Calvinism/Arminianism – Michelle Lesley

You stated that God loves each and every one of us. Can you help me understand that in terms of election? I had understood that He loves His elect, although it is His desire that each one be saved. I’m having trouble reconciling those two things! Thank you!

That is a super question. I love it when women dig into the deep questions of theology!

I’m not sure if I can help you understand that or not, because I’m not sure anybody out there has a complete grasp of that concept. God’s ways and His thoughts are much higher than our ways and our thoughts, and there are things He chooses not to reveal fully to us. This is one of those things. So if you ask this question of several different people, you’ll probably get several different answers. And anybody who thinks she’s got this completely figured out…well, I’d be a bit concerned.

All I can do is give you my perspective and the Scriptures (click the hyperlinks) I base that perspective on. My perspective isn’t based on Reformed theology treatises, but rather on my understanding – limited and flawed by sin as it is – of the nature and character of God as I’ve come to know it from the Bible. I’m sure I’ll get plenty of disagreement from both my Calvinist/Reformed brethren and my Traditionalist/Arminian brethren, and that’s fine. (I would just remind you to please review my comment parameters before commenting. In addition to those parameters, I don’t participate in debates over Calvinism in the comments sections of my articles or anywhere else. Ever. It’s fruitless.)

Let me start by saying that in the discussion of God’s love for people, my understanding is that people are talking about, for lack of a better way of saying it, God’s heartfelt feelings towards people. His emotional affections toward people. Not any way He might act toward them, position them, bless or not bless them, etc. So as I talk about God’s love in the remainder of this article, that’s what I mean, because that’s what I understand the question to mean.

Do I believe that God loves all people without regard to whether or not they’re elect? Yes. But I don’t believe God loves all people in the same way. Why? Because I’m a parent. And because God frequently and intentionally reveals Himself to us in Scripture as Father, and because we, being made in His image, demonstrate His communicable attributes, there are some things we can observe in our own relationships with our children that reflect – albeit through a glass dimly – God’s posture toward both sinners and saints.

My husband and I have six children. (For the purposes of the point I’m about to make, we will stipulate that he and I created all of them.¹) I love all the children I have created. Some of them are saved, and some of them are not, but I still love all of them regardless of their spiritual state.

But my love for my children who are saved is qualitatively different from my love for my children whom I know are not saved. There is a deeper bond between my saved children and me because we are not only familially mother and child, we are also spiritually brothers and sisters. We’re not just related by flesh and blood, we’re also related by the blood of Christ.

My unsaved children and I only have the love of familial affection between us. And not only that, while there is nothing in my saved children that wars against the Holy Spirit who resides within me, the sinful nature of my unsaved children does. Furthermore, there is the burden and longing in my heart for my unsaved children to know Christ. With my saved children, that burden and longing is replaced with joy that they are walking with the Lord. But none of that means I don’t love my unsaved children. It just means I love them in a different way than the way I love my saved children.

God personally created every human being in His image. So, strictly in that broad, creative sense – reflected in the way that when a man sires offspring he is their father and they are his children – God is the Father of all people, and all people are His children. And in the same sense that I love all of my children though in different ways, I believe God loves all of His created children though in different ways. Those who are saved (elect) are doubly His children, in the creative sense and in the spiritual sense, so there is a special bond and intimacy there that is higher and qualitatively different from those who are unsaved (not elect), because God is only “related” to them as Creator. Additionally, as with the way I love my own children, though God already knows who will and won’t be saved, the longing of His heart is for His unsaved children to repent and be saved, and the joy of His heart is His saved children who are walking with Him.

We see part of this idea a bit in the parable of the prodigal son (and remember, Jesus is the one who came up with this story). Let’s peel back the main spiritual point of the parable for just a moment and look at the structural elements of the story from an earthly perspective. Jesus intentionally chose a father and his two sons to build this story around. The father represents God. The older son represents “righteous” people, and the younger son represents “sinners”. Both boys are the father’s sons in the sense that he created both of them.² Nothing in the story indicates that the father only loves the older, righteous son and doesn’t love the younger, sinful son. I would argue that this father loves the younger son in the same way I described loving my unsaved children, and I believe the father’s reaction to the younger son’s return (starting in verse 20) supports this. You don’t hate your own child for months or years on end and then, in a split second, show this kind of heartfelt love toward him. This is a dad – representing God – who loved his kid without regard to his spiritual state.

There seems to be a line of thought among some Calvinists that starts with taking mainly Romans 9:13 – “Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated” – at least a little bit out of context and understanding it to mean that God feels the emotion of hatred toward (detests, is passionately hostile toward, dislikes to the ultimate degree – that’s the way most of us define the word “hates”) everyone who isn’t elect. I have a few thoughts on that:

• If you read Romans 9:13 in context, it’s obvious that the “love” and “hate” mentioned in verse 13 are not about God’s emotional feelings toward the elect and non-elect. The whole point of the passage is that God is sovereign and He decides, based on His own reasons that have nothing to do with our behavior, who is elect and who is not, and that He draws a very clear line between the two. He uses the words “love” and “hate” for contrast very much like we would say, “this is a black and white issue”. What this verse means is “This group over here (Jacob), I have set apart and chosen. This group over here (Esau), I have not.” If you read the cross-references for this verse, it becomes even more obvious that God is not talking about emotions here, but about His right to set apart for salvation whomever He chooses, as well as the position of the elect versus the position of the non-elect, which He metaphorically compares to the positions of Jacob and Esau respectively.

• God chose Jacob and Esau to illustrate this point. Isaac was Jacob’s and Esau’s father. Isaac didn’t demonstrate any sort of feelings of hatred toward Esau even though he knew Jacob was the “chosen one”. In fact, Scripture tells us it was Esau, not Jacob, whom Isaac “loved”. (Remember, we’re still talking feelings, here.)

• Compare Romans 9:13:

As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

with Luke 14:26:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

The same Greek word translated “hate”, μισέω (miseó), is used in both verses. Is Jesus saying that we have to despise our closest and most beloved family members and even our own lives in order to be His disciple? Of course not. Again, it’s a contrast statement He’s using to make a point.

The way this verse is usually explained is that the love we have for Christ is to so far eclipse our love for anyone or anything else that our love for them seems like hatred in comparison to our love for Him.

But the love we have for Christ involves far more than mere feelings of affection. Loving Christ enough to follow Him means your loyalties lie with Him regardless of the cost. You cast your lot with Him to the exclusion of anyone or anything else that gets in your way. It’s almost like the part of the wedding vows that says, “…and forsaking all others, keep thee only unto him as long as you both shall live.” It’s not like you completely cut everybody out of your life except your husband and decide to feel hatefully toward them. It means your highest earthly loyalty, love, dedication, priority, and commitment are reserved for him. The same way our highest spiritual loyalty, love, dedication, priority, and commitment are reserved for Christ. Which is the same sort of way that God’s highest loyalty, love, dedication, priority, and commitment are reserved for His elect in Romans 9:13.

The question then arises, “But the Bible says God’s wrath abides upon the unsaved, and He is going to send them to Hell. Doesn’t that mean He hates them?”. Again, going back to our parent-child motif, my answer would be no. Let me proffer some examples: I can be extremely angry or wrathful toward my children for defying me and yet still love them. If I have a prodigal child who sins in every imaginable way, shakes his fist at me, curses me, and whatever other abominable behavior we could imagine, I could tell my child he’s no longer welcome in my home or at family gatherings unless he repents. But it would be heartbreaking to do because I would still love him. If I have a child who is constantly and unrepentantly breaking the law, and I have an opportunity to turn him in to the police, knowing that he’s going to go to jail, I’m going to turn him in. And I’ll do it with tears streaming down my face, because I love him.

I’m just a finite, sinful parent living in a fallen world. God is our perfect Heavenly Father. His heart is much bigger than mine. His character is much holier than mine. And He is able to be perfect in all ways simultaneously. He can be perfect in wrath and perfect in love, perfect in judgment and perfect in compassion, toward the same person at the same time. We may not be able to completely understand how He loves, but we can trust that however He loves, He loves perfectly.

¹For the purposes of being accurate, our two oldest children are my step-sons.

²Some will argue that both were sons in the sense that both were elect – the older son being saved at an early age, and the younger son saved later in life. I’m not sure we could use that argument because, while the younger son (the “sinner”) becomes a Believer in the story, the older son mainly represents the scribes and Pharisees, and when we see Jesus interacting with the scribes and Pharisees in the gospels, He generally regards them as unbelievers. And since Jesus is God, He knows whether or not they’re elect.

If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.

Calvinism/Arminianism, Mailbag

The Mailbag: Christian Blogging and Online Safety

May 21, 2018May 24, 2019 Michelle Lesley

I would like to start a Christian blog, but have had a few online encounters with others that have heightened my concern about revealing information about myself on the internet. Could you tell me…

1. Have you ever had someone personally and maliciously attack you?
2. Do you think it is wise to use your real name, or is it best to use a pen name and stay anonymous online?
3. Should Christians expect attacks online and persevere through them? Or is there ever a time it is wise to pull back in the face of personal attacks?

I’m so sorry you’ve had some negative experiences with others on the web. We always want to act in a Christlike way when we deal with people, even online, and that includes using wisdom about how close we allow them to get, balanced with being genuinely concerned and caring. Here are a few thoughts along those lines. I hope they’re helpful.

I have been blogging for ten years. I’ve had scores of people (mostly disgruntled disciples of false teachers, but a few atheists, too) call me every name in the book and blame me for the demise of Christianity in blog comments, emails, and social media comments and private messages. A handful of times, due to their disagreement with something I’ve written (or the fact that I’m a woman who writes on biblical topics at all) people have rudely questioned whether or not my husband is doing his job as the spiritual leader of our home. But that has been the extent of it.

Insults, slander, and social persecution, even from those claiming to be Christians, come with the territory when you stand firmly for biblical truth. It’s just something you have to get used to, remembering where it’s coming from and how to handle it biblically. However, if somebody crosses the line from a nasty e-mail or ugly blog comment to threatening or interfering with your life, that’s harassment and/or stalking, and that’s a crime and should be reported to the police. You can’t be too careful these days.

I think part of the reason I haven’t experienced many problems with readers is that I’ve tried to exercise reasonable caution about the information I share online.

Obviously, I use my real name, first and last, on my blog and social media accounts. There are two schools of thought about this among bloggers.

Some bloggers blog simply for the pleasure of writing and sharing their writing with whoever else happens to enjoy it. It’s not necessary for people to be able to contact them personally, they’re not trying to earn money from blogging or build an audience to please a publisher, and maybe they even have concerns that the thoughts they express in their blogs would negatively impact their careers, their churches, or their relationships. In those instances, many people choose to blog anonymously or use only their first names. When I first started out over at Blogspot, I was just writing for pleasure, and, though I wasn’t particularly trying to keep my name a secret, the title of my blog was Bread and Water rather than my name. I just thought it was catchier :0)

But some bloggers use their blogs and social media accounts as an extension of or supplement to other ministries, and, thus, need to have their real name out there. That’s where I am now. When my book was first published, my publisher wanted me to get my name out there so we could sell more of my books, schedule speaking engagements and book signings, and any number of other promotional and publicity activities. I was as much the product as the book was. So I moved over to a broader blogging platform here at WordPress, changed the title of the blog to my name and started opening social media accounts in my name in order to build my audience and create name recognition. I still do speaking engagements, interviews, and podcast appearances, so I’ve just kept the title of the blog the same even though my book is now out of print.

But while I do use my real name, there are other measures I take to at least try to make it a little more difficult for the crazies to find me (If somebody is crazy, and internet savvy, enough, they can find you no matter how careful you are.). I do not mention – either publicly or in e-mails or private messages – the name of my church or the location of other public places I frequent, the name or location of my husband’s business, my grown children’s locales or employers, nor would I mention the name of my younger children’s school if I didn’t home school them.

I generally limit my personal Facebook account to people I know personally or network closely with online, and I rarely make my posts public. The rest of my social media accounts are public, and I try to be careful about the information I disclose on them. I have a separate e-mail account for my blog and social media accounts, and I never give out my “real” e-mail address. I also do not get into personal conversations about myself in e-mails with people I don’t know, nor get into protracted e-mail conversations with them. And if someone is being ugly on one of my social media accounts and doesn’t settle down after a warning, she gets banned or blocked.

Another way to prevent sticky situations before they happen is not to give angry or unbalanced-sounding people a forum. I have a policy of refusing to publish comments or answer e-mails and messages that are obviously angry and argumentative. (See my comments policy under the “Welcome” tab at the top of this page. Please feel free to use it as a guide when formulating a policy for your own blog.) Usually, when people realize they won’t have a platform for arguing, they give up and go somewhere else.

In your situation, I would first recommend talking things over with your husband. Ask what he thinks about you starting a blog and any concerns he may have, and be sure you’re abiding by whatever he says. If you have security or privacy concerns and are basically just writing for pleasure, an anonymous blog might be the best way to go. I’d also recommend creating a new, dedicated e-mail account for it, and putting some precautions and policies in place, similar to the ones I’ve mentioned, before getting started. If you want to develop personal relationships, help people with their problems, or disciple other women, do so one on one within the safety and confines of your church.

Fellow bloggers-
Any advice for this reader? Please comment below!

Calvinism/Arminianism, Mailbag

The Mailbag: Should I leave a Wesleyan church?

April 30, 2018May 24, 2019 Michelle Lesley

Readers, please note:
Comments attempting to debate Calvinism vs. Arminianism, or questioning the salvation of Calvinists or Arminians, will not be published.

A few years ago, we had to leave our church. In the area we live in, church teaching is mostly fluffy and there’s a lot of worldliness. We “settled” for a church in which we know the pastor and his wife personally. The pastor lives the Word he preaches.

The problem I have with the church is the doctrine of the denomination. They are a Wesleyan holiness background – Arminian. This past year I’ve done some doctrine study on my own to understand the differences in the Calvinism / Arminian camps more fully. I do not agree with some of the doctrinal stances of the church. Are these big enough issues to leave? Am I being too critical?

Finding a doctrinally sound church is probably the number one problem I hear about from readers, and it just breaks my heart. I dearly wish every church out there taught sound doctrine so this would no longer be an issue for Christians. If your pastor preaches sound doctrine and makes sure it’s taught in your church, be sure to give him a hug and tell him thank you.

I needed a quick brush up on Wesleyan theology, and some of my readers may not be too familiar with it, so let me start off with recommending two brief articles: Wesleyan-Holiness Theology and Who are the Wesleyans, and what are the beliefs of the Wesleyan Church?

Let me also clarify that, while Wesleyans who hold to the tenets outlined in these articles are Arminians*, not all Arminians would agree with all of the tenets of Wesleyan theology. (Kind of an “All Wesleyans are Arminians, but not all Arminians are Wesleyans,” thing.)

To illustrate, I know a great many Southern Baptists whose beliefs could technically be classified as Arminian, but they would reject the Wesleyan notions of sinless perfection and the idea that a genuinely regenerated Christian can lose his salvation.

There’s a broad spectrum of Arminianism. Some Arminian churches are so biblical and handle God’s Word so well that a Calvinist could joyfully join one and find minimal disagreement with the preaching and teaching. I am Reformed and I happen to be a member of just such a church.

You don’t state which Wesleyan doctrine(s) you find troublesome, so I’m not comfortable saying whether or not you’re being too picky and whether or not you should leave this church.

Another factor at play is how hard this pastor hammers the doctrines you’re uncomfortable with. A pastor who, for example, reluctantly keeps sinless perfection in the back closet because the church sign says “Wesleyan” but never talks about it from the pulpit is a different situation from a pastor who regularly preaches on sinless perfection and says you can’t be saved if you don’t believe this doctrine.

You also need to consider what your other options for churches are if you leave this one. Are there any churches within achievable driving distance that are more doctrinally sound than the one you’re attending? (You might find the resources in the “Searching for a new church?” tab at the top of this page to be helpful.)

The final piece of the puzzle, and probably the determining factor, is your husband. What does he think about all of this, and how is he leading your family? Is he saved? Generally doctrinally sound? I’m surmising the two of you are at least somewhat on the same theological page since you left the last church together and settled on this one together. If he is not leading you to sin, you will need to submit to his decision on this matter.

My counsel would be for you and your husband to make an appointment with your current pastor to ask questions and find out where he stands on all the Wesleyan doctrines. Then, you and your husband should take some time (a few weeks, a few months, whatever it takes) to search the Scriptures and pray about it together, as well as look at your options for other churches. Give your husband your input and let him know you’ll support whatever decision he makes.

*Just a little FYI for Christians who find themselves in discussions about Arminianism. ArmInian is spelled with an “I” in the middle. An ArmEnian (with an “E” in the middle) is a citizen of the Asian nation of ArmEnia. It is quite possible to be either a Calvinist Armenian or an Arminian Armenian :0)

Additional Resources

What is Arminianism, and is it biblical? at Got Questions

Calvinism vs. Arminianism – which view is correct? at Got Questions

Arminianism and Calvinism at Theopedia

Calvinism/Arminianism, Church, Holidays (Other), Reformation Day

The Five Solas of the Protestant Deformation

September 15, 2017October 8, 2022 Michelle Lesley

This year marks the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. October 31, 2017 will commemorate the date in 1517 when Martin Luther famously nailed his 95 theses – a list of grievances against the Catholic church for unbiblical doctrines and practices – to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany.

Luther’s calls for reform spread quickly throughout Europe, inspiring the likes of church fathers Ulrich Zwingli (Zurich), John Calvin (Geneva), and John Knox (Scotland) to join the effort in their own locales. As they worked to address the issues raised in Luther’s document, these men codified what we know today as the “Five Solas of the Reformation,” the basis of Protestant church doctrine. The five solas are:

1. Sola Scriptura– Scripture alone is the basis for all church doctrine, belief, and practice. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

2. Sola Gratia– Salvation is by grace alone. It is an unmerited gift of God based solely on His goodness, not our own (because we don’t have any). (Ephesians 2:8-9)

3. Sola Fide– Salvation is through faith alone. Faith is a gift bestowed by God. We are saved only by placing that faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross, not by doing good works or by any other attempts to earn salvation. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

4. Solus Christus– Salvation is found in Christ alone. As Acts 4:12 says, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

5. Soli Deo Gloria– God saves man for God’s glory alone, and Believers are to live our lives to glorify Him alone. (Romans 11:36)

The five solas should be the foundation of the church’s orthodoxy (beliefs or doctrine) and our orthopraxy (church practices). But over the past five centuries there’s been a declension. A downgrade. The church has become deformed from the beautiful biblical portrait of a bride “without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” because we’ve functionally replaced the Five Solas of the Reformation with pragmatic, and often idolatrous, solas of our own making…

No longer is Christian doctrine and practice governed strictly by sola Scriptura, especially among Christian women. Now it’s all about our own personal feelings, opinions, and life experiences. Won’t go to a church that preaches sin and repentance because it offends your sensibilities? You’ve become accepting of homosexual “marriage” because someone you love dearly has adopted that lifestyle? Believe God is in the habit of talking to people because you’ve “heard His voice”? Then you’re basing your doctrine and practices on your own feelings and experiences rather than on what the Bible says.

The Christian’s instructions for life and godliness are found in only one place: the Bible. We do not squish Christianity into the mold of what makes us happy, what we agree with, our relationships with others, or the things we’ve experienced. We start with the Bible and we bring everything else in our lives – everything we think, feel, believe, say, and do – into submission to it. If a personal feeling, opinion, or experience conflicts with Scripture, it is wrong. We don’t change Scripture to fit our perspective, we change our perspective to fit Scripture.

We don’t change Scripture to fit our perspective, we change our perspective to fit Scripture.
Tweet

If you want to know what road the modern church is headed down simply pick up your Bible and turn to… the Old Testament. Especially the verses that say “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Jesus said the way to greatness was humility, servanthood, and anonymity. We want glory, recognition, and applause. God says, “walk in My ways.” We say, “I’ll consider that if it fits in with my plans, is agreeable to me, and makes me look good to others.” We “welcome” the Holy Spirit into His own church as though we own the place. We are so used to being on the throne of our own lives that we use words like “letting” or “allowing” God to do something without even realizing it. We don’t ask, “Is it pleasing to God?”, we say, “If it’s pleasing to me, it must be pleasing to God.” Goodbye soli Deo gloria. Hello soli ego gloria.

We don’t ask, “Is it pleasing to God?”, we say, “If it’s pleasing to me, it must be pleasing to God.”
Tweet

More and more, “Christians” are driven by the selfish greed of “What can God do for me?” rather than the pursuit of holiness. So-called Christian teachers who will scratch itching ears are sought out, and an abundance of hucksters are at the ready, eager to “give the people what they want” in order to make a fast buck.

These people who claim the name of Christ care nothing about following in His footsteps – or even knowing what those footsteps are – craving instead the temporal creature comforts of wealth, success, popularity, health, self esteem, and influence. They want to be told what their flesh wants to hear, and they want to believe that’s Christianity. Share in Christ’s sufferings? Never. Away with the Via Dolorosa. Lead us down the primrose path.

Share in Christ’s sufferings? Never. Away with the Via Dolorosa. Lead us down the primrose path.
Tweet

Spotlights. Merch. Audiences of thousands. Agents. Entourages. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the Christian celebrities from the secular. The star-struck church has created its own caste system in which biblical fidelity is measured by how many books you’ve sold, the number of attendees at your megachurch or conferences, and the size of your audience on social media. That many followers? That number of bestsellers at the Christian retail chain? She must know what she’s talking about. We’ll use her books for our women’s “Bible” study – no vetting necessary! But that 85 year old pastor who’s been faithfully expositing the Word to his rural congregation of twenty for the better part of his life? No kudos. No esteem for honorable servants of the Lord such as he. We want glitz and glam and hype and bling. We want to be cutting edge, relevant, and attractional. Because maybe – just maybe – some of that glory will rub off on us. And so it goes – we follow the latest and greatest Christian authors, bands and personalities, attracted more to their pretty faces, stylish clothes, and charisma than to sound doctrine, while Christ’s sheep, relegated to a dark corner of the sanctuary, bleat to simply be fed the Bread of Life and the Living Water.

The star-struck church has created its own caste system in which biblical fidelity is measured by how many books you’ve sold, the number of attendees at your megachurch or conferences, and the size of your audience on social media.
Tweet

What’s hot rightthisminute? What’s the current style, the latest trend, the fad du jour? The Church of What’s Happening Now wants to know. Whether it’s today’s Christian bestseller that simply every small group is using now, dahling, or caving to whichever way the wind is blowing today when it comes to the world’s sexual morality, if we can just ride the viral wave of the immediate we can get people in the doors, money in the offering plate, and souls into Heaven. Maybe.

Vox populi, vox Dei? Have we forgotten how uncool it was to be the only one building an ark before rain was invented? That idol worship was the latest thing going in Jeremiah’s day? That it was the crowds who cried “Crucify Him!”?

The God of the Bible is not hip and groovy. He’s seen as hopelessly out of touch with current morals and values. A doddering old fool who just can’t seem to get with the times. His holy ways are antiquated and obsolete. We’re modern and educated and wise to the ways of the world. We know better how His church and our lives should run.

The God of the Bible is not hip and groovy.
Tweet

Just what is it we’re building our Christian doctrine and practices on these days? ‘Cause it sure isn’t the unadulterated written Word of God and the original five solas. Maybe it’s time we took a good hard look at how far we’ve slidden in the last five hundred years. How far we’ve strayed from the purity of Scripture and doctrine the Reformers worked so hard for, were imprisoned and persecuted for, were martyred for.

Maybe it’s time for another Reformation.

Additional Resources:

NEW! Why We’re Protestant: The Five Solas of the Reformation and Why They Matter by Nate Pickowicz

What was the Protestant Reformation? at Got Questions

5 Questions and the 5 Solas at The Cripplegate

Reformation Resources to Feed Your Heart and Mind at G3 Ministries

Calvinism/Arminianism, Mailbag

The Mailbag: What is Reformation Day?

October 31, 2016October 8, 2022 Michelle Lesley

Originally published October 10, 2014

The Protestant Reformation. Outside of biblically recorded events and the closing of the canon of Scripture, it is arguably the most important event in church history, and one of the most important events in world history as well, yet many Christians today are unaware of this landmark incident in their heritage which birthed the Protestant church.

The year was 1517. A monk named Martin Luther gripped his hammer and nailed a list of biblical grievances against the Roman Catholic Church to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, much like we might post a notice to a community bulletin board today. These 95 Theses protested the Catholic Church’s unbiblical policy of selling indulgences, part of an effort to raise funds for the building of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The Catholic Church had created the idea of the Treasury of Merit, sort of a “bank account” of merit deposited by Christ, Mary, the saints, and others as a result of their good works. When church members sinned, they could purchase an indulgence, which was akin to asking the Church to “transfer funds” from the Treasury of Merit to the sinner’s account. The indulgence basically excused the sinner from a certain amount of time in purgatory and/or temporal punishment for that sin.

In addition to protesting the sale of indulgences, Luther’s 95 Theses called the Catholic Church to conform to Scripture by abandoning its unbiblical practices and teachings regarding the doctrines of salvation, religious authority, the nature of the church, and the essence of Christian living.

1. Sola Scriptura– Scripture alone is the basis for all church doctrine, belief, and practice. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

2. Sola Gratia– Salvation is by grace alone. It is an unmerited gift of God based solely on His goodness, not our own (because we don’t have any). (Ephesians 2:8-9)

3. Sola Fide– Salvation is through faith alone. Faith is a gift bestowed by God. We are saved only by placing that faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross, not by doing good works or by any other attempts to earn salvation. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

4. Solus Christus– Salvation is found in Christ alone. As Acts 4:12 says, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

5. Soli Deo Gloria– God saves man for God’s glory alone, and Believers are to live our lives to glorify Him alone. (Romans 11:36)

One of Luther’s most cherished ideals, from which we still benefit today, was that common people should have access to both the Scriptures and worship services in their own language. Prior to the Reformation, the Bible was only available in Latin. Likewise, all masses and other church services were conducted in Latin. Luther translated the Bible into German, and was later followed by William Tyndale, Myles Coverdale, David Brainerd, and others who translated the Bible into various languages.

On Reformation Day, we commemorate the work, zeal, and sacrifices of Luther and the other reformers. Reformation Day is observed on October 31.