In unpublished lecture notes, Fred Malone describes some matters pertaining to Christian liberty in our day. He writes,

Modern-day issues concerning Christian liberty include alcohol drinking, women’s dress, education of children, insurance, women’s head-coverings, contraception, use of TV, music choices, Sunday School, youth camps, political views, etc. There is no question that Scripture must be the final determiner of these choices for the believer, but the problem of liberty arises when man-made rules and opinions beyond Scripture take on the role of law for church membership, church discipline, and church unity. The doctrine of Christian liberty is necessary to make the “strong” patient and sacrificial toward the “weak” and the “weak” charitable and respectful toward the “strong.” The Law and the Gospel gives both direction to building unity in the church on the doctrine of Christian liberty: “Unity in things essential, liberty in things non-essential, charity in all things.”110

To these we might add the observance of Christmas, Halloween, Mardi Gras, or backyard Easter egg hunts, along with healthy diets, exercise, the use of medicines and doctors, social media, vacation choices, vocation choices, etc. Churches may initially create unbiblical laws on such matters from good motives. But in reality, they are wrongly fencing God’s law, trying to make external rules that will keep Christians from breaking the law of God. The problem is that it will not work. For example, the Bible says not to get drunk (Eph. 5:18); therefore some churches and Christians conclude that all drinking should be strictly avoided. But that goes beyond the teaching of Scripture (Eccl. 9:7; Ps. 104:15; 1 Tim 5:23), violates the doctrine of Christian liberty, and cannot change the covetous and proud heart that leads to drunkenness in the first place. To give another example, the Bible teaches that women should dress modestly (1 Tim. 2:9); therefore, some churches and Christians, perhaps inadvertently, short circuit the process of learning modesty of the heart and of growing in godly wisdom by mandating certain kinds of dress for women. They also seem to forget that men must practice modesty as well. Such churches often do not address what the Bible actually teaches about modesty, but they then go beyond what the Bible teaches.

Ultimately, man-made rules about holiness, imposed upon others, come from ungodly self-righteousness and pride. Fred Malone explains,

The fundamentalist movement of the last 150 years has brought confusion about this doctrine [of Christian liberty] to the church, often creating division over strongly held opinions, or else dominating the consciences of Christians with false guilt. Pride often has been an outworking of this movement simply because emphasis upon outward behavior has created a watchful eye, a critical spirit and much self-righteousness for holding to certain behaviors. Each church must be willing to have its practice of Christian liberty examined in the light of the Law and the Gospel in order to establish true unity and love, as well as to teach each believer what is liberty and what is not.111

It is much easier to keep outward man-made rules as a standard of holiness than it is to learn to obey the law of God, under the gospel, from a heart of humble faith in Christ. Self-righteous people find it easier to obey external rules, such as the ones mentioned above (rules about drinking, dress, media, etc.), than to put on true humility and love for God and neighbor. External rule keeping feeds the sinful flesh to feel righteous. It allows people to set themselves up as judges who can condemn others when they do not follow the same made-up standard. This is the essence of legalism, a relaxation of the heart of God’s true law and the establishment of a man-made standard that has nothing to do with holiness in itself.

Sadly, some who live under such oppressive external legalism end up apostatizing from Christianity altogether. They see the pride, duplicity, and evil of outward, rules-based religion. But they sometimes end up embracing an even greater heresy, which says that Christ loves me and approves of me just the way that I am, and He doesn’t expect me to change. They turn Christianity into a religion of love and acceptance in which Christ is dethroned and each individual becomes a god to himself.

The only true answer to legalism is understanding the full rigor of God’s law, which crushes all our proud dreams of self-sufficiency or acceptability to God based on our own obedience. It is impossible to keep God’s true law perfectly, even for a moment. Thus, for the believer, the good law of God drives us out of ourselves and into the gracious arms of the Lord Jesus Christ for justification by faith alone. Jesus, then, points us back to His law, but not for righteousness. Rather, God’s law becomes our standard of love in sanctification, under the gospel, by which the Holy Spirit conforms us to Christ’s likeness from the inside out, more and more, in humble self-sacrificial love to God and love to others.

The Goal of Liberty

The goal of Christian liberty is not to free us to indulge our flesh or idolatries. God does not give us liberty so that we can secretly follow after the loves of the world. Rather, He gives us liberty so that we are free from every false god. The goal of Christian liberty is faithfulness, love, obedience, worship of the one true God, and rebellion against every human being who would set himself up as a god, against every false spirit, against anything that would attempt to replace God. Only the true God is true life and true good. Our liberty as Christians to follow Christ is vital to our very lives, both here and hereafter.

God also gives Christian liberty and liberty of conscience so that we can each learn true wisdom for ourselves. Every individual Christian has to learn how to live in light of Christ with God’s good law as his guide in each trial and circumstance of life. As the believer exercises faith throughout life, trying to honor God in light of His Word, he grows in wisdom. Wisdom is a deep knowledge of how to apply God’s law practically in this broken world, even in complicated situations. Second London Confession 16.1 says, “Good works are only such as God has commanded in his Holy Word.” But it takes wisdom to know what to do in each circumstance. When the Christian learns the way of wisdom, his conscience is more and more formed by practice and observation according to what he has learned to be right from the Word of God and by constant practice of its commands, rather than simplistically submitting to authoritative rules or chafing under them. But it is impossible for Christians to increase in wisdom without the freedom to make mistakes and learn for themselves. Thus, God gives Christian liberty under His law so that we can grow more and more into the likeness of Jesus. This means that the goal of Christian liberty is knowing God and His ways to His glory.

Another reason God gives us Christian liberty and liberty of conscience is that it is absolutely essential for peace and unity within local churches. Legalism is one of the surest paths to division and disorder. There will be no end to fighting when man-made rules compete for supremacy among God’s people. But when Christ is central, and His people are committed to His moral law as well as to His positive laws in the new covenant, and when Christians understand the doctrine of liberty, then it is possible for peace and unity to reign in local churches. Such unity is essential for the mission of the church, which is to worship Christ with one voice, to mutually edify one another in Christ, and to preach the gospel to the lost both at home and among every tribe and tongue.

Fred Malone writes,

If a church is ever to come to one unity and mission, it must practice Christian liberty under Christian freedom. The church must be taught what is lawful and what is not for the Christian. It is God’s will that the strong and weak ultimately come to the same opinion about what is in conformity to God’s Law. This removes the stumbling blocks of unfounded opinions which destroy conscience and unity. It also removes the stumbling block of past offenses between Jew and Gentile for Christian unity. But the church also must be taught the Gospel and how it causes the strong and the weak to live together until they come to the same opinion. We must allow the work of God in other’s hearts to proceed at His rate, not ours. For that reason, the gospel provides the patience and grace we need to build the church in unity and mission. The Law and the Gospel, rightly understood, is the key to Christian unity, church unity and the church’s mission.112

Thus, the practical goal of Christian liberty is that the church would be enabled and strengthened to accomplish its mission.

Conclusion

The doctrine of Christian liberty is, in a sense, the culmination of the Protestant Reformation. The material cause of the Reformation is that we are justified by faith alone because of Christ alone. That implies that no human being has the authority to make up laws that determine whether we are righteous before God. No mere man has the authority to threaten us with hell or promise us heaven. God declares us righteous because of Christ, when we look to Him by faith. But Christian liberty also flows out of the formal cause of the Reformation, which is that Scripture alone is sufficient for all matters of faith and godliness. The doctrine of Scripture’s sufficiency means that no man-made rules can make us more godly. We are, therefore, free from the doctrines and commandments of men to teach us how to be holy or how to live before God.

While the Reformers denied that man-made rules can justify us or sanctify us, they still affirmed that we should submit to human authorities when it comes to the practical ends of institutions in this world. If human authorities are merely trying to order a temporal institution, rather than issuing laws for our justification or sanctification, then we can and should submit to them, even when we disagree, because very little is at stake, comparatively speaking. Furthermore, when it comes to practical choices in life, which are not clearly taught in Scripture, we should make great allowances for differences among believers. This helps preserve the peace and unity of the church so that it can accomplish its God-given mission in this world, which includes worship, mutual edification, and spreading the gospel to every tribe and tongue.

106. John Owen, An Enquiry into the Original, Nature, institution, Power, Order and Communion of Evangelical Churches, 294.
107. Samuel Bolton, True Bounds of Christian Freedom (London: Austin Rice, 1656), 8–9. The word oppugner means “opponent or opposer.”
108. G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith: For Study Classes (Philadelphia: P&R, 1964), 149–150.
109. In a different way, G.I. Williamson also helpfully discusses piano playing as an example of Christian liberty. See Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith, 153.
110. Fred A. Malone, “Law and the Gospel in Pastoral Ministry,” PT18 at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, unpublished lecture notes.
111. Malone, “Law and the Gospel in Pastoral Ministry.”
112. Malone, “Law and the Gospel in Pastoral Ministry.”

Endorsements

Contents

Foreword

Introduction

Historical Roots

The Apologists: The Bible

Athanasius and the Nicene Creed: The Doctrines of God and the Trinity

Augustine of Hippo: The Doctrine of Human Nature and Effectual Grace

Anselm and the Middle Ages: Theological Method and Atonement

The Reformation: Sufficiency of Scripture and Justification by Faith Alone

Martin Luther

John Calvin

The Post-Reformation Period: More Systematizing and Identifying the Doctrine of the Church

The Twentieth Century: Where Did We Get the Term “Reformed Baptist”?

Conclusion

Confessionalism

The Hermeneutics of Reformed Confessionalism

A Hermeneutic of New Testament Priority

A Christ-Centered Hermeneutic

A Hermeneutic of Necessary Logical Consequences

Sola Scriptura: Scripture Alone

Sola Scriptura for the Whole Church

How Confessional Christians Study the Bible

Against Nuda Scriptura

Some Problems with Nuda Scriptura

A Biblical Case for Confessions

1. The Basic Biblical Requirement of Confession

2. The Five Trustworthy Sayings

3. The Pattern of Apostolic Teaching

4. The Nature of Biblical Confessions

How a Church Might Subscribe to the Second London Confession

1. Any believer should be allowed to join a local church, provided he does not have a divisive spirit.

2. Churches that subscribe to a detailed confession should use a “subscription of unity” among church members.

3. The officers of a church ought to embrace a “full subscription” to the confession of faith.

Conclusion

The Law of God

The God Who Is Righteous

The Threefold Division of Old Testament Law

The Difference Between Moral Law and Positive Law

Examples of the Distinction between Moral and Positive Law

The Threefold Division of Old Testament Law: Moral, Ceremonial, and Judicial

The Biblical Basis for the Threefold Division of Old Testament Law

Moral Law: Ten Commandments Higher than Other Old Testament Law

The Nature of God’s Moral Law

The Perpetuity of the Moral Law

The Christian Sabbath

Reasons to Work or Be Absent from Worship on Sunday

Second Worship Service on the Sabbath

Biblical Objections to the Sabbath

Practical Application of the Sabbath

The Three Uses of Moral Law

The Civil Use of Moral Law

The Pedagogical Use of Moral Law

The Normative Use of Moral Law

Conclusion

Covenant Theology

The Covenant of Works

Evidence from Genesis

Evidence from All of Scripture

Three Aspects of the Covenant of Works

An Objection Answered

The Covenant of Redemption

Scriptural Evidence for the Covenant of Redemption

The Nature of the Covenant of Redemption

The Effects of Christ’s Obedience in the Covenant of Redemption

The Covenant of Grace

A Biblical and Theological Argument for One Covenant of Grace

Some Instances of Personal Salvation by the One Covenant of Grace in the Old Testament

In the Covenant of Grace but Not in the Abrahamic, Mosaic, or Davidic Covenants

The Nature of the Covenant of Grace

The Effects of the Covenant of Grace

Conclusion

The Law and the Gospel

The Reformed Tradition on Law and Gospel

What the Law/Gospel Distinction is Not

The Law “Largely Speaking” and the Law “Strictly Speaking”

The Law, Largely Speaking

The Law, Strictly Speaking

The Gospel “Strictly Speaking” and the Gospel “Largely Speaking”

The Gospel, Strictly Speaking

Athanasius and the Nicene Creed:
The Doctrines of God and the Trinity

Augustine of Hippo:
The Doctrine of Human Nature and Effectual Grace

Anselm and the Middle Ages:
Theological Method and Atonement

The Reformation: Sufficiency of Scripture
and Justification by Faith Alone

The Post-Reformation Period: More Systematizing
and Identifying the Doctrine of the Church

The Twentieth Century: Where Did We Get
the Term “Reformed Baptist”?

How a Church Might Subscribe
to the Second London Confession

Examples of the Distinction between Moral
and Positive Law

The Biblical Basis for the Threefold Division
of Old Testament Law

Moral Law: Ten Commandments Higher
than Other Old Testament Law

The Effects of Christ’s Obedience in the Covenant
of Redemption

A Biblical and Theological Argument for One Covenant
of Grace

Some Instances of Personal Salvation by the One Covenant
of Grace in the Old Testament

The Law “Largely Speaking”
and the Law “Strictly Speaking”

The Gospel “Strictly Speaking”
and the Gospel “Largely Speaking”

The Law/Gospel Contrast in Justification
Assures the Fearful and Humbles the Proud

The Gospel/Law Continuum in Sanctification Directs
and Motivates Our Obedience to Christ

The Law/Gospel Relationship Keeps Us
from Legalism and Antinomianism

God’s Sovereignty Displayed in His Unconditional Choice
of Some Sinners to Save

The Covenant of Grace: Effectual Grace
and Perseverance of the Saints

Biblical Connection Between Irresistible Grace
and Perseverance of the Saints

Reasons for and Implications of
Regenerate Church Membership