Sola Scriptura

Sproul Distorts Sola Fide

Published by Papa Giorgio

I saw this graphic to the right on the Eff Bee (Facebook) and had to comment.

The deeper problem with Sproul’s condemnation of Rome is that his own theology raises a fundamental question about the power and purpose of the gospel itself. Sproul insists that Rome’s rejection of sola fide places it under God’s condemnation, yet his own theological system teaches that the gospel cannot bring an unregenerate person to saving faith unless God first regenerates that person. In this framework, faith is not the response through which a spiritually dead sinner receives life, but the consequence and evidence that God has already imparted spiritual life.

The sinner does not believe and thereby receive life; the sinner believes because God has already made him spiritually alive. Consequently, the gospel message, considered apart from this prior, effectual work of regeneration, cannot produce the very response it commands. The decisive factor is not simply that Christ has been proclaimed, or that the hearer has been confronted with the truth, but whether God has already chosen that individual for the inward work that makes faith possible.

If the gospel is proclaimed to everyone, but only the elect receive the regeneration necessary to believe it, in what meaningful sense is the gospel itself the power that brings sinners to faith?

The message announces Christ, commands repentance and faith, and promises eternal life to the believer. Yet under Sproul’s understanding of total inability and unconditional election, the same message cannot bring two equally unregenerate hearers to faith unless God effectually intervenes in one but not the other. The difference is not ultimately the content or truth of the gospel, nor a response made possible by the grace accompanying its proclamation, but God’s prior decision to regenerate one hearer while passing over another. The gospel is preached to both, but only one receives the antecedent divine action necessary to believe. This creates a serious tension between the universal scope of the gospel invitation and a system in which the ability to respond savingly is restricted to those whom God has individually chosen to receive effectual regeneration.

The problem becomes especially acute when Sproul condemns Rome for allegedly compromising the gospel while presenting his own system as the faithful defense of it. The question is not merely whether Sproul formally affirms that justification is by faith alone. It is whether his understanding of election, inability, and regeneration preserves the biblical presentation of the gospel as God’s means of calling sinners to salvation through faith in Christ. If the gospel cannot be savingly received until an individual has already undergone the decisive work of regeneration, then faith functions as the result of a prior saving intervention rather than the response through which the sinner receives the life Christ promises. Sproul may distinguish regeneration from justification and insist that faith alone is the instrument of justification, but that distinction does not answer the deeper objection: why must the sinner be regenerated before he can believe the very gospel through which God calls him to believe? And if God alone determines who receives that enabling intervention, what becomes of the claim that the gospel invitation genuinely addresses every hearer as someone who may respond to its promise?

This is why the challenge to Sproul must begin with election and the alleged inability of the non-elect to believe, not merely with perseverance. Perseverance is downstream from the prior question of who can believe and why. If only the elect can respond because only they receive the regeneration that makes faith possible, then the decisive dividing line between those who believe and those who do not is established before the gospel is heard. The gospel may announce the same Christ and the same promise to everyone, but, within this system, it cannot bring everyone to the response it commands because the necessary inward work is withheld from some by divine decree. Sproul therefore cannot simply invoke sola fide to condemn Rome without answering whether his own doctrine of unconditional election and regeneration before faith preserves the gospel’s promise and purpose.

The central question is not merely whether faith must persevere, but whether the gospel is genuinely the means through which sinners are called to believe—or whether its saving effect has already been determined by an act of election and regeneration that precedes their response.

Introduction: What Does It Mean to Be Saved by Faith Alone?

The Protestant Reformation championed sola fide—justification by faith alone. The doctrine was intended to preserve the biblical distinction between God’s gracious provision of salvation in Jesus Christ and the sinner’s reception of that salvation through faith. Faith does not earn salvation, contribute human merit to Christ’s finished work, or constitute a work of righteousness by which the sinner merits God’s favor. It is the means by which the sinner receives the promise of eternal life in Christ.

Yet a crucial question arises when examining the theology of R.C. Sproul and other prominent Calvinists: Does their understanding of regeneration, saving faith, and perseverance preserve the practical meaning of sola fide, or does it introduce additional theological requirements that substantially alter how the gospel is understood and proclaimed?

Sproul’s own words provide a starting point:

“Unless we first receive the grace of regeneration, we will not and cannot respond to the gospel in a positive way. Regeneration must occur before there can be any positive response of faith.”

—R.C. Sproul, What Is Reformed Theology? Understanding the Basics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 186.

This statement expresses the Calvinist doctrine that regeneration precedes faith. According to this understanding, fallen humanity cannot exercise saving faith until God first regenerates the sinner, giving the person a new spiritual disposition that enables belief in Christ.

The controversy is not whether salvation depends entirely upon God’s grace. The controversy concerns the relationship between grace, the proclamation of the gospel, faith, regeneration, and justification—and whether Calvinism’s definition of saving faith preserves faith as the sole instrument of justification without making additional characteristics of the believer necessary criteria for establishing that faith was genuine.

Three related questions deserve examination:

  1. Does Scripture teach that regeneration must precede faith?
  2. Does defining saving faith as necessarily productive of perseverance alter the practical meaning of justification by faith alone?
  3. Does this framework ground assurance in Christ’s promise or in the believer’s ability to demonstrate evidence of regeneration?

These questions are addressed not only by critics of Calvinism but also through historical studies of Reformed theology and scholarly examinations of Baptist soteriology.

1. Regeneration Before Faith: What Is the Gospel Calling People to Do?

Sproul’s statement places regeneration logically before faith. In his theological framework, the sinner does not believe in order to be regenerated. Rather, God regenerates the sinner so that the sinner can believe.

Sproul makes the distinction explicit elsewhere:

  • “We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order to believe.”

The central question is whether this order is established by Scripture or imposed upon the biblical texts through a particular understanding of spiritual death and human inability.

Consider how Jesus describes the purpose of His message in John 20:31:

“But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (CSB)

The stated purpose is that people may believe and, by believing, have life in Christ’s name.

Likewise, John 5:24 declares that the person who hears Christ’s word and believes the Father has eternal life and has passed from death to life. In John 5:40, Jesus rebukes His hearers:

“But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (NKJV)

These passages present belief in Christ as the means of receiving life, not merely as the inevitable evidence that life has already been imparted through an antecedent act of regeneration.

Dave Hunt develops this objection in What Love Is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God, particularly in:

  • chapter 7, “Total Depravity,”
  • and chapter 21, “Persuasion, the Gospel and God.”

Hunt argues that the Calvinist inference from spiritual inability to regeneration before faith is not explicitly stated in Scripture. He appeals to passages such as John 1:12, John 20:31, Galatians 3:26, and 2 Timothy 3:15 to argue that faith in Christ is presented as the means of receiving life and becoming God’s child.

Hunt’s conclusion is that Calvinism reverses the biblical order by making regeneration the necessary prerequisite for the very faith through which the gospel calls people to receive eternal life.

The underlying exegetical question is important: Do these passages merely describe the experience of people who have already been regenerated, or do they establish the order in which faith and the reception of life are related?

Calvinists commonly respond that logical priority does not require a temporal interval between regeneration and faith. Regeneration and conversion may occur together in time while regeneration remains logically prior as their cause. That distinction must be acknowledged. The dispute is not necessarily about whether a person spends time regenerated but unbelieving. It is about whether regeneration is the necessary divine cause of faith in the first place.

The alternative interpretation argues that the gospel is genuinely addressed to sinners who are called to believe, and that Scripture’s descriptions of spiritual death do not independently establish the Calvinist doctrine of total inability.

2. Spiritual Death Does Not Automatically Establish Total Inability

Calvinism commonly interprets Ephesians 2:1—“And you were dead in your trespasses and sins”—as teaching that fallen people are unable to respond positively to the gospel until God first makes them spiritually alive. The argument is understandable:

if the spiritually dead are entirely incapable of responding to God, regeneration must precede faith.

But the conclusion depends on what spiritual death means in the context of Paul’s argument. Does the metaphor mean that unbelievers cannot respond to divine revelation in any positive way without prior regeneration, or does it describe their alienation from God, bondage to sin, and need for divine rescue?

Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, edited by David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke, examines this issue in its discussion of irresistible grace. The contributors challenge the assumption that spiritual death necessarily entails the complete inability to respond to God’s revealed truth.

The critique observes that Scripture uses several descriptions for those who are lost. People are described as perishing, alienated, estranged, and dead in sin. These descriptions emphasize the seriousness of their condition, but the meaning of each must be established by its context rather than imported from a single metaphor.

Similarly, What Love Is This? challenges the equation of depravity with an absolute inability to believe the gospel. Hunt argues that the Bible repeatedly calls people to repent, believe, hear, and respond to God’s message without explicitly instructing them that regeneration must first occur before such a response is possible.

The point is not that sinners can save themselves or that divine grace is unnecessary. The point is that the necessity of grace does not, by itself, establish the Calvinist account of how grace enables faith. A theological system may affirm human sinfulness, the necessity of Christ’s atonement, and the absolute dependence of salvation upon grace without concluding that saving faith must be the effect of a prior, unconditional act of regeneration.

That conclusion requires additional argument.

3. What Does the Historical Evidence Tell Us About Regeneration?

The historical question is more complicated than either side sometimes suggests.

In Why I Am Not a Calvinist, Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell argue that Calvinism faces serious exegetical, philosophical, and theological difficulties. Their broader critique examines divine sovereignty, human freedom, the coherence of theological determinism, and the consequences of Calvinism for Christian life.

Their approach is particularly relevant because it challenges the assumption that Calvinism’s conclusions follow automatically from affirming God’s sovereignty and humanity’s dependence upon grace. The authors argue that the central theological questions involve God’s character and the adequacy of a system that makes all human choices ultimately determined by divine decree.

Their book is not simply a treatise on the timing of regeneration, and it should not be cited as though it settles every exegetical question about John 1 or Ephesians 2. Its contribution is broader: it challenges the theological framework within which regeneration preceding faith is commonly defended.

A more focused historical resource is Kenneth Stewart’s article, “The Doctrine of Regeneration in Evangelical Theology: The Reformation to 1800,” published in the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry, vol. 8, no. 1 (Spring 2011), pp. 42–57.

Stewart cautions that modern uses of regeneration do not always correspond precisely to the terminology used by early Protestant theologians. He observes that John Calvin frequently used regeneration to describe the renewal and transformation of the believer’s life, a concept closely related to what later theology often calls progressive sanctification. Calvin could also speak of regeneration as the beginning of spiritual life, so his usage was not uniform.

Stewart further traces the development of more explicit formulations of regeneration as the initial impartation of divine life. He notes that this conception became clearly articulated in Reformed theology by the time of the Synod of Dort in 1619. This historical evidence establishes an important qualification:

  • it would be inaccurate to claim that the doctrine of regeneration was simply invented in the eighteenth century or that no Reformation theologian understood regeneration as the beginning of spiritual life.

Nevertheless, Stewart’s study also demonstrates why historical terminology matters. The meaning assigned to regeneration must be examined in the context of the particular theologian and period. A modern statement that regeneration must precede faith cannot automatically be treated as identical to every earlier Protestant use of the term.

The relevant question is not merely whether earlier theologians believed in regeneration. It is how they understood its relationship to faith, conversion, justification, and the continuing renewal of the Christian life.

4. The Instrument of Justification and the Cause of Faith Are Different Questions

A careful critique must distinguish two questions:

  1. What is the basis and instrument of justification?
  2. What causes a person to exercise saving faith?

Sproul answers the second question by appealing to prior regeneration. He does not thereby explicitly deny that faith alone is the instrument of justification. Indeed, Reformed theology ordinarily maintains that justification is by faith alone while insisting that saving faith necessarily arises from God’s regenerating work.

Consequently, it would be inaccurate to argue that the doctrine of regeneration preceding faith, by itself, proves that Sproul explicitly denies sola fide. The more substantial objection concerns the consequences of this framework.

If faith is possible only after God has unilaterally regenerated a particular sinner, then faith is not merely the response to the gospel by which the sinner receives eternal life. Within this system, it is also the necessary consequence and evidence of an antecedent divine act that distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever. The question becomes:

What role does the gospel itself play in bringing a person to faith?

Is the gospel God’s power for salvation through the response of faith, or is an inward act of regeneration the decisive prerequisite that makes the gospel’s appeal effective for the elect? Calvinists answer that God ordinarily uses the gospel as the means through which He calls His people and brings them to faith. They do not generally teach that the gospel is irrelevant.

Nevertheless, the distinction remains important. The Calvinist account makes the sinner’s positive response dependent upon a prior, effectual work of regeneration that is not granted to everyone who hears the gospel. The non-Calvinist objection is that Scripture presents the gospel itself as God’s power for salvation and repeatedly identifies believing in Christ as the condition for receiving eternal life.

Romans 1:16 describes the gospel as God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes. Romans 10:17 connects faith with hearing the message of Christ. John 20:31 explicitly identifies believing as the means by which people may have life in Christ’s name.

These passages do not deny the necessity of grace. They challenge the claim that saving faith must be explained as the consequence of a logically prior regeneration that makes belief possible only for a particular group.

5. When “Faith Alone” Is Qualified by a Theological System

The controversy becomes more serious when we examine not only the Reformed definition of saving faith, but also the authority by which that definition is established. The principles of sola fide (faith alone) and sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) are closely connected here. If Scripture promises eternal life to the one who believes in Jesus Christ, can that promise be qualified by a theological system that requires prior regeneration to make faith possible and subsequent perseverance to establish that the faith was genuine?

This is a central concern raised by Micah Coate in A Cultish Side of Calvinism. Coate argues that Calvinism’s commitment to the five points of TULIP can conflict with its professed commitment to Scripture as the supreme authority for doctrine. He contends that the system’s conclusions are often driven by the theological framework inherited from John Calvin rather than derived consistently from the plain force of the biblical texts themselves. His criticism is not merely that Calvinists interpret certain verses differently. It is that the system can become the controlling framework through which Scripture must be interpreted, even when individual passages appear to challenge its conclusions.

That concern becomes particularly relevant when considering the Reformed doctrine of saving faith.

The Question Is More Than Whether Faith Produces Works

Many Calvinist theologians distinguish genuine saving faith from mere intellectual agreement. They argue that saving faith necessarily produces repentance, love, obedience, and perseverance. They also insist that works do not merit justification but instead provide evidence that a person has genuinely been regenerated and justified.

Their familiar formula expresses the distinction:

“We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone.”

The existence of good works in a Christian’s life does not, by itself, contradict justification by faith alone. Nor does the biblical expectation that Christians grow in holiness. The more important question is what role works are assigned in determining whether a person has received eternal life and can know that he or she possesses it.

In A Defense of Free Grace Theology: With Respect to Saving Faith, Perseverance, and Assurance, the contributors challenge definitions of saving faith that make perseverance in good works an indispensable criterion for determining whether a person’s original faith was genuine. Coate raises a related objection in his discussion of the perseverance of the saints:

when perseverance becomes the necessary proof of election, believers are directed to examine their conduct and holiness to establish whether they belong to the elect.

Coate points to statements from Reformed theologians that connect final salvation or assurance to subsequent obedience and perseverance. His concern is that this framework can leave the believer looking backward at a record of spiritual performance to determine whether an earlier profession of faith was authentic. If a person fails to persevere, the explanation may be that the person was never genuinely saved.

The problem is not simply that Christians are encouraged to obey Christ. It is that the believer’s assurance may become dependent on demonstrating the right kind of faith through the right kind of life.

The Problem for Sola Fide: Is Faith Sufficient, or Must It Be Validated?

Consider the direct language of Scripture:

  • John 3:16: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life.
  • John 5:24: The one who hears Christ’s word and believes the Father has eternal life, has passed from death to life, and does not come into judgment.
  • John 6:47: The one who believes has eternal life.
  • Acts 16:31: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.”
  • Romans 4:5: God justifies the one who does not work but believes in the One who justifies the ungodly.
  • Ephesians 2:8–9: Salvation is by grace through faith, not from works, so that no one can boast.

These passages direct the sinner to Christ and the promise of life through faith. They do not state that a person must first demonstrate a sufficiently persistent pattern of obedience before being entitled to rely on that promise.

The Reformed response is that these promises describe the security of genuine believers, while perseverance reveals who those genuine believers are. But that response raises a further question: where does Scripture explicitly establish that a person’s future perseverance is a necessary test for determining whether the person previously received the gift promised through faith?

If the answer depends on a theological synthesis of election, regeneration, and perseverance, the debate is no longer merely about whether works accompany faith. It is about whether that synthesis introduces a qualification that the promise itself does not state.

The concern is not that works earn salvation. It is that works can become an indispensable validating condition for assurance that salvation was ever received. Faith alone may remain the formal description of justification, while perseverance becomes the practical test by which the believer is permitted to regard that justification as real.

This is the tension that sola fide must address. If a person believes Christ’s promise but later struggles with serious sin, spiritual weakness, or inconsistency, should that person be directed first to Christ’s promise or to an examination of whether the person’s conduct demonstrates election?

Christian growth matters. Disobedience matters. Scripture contains warnings, commands, and calls to perseverance. But those truths do not automatically establish that perseverance must function as a condition for knowing whether one has received eternal life through faith. That conclusion requires its own biblical demonstration.

The Problem for Sola Scriptura: Does Scripture Govern the System, or Does the System Govern Scripture?

Coate’s critique makes this question especially important. In A Cultish Side of Calvinism, he argues that Calvinism’s claim to sola Scriptura is compromised when adherence to TULIP becomes the controlling framework for interpreting biblical doctrine. He contrasts the authority of Scripture itself with reliance on Calvin’s interpretation and the subsequent Reformed theological tradition.

This argument should be evaluated by examining the actual texts, not simply by assuming that a doctrine is unbiblical because Calvin taught it. Nevertheless, the underlying challenge is legitimate:

a theological system cannot establish its own authority merely by claiming to be the most consistent interpretation of Scripture. Its conclusions must be tested against Scripture itself.

The same test applies to the Calvinist account of saving faith.

The New Testament repeatedly presents the gospel as God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes (Romans 1:16). It calls people to believe in Christ and promises life to those who do (John 3:16; John 5:24; John 20:31). Yet the Calvinist system holds that saving faith is possible only because God has first elected and effectually regenerated the individual. The person does not believe in order to receive spiritual life; rather, in this account, the person believes because spiritual life has already been imparted through a selective act of regeneration.

That distinction is fundamental. Faith is no longer the response through which a spiritually dead sinner receives life, but the consequence and evidence that God has already imparted spiritual life.

Coate argues that this doctrine of regeneration preceding faith conflicts with the biblical presentation of the gospel as God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes. The issue is not whether God must work in a sinner’s heart; Scripture clearly teaches the necessity of divine grace and the work of the Holy Spirit. The issue is whether Scripture teaches that God must first regenerate a person in order for that person to believe—or whether Calvinism has made that sequence necessary through its particular understanding of human depravity and election.

If the latter conclusion depends on a system of theological deductions rather than an explicit biblical statement, the claim to sola Scriptura deserves careful scrutiny. A system may quote Scripture extensively while still allowing its prior assumptions to determine what Scripture is permitted to mean.

The Gospel’s Promise and the Problem of Assurance

These issues converge in the practical question of assurance.

If eternal life is promised to the one who believes in Christ, then the believer’s fundamental assurance should rest on the trustworthiness of Christ and His word. That does not mean every profession of faith must be accepted without discernment, that works are irrelevant to Christian discipleship, or that the New Testament’s warnings should be ignored. It means that the promise of eternal life should not be silently transformed into a promise whose reliability the believer must verify through a lifetime of spiritual performance.

Under a perseverance-based framework, a person may be told that genuine believers will persevere, that perseverance demonstrates election, and that failure to persevere reveals that the original faith was never genuine. This can make assurance provisional in practice: the believer’s present confidence remains exposed to the possibility that future failure will invalidate the interpretation of past faith.

Coate’s critique highlights the resulting difficulty. If assurance is ultimately established by looking at one’s works, then the believer’s confidence is no longer resting exclusively on Christ’s promise. It also depends on the believer’s ability to interpret the adequacy and persistence of personal obedience as evidence of election.

The Free Grace objection is that this approach confuses the reception of eternal life with the subsequent development of Christian character. A believer’s growth, obedience, fellowship with God, discipleship, and rewards are important biblical subjects. But they should not be collapsed into the question of whether the believer has received the gift of eternal life promised to those who believe in Jesus Christ.

The Standard Must Be Scripture, Not the System

The ultimate issue is not whether Calvinists affirm the words faith alone. Many sincerely affirm justification by faith alone and explicitly deny that works merit salvation. The question is whether their wider theological framework preserves the full practical force of that confession.

If faith is possible only because God has selectively regenerated the elect before they believe, and if the genuineness of that faith must subsequently be established through perseverance, then the system has assigned decisive roles to prior regeneration and future conduct in explaining who can believe and who can possess assurance.

Those roles must be demonstrated from Scripture rather than assumed because they follow logically from TULIP.

This is where sola fide and sola Scriptura meet. The former requires that justification not be made dependent on works; the latter requires that the doctrine be established by Scripture rather than imposed upon it by a theological system. A definition of saving faith that formally excludes works from the ground of justification can still raise serious questions if works become indispensable to establishing whether justification ever occurred. Likewise, a theology that professes Scripture alone must allow the explicit promises and invitations of the biblical text to challenge its conclusions.

The decisive question is therefore not simply whether Calvinists believe in faith alone. It is whether their definition of saving faith and their system of assurance allow the sinner to rest in Christ’s promise on the basis of faith—or require the sinner to infer from prior regeneration and subsequent perseverance whether that faith was genuine.

If Scripture’s promise is sufficient, it must be permitted to speak with its full force. If a theological system qualifies that promise, the burden is on the system to demonstrate that its qualification comes from Scripture itself.

6. Perseverance, Good Works, and the Problem of Assurance

The relationship between saving faith and perseverance creates a further difficulty.

If all genuinely regenerated believers will necessarily persevere in faith and good works, how can someone know in the present that their faith is genuine?

Calvinist theologians generally answer that believers should look to Christ and His promises while also recognizing the fruits of regeneration in their lives. They do not necessarily teach that assurance must depend on achieving sinless perfection.

Nevertheless, the requirement that genuine faith inevitably produces perseverance can create a retrospective test of salvation. A person’s present confession of faith may be considered insufficient if later conduct appears inconsistent with the expected marks of a regenerate life.

The result is a tension between assurance based on Christ’s promise and assurance based on the believer’s continuing performance.

A particularly relevant scholarly discussion appears in Ken Keathley’s chapter “Perseverance and Assurance of the Saints” in Whosoever Will. Keathley examines the relationship between assurance, perseverance, and sanctification. He notes that Calvinists and Arminians can both arrive at a position in which assurance is grounded substantially in evidence of sanctification, despite their differences over whether salvation can ultimately be lost.

Keathley’s discussion distinguishes justification as God’s legal declaration that a sinner is righteous through Christ from sanctification as the lifelong work of grace by which the believer is made righteous in character. This distinction is crucial to the present argument.

If justification and sanctification are distinct, then evidence of sanctification should not be confused with the basis of justification. The believer’s growth in holiness may be important to Christian maturity and discipleship without becoming the ground on which the believer determines whether Christ’s promise of eternal life can be trusted.

A Defense of Free Grace Theology addresses the same tension through its discussions of saving faith, perseverance, and assurance. Its contributors argue that the certainty of eternal life must be distinguished from the variable quality of a Christian’s experience and conduct.

The issue is not whether Christians should pursue holiness. It is whether failures in sanctification should be treated as evidence that a person never possessed eternal life in the first place.

John’s Gospel repeatedly identifies believing in Christ as the way to receive eternal life. John 5:24 says that the person who believes has eternal life and has passed from death to life. John 6:47 likewise declares that the one who believes has eternal life.

These promises provide a foundation for assurance that does not depend upon first establishing a sufficiently impressive record of perseverance.

7. Does This Reconstruct the Meaning of Sola Fide?

The Reformers opposed the idea that sinners are justified on the basis of their own righteousness or meritorious works. The doctrine of justification by faith alone affirms that the sinner receives God’s gracious verdict through faith in Christ rather than earning it through personal obedience.

The Calvinist response is that inevitable good works do not earn justification. They demonstrate that the faith by which a person is justified is genuine.

That response must be taken seriously. It would be inaccurate to equate every Calvinist account of perseverance with an explicit doctrine of justification by works.

The criticism, however, concerns the practical implications of making perseverance an inevitable feature of genuine saving faith.

If a person’s ultimate salvation is treated as dependent upon the inevitable presence of a persevering faith that manifests itself in good works, then works become indispensable to the Calvinist account of final salvation—even while being denied the status of the meritorious basis of justification.

This is the distinction examined in A Defense of Free Grace Theology. Its critique is that the language of faith alone can obscure a theological framework in which works, although not meritorious, become necessary evidence that the person possesses the kind of faith that will finally be saved.

The central question is therefore not simply whether Calvinists affirm the words sola fide. It is whether their definitions of saving faith and final salvation preserve the distinction between receiving eternal life through faith and demonstrating Christian maturity through subsequent obedience.

The broader critiques in Why I Am Not a Calvinist and Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, edited by David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke, reinforce the importance of evaluating the entire theological framework rather than isolating one doctrinal formula. The latter volume examines total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance, alongside the theological implications of determinism, human freedom, and the character of God.

Taken together, these works invite a more precise question:

  • Does a theological system preserve justification by faith alone in both its formal definition and its practical implications for the gospel invitation and Christian assurance?

Bibliography

  1. Allen, David L., and Steve W. Lemke, eds. Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2022.
  2. Allen, David L., and Steve W. Lemke, eds. Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010.
  3. Chay, Fred, ed. A Defense of Free Grace Theology: With Respect to Saving Faith, Perseverance, and Assurance. The Woodlands, TX: Grace Theology Press, 2017.
  4. Coate, Micah. A Cultish Side of Calvinism. Innovo Publishing, 2011.
  5. Hunt, Dave. What Love Is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God. 4th ed. Bend, OR: The Berean Call, 2013.
  6. Stewart, Kenneth. “The Doctrine of Regeneration in Evangelical Theology: The Reformation to 1800.” Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 8, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 42–57.
  7. Sproul, R. C. What Is Reformed Theology? Understanding the Basics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997.
  8. Vance, Laurence M. The Other Side of Calvinism. Rev. ed., 6th printing. Orlando, FL: Vance Publications, 2021.
  9. Walls, Jerry L., and Joseph R. Dongell. Why I Am Not a Calvinist. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
  10. “The Dangers of Redefined Faith: Why Calvinism Undermines the Gospel.” Christians Need the Gospel. https://www.christiansneedthegospel.com/writings/post/the-dangers-of-redefined-faith-why-calvinism-undermines-the-gospel.

Principal Scripture References

John 1:12–13; 3:16; 5:24, 40; 6:47; 20:31; Romans 1:16; 10:17; Ephesians 2:1–10; Galatians 3:26; 2 Timothy 3:15.

Recommended Reading — ReligioPoliticalTalk.com

The following articles offer additional arguments and resources on faith, works, divine determinism, grace, and the Provisionist understanding of salvation.

  1. The Calvinist Dilemma of Faith, Works, and Divine Determinism
  2. Reacting with Faith Is a Work?
  3. Is Faith a Work?
  4. God Provides, Faith Receives: A Five-Point Defense of Provisionism
  5. Saved by Grace Through Faith or Saved by Decree? — Chapter 1
  6. Faulty Doctrine: Hippity Hoppity
  7. The Totality of God’s Work at Calvary: Grace

Calvinism: A Different Gospel

Published by Papa Giorgio

It is hard for me to sit quiet and hear person’s I adore talk about the gospel and salvation, and they put meaning behind these ideas/words when ultimately they reject these meanings. One of the [many] reasons I reject TULIP [theistic determinism] is because IT rejects the sufficiency of the living Word of God (the Gospel), as well as Calvary (the lynchpin to the Gospel).

The Gospel of God vs. The Gospel of Calvinism (Ronnie Rogers)

…. Calvinists may respond that they believe the gospel is the “power of God to everyone who believes.” By which they seem to mean, when you believe, you will experience the power of God, and that is true for everyone who believes. But, hidden in this explanation is that while this is trivially true, it is not an actualizable truth as it stands (that the listener can benefit from or by simple faith) without UE, IG, and SR, so one can and will believe, all of which is reserved for the elect and withheld from the non-elect.

As it stands in Scripture, the gospel is portrayed and understood by those who hear it to be sufficiently imbued by God’s power to save the most wretched of sinners if they only believe. Therefore, I beseech Calvinists to be more forthcoming in their gospel encounters with the lost about the other Calvinist requirements, by telling the listener what else must happen before they can believe and experience the power of the gospel—that is, the whole nature of the gospel according to Calvinism. Please fully explain to those who reject the gospel why they did so according to Calvinism. Do not let them leave with a false notion that it was because they rejected the gospel when they should have, and could have, accepted it. It was not just an act of the grace-enabled will, as they think and Scripture testifies.

The biblical gospel is simple and clear (John 3:16; 1 Cor 15:1–4). Anyone can believe and be saved by simply believing this revelation—the gospel—in which resides the power of God almighty to overcome any and all obstacles to salvation by faith. Calvinists should be equally clear about their quite different full understanding of the gospel of Christ. As Calvinists, please tell those whom you evangelize that belief in the gospel is the effect of God’s eternal and unconditional election, the internal efficacious call of God reserved for only the elect, and the renewing pre-faith work of God (regeneration or some form of renewal) of some, rather than what it is in Scripture and the minds of most, if not all, that hear the good news; that believing the gospel is the activating event that results in salvation and all that entails. Contrary to the biblical simple gospel, Calvinism’s gospel should only be shared in a way that listeners understand the gospel is not good news for everyone, and its real good news is that if you accept it, you can know you are one of the elect.

Therefore, according to Calvinism, hearing and believing in the gospel is not the sufficient call to move sinners from being a lost hell-bound sinner to being a child of God by faith. That requires the person to be elected in eternity past, a recipient of the internal efficacious call, and selectively regenerated by God. All of that empowers one to respond positively to the external call of the gospel, without which the gospel is incapable of doing anything except confirming the irreversible state of the damned.

Any veneer of Calvinism that even suggests, or leaves the listener thinking they have a choice to believe or not believe the gospel, is deception, because only after those monergistic renewal works can one truly believe the gospel unto salvation. Moreover, believing the gospel is not the turning point in a person’s eternal destination; it is actually the conduit that brings the truth to a person whose turning point in their life was being unconditionally elected in eternity past, from which believing the gospel is a result. Calvinism undermines the intelligibility of God so that the message derived from a normal reading of Scripture in light of Calvinism makes God appear indecipherable unless one possesses the Calvinist code. …..

Is God’s Word Enough?

Billy Wendeln, of the Bible Brodown is back to talk about God’s witness of Himself to the world and what the Bible teaches us about the sufficiency of the Divine revelation made known to all people.

FREE THINKING MINISTRIES discussed if “Calvinism a Different Gospel?“, to which they discussed the lowering of God’s

… Notable Calvinist scholar, Matthew J. Hart, is clear: “Calvinists . . . are theological determinists. They hold that God causes every contingent event, either directly . . . or indirectly.” Since human thoughts and states of belief are contingent events, this means that God, according to Calvinistic determinism, causes each and every thought and belief, including all of our false and evil beliefs. In his work titled The Providence of God, Paul Helm — who many consider to be the world’s leading Calvinist philosopher — explains where our thoughts come from according to his Calvinistic view:

  • “Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each of these is under the direct control of God. He has not, as far as we know, delegated that control to anyone else.”

If these scholars are correct in their assessment of Calvinism (that Calvinism entails exhaustive determinism), then I contend that Calvinism — the view that God determines all things about humanity — promotes the following incorrect views:

1- A low view of God.

As I’ve explained elsewhere, if exhaustive divine determinism is true, then God is a deity of deception and an untrustworthy source of theological beliefs. 

2- A low view of God’s word.

Based on the transfer of trust principle, if God is an untrustworthy source of theological beliefs, then why should we trust a book authored by a deity of deception that is full of theological statements you are supposed to believe?  If God is untrustworthy, so is a book he inspired. Thus, appealing to Bible verses or to the original Greek does nothing to escape this presupposed false and low view of God and His word. 

3- A low view of man.

Man does not have the ability to reason free from antecedent conditions which are sufficient to necessitate all of his thoughts and beliefs. Man is nothing but a caused cause or a passive cog (a puppet) who is always tethered to prior deterministic forces. 

Thus, on this view, man does not have the active power to infer better beliefs in a deliberative circumstance. He is merely a passive cog who is determined (by something or someone else) to believe truth or to believe falsities.  

4- A low view of sin.

The definition of sin is to “miss the mark.” However, there is no missing the mark if God determines all things about humanity. Everyone always hits the mark perfectly — exactly as God determined. 

5- A low view of the gospel.

This, in my opinion, is the deal-breaker. Calvinism is a low view of the gospel. The gospel literally means “the good news.” Here’s how Christianity has traditionally understood this “good news” with the help of the G.O.S.P.E.L. acronym:

G – God–a perfect being–created all people to be in an eternal loving relationship with Him (that is the objective purpose of life – this is why humanity exist).(Psalm 100:3)

O – Our sins (emphasis on “our”) infect us and separate us from God (like oil and water, necessary perfection and infection do not mix). (Romans 3:23)

S – Sins cannot be removed by good deeds (there’s nothing we as infected people can do about it – we need a miracle). (Isaiah 64:6)

P – Paying the price for sin, Jesus died and rose again (this is that miracle – Jesus paid it all). (Romans 5:8)

E – Everyone who freely trusts in Christ alone – and has not rejected His offer of love and grace – has eternal life (John 3:16).

L – Life with Jesus starts now and lasts forever (to infinity . . . and beyond). (John 10:28)

But Calvinism literally preaches a different gospel. Consider Paul’s words in Galatians 1: 6-8:

  • “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”

Here’s the Calvinist’s different G.O.S.P.E.L.*:

G* – God created a few people to be with him. Most people were created for the specific purpose of eternal suffering in Hell.

Right off the bat, we see that this is not the Gospel message that has been preached in Scripture or through the history of the Christian Church. At the least, it’s a radically different message than what most Christians have had in mind over the past 2,000 years when sharing the good news.

It gets worse . . .

O* – Our separation from God is caused and determined by God.

Let that sink in! 

S* – Sins are illusory.

As noted above, no one ever misses the mark (the definition of sin), but everyone does exactly what God determines us to do. Every arrow hits the bulls eye. 

P* – Paying the price for what God caused and determined all people to do, Jesus died and rose again.

At least Calvinists and non-Calvinist Christians all affirm the historical resurrection (but so do Mormons). 

E* – Everyone who God determines to go to heaven goes to heaven; everyone else (the majority of humanity) is determined to suffer in the fires of hell.

Unless, of course, the Calvinist affirms universalism and argue that allpeople are given irresistible grace and determined to go to heaven. Calvinists can also affirm annihilationism and contend that eternal separation from God is still determined by God (so the problem still remains), but there is no eternal conscious suffering. Both views are typically rejected by most Calvinists. 

L* – Life in hell lasts forever.

Does this sound like “good news”? No, in fact, it’s horrible news to the vast majority of humanity. Calvinism is not the message of Christianity. It is a distorted understanding of the gospel that ought to be rejected by Christ followers. ….

(READ MORE VIA FTM!)

Calvinism: A Different Gospel

If Calvinists, Molinists, and Arminians are all Christians, why does Tim Stratton spend so much time arguing about free will, divine providence, and salvation? The answer might make some angry or uncomfortable. But if we are committed to truth, we should have an open dialogue and respectful conversations. Stratton believes that Calvinism contains within itself several problems that must be addressed. He agues that Calvinism presents us with a low view of God, a low view of God’s word, and a low view of the Gospel! (To name a few.) Because of this and other reasons, it is reasonable to conclude that Calvinism presents a different Gospel, which we ought to vehemently reject.

 

 

Dissecting Salvonic Authority In Roman Catholicism | White-Winger

Published by Papa Giorgio

The Roman Catholic Church’s changing authorities. This is actually a pretty brutal truth telling of what would have happened to Pope Francis in the 1600s.

The Roman Catholic Church’s “Infallibility” | James White

In an excellent and humble dealing with some of his hang-ups with Roman-Catholicism, Mike Winger shows how the Catholic doctrine of works is counter to the clear teaching of the Bible.

Roman Catholicism vs Biblical Salvation | Mike Winger

Canon and Sola [not Solo] Scriptura (Α – Ω Ministries)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Today I was joined by Dr. Michael Kruger, President of Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. Dr. Kruger has written numerous books that are high on our “you must read this book” list, such as Canon Revisited and The Question of Canon; he likewise contributed to and edited The Heresy of Orthodoxy and The Early Text of the New Testament. Our visit was prompted by a phone call made by a Lutheran to Catholic Answers Live back on 10/31/13. We played the entire call before the program started, and we played the heart of the call, where the Roman Catholic priest made the key assertions about canon and scriptural authority, during the interview with Dr. Kruger. We covered a wide variety of topics relevant to the canon issue. Truly one of the most useful programs we’ve ever done! Enjoy and learn!

Talked a bit about a few current events at the start (played video from Mars, for example), but the focus today was on sola scriptura, what it means, why it is central, and why I am simply stunned to see men I used to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with using the phrase as a throw-away joke line on Twitter. Please listen and consider well!

After we spent a little time on some positive reports of God’s grace, and then a few minutes on some negative developments of more rebellion and insanity coming out of Disney, we dove into a fully discussion of tradition, the canon, and finally looking at a series of Tweets by Steve Meister on the table of contents of your Bible as a form of “inescapable tradition.”

Response to Hank Hanegraaff

(PART 1) I was pointed this morning to a video of Hank Hanegraaff (joined by Dr. Nathan Jacobs) attacking the doctrine of sola scriptura.  Given I debated Jimmy Akin and Tim Staples (Roman Catholics) on The Bible Answer Man Broadcast decades ago, I felt it necessary (and useful) to begin a response to the claims made.  Nothing new as we have surely addressed all of this in the recent past and literally since the 1990s.  But important as the topic remains central.  I still have nine minutes left to review, and I think another video on the eucharist is due out soon as well.  We will continue the review on Tuesday.

(PART 2) As promised I continued in my response to Hank Hanegraaff’s attack on sola scriptura, finishing up the entire video, dealing with a wide variety of issues.  Important stuff for those looking at or dealing with Eastern Orthodoxy.  May be doing a program again tomorrow.

If you are active in reaching out to our Roman Catholic friends and family members, this is an important program for you. We spent most of our time going deeply into a clip from CA Live on “tradition” in the Bible. Then we played a brief clip from the British Parliament on critical race theory that was real encouraging, and finished off with looking at France’s vain attempt to create a “secular” form of Islam.

2 Thessalonians 2:15… Oral Tradition (Roman Catholicism)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Can the things which Rome wish to bind upon us in the name of Oral Tradition had been taught to the Thessalonians?

Then we looked at 2 Thess. 2:15 as quoted by Jay Dyer in his “10 Reasons” video we started responding to last week. All Dividing Line Highlights’ video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or http://www.sermonaudio.com/go/336785

2018 Flashback

Is Roman Catholic Views of Tradition, Biblical?

This is from a larger debate between Ken Samples and Fr. Mitch Pacwa . I think this intro does it’s due diligence in explaining many of the false views I have heard from people as of late. In other words, one should not define Protestants as believing Sola Scriptura wrongly, and then responding to this false view.

The below is from an excellent book by William Webster:

  • William Webster, Salvation, The Bible, and Roman Catholicism (Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust, 1990), 13-20

AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TEACHING ON TRADITION AND THE WORD OF GOD

The Documents of Vatican II

Hence there exist a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit . . . Consequently, it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of devotion and reverence. Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, which is committed to the Church.[1]

The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism

59. Where do we find the truths revealed by God?

We find the truths revealed by God in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

60. How does Sacred Scripture compare with Sacred Tradition?

Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the inspired word of God, and both are forms of divine revelation. Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired writing, whereas Sacred Tradition is the unwritten word of inspired persons.[2]

89. Why is Sacred Tradition of equal authority with the Bible?

The Bible and Sacred Tradition are of equal authority because they are equally the word of God; both derive from the inspired vision of the ancient prophets, and especially from the infinite wisdom of God incarnate who gave to the apostles what he came down on earth to teach, through them, to all of mankind.[3]

TRADITION AND THE WORD OF GOD – SUMMARY OF NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING

The first issue to be addressed in any discussion of spiritual truth is that of authority. To say something is true or false implies an authoritative standard by which we can make such a judgment. But is there such an authoritative stand­ard by which we can judge whether a particular teaching or system is true or false? The answer is an unequivocal ‘yes’. That authoritative standard is the Word of God, the Bible. Jesus Christ himself said of the Bible, ‘Thy word is truth’ (Jn. 17:17). In settling issues of spiritual controversy the Lord Jesus always appealed to the Word of God as an authoritative standard by which to judge truth and false­hood.

Mark’s Gospel records an incident in which certain Sad-ducees came to Jesus to question him. The Sadducees were the religious liberals of Jesus’ day and they rejected many of the teachings espoused by the more orthodox sect of the Pharisees. They did not believe in angels or in the resurrec­tion of the dead. A number of these men came to Jesus to ask him a trick question about life after death. Jesus demolished their trick question but went on to say this:

Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures, or the power of God?… But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken (Mk. 12:24,25-27 NASB 1963).

Twice in this passage Christ tells these men they are greatly mistaken in their views. The reason is that they do not understand the Scriptures. He appeals to those Scriptures to correct the false concepts these men held. He points to the Word of God as an authoritative standard by which to judge truth and error. These men are greatly mistaken because the views they hold and the doctrines they teach contradict the Word of God.

Here you have two opposing views of truth. One says there is no resurrection from the dead, the other says there is. How do you determine which is true? You go to the Word of God. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is God in human flesh and therefore whatever he teaches is absolute truth. And according to him the Word of God is the final and authoritative standard by which all claims to truth are to be judged.

This principle obviously has a direct bearing upon the whole issue of tradition. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that tradition as well as the Bible constitutes the revealed Word of God. It teaches that the teaching of the Church Fathers, the Church Councils, and the Traditions of the Church are all ‘one sacred deposit of the Word of God’.

John Hardon S. J. makes the following statements in his Question and Answer Catholic Catechism:

Sacred Tradition is the unwritten word of God that the prophets and apostles received through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and, under His guidance, the Church has handed on to the Christian world.[4]

Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the inspired word of God, and both are forms of divine revelation. Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired writing, whereas Sacred Tradition is the unwritten word of in­spired persons.[5]

Jesus Christ had some interesting things to say about tradition:

Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, ‘Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.’ And He answered and said to them, `And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, “Honor your father and mother”… But you say, “Whoever shall say to his father or mother, ‘Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God,’ he is not to honor his father or his mother.” And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, “This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men”‘ (Matt. 15:1-9).

In a parallel passage in Mark 7:5-13 much of the same teaching by Jesus is recorded. The Pharisees ask why the disciples do not walk according to the tradition of the elders. In response Jesus denounces the scribes and Pharisees and their observance of tradition which is in violation of the Word of God. In effect they have elevated the teachings of men above the Scriptures. The following sums up Jesus’ evaluation:

  1. You teach as doctrines the precepts of men.
  2. Neglecting the commandment of God you hold to the tradition of men.
  3. You set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
  4. You invalidate the Word of God by your tradition which you have handed down.

We should note that Jesus is not condemning tradition simply because it is tradition. All tradition is not wrong. What he is condemning is the elevating of tradition or the teaching of men to equality with the Word of God. He condemned the scribes and Pharisees for following tradition which violated and invalidated the Word of God. And then he rebuked them for so teaching others.

Tradition is not necessarily wrong, but tradition is not the Word of God, and for tradition to be acceptable to God, it must never contradict or violate the clear teaching of the Bible. All tradition must be judged by the truth of Scripture, including traditions which have their original roots in Scripture. The traditions that the scribes and Pharisees adhered to, but which Jesus denounced, were traditions which had their roots in mistaken interpretations of the Bible.

There is one obvious and definitive test which we can apply to all teaching and tradition to determine if it is true. That test is this: if the tradition or the teaching, even though it arises from the interpretation of a passage of Scripture, contradicts the clear teaching of another portion of Script­ure, then that particular tradition or teaching is incorrect, for Scripture never contradicts Scripture.

The Word of God alone is our final authority, never tradition. We are told in 2 Timothy 3:16,17 that ‘All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.’ All Scripture is inspired and is therefore authoritat­ive. And because it is inspired, that is, because it is the Word of a self-consistent God, it will never contradict itself.

Consequently, we can judge whether or not a particular teaching or tradition is true by comparing it to the Word of God. If it is consistent with the Word of God, then we can accept it as truth. However, if it clearly contradicts the teaching of the Bible or makes the Word of God contradict itself, then we know that it is error, and is to be rejected. Otherwise we shall fall into the same condemnation which Jesus uttered against the Pharisees.

One question this whole issue brings up is this: can the true church of God fall into error? The answer to that question, based upon the history of God’s people in the Bible is ‘yes’. It is possible for the church leadership to fall into error and be led astray from the truth. For example, the apostle Peter was publicly rebuked by Paul for the hypocrisy of which he was guilty (Gal. 2:11-14).

On an earlier occasion the apostle Peter was rebuked by Christ because he tried to hinder the Lord from going to the cross. ‘But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling-block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s”‘ (Matt. 16:23). The Lord Jesus actually addressed Peter as Satan, for Satan was using Peter to try to divert him from the will of God. This all transpired after Peter had been told that he was to be given the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:18-19).

Of course, the example of God’s chosen people, the Jews, during the time of the Lord Jesus himself, shows us clearly that it is possible for the church’s leadership to be deceived. Jesus’ words about tradition were spoken against the scribes and Pharisees, the religious leadership of God’s chosen people and the true church of that day. They had fallen into error and had become so blind that they failed to recognise

Jesus as the Messiah. They fell into the error of misinterpret­ing the Word of God and of elevating tradition and the teachings of the elders to a level equal in authority to the Scriptures, even though those teachings contradicted the Word of God. In addition to this Jesus claimed that the religious leadership of his day, because of their adherence to tradition and misinterpretation of Scripture, were actually responsible for hindering people from entering the kingdom of God: Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered’ (Lk. 11:52). ‘But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in’ (Matt. 23:13). If this was true of the religious leadership of God’s chosen people in the day of Jesus Christ, there is absolutely no guarantee that a church leadership will not fall into error and mislead people.

Were the Pharisees and scribes of Jesus’ day intentionally trying to deceive people? Not necessarily! Many of them were doing what they sincerely felt was right. But they were wrong and consequently they were deceiving people and leading them astray. Sincerity is no guarantee against error. A man can be sincerely wrong. In the final analysis, as Christ taught, the Word of God is the final authority for determin­ing what is truth and what is error. Any teaching which contradicts the Word of God must be rejected: ‘To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them’ (Is. 8:20, A.V.).

Luke records that when Paul came to Berea, and preached the gospel in the local Jewish synagogue, the Bereans ‘were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so’ (Acts 17:11). The Bereans compared Paul’s doctrines with the Word of God to see if his teachings were consistent with the teachings of the Word of God. Only then would they accept the gospel he was preaching. They knew that any teaching that truly originates from God would not contradict what he had already revealed in his Word.

It is in this spirit that we shall examine the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church….

[1] Walter M. Abbot S.J., The Documents of Vatican II (Westchester, IL: Follett Publishing Co., 1966), 177.

[2] John A. Hardon, S.J., The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (New York, NY: Image Books, Doubleday, 1981), 37.

[3] Ibid., 41.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 41.

Are Roman Catholic Views of Tradition, Biblical?

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is from a larger debate between Ken Samples and Fr. Mitch Pacwa . I think this intro does it’s due diligence in explaining many of the false views I have heard from people as of late. In other words, one should not define Protestants as believing Sola Scriptura wrongly, and then responding to this false view.

The below is from an excellent book by William Webster:

  • William Webster, Salvation, The Bible, and Roman Catholicism (Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust, 1990), 13-20

AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TEACHING ON TRADITION AND THE WORD OF GOD

The Documents of Vatican II

Hence there exist a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit . . . Consequently, it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of devotion and reverence. Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, which is committed to the Church.[1]

The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism

59. Where do we find the truths revealed by God?

We find the truths revealed by God in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

60. How does Sacred Scripture compare with Sacred Tradition?

Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the inspired word of God, and both are forms of divine revelation. Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired writing, whereas Sacred Tradition is the unwritten word of inspired persons.[2]

89. Why is Sacred Tradition of equal authority with the Bible?

The Bible and Sacred Tradition are of equal authority because they are equally the word of God; both derive from the inspired vision of the ancient prophets, and especially from the infinite wisdom of God incarnate who gave to the apostles what he came down on earth to teach, through them, to all of mankind.[3]

TRADITION AND THE WORD OF GOD – SUMMARY OF NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING

The first issue to be addressed in any discussion of spiritual truth is that of authority. To say something is true or false implies an authoritative standard by which we can make such a judgment. But is there such an authoritative stand­ard by which we can judge whether a particular teaching or system is true or false? The answer is an unequivocal ‘yes’. That authoritative standard is the Word of God, the Bible. Jesus Christ himself said of the Bible, ‘Thy word is truth’ (Jn. 17:17). In settling issues of spiritual controversy the Lord Jesus always appealed to the Word of God as an authoritative standard by which to judge truth and false­hood.

Mark’s Gospel records an incident in which certain Sad-ducees came to Jesus to question him. The Sadducees were the religious liberals of Jesus’ day and they rejected many of the teachings espoused by the more orthodox sect of the Pharisees. They did not believe in angels or in the resurrec­tion of the dead. A number of these men came to Jesus to ask him a trick question about life after death. Jesus demolished their trick question but went on to say this:

Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures, or the power of God?… But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken (Mk. 12:24,25-27 NASB 1963).

Twice in this passage Christ tells these men they are greatly mistaken in their views. The reason is that they do not understand the Scriptures. He appeals to those Scriptures to correct the false concepts these men held. He points to the Word of God as an authoritative standard by which to judge truth and error. These men are greatly mistaken because the views they hold and the doctrines they teach contradict the Word of God.

Here you have two opposing views of truth. One says there is no resurrection from the dead, the other says there is. How do you determine which is true? You go to the Word of God. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is God in human flesh and therefore whatever he teaches is absolute truth. And according to him the Word of God is the final and authoritative standard by which all claims to truth are to be judged.

This principle obviously has a direct bearing upon the whole issue of tradition. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that tradition as well as the Bible constitutes the revealed Word of God. It teaches that the teaching of the Church Fathers, the Church Councils, and the Traditions of the Church are all ‘one sacred deposit of the Word of God’.

John Hardon S. J. makes the following statements in his Question and Answer Catholic Catechism:

Sacred Tradition is the unwritten word of God that the prophets and apostles received through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and, under His guidance, the Church has handed on to the Christian world.[4]

Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the inspired word of God, and both are forms of divine revelation. Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired writing, whereas Sacred Tradition is the unwritten word of in­spired persons.[5]

Jesus Christ had some interesting things to say about tradition:

Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, ‘Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.’ And He answered and said to them, `And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, “Honor your father and mother”… But you say, “Whoever shall say to his father or mother, ‘Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God,’ he is not to honor his father or his mother.” And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, “This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men”‘ (Matt. 15:1-9).

In a parallel passage in Mark 7:5-13 much of the same teaching by Jesus is recorded. The Pharisees ask why the disciples do not walk according to the tradition of the elders. In response Jesus denounces the scribes and Pharisees and their observance of tradition which is in violation of the Word of God. In effect they have elevated the teachings of men above the Scriptures. The following sums up Jesus’ evaluation:

  1. You teach as doctrines the precepts of men.
  2. Neglecting the commandment of God you hold to the tradition of men.
  3. You set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
  4. You invalidate the Word of God by your tradition which you have handed down.

We should note that Jesus is not condemning tradition simply because it is tradition. All tradition is not wrong. What he is condemning is the elevating of tradition or the teaching of men to equality with the Word of God. He condemned the scribes and Pharisees for following tradition which violated and invalidated the Word of God. And then he rebuked them for so teaching others.

Tradition is not necessarily wrong, but tradition is not the Word of God, and for tradition to be acceptable to God, it must never contradict or violate the clear teaching of the Bible. All tradition must be judged by the truth of Scripture, including traditions which have their original roots in Scripture. The traditions that the scribes and Pharisees adhered to, but which Jesus denounced, were traditions which had their roots in mistaken interpretations of the Bible.

There is one obvious and definitive test which we can apply to all teaching and tradition to determine if it is true. That test is this: if the tradition or the teaching, even though it arises from the interpretation of a passage of Scripture, contradicts the clear teaching of another portion of Script­ure, then that particular tradition or teaching is incorrect, for Scripture never contradicts Scripture.

The Word of God alone is our final authority, never tradition. We are told in 2 Timothy 3:16,17 that ‘All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.’ All Scripture is inspired and is therefore authoritat­ive. And because it is inspired, that is, because it is the Word of a self-consistent God, it will never contradict itself.

Consequently, we can judge whether or not a particular teaching or tradition is true by comparing it to the Word of God. If it is consistent with the Word of God, then we can accept it as truth. However, if it clearly contradicts the teaching of the Bible or makes the Word of God contradict itself, then we know that it is error, and is to be rejected. Otherwise we shall fall into the same condemnation which Jesus uttered against the Pharisees.

One question this whole issue brings up is this: can the true church of God fall into error? The answer to that question, based upon the history of God’s people in the Bible is ‘yes’. It is possible for the church leadership to fall into error and be led astray from the truth. For example, the apostle Peter was publicly rebuked by Paul for the hypocrisy of which he was guilty (Gal. 2:11-14).

On an earlier occasion the apostle Peter was rebuked by Christ because he tried to hinder the Lord from going to the cross. ‘But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling-block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s”‘ (Matt. 16:23). The Lord Jesus actually addressed Peter as Satan, for Satan was using Peter to try to divert him from the will of God. This all transpired after Peter had been told that he was to be given the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:18-19).

Of course, the example of God’s chosen people, the Jews, during the time of the Lord Jesus himself, shows us clearly that it is possible for the church’s leadership to be deceived. Jesus’ words about tradition were spoken against the scribes and Pharisees, the religious leadership of God’s chosen people and the true church of that day. They had fallen into error and had become so blind that they failed to recognise

Jesus as the Messiah. They fell into the error of misinterpret­ing the Word of God and of elevating tradition and the teachings of the elders to a level equal in authority to the Scriptures, even though those teachings contradicted the Word of God. In addition to this Jesus claimed that the religious leadership of his day, because of their adherence to tradition and misinterpretation of Scripture, were actually responsible for hindering people from entering the kingdom of God: Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered’ (Lk. 11:52). ‘But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in’ (Matt. 23:13). If this was true of the religious leadership of God’s chosen people in the day of Jesus Christ, there is absolutely no guarantee that a church leadership will not fall into error and mislead people.

Were the Pharisees and scribes of Jesus’ day intentionally trying to deceive people? Not necessarily! Many of them were doing what they sincerely felt was right. But they were wrong and consequently they were deceiving people and leading them astray. Sincerity is no guarantee against error. A man can be sincerely wrong. In the final analysis, as Christ taught, the Word of God is the final authority for determin­ing what is truth and what is error. Any teaching which contradicts the Word of God must be rejected: ‘To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them’ (Is. 8:20, A.V.).

Luke records that when Paul came to Berea, and preached the gospel in the local Jewish synagogue, the Bereans ‘were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so’ (Acts 17:11). The Bereans compared Paul’s doctrines with the Word of God to see if his teachings were consistent with the teachings of the Word of God. Only then would they accept the gospel he was preaching. They knew that any teaching that truly originates from God would not contradict what he had already revealed in his Word.

It is in this spirit that we shall examine the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church….

[1] Walter M. Abbot S.J., The Documents of Vatican II (Westchester, IL: Follett Publishing Co., 1966), 177.

[2] John A. Hardon, S.J., The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (New York, NY: Image Books, Doubleday, 1981), 37.

[3] Ibid., 41.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 41.