Ligonier Ministries Blog

1. What Was the Protestant Reformation?

   To understand the Reformation and its lasting influence, we have to imagine a very different world from our own. For one thing, the choices we enjoy in the twenty-first-century West were nonexistent. Life was controlled by financial constraints, geography, ignorance, and family ties. And then there was the church. The freedom to choose one’s own church was unheard of because before the mid 1500s, the Roman Catholic Church was the dominant religious force. In fact, in many parts of the world, it was essentially illegal to be anything but Roman Catholic or to read anything that didn’t agree with Roman Catholic teaching. Rome insisted that it alone could interpret and explain the Bible. Over many centuries, the Roman Catholic Church also added teachings by way of tradition that weren’t in the Bible. One example was their teaching on purgatory, a place where departed souls, even the devout, spent countless years being refined by fire from residual sin committed during their lives. However, living relatives and friends of the departed could buy indulgences, which purportedly reduced the time the person spent in purgatory. So, if your mother had just died and was suffering agony in purgatory, you could buy an early release for her by dropping some coins into a box (or so they promised). This placed enormous emotional pressure on families, most of whom were poor and couldn’t afford indulgences. And of course, the whole idea was fictional. These and other abuses were occurring throughout Europe until a German monk named Martin Luther dared to question the church’s teaching and practice. He decided to stand up to the forces of Rome by calling the authorities out and challenging their right to ask for indulgences. He did this by nailing ninety-five arguments to the door of his local Castle Church in Wittenberg. We might say his posting went viral, and it produced a major backlash. But by then, the spark had been lit. To many of the common people, Luther was a hero who had articulated everything they wanted to say but felt they couldn’t. Luther’s revolt extended beyond indulgences and paved the way for the creation of what we now know as the Protestant movement, which spread all over Europe. It was characterized by three important features that differed from Roman Catholicism. 1. There was a rediscovery of the Bible as the final authority by which God could be known. Luther quickly set about translating the Bible into the ordinary German language. With the invention of the printing press, Bibles quickly became available for common people to read. Protestants not only encouraged the reading of Scripture in their own languages but also taught that Scripture was its own interpreter, without the need for the Roman Catholic Church to dictate what it meant. 2. There was a rediscovery of what a simple faith meant. The Roman Catholic Church taught that the only hope after death was the shortest possible time in purgatory. This could be achieved only if you obeyed their practices as devoutly as possible. Martin Luther, who started off as a monk, became deeply troubled by his continuous attempts to win God’s salvation by his own good works. But while reading the letter to the Romans, he was suddenly struck by the simplicity of the statement, “The just will live by faith” (Rom. 1:17). It dawned on him that, due to his sin, his salvation was never going to happen by keeping the church’s laws or by his attempts to keep God’s laws. Rather, God was offering forgiveness and peace as a gift to be received by faith alone in His Son who had died on the cross for his sins. 3. The Reformation brought about a return to simple Communion. The Roman Catholic Church practiced the Mass, a ceremony in which the wafer was believed to be changed (or transubstantiated) into the body of Jesus. The Protestant movement rediscovered the simplicity of eating bread and drinking wine as pointing to the body and blood of Jesus. While there were varying views of how Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper among Protestants, they all rejected the view that the bread and wine substantially become the body and blood of Christ. In rejecting the additional trappings of the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformers were not suggesting a free-for-all. On the contrary, they believed that the church was the context in which God’s Word was preached and people gathered for worship. But instead of church being a spectator event, in which ordinary people had to sit and watch priests and listen to choirs, they could now take part—by singing, listening to the Scriptures preached, and receiving the Lord’s Supper. Now, the Bible was being understood because preachers were allowing it to speak for itself. The people who were terrified beforehand of the prospect of thousands of years in purgatory were introduced to the gospel, where they could find instant forgiveness and assured peace with God. In many of our churches today, we enjoy the simplicity of biblical worship, a Christ-centered gospel, and uncomplicated sacraments. These precious and simple blessings we often take for granted were not always accessible. They are a consequence of the courage of men like Martin Luther who found the joy of forgiveness not in the church’s impossible dictates, but by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, within the Bible alone, to the glory of God alone.

2. What Does Romans 9 Mean?

   My grandparents were legally permitted to leave communist Russia in the 1930s, in an era when borders were sealed. Almost no one escaped Russia at that time. Humanly speaking, my father should have lived and died in Russia, probably without hearing the gospel. He should not have met my mother in America, and—if there were no God—neither I nor my children would have been born. But God does exist, and Romans 8 and 9 describe His sovereign governance over all things. Specifically, since all men are sinners and none can redeem themselves, Romans 9 teaches that God graciously chose to redeem many, but not all, members of a rebellious race. Romans 9 develops this through comments on Israel’s history. In Romans 9, Paul says that Israel is responsible for its persistent unbelief, since God gave them His covenants, laws, and promises. Many belonged to the nation of Israel but had no part in the real Israel (Rom. 9:6). And all humanity is in a position that is like Israel’s. We have enough knowledge of God and of right and wrong, but “no one does good” (Rom. 2:14–15, 3:10–23). All are sinners and all deserve condemnation, yet God graciously chooses to redeem many. Romans 9:10–12 says that God’s choice of Jacob but not Esau is a striking case of divine election because the boys were twins and neither had a proper interest in the covenant at first: > 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.” (Rom. 9:10–12) Before the twins had done “good or bad,” God chose Jacob. Jacob was not morally or spiritually superior to Esau. Esau was violent and impulsive; Jacob was deceptive and scheming. Jacob defrauded his brother, deceived his father, tried to exploit his uncle, and showed superficial interest in God’s covenant. In Genesis 28, after Jacob tricked Esau, Esau swore to kill him, and Jacob fled. As he ran, God spoke to him in a dream and promised him land, descendants, and safety, adding “I . . . will keep you wherever you go” (Gen. 28:15). Jacob’s response was guarded and conditional: Notice his use of the word if. He said, “If God will be with me and will keep me . . . so that I come again to my father’s house, in peace, then the Lord shall be my God” (Gen. 28:20–21, emphasis added). Jacob promises loyalty to God if He delivers for Jacob first. Esau was no better. He had strong appetites for food and pagan women and no interest in spiritual things. When he came home tired and hungry from a long day hunting, he traded his birthright for a bowl of stew. He “despised his birthright” (Gen. 25:29–34; 27:46). Jacob especially wanted the material aspect of his father’s blessing. Jacob later changed when God wrestled with him. When he grappled with God face to face, he truly sought the Lord, saying, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” He did this, even though he knew he might die, because he now preferred to die than to live without God’s blessing (Gen. 32:22–30). God’s “purpose of election” remained firm (Rom. 9:11) not because Jacob was ethical or sought God, but because God pursued Jacob. The Lord called Jacob and saw His call to its conclusion, not “because of works” by Jacob. The older son, Esau, served the younger, Jacob, as God decreed (Rom. 9:12). Neither Jacob nor Esau deserved to receive their father’s blessing or God’s favor. But God gave Esau up to his sins (Rom. 1:24–28), and He chose Jacob and made promises to him. People sometimes say that God is unjust to give grace to Jacob but not Esau. Paul replies: “Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!” God says, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (Rom. 9:14–15). Some think that justice means everyone must be treated the same way. They think God is just if He distributes the same gifts to everyone. Clearly, God doesn’t do that. But in Scripture, God’s justice describes His character—He is always just and fair. This shines forth perfectly on judgment day. On that day, “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Cor. 5:10; Matt. 16:27). Alas, all will be ripe for judgment, but on that day, God will give His chosen people—all who believe in Him—better than they deserve. He will bestow mercy on them (see Rom. 9:16). The proper response is not to ask, “Am I elect or not?” Let us think, “Since I have heard the gospel and He assured me of His mercy in Christ, I should call on Him” (Rom. 10). We have no right to demand that He grant the same mercy to all. On what basis would we demand mercy? And if we demand justice, all will be condemned, because none is righteous (Rom. 3:10). So, the Lord never gives anyone less than they deserve, but He often gives more. Imagine that a lender had many debtors who could not repay. He wished to be gracious, so he canceled the debts of some. When he announced his decision, those still in debt cried, “That’s not fair.” But one replied, “No, he has treated no one unfairly. He asks of us only what we owe. Can we complain if he is generous to others?” Similarly, the Lord gives justice to many, and that is fair, but He is more than fair to those whom He predestined, called, and justified (Rom. 8:29–30).

3. What “Kyrios” Means in the Bible

   The English word church comes from the Greek word kyriakē, which is a form of the noun kyriakos and means, that which is owned or possessed by the kyrios. So then, what does kyrios mean? This is an important word in the New Testament because it is the Greek word for “Lord” and it is the New Testament word that translates the Old Testament covenant name for God—Yahweh—and the Hebrew title adonai. When the psalmist says, “O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!” (Ps. 8:1), he is saying, “Oh Yahweh, our Adonai, how excellent is thy name in all the earth.” When the Greek translation of the Old Testament rendered the term Adonai, which means “the sovereign one,” it rendered it by the word kyrios. Kyrios is used in three different ways in the New Testament. In a simple way, the term kyrios is the polite form of address corresponding somewhat to our word sir or mister. But the highest and most exalted use of the term kyrios is what we call the imperial usage of it, and that is the title that ascribes absolute sovereignty to the one who is kyrios. Paul used this form of the word in Philippians 2:10–11 when he writes “that every knee will bow and tongue confess that Jesus is kyrios,” that is, “Lord.” As important as that title is for Christ in the New Testament, I want to look at how it relates to our understanding of the church. Another meaning of the word kyrios refers to a man in ancient Greek culture who was wealthy enough to own slaves. The slave owner was called a kyrios and those who were slaves of a kyrios were purchased by the kyrios. I stress that for this reason: kyriakē is the etymological foundation of the word church. In its original meaning, the church referred to people who were owned by a kyrios, who were owned and possessed by a lord. In the New Testament, we find this imagery frequently used with respect to the relationship between believers—individually and corporately—and Christ. Paul, for example, calls himself a doulos, or slave. He uses this metaphor of one who has been purchased. He applies it not only to himself but also to all of the people of God when he says, “You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body”(1 Cor. 6:19–20). We are God’s possession because He has redeemed us. The New Testament speaks frequently about Christians as being people who are in Christ Jesus. When evangelism takes place, the call to people is not simply to believe in Jesus but to believe into Him. The Greek word there is eis, which means “into.” Eis and its meaning can be illustrated thus: if I’m outside the city, I have to first move into the city through the city gates before I can be inside the city. That’s the idea that we have in the New Testament when we are called to believe into Christ. And when we do have authentic faith, we are in Christ Jesus, and He is in us. This is the mystical union of the believer and Christ. Now if I have a mystical union with Christ and you have a mystical union with Christ, that means we have a particular communion, a co-fellowship in Christ. This has all kinds of practical ramifications in the New Testament. For example, Paul tells us that the spirit by which we are to relate to one another in the church is the spirit of charity that covers a multitude of sins. Furthermore, we are called to respect one another’s Christian liberty in the Lord. We are to refrain from harsh judgments of each other. We are always to remember that we are relating to people who have been purchased by Christ. In order to exhibit that kind of attitude toward the people of God and towards the church as an institution, we have to look past the individuals who are plaguing us and who are thorns in our side and look to the One whose church it is. If I am a member of a group of servants and I have conflict with the servants, that conflict must never cause me to speak against the owner of the servants. We are all servants under one Lord. The hardest and most radical command of Jesus is the command to love our enemies. I can’t think of anything more unnatural. If someone is our enemy, the last thing we want to do is promote his welfare and to do good to him. And yet, our Lord said that this is our duty. We must do good to those who spitefully use us and who persecute us. We need to hear this over and over again because to pray for the well-being of those who are at enmity against us is foreign to our basic human nature. And yet, we have the supreme example of Jesus, who laid down His life for the very people who despised Him even unto death. I don’t think that we can love our enemies by nature. The only way we can possibly hope to do it is by grace and by looking beyond the enemy to Christ. We are to love our enemies for Christ’s sake. Though fellow Christians cannot ultimately be our enemies, we can still apply Jesus’ teaching to church life. If we are to love our enemies, how much more are we to love everyone in the body of Christ?

4. Do We Have Free Will?

   The question of whether we have free will has been debated by Christians for two millennia. But what does the Bible say? Can we find any help in God’s Word to answer how we can freely choose our actions and be responsible for them? Many Christians, sometimes known as free-will theists (including Arminians), have answered this question one way, embracing what is called libertarian free will. Other Christians associated with Reformed theology (Calvinists) have answered the question another way, embracing what is called compatibilism. Proponents of libertarian free will believe that for any choice to be truly free, it must not be constrained by any outside causal forces. God and other sources can influence our choices, but they cannot decisively determine the outcome of our choices. Furthermore, libertarian free will affirms that we have the power of contrary choice. Suppose you drive your car to a T-intersection and choose to turn right. However, if the clock could be rolled back and the conditions were the same, you could have equally chosen to turn left. Proponents of libertarian free will believe this model of human freedom allows for moral responsibility and the opportunity for meaningful relationships. For example, some argue that if God determines our love for Him, then our freedom would be constrained and our choices coerced, taking away our moral responsibility. We must possess the ability to freely love God or reject loving God. Free-will theists believe this model of human freedom is assumed by the Bible, citing the “whosoever” passages such as John 3:16. At first glance, these passages seem to support libertarian free will, but this view faces insurmountable problems. For example, this brand of free will undermines the sovereignty of God over all things (see Isa. 45:5–7; 46:9–11; Dan. 2:20–21; 4:34–35; Eph. 1:11). It also does not square with the doctrine of human depravity, as the Bible makes clear that unbelievers are in bondage to their sin (Rom. 3:10–18, 23) and have no power within themselves to escape this bondage (Rom. 8:7–8). Furthermore, libertarian free will cannot account for divine foreknowledge. How could we have the power of contrary choice when God already knows with certainty what we will choose? The compatibilist view of human freedom and responsibility better corresponds with Scripture. It teaches that every human choice has a dual explanation. First, God has ordained in eternity past and providentially ensures in the present all the choices human beings make without coercing us to act against our will. For example, the book of Exodus says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 7:3; 9:12). Yet simultaneously, it says Pharaoh freely and sinfully hardened his own heart (Ex. 8:15, 32; 9:34). Second, God’s sovereignty is compatible with what we voluntarily, unconstrainedly choose as dictated by the condition of our hearts, whether good or evil. Corrupted hearts can only make corrupted choices (Matt. 7:17–20; 12:33–35). To make God-pleasing choices, the heart must be transformed, regenerated by the Holy Spirit (John 3:5–8). Solomon understood this mysterious intertwining of human and divine wills, saying, > The heart of man plans his way, > but the Lord establishes his steps. (Prov. 16:9) He also said, > Many are the plans in the mind of a man, > but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand. (Prov. 19:21; see also Prov. 16:33; 21:1) These proverbs indicate that God is the remote but primary cause of human actions, whereas humans are the immediate but secondary cause of their own actions. Thus, we are not helpless puppets dangling from some grand puppeteer’s strings. Our choices are real and meaningful. The Bible is full of specific examples of compatibilism. Consider how Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery, an act for which they bore moral responsibility. Yet simultaneously, God brought about their actions (Gen. 45:4–9; 50:15–18). Joseph declared to his brothers, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). In Acts 27, an angel reveals to Paul that he and his sailing companions shall all be divinely rescued from a fierce storm. He tells the sailors, “Take heart, men, for I have faith in God that it will be exactly as I have been told” (Acts 27:25). God will sovereignly ensure their safety. Yet, when some of the sailors tried to escape from the faltering ship, Paul urged the centurion in charge, “Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved” (Acts 27:31). Thus, God’s providence is not fatalism in which human choices do not matter. Rather, God exercises His sovereign plans through the freely exercised wills of His creatures. The most significant example of compatibilism is the death of Christ. Scripture is clear that God sovereignly ordained the grand plan of redemption that required Him to send forth His Son to be our crucified and risen Redeemer. Peter declares to the inhabitants of Jerusalem that Jesus was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). And yet, Peter does not exonerate the Jews of their moral responsibility here: “You crucified and killed” Jesus “by the hands of lawless men” (see also Acts 4:27–28). There is tension and mystery in the relationship between the divine and the human in the choices we make. Scripture usually emphasizes the divine or the human side of the equation. Sometimes both perspectives are placed side by side. In either case, the two always go together. God is completely sovereign, and we are responsible for our voluntarily (freely) made choices.

5. 28% of UK Evangelicals Are New to Church: The State of Theology

   More people are entering the doors of churches in the United Kingdom. This year’s State of Theology survey reveals an encouraging trend in church attendance: 28% of UK evangelicals say they began attending Sunday church services for the first time as adults within the past two years. This flood of new visitors should be met with joy and gratitude. But ultimately, attendance is not the same as conversion. And the findings from the State of Theology survey reveal that these new attendees are confused about core doctrines of the Christian faith. 71% of ‘new evangelicals’ believe God accepts the worship of all religions 57% of ‘new evangelicals’ believe that the Bible, while helpful, is not literally true The need for faithful teaching and discipleship is clear. As congregations welcome newcomers, they have a responsibility to proclaim the whole counsel of God, call sinners to repentance and faith, and help believers grow in the knowledge of God’s Word. Download the Free Study Guide What can we learn from these survey results? Gather a group and download the free digital study guide for The State of Theology UK. Each section includes discussion questions and biblical insight to guide your conversation. More Resources on the Church R.C. Sproul founded Ligonier to help Christians know who God is and who they are. Here are several of our resources addressing the Bible’s teaching on Christ’s body, the church. The Bride of Christ teaching series with R.C. Sproul The Church in a Changing World teaching series with W. Robert Godfrey “The Marks of a Church” article by W. Robert Godfrey “Remembering Sundays” article by Paul Levy Welcome to a Reformed Church book by Daniel Hyde