Dissecting the Heart: Secular Psychology, Spiritual Warfare, and True Theology by David Powlison (1949-2019) comes to us from Westminster Seminary Press with an anticipated publication date of October 2026. Within this volume, Pierce Taylor Hibbs (editor) packages about a dozen of David Powlison’s seminary lectures from before and after the turn of the millennium. The content will stir the hearts and minds of Christian readers regardless of your proximity to the biblical counseling movement. Overall, the book is highly recommended for its practical theology and timely reminder of enduring truths that the modern biblical counseling movement must take note of given her present trajectory.

Summary and Features

Hibbs refers to his labor as “a very special book.” I grant him a hardy, “Amen!” on his assessment. Since the book consists of lectures, it contains a very intimate feel throughout each page. While reading it, I felt more like I was auditing a seminary class than reading a theological work. I heard the wisdom of the professor without having to take an exam or write a paper! Despite the less formal feel, do not be mistaken, the book is theologically rich. Lastly, another feature that made the book a bit more intimate than most is a small introductory chapter titled “The Heart of David Powlison,” written by his widow, Mrs. Nancy Powlison.

The subtitle, Secular Psychology, Spiritual Warfare, and True Theology, provides an outline for the book’s construction. Part One consumes nearly half of the book’s length and addresses secular psychology, including a brief history of how men like Freud, Jung, and others explicitly and intentionally sought to usurp pastors as it pertains to their duty of caring for the soul of man. Here, Powlison addresses the Church’s feeble response to their attacks throughout the twentieth century but does not leave the Christian without hope. He urges his students to see the current landscape of counseling as endless opportunity for Christ rather than monopolized secularism. Within this section, Powlison provides autobiographical details of his education as a psychologist, resulting in his four years of employment in a psychiatric hospital. His experience led him to conclude that psychology cannot help people change in truly meaningful ways. God’s providence in David’s life uniquely equipped him to dissect the mind frames, motives, and methods of secular psychologists. If you are a student of psychology, biblical counseling, or consider yourself an integrationist (mixing secular practices and principles with biblical practices and principles), Part One will stimulate your thoughts on counseling theory while calling you to consider what biblical fidelity looks like in counseling practice.

While in Part One, Powlison resoundingly shows his academic capability, in Part Two, Spiritual Warfare, Powlison reveals his immense theological prowess. The entirety of this four-chapter section graciously argues against the practice of what Powlison calls the Ekballistic Ministry Mode (EMM). The term ekballisitic refers to “casting out” which is commonly utilized in the phrase “cast out demons.” The context of these lectures is Powlison’s observation that certain counseling movements within Christianity train people to handle issues of the heart by identifying, naming, and casting out a demon, instead of acknowledging, accepting, and mortifying besetting sins.

Within this section, all scholars should take note of how well-read Powlison is on the topic he argues against, adding strength and integrity to his argumentation. Additionally, he is intelligent enough to not simply group everyone who believes in naming, rebuking, and casting out demons into one “radical” or “crazy” group. Instead, he weaves recognition of merit where merit is due within his encompassing critiques of the movement. And yes, he names names without ad hominem. Pastors, authors, scholars, and bloggers should learn this valuable lesson from Powlison as it promotes genuine unity within the universal body of Christ while still hashing out important areas of disagreement.

Lastly, pastors, authors, and writers should borrow Powlison’s form as he surveys the entirety of Scripture to display the normative pattern for dealing with demonization: resisting him through humility, alertness, self-control, awakeness, the casting of cares and pressures on God, and standing firm in the faith through prayer and repentance (Ephesians 6; James 4;1 Peter 5). For those who are quick to respond to the reality that Jesus cast out demons in His earthly ministry, Powlison does not leave your accurate assertion unaddressed. He masterfully navigates the pages of Scripture to show that before and after Christ’s earthly ministry, God wills His people to utilize different and superior modes of dealing with “monolithic” evil (Satan, flesh, and the world) than in Jesus’ day.

Parts One and Two present Powlison as a capable academic and theologian respectively but Part Three reveals Powlison the Shepherd. In Part Three, True Theology, Powlison provides exegetical commentary of Psalm 131 and Psalm 10 respectively. These chapters are calming to the worrisome soul and comforting to the suffering saint. If you have ever heard or experienced biblical counseling as simply a pastor reading Bible verses and telling you to go and do likewise, read Part Three to see the true spirit and demonstration of what it means to counsel biblically. In the final chapter, Hibbs provides a short sermon that David Powlison preached to first year seminary students from the late 90’s. Here, the erudite Powlison makes the following comment,

“One of the temptations that comes with education in something as powerful, true, and life giving as the Bible is thinking that acquiring and displaying knowledge is what it is all about. And we become opinionated and exclusive and hardhearted. We need sweetening and softening and tenderizing. It’s the ugliness of intellectual pride, the vapidness of thinking that knowledge equals wisdom, and it doesn’t.”

Such blunt wisdom corresponds with the Bible verse that Mrs. Nancy Powlison said often reminds her of her late husband in her introductory chapter: Daniel 12:3, which says, “Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens above, and those who lead many to righteousness like the stars for ever and ever.” Certainly, David Powlison was a wise counselor whose lectures display Christ-centered thinking leading to Christ-centered living resulting in Christ-centered counseling.

Strengths

The greatest strength of the book is its relevancy to comment on modern issues and help those within today’s biblical counseling movement. Although this strength is the effect, we must examine the cause of this phenomenon. Why is Powlison’s work from 25+ years ago so relevant today? The sufficiency of Scripture. When Powlison dissects the human heart, models of secular counseling, and errors of EMM thought life, he wields the enduring truth of God’s word. While he is clearly familiar with secular modalities of counseling, he does not dabble in man’s vain philosophy but time and again holds each societal thought, counseling practice, theological teaching, and most of all, heart motive, up to the Holy Bible. When he sees error, he corrects. When he sees alignment, he develops beyond theoretical and pushes to the practical. Today, the biblical counseling movement is enamored with two extreme ends of the spectrum. One end near-endlessly critiques secular psychology to the point of ill-equipping their practitioners to care for souls. On the other end, counselors are working so hard to glean all they can from secular psychology that they, knowingly or not, are importing pagan sophistry into the Holy Church. To the former, Powlison would say,

“Who is it that has really thought through the hands-on, patient, roll-up-your-sleeves, get-into-people’s-lives process of human change and development—where it’s not one-and-done or a quick fix? Where it’s not throwing a Bible bomb at somebody and watching them change? Who has actually thought about how you build relationships so that people trust you, they open up, and you bring truth to them? Who really has a feel for people and what makes them tick? It seems to me that Christian faith has been squeezed out to the margins of significant discourse about people and a cure for what ails us. And so there’s a lot of being derivative in our models, a lot of failures to really have a robust alternative. We’re not on the ocean liners. We’re out on these little lifeboats of religiosity that Christian faith is supposedly about.”

To the latter, Powlison would say,

“The church has largely taken cues from the models and systems that are prevalent in the culture. Churches have been structurally subordinate to the secular professions we have been discussing. The God of Scripture has not always been the real authority for the church. The real authorities are not the pastors or shepherds looking to God’s word; they are a set of professions outside the church.”

Powlison’s clarion call to both ends of the spectrum is the major strength of this work: We, as pastors, counselors, and Christians, can take a helpful cue from the secularists by deeply investing our greatest resources into understanding the nitty-gritty issues of real life and its heart deep motivations like they have done without borrowing an ounce of their worldview or compromising our own.

Secondly, and again, one of the strengths of the book is its intimate nature. The fact that these are lectures make the book practical to a wide audience. Professors, pastors, and parishioners can capably handle this work and apply it to their research, sermons, and daily Christian walk. Powlison’s anecdotes keep the reading fresh, provide practical insights, and make the content of each lecture memorable beyond your reading hour. Plus, his application of systematic theology gives renewed insight to the applicability of God’s attributes, including His wrath and grace.

Thirdly, this book teaches you how to be a better Christian thinker. For example, in the latter third of the book, Powlison asserts that we, as finite creatures, come to God, the Bible, and the human experience seeking answers but lacking the ability to even ask the right questions. Throughout the remaining lectures, including the two appendices, he fleshes out a few helpful examples. Since reading this book, I have been thinking very differently when I read my Bible, serve my wife, disciple my children, interact with my congregation, and enjoy private prayer. The summation of the book teaches the reader not to isolate themselves from the cosmic context of good vs. evil, for we are not aloof onlookers, but active participants in God’s sovereign will unfolding. Two appetizers from the book that promote better Christian thinking is Powlison’s assertion that the 150 canonical psalms are the “psychology of Jesus” and that “Jesus is the incarnate version of the eight beatitudes.” These are deep and paradigm-shaping thoughts.

Weaknesses

I humbly cite a potential weakness in this writing, which should not deter you from reading the book. During the Secular Psychology portion of the book, Powlison often critiques the church for providing what he calls “pat answers” and “quick fixes.” Undoubtedly, there is validity in his critique; however, as a pastor and biblical counselor myself, each time I read his critique I wished he would explicitly extrapolate on his statements. Powlison critiqued merely telling a parishioner to “have quiet time and it will be okay,” while also affirming the necessity of quiet time with God. It would have been helpful to hear how he would explicitly connect some of the spiritual disciplines to the human heart. In my ten years of biblical counseling, including earning degrees and certification, I have always been taught to give your counselee a homework assignment centered on God’s word that is relevant to the need of the hour. I walked away from a couple chapters of the book stimulated to know how I can better assign this homework to ensure I am not providing “Bible bombs” and “quick fixes,” yet unanswered in my heart’s inquiry.

With my critique in hand, I provide you with two alleviating thoughts. First, I think this weakness is a result of the chapters being lectures, and unfortunately, we are not afforded the opportunity to raise our hands and ask clarifying questions at the end of class. Secondly, one can infer a little of how Powlison would respond to my inquiry by reading his lectures that work through Psalm 131 and Psalm 10. Similarly, the footnotes reference many other published works of Powlison that provide insight to how he would work past “pat answers” and “quick fixes.”

Something You Just Have to Deal With

Speaking of footnotes, herein lies what I cannot call a weakness but something you must deal with: the footnotes. Okay, they are not a weakness, but they are certainly something to be dealt with. Pierce Taylor Hibbs has gone to extraordinary lengths to provide meaningful footnotes throughout this work. Many times, Powlison references an event modern to his time that we may be out of touch with today, especially a younger reader. In these instances, Hibbs provides a footnote providing context. Hear me clearly: Hibbs’ footnotes are helpful and packed with outstanding content. The trouble? There are so many of them it is dizzying at times. I do not think it proper calling them a weakness, but you must know they are a prominent feature of the book. My advice is that as you read along, pick and choose which footnotes to investigate based on when your interest is piqued or when you need context for better understanding.

Closing Comments

My ministerial passion is biblical counseling. Within this calling, I often feel the pressure to know everything about everything within my human limitations. How else will I will be able to help everyone with everything? While the Lord has humbled me by reminding me that He is the omniscient One, Powlison shows us the truth that an effective biblical counselor must be far more than a one-trick pony. From the pens of Mrs. Nancy Powlison and Pierce Taylor Hibbs, we see that this man of God was first a worthy Christian husband and father, then an incredible academician, theologian, pastor, and apologist, resulting in his becoming a counselor of counselors. Still yet, from the mouth of Powlison to the pages of Dissecting the Heart, the reader is not left with a sense of how great David Powlison was, but rather, how faithful and gracious the God of David Powlison is to His people. Dissecting the Heart: Secular Psychology, Spiritual Warfare, and True Theology is a book that you, pastor, counselor, and Christian, should include in your fall 2026 reading.

The swell of reaction to the murder of Charlie Kirk climaxed on Sunday, September 21st, in his memorial service, which really seemed like a gigantic Christian worship service. For the record, this was all a very good thing. What happened on that Lord’s day was wonderful, and I believe the Lord was pleased. Some 200,000 Christians gathered, not only to remember the life of the man Charlie Kirk, but to look beyond him to remember the life of an even better man, the Lord of Glory, Jesus Christ. There was praise music, prayer, and good preaching from actual pastors who are not wolves in sheep’s clothing. There was an exhortation to repentance; a proclamation of the only saving message in existence: the Gospel of the Kingdom; a reminder that God hates evil and loves the good; and much more. What has risen to the top like cream, however, was Erika Kirk’s declaration of forgiveness toward the man who murdered her husband and made her a widow. She said, “That young man—I forgive him. I forgive him because it was what Christ did and what Charlie would do.”

Subscribe now

Compassion For My Grieving Sister

In this article, I do not intend at all to condemn Mrs. Kirk. I actually think what she did was good and right. I believe, given the public nature of Kirk’s execution, and the need for our country to turn back to Christ, and our need for biblical language to be on display for all to see and hear, her public expression of forgiveness was most appropriate. While those of a cynical nature in our country may view her statements as a stunt, I believe they were genuine and came from a heart that sincerely desires to be obedient to the Lord. This is all very good; this is all very right. As a slave of Christ, she is obligated to obey her Lord, and since the Lord gave her a worldwide stage, she ought to show her obedience clearly and loudly. For all this, I am grateful.

Likewise, she was correct, Christ did come to seek and save that which was lost. He has come to remove from us the stain of evil and wickedness. The scripture very plainly tells us that Jesus is faithful and just to forgive us our sins (1 John 1:9)—every one of them—finally and fully. This you can and should rest and rely upon.

Additionally, I know what forgiveness does for the forgiver. The spiritual benefits of forgiveness are no small thing. In the first place, forgiving others makes us like God, loving our enemies, which, for the Christian, is a great comfort in and of itself. Forgiving our enemies releases us from the need for vengeance—we leave it up to God to repay, and trust that his arm of justice (the government) will do just that if the circumstances call for it. Forgiveness also reminds the forgiver of the depth of God’s love and how great a gift he or she has been given from the Lord—if God can forgive me for the sins (so the thought goes) I have committed against him, then certainly I can forgive this far lesser sin against myself. Forgiving others, in other words, makes us a more compassionate people, ready to look upon the sinner with compassion, knowing that we have, ourselves, been shown supernatural compassion.

Therefore, I understand what my sister in Christ did, and I understand why my sister did what she did.

The Need for Gospel Clarity

Forgiveness, if it is to be biblical, must be seen as a double-sided coin. The passage I cited above, 1 John 1:9, does certainly tell us that God is faithful to forgive us of our sins, but that’s not the whole passage. It says, “If we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” In other words, forgiveness isn’t free—how could it be? Forgiveness costs something of greater value than all the precious metals and digital coins this world could ever offer. It cost the very blood of the Son of God—Jesus Christ! Forgiveness is certainly not free. In 1 Corinthians 6:20, Paul says that Christians were “bought with a price.” We were purchased like slaves on the auction block, because that’s what we were: slaves to sin. But what was that price for our life? The life of Christ! Of course! And since he paid such a high price for his people, God forbid we treat this gift with glibness or flippancy.

Share

The cost now to us, to receive the forgiveness of our sins, is to acknowledge that we have sinned; it is to acknowledge that we have done the very thing that required the death of Christ in the first place. And the scripture is clear, unless we repent, then we will never be forgiven:

Acts 2:38

On the Day of Pentecost, the Apostle Peter addresses the crowd, explaining that forgiveness is tied to repentance.

“And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’”.

Acts 3:19

After healing a lame man, Peter gives a second sermon stressing the urgency of repentance.

This passage states that to have sins blotted out and receive times of refreshing from the Lord’s presence, one must “Repent therefore, and turn back”.

Luke 13:3–5

Jesus emphasizes the necessity of repentance for everyone, stating, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish”.

Luke 24:46–47

Jesus instructs his disciples to preach a message of repentance for the forgiveness of sins to all nations.

Acts 17:30–31

Paul declares that God commands everyone to repent in anticipation of a future judgment.

1 John 1:9

John highlights that confessing sins is essential to receive God’s forgiveness and cleansing.

Matthew 4:17

Jesus’ own proclamation was the need for repentance.

“From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’”.

Luke 5:32

In response to the Pharisees, Jesus stated, “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance”. This emphasizes that his mission is to bring about a change of heart in those who have strayed through repentance.

Acts 11:18

Believers acknowledge that God has granted repentance leading to life even to the Gentiles.

The teaching of forgiveness without the component of repentance is actually a .30-06 blow to the Gospel. What is the world to do in the pronouncement that the Kingdom of God is at hand? Just expect God to forgive? No. It is obligated to repent! Then forgiveness comes.

The Order of Salvation

The issue that some may have with what is stated above is that they will see it as a work, as if by this I am saying that we’re earning our forgiveness, or at the very least, if we must repent, then forgiveness is no longer free. But, even when we contemplate the theological order of God’s saving act, we see that forgiveness comes only after repentance.

The Order:

1. Election

2. Calling (inward and outward)

3. Regeneration

4. Conversion (faith and repentance)

5. Justification

6. Sanctification

7. Glorification

Now, the astute observer will say, “But wait, the only reason why a person repents in the first place is because they have already been regenerated—given a new heart—and this is before repentance.” This is very true, very true indeed! Nevertheless, while regeneration is the place where the heart is replaced and the Holy Spirit quickens the spirit of the man, enabling him to seek forgiveness, it is, nonetheless, not where forgiveness takes place.

Forgiveness takes place in the realm of justification. In the justification of a newly regenerated person, the divine judge declares the newly adopted child to be righteous, and this occurs in two ways. First, all the person’s sins, past, present, and future, are forgiven and God no longer holds those sins against him or her because at that moment the wrath those sins deserved was shifted to Jesus Christ. Second, the perfect righteousness of Christ he earned from his life and death, is imputed to the new son or daughter of God.

Share Reformed & Confessional

This justification one receives, however, is only after the person repents by faith, not before. Justification/forgiveness/imputed righteousness comes only after one has repented of their sins and placed their faith in Christ—this is the stage of “conversion.” These are the works of faith; they are not meritorious, but they are the works that God commands faith to do, which lead to these three benefits. The Westminster Confession of Faith describes the actions of justifying faith as “receiving and resting upon Christ and his righteousness.” “Receiving” and “resting” are actions of faith; they are verbs; they are what faith not only does, but is. Likewise, the Heidelberg Catechism says that true faith is “certain knowledge” and an “assurred confidence.” The Belgic Confession shows that “true faith…embraces Christ.” These historic and reformed formulations of Christian doctrine show that these are all actions that faith is accomplishing, which leads to justification. And of course, because it must be said, these are all the fruit of the Spirit’s monergistic regeneration. They are not meritorious works; these works do not merit justification; these movements are merely and only faith doing exactly what faith was given by God to do: embrace Christ!

Share Reformed & Confessional

Therefore, without recognizing the desperate need for repentance, we actually lose the Gospel.

A Humble Course Correction

In light of all this, what do we do? Well, again, I’m not condemning a grieving widow. Yet, for the strength of our churches, and for any hope of our country to be made strong again, the recognition of the need for repentance must be acknowledged and understood. One simply cannot issue the words “I forgive you” in any biblical sense without the transgressor first acknowledging their sin and repenting. This is because forgiveness and transactional.

Notice the transactional model in Luke 17

1. Rebuke the offender: Jesus first commands, “If your brother sins, rebuke him” (Luke 17:3). The goal of this rebuke is to lead the person to an awareness of their sin and a desire to repent. This step initiates the path toward reconciliation and restoration.

2. Forgive upon repentance: Jesus continues, “and if he repents, forgive him” (Luke 17:3). The “if” in this command is crucial. Forgiveness in its fullest, relational sense—meaning the restoration of a reconciled relationship—is to be granted when the offender acknowledges their sin and turns back from their sin.

3. Unlimited forgiveness: To demonstrate the depth of this obligation, Jesus adds, “And if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him” (Luke 17:4). This does not mean one’s patience can be exhausted after seven cycles, but rather that true forgiveness knows no limits, as long as genuine repentance is present.

It must also be recognized that the bible speaks with one unified, non-contradictory voice. This is crucial because the reason why so many have a view that unilateral and unqualified forgiveness must be granted is because of passages such as this:

Matthew 6:14-15: “For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

Matthew 18:23-35: In the parable of the unmerciful servant, Jesus tells a story about a king who forgives his servant an immense debt. The servant, in turn, refuses to forgive a much smaller debt owed to him by a fellow servant. In anger, the king hands the unmerciful servant over to the torturers. Jesus concludes by saying, “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart”

Mark 11:25 says, “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses”.

Christians read this and conclude, “I must forgive immediately every offense against me, otherwise I’ll be condemned,” and non-Christians conclude, “I can use this to my advantage and condemn Christians as unloving when they don’t forgive me right away.” This is an instance of being trained by our enemies.

Because the bible is the singular unified voice of God, these passages and Luke 17 are not in contradiction, but beautifully harmonize with each other. When someone has sinned against us we must have a heart like Christ—compassionate, loving, and ready to forgive—and we should settle in our hearts that we will forgive when they repent (Mark 11:25). This means we treat them kindly, we don’t shun them, but when we see them we do not allow them to forget that their sin is still preventing a relationship from thriving. We remind them of their sin and their need to repent. Lord willing, when they do repent, we rejoice, and since we were ready to forgive them in our hearts, our offer of forgiveness to them is sweet and swift (Luke 17:1-3). And, in the event that a brother or sister does repent and we refuse to grant forgiveness, then our Father in heaven promises that we will also not be forgiven (Matthew 6:14-15) because we are showing that we have never truly received the forgiveness of our Father. If we had, we would be eager to give the same gift to others.

It is important to note also, the scripture commands us to forgive the same way God forgives us:

Ephesians 4:32 “Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.”

In other words, the biblical way to forgive, the right way, the proper way, the righteous way to forgive others is the same way God forgives us—through repentance. Unilateral, non-transactional forgiveness that demands no repentance is actually a hollow shell; it accomplishes nothing, and it gives a message to a watching world that God will do something that he has said he will certainly not do.

Conclusion

Two things can be true at once, so again, I am not bringing hell-fire and brimstone down upon my sister’s head. I am, however, wanting to bring awareness of the direction the church must go with this doctrine. Without recognizing the need for repentance, a people will never be in communion with God. Because Nineva repented in dust and ashes, God showed them mercy—they did not receive a forgiveness that cost them nothing. America is no different; the church is no different; the family is no different; the individual is no different. We must repent, and we must repent only in the way that God has forgiven us through Jesus Christ—to do otherwise is to sin against the Lord. I don’t think Erika was sinning, for I do not know her heart, nor am I privy to what has happened behind closed doors. I am addressing all those who would look upon her words, and conclude that forgiveness is unilateral and unqualified. We must fall on our faces in humility and seek the Lord while he may be found in order to receive forgiveness. This is a far more important doctrine to get right than it appears at first glance, for it has drastic implications from the individual to the nation.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

As I write, Charlie Kirk was murdered only eight days ago. As I left work and was alerted to his fateful demise, I was unaware of just how impactful his death would be. Not just on those who knew him or followed his work, but on me also. I did not know the man. I did not follow his work other than to give the occasional hoot and holler when I would see him proclaim biblical truth and completely own the blue-haired transgender woman—a man—on the off chance I stumbled across one of his reels. But for some reason, his death has deeply impacted me. It has taken me roughly a week to gather my thoughts and see why, but as I write, the effect is profound.

Here, I want to highlight one thought as a result: the reason I write.

Share Reformed & Confessional

My Impending Death

We are admonished in scripture to number our days. This is a sober command that, if said by anyone other than God, might seem like a threat. But it is true—we must number our days. We will live for perhaps one hundred years, if heart disease, cancer, blood clots, dementia, car crashes, murder, war, or some other effect of the fall doesn’t take us first. But, no matter what, we will all die. And seeing Charlie assassinated, and leaving behind two small children and a young, adoring wife, has made me look upon my own children and my darling with a fresh set of eyes.

They are my life. Other than Jesus himself, they are the clearest sign of just how much God adores me; just how treasured I am to him; just how loved I am; they are a constant reminder of how true my sonship to God is. When I receive kisses from my queen, it is the Father giving his son a kiss. When my children embrace me, it is my elder brother holding me near. When we hold hands to pray around our meals, I am in close fellowship with the Trinity. It is a truly wonderful thing.

Remembering that I will die one day ignites a fire of motivation under me to prepare the way for them to never forget the glory of my God.

Why I Write

I began writing consistently roughly nine years ago, and this endeavor did not start with as pure a motivation as I wish it had. But over time, and as the Lord sanctified this man, it has changed and morphed to what I pray makes my Father smile. As I contemplate the death that I will one day suffer, I realize that my writing has two primary purposes:

1. The comfort and protection of my family—I want to leave for my children and grandchildren a body of work that they can lean upon. I want them to one day read my words and be comforted by the faith of their father and grandfather. I want them to be encouraged in their faith and be challenged to live before the face of Christ in holiness. I want to leave behind for them words that will help guide them through the challenges of life when I’m no longer here to whisper wisdom into their ears. I want to leave them a trusted guide that will cut through the noise and crowd of so many teachers, so that they may have a sure footing. I want them to be encouraged, knowing that they are following a well-worn path and that they are not starting afresh. I want them to know and love Christ the way I have come to know and love him. I want to leave my words for my wife so that even in my absence, she will never wonder whether my heart was completely for her. As the years tick on after I’m gone, and the tendency of the mind to forget comes upon her, I want her to be able to go back and read my thoughts, my ponderings, my devotions, and see another glimpse of my heart for the Lord and be emboldened by the faith of her man. I want my words to continue to be a strong guide for her as she begins to live alone. If the Lord takes me young, as he did Charlie, I want her to have the courage to set a high standard that another man must meet in order to take her hand in marriage. I want my words to be for her a protection from apathy, discouragement, folly, vanity, and the predations of those who would take advantage of widows. I want her and my children to remember, know, and believe that all that the Lord does is right and good.

   Share

2. The edification of the church—this, some may see, as a delusion of grandeur. Who do I think I am, Calvin? Luther? Beeke? Adams? Sproul? Well. No. I’m none of them, and I don’t pretend to be. I am a pastor of a small, reformed church, and for all I know, I will die being known by only those within that congregation. All my words may quickly be shuttled off to the rubbish bin of history, never to see the light of day again. But in the off chance that they do not, and the Lord allows them to remain, I want them to be a help and a blessing to my Lord’s bride. I want my words to be a push for the church in a new generation. I want to help progress the Kingdom of God on the earth, and invoke the Spirit of dominion in the world. I want my words to evoke in the hearts of young men a passion for what the word of God can accomplish. I want to further the art of biblical counseling and help train more men to use the scriptures to bring hope and healing to suffering souls. I want my words to motivate families to righteous living; husbands to self-denial; wives to joyful submission; fathers to fearless rearing; and mothers to compassionate care-taking. I want my words to echo through time with biblical wisdom, exuberant joy, glad submission to Christ, and fearless opposition to the world and sin. I want to inspire rejoicing and courage; I want my words to awaken hearts; I want my words to be a testament to what God can accomplish in a broken, sinful, and weak man such as I.

Why Number Our Days?

The Lord God tells us to number our days so that we may gain a heart of wisdom. The wisdom we gain is the wisdom to live a life of purpose, to focus on what truly matters, and to cultivate a sense of urgency and gratitude.

This is juxtaposed with the altogether hollow and childish way that the world wants people to live. The world is content to get fat, acquire dull senses by imbibing countless hours of television and mindless scrolling, engage in meaningless sex, give no attention to the next generation, numb our pain with illicit drugs, avoid the difficulties of life with prescription drugs, save no money, own nothing, believe in no higher calling or purpose, live in the satisfaction of stupidity, be led by fickle feelings and emotions, made decisions on a whim, pervert justice, murder helpless children in the womb, call good evil and evil good, live by lies, exist on the government dole, forsake commitment, remain children, and much, much more.

And the world is able to do this because no one is thinking of their own death. They’re only thought is for the next time they can go to the club, take a hit of ecstasy, have random sex, wake up, and do it all over again. The world is a rot.

But we who know the truth, love God, and are the bride of Christ are given a better path, and light for it. All that we could ever need for a life full of purpose is found within the pages of scripture. So forsake the ways of children and the drunkard, the fool and the sluggard, and pursue what really matters and be thankful for the whole thing.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

When we examine the demographic heart of the political Left, one striking truth emerges: it is disproportionately comprised of white liberal women. This is no accident. It is the outworking of the curse pronounced in Genesis 3:16: “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

John Calvin, in his Commentary on Genesis, notes that this passage teaches us that the corruption of sin would incline women “to rebel against the dominion of man” rather than to live in God-ordained harmony. Thus, the feminist impulse is not a modern discovery; it is simply Eve’s old rebellion dressed up in academic regalia and paraded with rainbow flags with little vaginas on them.

In this light, the Left is not merely a political bloc. It is a political party organized by Eve.

Share Reformed & Confessional

The Feminization of Politics

The Left’s program is unmistakably feminist. It champions abortion as a sacrament of autonomy (Psalm 127:3), promotes sexual perversion as a right (Romans 1:26–27), and enshrines egalitarianism as orthodoxy (1 Corinthians 11:3). It despises fatherhood (Malachi 4:6), ridicules husbands (Colossians 3:18–19), and seeks to erase biblical headship altogether (1 Timothy 2:12–14).

John Knox thundered against such inversion in The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, where he argued that female rule over men was “repugnant to nature, an [insult] to God, and the subversion of good order.” If that was true of queens on thrones, how much more of professors in classrooms, activists in legislatures, police on the streets, administrators in offices, and protestors in the streets?

The feminization of politics is thus not a quirk of polling data but an act of rebellion against Christ’s crown and covenant.

The Misery of the Liberal Woman

But here lies the irony: behind the confident slogans and clenched fists, misery lurks. Liberal women—having rejected the blessings of marriage, family, and children—often find themselves profoundly alone and miserable. They swapped the warm hearth for the flicker of a laptop, the embrace of a good husband for the cold applause of Twitter followers, submission to a husband who loves and cares deeply, for submission to a boss who cares little. They traded the laughter of children for the sterile company of cats and wine glasses. They are the high priests of barrenness, holding up a goblet of Merlot instead of the fruit of the womb.

The Westminster Confession of Fatih 24.2 reminds us that marriage was “ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the church with an holy seed.” By rejecting this ordinance, liberal women have exiled themselves from its blessings. No wonder bitterness festers.

And beneath the veneer of empowerment lies envy. As they scroll through the social media feeds of Christian mothers, surrounded by smiling children and supported by loving husbands, their hearts burn with jealousy. They may sneer at the “trad wife,” but their sleepless nights betray a longing for what they mocked. The joy of Christian womanhood—rooted in covenant promises (Acts 2:39), secure in Christ, radiant in submission (Titus 2:3–5)—stands as a living rebuke to the barren feminist life.

The shrill cries of liberal women are often the sound of envy with a megaphone.

The Call to Christian Men

This feminization of politics is not simply a matter of ideology but is one of abdication. Where men abdicated their kingly role and have failed to lead, women rush in to fill the void. Isaiah 3:12 warns: “My people—infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you.” This is not progress, but judgment. Not progression, but perversion.

Therefore, Christian men must repent of their passivity. Calvin observed in his Institutes (Book 4, Ch. 1) that the strength of the church depends upon its order, with Christ as Head and authority flowing rightly. So too in the home and the nation. Husbands must love their wives sacrificially (Ephesians 5:25), fathers must instruct their children in the fear of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4), elders must lead churches with courage (1 Timothy 3:4–5), and a nation and all its stations must be led and employed by men alone (Isaiah 3:12). A feminized Left is the fruit of men laying down their spines instead of laying down their lives.

The answer to shrieking feminism is not louder shrieking, but stronger fathers.

Christ the King Over Chaos

At its core, this battle is not Republican versus Democrat, but Christ versus chaos (Psalm 2:1–6). The feminized Left will not endure, for Christ will “put all enemies under His feet” (1 Corinthians 15:25). The question is not whether Christ will reign, but whether we will submit to His reign now or be crushed beneath it later.

The task before us is clear: order our hearts, homes, churches, and nations according to His Word (2 Timothy 3:16–17). Raise our sons to be men, not effeminate boys. Raise our daughters to be mothers, not activists. Men treat their wives like queens, and women treat their husbands like kings. Live out the beauty of God’s design, so that the despair of feminism is answered not merely with arguments, but with living testimonies of joy, love, and covenant fruitfulness.

The Left may be led by liberal women, but the Church must be led by faithful men. For in Christ, man and woman alike are restored to their rightful places (Colossians 3:18–20). And under His Lordship, there is both order and peace (Philippians 4:7).

Share

A Pastoral Exhortation

Beloved, we must not look upon the misery of liberal women with mere scorn, but with sober recognition. Their rebellion is real, their envy is bitter, and their destruction is certain apart from Christ. But the gospel of Jesus Christ is mighty to save even the most hardened feminist. We ourselves were once rebels (Ephesians 2:1–3), but God, in His mercy, brought us from death to life. Let us hold out this same Christ to a generation of women deceived by the serpent’s lies and indulgent in his slop.

At the same time, men must not shirk their responsibility. The cure for feminism is not more feminism, nor more government programs, but men who lead, love, and lay down their lives in imitation of Christ. The world is aching for fathers, and the church must supply them.

Christian women, you are not to envy the world, but to glory in what the world envies. Your quiet faithfulness, your love of home, your delight in husband and children, and your submission to Christ and husband shine as a testimony in a crooked and twisted generation (Philippians 2:15).

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

I want to introduce a phrase that I hope will help us as abolitionists think more clearly and charitably about our movement and one another. The phrase is Big Tent Abolitionism.

Abolitionists are united by the conviction that abortion is murder and that equal protection and equal justice must be established for every preborn child. Yet within the movement, a growing struggle has emerged over who is truly faithful to that cause. The result has been a tightening of boundaries, the creation of camps, and an ongoing fight to define what counts as genuine abolitionism.

Much of this comes from good motives, such as a desire for clarity, consistency, and faithfulness to God’s Word. But along the way, the tone has often become narrow and harsh. Many who once called themselves abolitionists now hesitate to do so, not because they have abandoned the principles, but because of the suspicion and division that sometimes accompany the name.

Subscribe now

Big Tent Abolitionism reminds us that there is room within this movement for those who share the core convictions but differ in approach. The new legislator learning how to pursue equal protection, the pastor beginning to preach on justice for the preborn, and the citizen still working out how to engage politically all belong in the tent.

A big tent does not mean compromise. It means charity toward those who are still growing and cooperation with those who labor for the same end, even if they differ in method. It allows someone to say, “I am an abolitionist, and this is where I stand within the tent.”

The center holds firm. The goal is the complete and immediate abolition of abortion through laws that uphold the equal value, equal protection, and equal justice of every image bearer of God.

Why This Matters

Over the past few years, I have watched as some have grown weary of the narrowness of the movement. I know brothers who once called themselves abolitionists but have since dropped the label. They have not changed their theology. They have grown tired of the suspicion, the harshness, and the constant boundary-setting. They still believe abortion is murder. They still support bills of equal protection. But they no longer want to be identified with what abolitionism has come to represent in its most rigid forms.

That should concern us deeply.

When new legislators, pastors, or citizens begin to see the truth about abortion, it is often after years of confusion and compromise. Their conversion to abolitionist conviction is slow and costly. But when they arrive, too often they are met not with joy but with scrutiny. They are told that unless they adopt a particular method or align with a specific group, their repentance is not real, or their understanding is not pure enough.

Share

That approach does not strengthen the cause. It isolates it.

If a legislator stands for a bill of equal protection, that man or woman should be welcomed into the work. If a pastor begins to preach that abortion is murder and that repentance must be public and legal, he should not have to worry that someone will question his motives because of where he shops or how he voted in a fallen system.

What Big Tent Abolitionism Means

Big Tent Abolitionism is not a compromise on principle. It is a recognition that we can share the same foundation while differing in application, method, and maturity.

It stands on the clear biblical truths that every human being bears the image of God and has equal value, protection, and justice under His law. Civil rulers are accountable to God’s moral law and must repent of partiality and injustice. Christians are called to labor for righteousness in every sphere, including civil government.

Within that foundation, there is liberty of conscience in how faithfulness is applied within a fallen world. One brother may vote where another abstains. One may engage the culture through public agitation, while another chooses pastoral teaching or legislative work. These differences do not define faithfulness. Obedience to God’s revealed law does.

Big Tent Abolitionism recognizes that no one in the tent is perfectly consistent. We all live within systems marred by sin. We buy products, use technology, and participate in economies that fund evil causes. We cannot escape that entirely, but we can live faithfully within it. We can reject compromise in principle while showing patience to those still growing in practice.

This tent also has room for those who are newer to the cause. The pastor who is just beginning to preach on abolition, the young believer who is learning to think biblically about justice, and the legislator who is drafting his first equal protection bill are allies, not problems to fix.

Share Reformed & Confessional

A Word to the Narrow Camps

To those who labor in the more defined corners of this tent, I am thankful for you. Your boldness and clarity have carried this movement forward. Many of us came to our convictions because of your faithfulness to speak plainly when others would not. But I would ask that you also recognize the tent around you.

Not every abolitionist will share your methods or your tone. Some will refuse your labels. Others will work through different channels or emphasize different priorities. They are not your enemies. They are co-belligerents in the same cause, fighting for the same laws grounded in the same truth.

You may believe that your version of abolitionism is the most consistent or pure. Perhaps it is. But purity without charity will make the movement smaller and weaker, not stronger.

Big Tent Abolitionism does not diminish the distinctives of any group. It calls every group to remember that there are others in the tent who labor for the same end: the complete and immediate abolition of abortion through laws that reflect the equal value of every image bearer of God.

A Call to Generous Conviction

The goal is not to create a soft or sentimental abolitionism. It is to create a faithful one that is large enough to include all who stand on the essential truths, and charitable enough to recognize that God sanctifies His people over time.

Conviction without charity hardens into pride. Charity without conviction collapses into compromise. But conviction with charity is the mark of mature obedience.

Big Tent Abolitionism is conviction with charity. It keeps the center strong and the tent open. It welcomes all who will stand on the Word of God and labor for laws that reflect His justice, even if they differ on methods or pace.

This tent has room for the preacher, the legislator, the agitator, the teacher, and the new believer. All of them stand under the same standard of equal value, equal protection, and equal justice.

This article was originally published at

https://jerrydorris.substack.com/p/big-tent-abolitionism.

Leave a comment

Disclaimer: I believe Kirk Cameron is a Christian. Furthermore, I deeply applaud that he has a podcast and YouTube channel with his son, James. Lastly, I appreciate that their appeals in the episode I reference below are from Scripture.

Subscribe now

The Flaw of Kirk Cameron’s Annihilationism: The Absence of God’s Holiness

Recently, Kirk and James Cameron released an episode on The Kirk Cameron Show titled “Are We Wrong About Hell?” After watching the show, I believe that Kirk and James are wrong about hell and so does the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q29 & Q89); however, I am not writing to instigate a tête-à-tête on eternal conscious torment and annihilation with the Cameron men. No, my motive is what Kirk missed altogether: the holiness of God.

A Brief Background of the Episode

The episode in question is about thirty-nine minutes long. Here, young James poses questions about degrees of punishment, the character of God, and eternal conscious torment. James presents his case for annihilationism, which is “the belief that at least some humans will permanently cease to exist at death or some point thereafter.”[1] Then Kirk, showing his evangelistic and apologetic savvy, presents a would-be counterargument, saying:

Kirk: Now, some people will say that the reason eternal conscious torment is a fair and just punishment for any sinner is because of the person you and I are sinning against. It’s not just any person. Yea, I’ve heard it. It’s almighty God . . . And so, if God is an ultimate, infinite, eternal authority and I sin against him, how much greater should that punishment be? In fact, it must be eternal, a forever punishment and the worst punishment of all (start at 27:47).

Kirk goes on to answer such an objection a minute later:

James: The person who says that you’re sinning against God so you deserve to be eternally tormented, I would disagree with.

Kirk: Unless the Scriptures say that. Unless we can find somewhere in the scriptures where we say that’s actually how it works. Just like a caste system in a feudal system that you have a hierarchy of punishments based on the importance of the person you’re sinning against. Problem is, I don’t find that in the Scriptures (start at 29:02).

God is Not Man

I’ve quoted Kirk directly from the YouTube transcript as not to misrepresent him (I’ve only added some commas along the way to help the reader). At the 27:47 timestamp, he identifies the argument against annihilationism as sin against “almighty God.” But then, at the 29:02 timestamp, he demands that Scripture must show him a “hierarchy of punishments based on the importance of the person you’re sinning against.” Here, Kirk errantly lumps God into humanity, as if the Creator of the cosmos were common like man. Such an action disregards the holiness of God.

Kirk, we cannot treat “Almighty God” in your first statement like he is any other “person” in your second statement. Here, you have failed to make the Creator-creature distinction (Gen 1:1, 26; Num. 23:19).[2] God’s holiness, in the words of the late R.C. Sproul, means that he is “transcendentally separate.”[3] Therefore, you err when you use the criteria of sinning against people to argue against those who say that sinning against Almighty God deserves a greater punishment. Sinning against God and man is categorically different because God and man are categorically different. The fact that all sin against God is not necessarily sin against man but that all sin against man is necessarily sin against God further displays the Creator-creature distinction (Ps. 51:4).

Regarding the concept of being punished more or less “based on the importance of the person you’re sinning against,” you’ve said, “I don’t find that in the Scriptures.” However scarce you may be able to extract passages about the magnitude of eternal consequences for sin against man, I find that the Scriptures teem with verses explaining the steep consequence for sinning against our holy God.

Hebrews: A Greater Punishment for Sin Against God

The thrust of the book of Hebrews is the superiority of Jesus, something Kirk and James Cameron would faithfully advocate. Christ is superior to angels, prophets, and priests by virtue of his sonship. He ushers in a more superior covenant than the Mosaic because he is the superior high priest serving in the priesthood, sacrificing himself, and shedding his blood for the remission of sin (Heb. 9:22). The superiority of the New Covenant demands a more severe punishment for rejecting the King of the Covenant, a truth taught in Hebrews 10:28-29.

Now, I want to be very careful to point out the wording of these verses. On multiple occasions, Kirk and James appeal to their concept of the character of God by stressing that “there is mercy even in his judgment” (see timestamp 38:22; also, similar quotes are in 6:30; 6:58; 26:53; and 36:22). Notice in the following verses, however, that those who reject Jesus receive a much worse punishment than those who die “without mercy.” Wow. These words are pointedly in direct contradiction to the Cameron men. The author of Hebrews writes:

Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witness. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outrage the Spirit of grace? (Heb. 10:28-29, emphasis added).

Here, we see that there is a more severe punishment for those who reject the Son of God than there was for those who rejected Moses. Their less severe punishment is very pertinent to answer Kirk Cameron’s claims that, “I don’t find that in the Scriptures.” In Hebrews 10:28, the author makes a direct reference to Deuteronomy 19:15. In Moses’ day, the death penalty by stoning was required for idolatry (Deut. 17:2-6) and blasphemy (Lev. 24:14-16). The author of Hebrews refers to this stoning as a death “without mercy” (10:28). Then, he says those who reject Jesus will receive, contrary to what the Cameron men say, a punishment that is “much worse” than a death without mercy (10:29). The result of violating a superior covenant is a more severe punishment, one worse than death without mercy.[4]

The Worse Punishment

Lastly, how is this so? How can there be a worse punishment than dying a death without mercy? Is not death itself the worst punishment possible? Well, the idolater and blasphemer in Moses’ day still had the opportunity to repent and be right with God between their conviction and before their stoning, much like inmates who are on death row today. They still died a death without mercy but if they were repentant before God, they would see him the moment their soul departed their body (by the way, that is the definition of death, see 2LBC, Of the State of Man After Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead, 31.1). However, those who ultimately reject Jesus in the New Covenant have no further opportunity to be right before their Holy Judge. Crassly stated, another “New Covenant” just ain’t coming, boys. Christ is the last train, so to speak. Therefore, based on sinning against the Triune God, unrepentant sinners who die in such a state receive a punishment far worse than Kirk and James will allow themselves to credit God with . . . they receive eternal conscious torment as a punishment without mercy, just as the Scriptures testify and God receives all the glory for the holiness that his wrath reveals (Hebrews 10:26-31; Rev. 14:9-11; 20:10; Mark 9:43-48 – note the possessive use of “their” in the Mark 9 passage, something Kirk and James argue is absent from Scripture in their video).

A Parting Word

Kirk and James reference several Scriptures in their video and this action is praiseworthy. However, their survey of Scripture is incomplete and the repetitive appeal to their concept of the character of God is inherently faulty. When Isaiah saw the Lord, the angels cried out, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory” (Is. 6:3). In this instance, Kirk and James fail to consider God’s holiness, the attribute which the angels sing most prominently about. Their omission shows that their concept of God’s character is flawed. Therefore, they lose credibility by appealing to their own flawed perception of God as an authority or comfort to make Scripture seem cogent for themselves and their listeners.

I humbly confess that my perception of God and all his glorious attributes is also flawed. And so is yours (more evidence of the Creator-creature distinction). However, through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, we must continually use tota Scriptura to allow God’s word to shape our understanding of him. In this instance, the Cameron men did not canvas all the inspired material before them, and the consequences of such an action are severe. Some days, being annihilated in the end appeals much more to my flesh than denying myself daily and picking up my cross (Luke 9:23). Doctrine has consequences.

Finally, when it comes to sinners standing at the end of the age before the throne of God, I do not bind the Lord to granting any degree of mercy to those who rejected him because he does not bind himself to such a commitment. In the words of Kirk, “I don’t find that in the Scriptures.” However, as Kirk and James have taught us, if a truth is in the Word that we are not seeing, we need to humbly open our eyes and hearts to receive the word, repent of error, and put on truth for the glory of our Holy, Just, and Merciful God. Myself included.

For Further Study:

Here is an excellent examination on how the doctrine of hell relates to the wisdom, holiness, justice, and mercy of God!

God is Faithful. Soli Deo Gloria!

Notes:

[1] John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 923.

[2] Dr. John Frame teaches the concept of Creator-creature distinction in his A History of Western Philosophy and Theology. He writes, “The first element of this worldview is the Creator-creature distinction itself. In the biblical metaphysic, there are two levels of reality: that of the Creator and that of the creature . . . These may never be confused . . . the Lord is always Lord, and the creatures are always his servants.”

[3] R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God (Sanford, FL: Ligonier, 2010), 46.

[4] Portions of a previously written exegetical study are in this paragraph. You may find the full study by the current author at https://www.reformconfess.com/blog/exegetical-study-hebrews10-LFLVN

Share

Subscribe now

Share Reformed & Confessional

Leave a comment

Ephesians: One New Man

“Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians. 1:2).

With these opening words, Paul greets the saints in Ephesus, and in doing so, he begins to unfold one of the most glorious and profound summaries of the gospel in all of Scripture. Ephesians is, in a sense, a theological concentrate—not more inspired than any other book, but more dense. It is a book where the very being of our Triune God is made to be on full and glorious display. Within its six chapters, we find the work of the Triune God, the Father’s eternal plan, the Son’s victorious life and death, and the Spirit’s sealing, all converging to build up the Kingdom of God on an individual, covenantal, and cosmic scale.

But amidst all of its depth, one major theme carries the entire letter and is vital for the health of the church and the enlivening of the soul: Christ is making “one new man” (Eph. 2:15).

Breaking Down the Dividing Wall

Paul lays out this foundational truth in Ephesians 2:13-15: “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility... that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace.”

This is a radical reorientation of the world. The hostility between Jew and Gentile, a division forged by the Old Covenant and the Fall, has been destroyed not by worldly compromise, but by the very body and blood of Christ. Before Christ’s work, the Gentile was “separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). But through Christ’s perfect work, those who were “far off” have been brought “near.”

The implications are staggering. There is no longer two distinct peoples, but one unified body, at peace with God and one another. This new reality is the fruit of our labor and the answer to our prayer, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

Taking Dominion, Disciple the Nations

When Christ gives us our marching orders in Matthew 28, He does so with all authority in heaven and on earth. He commands us to go into the world, to take dominion for Him by discipling the nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey all that He has commanded. This is not a passive request but an active charge. We are not to sit on our laurels, content with past victories, but to push forward, covering the earth with the law of God as the waters cover the sea.

And what will this work look like? It will look like a work of unification, a heralding of the good news that division no longer needs to exist. It will look like a world in which people from every nation, tribe, people, and language are at peace with one another because they have found peace with King Jesus. All who bend the knee to Him will find that in Him alone, hostility has been put to death.

The Blueprint of Heaven

Lest we think this is an unrealistic pipe dream, we are given a clear blueprint in Revelation 7:9-12. John writes of a “great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.”

The unity in heaven is not a featureless, uniform mass. The nations, the tribes, the languages—they still exist. The cultural differences that some see as insurmountable barriers are, in God’s eyes, part of His beautiful created order. The diversity of His people shows forth the glory of His versatility. This vision of heaven reminds us that our unity in Christ transcends all superficial divisions, and that ethnic and cultural distinctions, far from being a problem, are a feature of God’s glorious design.

Share

The Unveiling of the Mystery

Paul refers to this glorious truth as a “mystery” seven times in his letter. Before Christ’s work, the full inclusion of the Gentiles was not entirely clear. Hints were there—Rahab the harlot and Ruth the Moabite, Jonah’s commission to Nineveh—but Israel’s disobedience and self-righteousness often obscured God’s purpose to be a “light to the nations.”

Now, however, the mystery has been unveiled in full. Christ’s total victory has made it clear that all who call upon His name will be saved. God is revealing the “mystery of his will,” which is to “unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph. 1:10).

The Church: God’s Proof of His Work

The proof of this magnificent, unifying work is the church itself. The church—the new humanity, the body of Christ—is given by the Father as the proof of Christ’s successful work. “And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:22-23).

The church, comprised of Jew and Gentile, of every tribe and tongue, is the very fullness of Christ, and in our unity, we are a testament to the fact that Christ has already destroyed the dividing wall of hostility. By His blood, He has made one new man, and in that act, He has brought genuine peace to a broken and divided world.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Savoy Declaration, and Second London Baptist Confession of Faith each mention the concept of “motions” pertaining to sin. The Second London Baptist Confession adds the adjective “first,” stating, “The corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated, and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin” (6.5, Of the Fall of Man, Sin, and the Punishment Thereof). The doctrine of first motions teaches that the initial impulses, arisings, and appearances of sin within a believer’s heart are in themselves sinful, even if not wholly voluntary.^[1] Although such a truth weighs heavily on those whose hearts are tender toward sinning, a biblical understanding and application of the doctrine of first motions is a formidable ally in the war to mortify sin (Rom. 8:13).

Refuting Rome

It was necessary for the Reformers and Puritans to confess the truth that even the first motions of sin “are truly and properly sin” in part because of the Roman Catholic teaching of concupiscence, which they define in their catechism as “an inclination to evil.” According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death and such frailties inherent in life as weakness of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin”; since concupiscence is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ (1264).

Such a teaching displays the necessity for the 17^th century Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists to explicitly state the truth about the sinful nature of Roman “concupiscence.”

Clarifying the Concept of Concupiscence

The King James Version of the Bible uses the term concupiscence three times in Romans 7:8, Colossians 3:5, and 1 Thessalonians 4:5 as follows:

1. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead (Rom. 7:8).

2. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry (Col. 3:5).

3. Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God (1 Thess. 4:5).

The term “concupiscence” in the Greek is epithymia and its semantic range includes desire, especially sexual desire, yearning, craving, passion, impulses, coveting, and lust. Modern translations use the terms desire, lust, and coveting in place of the Old English term “concupiscence” in the three Pauline verses above. So, while the Roman Catholic Church uses the term as more of a blanket statement describing a general inclination to evil, the biblical use of the term helps explain that an “inclination to evil” is evident by the presence of lust and covetous desires within one’s heart. The question then becomes, is it sinful for lust and covetous desires to dwell within the heart of a believer?

The Reformed and Confessional Perspective

In his polemical commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, 17^th century Scottish theologian David Dickson asks, “Well then, do not the Papists, Socinians, and Arminians err, who maintain, that concupiscence, or lust, and the first motions thereof, which have not gotten the consent of the will are not properly sin?”^[2] His answer? “Yes.” Dickson offers the following confutation to the Papists:

1. [Concupiscence is] forbidden by the moral and natural law in the tenth command[ment] (Ex. 20:17; Deut. 5:21; Rom. 7:7).

2. Because Paul speaking of himself, while unregenerate, calleth concupiscence and lust, of which the controversy is oftentimes, sin and evil (Rom. 7:5-6).

3. Because it is a great part of the old man, which he must lay down, and must be mortified (Col. 3:5-7; Eph. 4:22).^[3]

Notice in the quote above how Dickson, a paedobaptist minister within the Church of Scotland, quotes the Baptists of England by using the adjective “first” from the Second London Baptist Confession 6.5, when he says “and the first motions thereof” (emphasis added). Here is an example of Reformed and Confessional Solidarity among Protestant brothers, resulting in doctrinal accuracy in the fight for the Church’s purity.

Where the Battle Begins

Speaking of the Church’s purity . . . In his exposition of paragraph 6.5 of the Second London Baptist Confession, Dr. James Renihan writes, “When temptation first appears, the Christian must seek to mortify it.”^[4] Renihan’s sage wisdom urges believers to kill sin internally before it becomes sin externally. But how do we definitively know that the presence of lust on the inside of man is sin even though he does not act on such desires externally? In Matthew 5, Jesus taught, saying, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (vv. 27-28). Here, Jesus teaches that committing adultery in the heart is possible without ever committing adultery with one’s body. Matthew 5:28 alone shows the foolishness of the Roman Catholic view of concupiscence. Christ’s words in this passage also affirm Renihan’s counsel to put sin to death upon its first motions. What Jesus, Dickson, Renihan, and the Confessions teach the modern believer is that you cannot wait to fight sin until you are already sinning in your body. The war over your holiness begins internally, where sin attempts to take a foothold.

Proper Identification Leads to Biblical Action

Imagine that while eating dinner with your spouse and young children one evening, an armed serial burglar walks into your home. Would you wait to remove him until he started stealing or stabbing? Would you tell yourself, “It’s okay if he is here inside our home because he is not actually causing any harm. I’ll wait to oppose him until he does.” Giving residence to sin upon its first motions is like harboring a criminal that means to kill you. The first motions of sin are harmful because they are consuming your thoughts and stirring your affections, each of which ought to be upon Christ and holy matters, not lust and its objects.

Benefits and Blessings

What is the benefit of embracing Christ’s perspective of the doctrine of first motions? If you classify the first motions of sin as actual sin, you will place yourself in the proper posture for battling against that which is trying to kill you, namely indwelling sin. Such a posture produces righteous obedience, mortifies sin, and pleases God, begetting His blessing through bringing Him glory. Praise be to the God who gives transforming grace and forgiving grace at the very first motion of sin.

^[1] For more on the nature of desirous voluntarily and involuntary sin, see Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992), 1:591-593. Available in PDF format for free online.

^[2] David Dickson, Truth’s Victory Over Error (Kilmarnock, 1687), 56.

^[3] Dickson, Truth’s Victory Over Error, 56.

^[4] James Renihan, To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: An Exposition of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2022), 185.

^[5] John Owen, Indwelling Sin in Believers, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2010), 169.

Introduction

I grew up in a Christian home where the Bible was read often, and few books captured my imagination like the book of Revelation. Its pages are filled with vivid and unforgettable images: demonic frogs emerging from the mouth of a dragon, a terrifying beast rising from the land, a monstrous creature coming out of the sea, stars falling from heaven, and a glorious King clothed in splendor, riding forth on a white horse to conquer His enemies. What young boy would not be captivated by such a story?

As I grew older, however, I was taught to read Revelation through a particular lens. I was told that it was primarily a book about the distant future; a prophetic roadmap of world events immediately preceding the return of Christ. According to this view, the world would grow progressively darker and more wicked until Christ came to rescue His church from the earth. After the church was removed, God would pour out unimaginable judgments upon the world during a period of unprecedented tribulation. Then Christ would return once more to establish a thousand-year reign from Jerusalem before finally judging the wicked and ushering His people into the eternal state.

This interpretive approach is commonly referred to as futurism, particularly in its dispensational form. In the circles in which I was raised, it was not merely presented as one possible interpretation; it was assumed to be the interpretation. Alternative readings were rarely discussed, and not considered.

Yet the more carefully I studied Revelation, the more questions arose. Certain passages seemed forced into a system that did not naturally fit them. The book appeared confusing, not because John was unclear, but because I was reading him through the wrong lens. It was as though I had been given a pair of distorted glasses. No matter how carefully I looked at the text, its contours remained blurred. The problem was not the book itself. The problem was the interpretive framework I had brought to it.

Over time, I came to realize that Christians have approached Revelation through several different hermeneutical systems, each offering a distinct way of understanding John’s visions. In this article, we will examine the most influential approaches to interpreting Revelation, and seek to determine which lens best enables us to read the book as its original author intended and as its original audience would have understood it.

Four Interpretive Lenses

Christians have approached the book of Revelation through four primary interpretive frameworks. These frameworks, as I said above, function like lenses through which readers attempt to understand John’s vision. While each approach affirms the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture, they differ significantly in how they understand the timing and fulfillment of Revelation’s prophecies.

The four major interpretive systems are the Historicist, Idealist, Futurist, and Preterist approaches. Each offers a distinct answer to a fundamental question: To what events is Revelation referring? Is John describing the course of church history (Historcist)? Timeless spiritual realities (Idealist)? Events still future to us (Futurist) ? Or events that were near to his own first-century audience (Preterist)?

In some respects, these interpretive systems can overlap with one another. While the Historicist position is distinct enough to deserve its own category, it nevertheless shares an important feature with Futurism: both understand much of Revelation’s prophecy as referring to events that were still in the distant future from the perspective of John’s original audience.

The Historicist approach views Revelation as a symbolic forecast of the entire course of church history, stretching from the first century until the Second Coming of Christ. Rather than concentrating the fulfillment of Revelation in the distant end of history, Historicists see the book unfolding progressively throughout the centuries.

For example, many Historicist interpreters have understood the six seals of Revelation chapter 6 as depicting the decline and eventual collapse of the Roman Empire, followed by the rise of Christianity under Emperor Constantine. Likewise, during the Reformation era, it became common for Historicists to identify the the beast with the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church. Other symbols in Revelation were similarly connected to major events, movements, and institutions throughout church history.

In this sense, Historicism is partially futurist. Although Historicists differ from modern Futurists regarding which future events are being predicted, they agree that many of Revelation’s prophecies were not fulfilled in the lifetime of John or his original readers. Instead, they point to events that occurred centuries, and sometimes more than a millennium, after the book was written. The fulfillment of Revelation according to the Historicist, therefore, is distributed across the long span of church history rather than concentrated in either the first century or a future that has not yet accured.

The Preterist approach can sometimes sound similar to the Idealist approach, particularly when it comes to application. The Idealist generally does not attach Revelation’s symbols to specific historical events. Instead, it views the book as a symbolic portrayal of timeless spiritual realities: the ongoing conflict between Christ and Satan, the Church and the world, faithfulness and apostasy, good and evil etc.

The Preterist position, however, is rooted in real history. The term Preterist comes from the Latin word praeter, meaning “past” or “beyond,” and as the name suggests, it understands much of Revelation to refer to events that were future to John’s readers but are now past to us, especially those surrounding the first-century Church and God’s judgment upon Jerusalem and apostate Israel. Yet this historical emphasis does not mean that the book has relevance only for the first century. On the contrary, Preterists maintain that these historical events reveal enduring theological truths that continue to instruct, encourage, and warn Christians in every age.

So the Idealist tends to move directly from the symbol to the timeless principle, often bypassing any specific historical fulfillment. The Preterist, by contrast, moves from the historical fulfillment to the timeless principle. The events described in Revelation were real events that occurred in history, but they were also divinely orchestrated patterns that reveal how God governs His world, judges His enemies, vindicates His people, and advances His kingdom throughout history.

Thus, while the Preterist and the Idealist may often arrive at similar applications, they take very different roads to get there. The Idealist begins with timeless truths; the Preterist begins with historical realities and then draws out the timeless truths embedded within them.

The Right Lens

Now that we have surveyed the major interpretive lenses through which Christians have read Revelation, we are in a position to evaluate them. Having considered the various pairs of glasses available to us, the question remains: Which lens brings the text into the clearest focus?

In what follows, I will argue that the Preterist approach provides the most natural, coherent, and biblically faithful way of reading John’s Revelation. My purpose is not only to assert that Preterism is correct, but to demonstrate why it best accounts for the book’s own claims, historical setting, and intended audience.

A Necessary Qualification

Before proceeding, a brief clarification is in order. I have used the term Preterism, and while it is a useful and historically recognized term, it often carries baggage that can lead to misunderstanding. Many Christians have encountered a view known as Full Preterism (sometimes called Hyper-Preterism) and assume that all forms of Preterism teach the same thing. They do not.

Full Preterism teaches that every biblical prophecy has already been fulfilled, including the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment. According to this view, there are no major prophetic events still awaiting fulfillment. Because this position denies doctrines that have been universally confessed by the historic Christian Church, it falls outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. The Church has always affirmed that Christ will return bodily and visibly, that the dead will be raised, that all mankind will stand before God’s judgment seat, and that God will usher His people into the eternal state.

The position being defended in this article is not full, or hyper Preterism. When I speak of Preterism, I am referring to what is commonly called Partial Preterism. Partial Preterists believe that many of the prophecies contained in the Bible, and particularly the judgments described throughout the book of Revelation, were fulfilled in the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. At the same time, Partial Preterists affirm the historic Christian hope that certain events remain future to us. Christ has not yet returned. The dead have not yet been raised. The final judgment has not yet occurred. The new heavens and new earth have not yet arrived in their fullness.

In other words, Partial Preterism is “preterist” with respect to many of Revelation’s prophecies, but thoroughly orthodox with respect to the foundational doctrines confessed in the ancient creeds of the Church. It seeks to interpret Revelation faithfully without surrendering any of the future hopes that Christians have rightly embraced for two thousand years.

As we proceed, therefore, the reader should understand that the term Preterism in this article refers exclusively to Partial Preterism, not to the hyper-preterist system that places itself outside the mainstream of historic Christian orthodoxy.

A Process of Elimination

I will save a more robust and positive case for preterism for another article. Sometimes the clearest way to identify the correct path is to eliminate the paths that cannot be right. As we examine Revelation on its own terms, I believe we will find that the book itself creates significant difficulties for the other interpretive systems. To simplify the discussion, we can reduce the four major approaches to two broad alternatives standing in contrast to Preterism.

First, we can group the Historicist and Futurist approaches together under what might be called the Distant Future Lens. Although Historicists and Futurists disagree about the details, they share a fundamental assumption: the primary fulfillment of Revelation lies far beyond the lifetime of John’s original audience. The Historicist sees the prophecies unfolding gradually throughout the centuries of church history, while the Futurist places most of them immediately before the Second Coming. Yet both approaches locate the fulfillment of John’s visions in events that were still many generations away from the first-century churches who originally received the book.

Second, we have the Idealist approach, which may be described as the Non-Historical Lens. Rather than connecting Revelation’s symbols to specific historical events, the Idealist understands them primarily as representations of timeless spiritual realities. The focus is not on when the events occur, but on the enduring truths they communicate concerning the conflict between Christ and Satan, the perseverance of the saints, the judgment of the wicked, and the ultimate triumph of God’s kingdom.

This leaves us with three basic options. Revelation is either describing events far removed from its original audience, timeless principles detached from specific historical fulfillment, or events that were near to the first-century churches to whom John wrote. As we shall see, the opening verses of Revelation itself strongly point us in one of these directions.

Revelation 1:1–3

If we want to understand Revelation correctly, we must begin where John begins. Before attempting to decode beasts, trumpets, bowls, or the number of the beast, we should first ask a much simpler question: What does the book itself tell us about how it is to be read? The opening three verses provide the interpretive framework for everything that follows.

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near. - (Rev. 1:1–3)

Several observations immediately stand out. First, John identifies the audience. This revelation was given by God to Jesus Christ, who entrusted it to John so that it could be communicated to “His servants.” Who are these servants? The immediate context leaves little room for speculation. John is writing to the seven churches of Asia Minor (Rev. 1:4); real congregations composed of real Christians facing real persecution in the first century. They were the first recipients of this prophecy, and they were expected to hear it, understand it, and obey it.

Second, John tells us the literary style of the book. Verse 1 says that Christ “made it known” to John. The Greek verb translated made it known is σημαίνω (sēmainō), which literally means to signify, to communicate by signs, or to make known through symbols. John is telling his readers from the very beginning that the revelation will be conveyed through signs and symbolic imagery.

This should not surprise us. Throughout Scripture, God frequently communicates prophetic revelation through symbolic visions. The books of Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and portions of Isaiah all employ vivid imagery to portray historical realities and theological truths. Revelation belongs to this same prophetic tradition. Its dragons, beasts, lampstands, stars, horns, and heavenly visions are not intended to be interpreted with a wooden literalism but according to the symbolic language of biblical prophecy.

Share Reformed & Confessional

This does not mean the events themselves are unreal. Rather, it means that real historical events are described through symbolic imagery. The symbols are not the reality; they point to the reality. John’s opening statement prepares us to read Revelation as an inspired apocalypse, a book rich in signs, symbols, and Old Testament imagery, not as a newspaper predicting future headlines in strictly literal language.

Third, John establishes the time frame. The revelation was given to show God’s servants “the things that must soon take place.” The language is remarkably straightforward. John does not say these events would begin thousands of years later. He says they must soon take place. Lest anyone miss the point, John repeats it at the end of verse 3: “the time is near.” The book opens with two unmistakable temporal indicators, both emphasizing the nearness of the events being revealed. These statements are not incidental remarks; they are part of the inspired introduction and establish the time frame before a single seal is broken or a single trumpet is sounded.

This presents a serious challenge to both the Historicist and Futurist approaches. If the primary fulfillment of Revelation did not begin until centuries, or even millennia after John wrote, in what meaningful sense could the events be described as “soon” or “near” to the people who first received the letter? Language has meaning. The ordinary reader would naturally understand these expressions to refer to events approaching in the lifetime of the original audience.

The Preterist simply takes John’s words seriously. Revelation was written to first-century churches about events that were rapidly approaching them. This does not require us to believe that every prophecy in Scripture was fulfilled in the first century. It simply recognizes the book’s own stated context, audience, literary form, and time indicators.

This also explains why Revelation begins with a blessing: “Blessed is the one who reads... and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it.” A prophecy whose fulfillment lay two thousand years in the future would have had little immediate relevance to the seven churches of Asia. But a prophecy concerning events that were about to unfold in their own generation would have strengthened their faith, steadied their resolve, and equipped them to endure until Christ vindicated His people.

There is also a significant challenge to the Idealist approach. The Idealist rightly recognizes that Revelation is a highly symbolic book. Indeed, the use of the verb σημαίνω (sēmainō) confirms that John communicates through signs and symbols. In that respect, the Idealist is correct to reject a crude literalism.

However, the Idealist often goes a step too far. Instead of seeing the symbols as pointing to concrete historical events, it tends to treat them primarily as illustrations of timeless spiritual realities. But John’s introduction does not allow us to sever the symbols from history.

Notice how verse 1 joins together the symbolic and the historical. John says Christ “signified” (ἐσήμανεν) the revelation through signs, but those signs reveal “the things that must soon take place.” The symbols are symbolic, but the events they symbolize are real. Signs, by their very nature, point beyond themselves. They do not exist for their own sake; they signify historical realities that God was about to bring to pass.

This pattern is consistent throughout Scripture. Joseph’s dreams symbolized actual historical events (Gen. 37). Daniel’s four beasts symbolized real kingdoms that would arise in history (Dan. 7). Zechariah’s visions pointed to God’s real dealings with Israel and the nations. In every case, the imagery is symbolic, but the fulfillment is historical. Revelation stands squarely within that same prophetic tradition.

Furthermore, John’s repeated emphasis that these things would happen “soon” and that “the time is near” becomes difficult to explain if the book is primarily about timeless truths rather than impending events. Timeless truths are always true. They are not “near” in one century and “far” in another. Nearness is a temporal category. It naturally refers to historical events that are approaching.

This is not to deny that Revelation contains timeless applications. It most certainly does. God’s people in every generation can learn from the faithfulness of the martyrs, the judgment of the wicked, the sovereignty of Christ, and the certainty of His victory. But those enduring lessons arise because God acted in history, not instead of history.

To put it differently, the symbols of Revelation are not abstract illustrations detached from real events. They are symbolic portrayals of God’s mighty acts in history. The Preterist therefore agrees with the Idealist that Revelation is rich with symbolism, yet insists that those symbols refer first to historical realities experienced by John’s original audience. Only after establishing that historical meaning should we draw the timeless theological principles that continue to strengthen the Church today.

This is the consistent pattern of biblical interpretation: history first, application second; historical meaning first, timeless significance second. Only when we understand what God was saying to the original recipients can we faithfully understand what He is saying to us.

Conclusion

Every interpreter of Revelation must answer a simple question. Will we allow the opening verses of the book to establish its audience, literary style, and time frame, or will we import those assumptions from somewhere else? Before we interpret a single beast trumpet, or bowl, we should first allow John to tell us how his prophecy is meant to be read. Once we do, I believe the Preterist framework is no longer just a plausible option, it becomes the most natural reading of the text itself.

Few questions press closer to the nerve of biblical confidence than the question of the text itself. For centuries, Christians have confessed that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16). Yet alongside that conviction lies another: that God, in His providence, has also preserved, in His Church, what He has inspired. How He has done so — and through which textual tradition this preservation is most clearly seen — remains a matter of ongoing discussion within the church.

At the center of this discussion stand two primary streams of Greek manuscripts: the Byzantine and the Alexandrian. Each tradition/strand represents not only a collection of ancient documents, but also a way of understanding how God has worked through history and through the church to preserve His Word.

This is not a debate limited to ivory-tower academics alone, although it does take place there. For pastors, translators, and believers who open their Bibles each morning to commune with the one true and living God, it raises a practical question: When I read the Scriptures, am I reading the very words penned by men moved about by the Holy Spirit—the apostles?

Subscribe now

Overview of The Alexandrian Tradition

The Alexandrian text finds its roots in Egypt, particularly in the scholarly city of Alexandria. Among its chief representatives are two manuscripts of great antiquity: Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (א), both dating from the fourth century. Because of their age, these manuscripts have carried immense weight in the modern field of textual criticism, shaping what we now call the Critical Text — the basis of most modern English translations such as the ESV, NIV, and NASB.

Advocates of this tradition reason that the earlier a manuscript was written, the closer it likely stands to the original writings, and the less corruption and error it contains. The Alexandrian text is typically shorter, crisper, and sometimes more abrupt in language. Its defenders see this as evidence of authenticity — a text unembellished by later scribes.

Critics, however, observe that age does not necessarily equal faithfulness. Some point out that these manuscripts, though ancient, were found in regions where the Scriptures may have been less widely used in public worship and more prone to private copying. The very fact that they survived could indicate they were not used as much, making their lack of use due to less trust placed in them.

Nevertheless, the Alexandrian manuscripts are a remarkable witness to the early church’s Scriptures, and their preservation through time is itself a testimony to providence.

Share

Overview of The Byzantine Tradition

The Byzantine text, also known as the Majority Text or Traditional Text, represents the textual heritage of the Greek-speaking church centered in Byzantium (Constantinople). This family of manuscripts became the dominant form of the New Testament in the Christian East, and, by the Middle Ages, it was the dominant form in most of Christendom.

Unlike the Alexandrian family, the Byzantine tradition is supported by thousands of manuscripts — more than any other textual group. Because of this numerical majority (hence the title “majority text”), it has been regarded by many as the providentially preserved text of the church. This is the form of the Greek New Testament that undergirds the Textus Receptus, which was the text used by the Reformers and reflected in the King James Version and New King James Version.

The Byzantine text tends to read more smoothly and fully. Phrases such as “by every word of God” (Luke 4:4) or “through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:11) appear consistently, even when omitted in Alexandrian manuscripts. Some scholars who favor the critical text see this as evidence of scribal expansion; other scholars view it as the faithful preservation of the original fullness of the text.

Two Views of Providence

Beneath the surface of the textual evidence, however, lie deeper theological assumptions — not simply about manuscripts, but about how God preserves His Word.

The modern critical approach (beginning in the 16th century), associated with the Alexandrian text, operates from the conviction that through careful comparison of manuscripts, scholars can reconstruct the most original text. This approach assumes that no single textual tradition has been perfectly preserved, but that the earliest and best readings must be sifted from a variety of sources. It is, in a sense, a work of restoration — attempting to piece together a text that once was whole, but has since suffered the wear of transmission.

The Byzantine perspective, on the other hand, views the matter through the lens of divine preservation within the life of the church. Rather than needing to be restored by modern scholars and scholarship, the text of Scripture is believed to have been preserved through continual use. Through preaching, copying, memorizing, and public reading in the worship of God’s people, the text has been faithfully carried through the ages. Here, providence is not seen as something hidden underground or in caves, but as the active work of God the visible history of the church through the recognition of his Spirit indwelled people.

Both perspectives, in their best forms, do certainly arise from a reverence for the Word of God. The question is not whether God has preserved His Word, but more so how He has done so.

Leave a comment

The Fruit of Each Tradition

The Critical Text has given rise to many modern translations that seek accuracy through rigorous manuscript comparison. On the other hand, the Byzantine tradition has given the church centuries of liturgical and pastoral continuity. It is the text from which the Reformation Bibles arose, the text preached in Geneva, Wittenberg, and Edinburgh. Its fruit has been stability — the assurance of a received and trusted Word.

Both have strengths; both reflect different ways of understanding how the Lord has governed the transmission of His word..

Toward an Honest and Faithful Inquiry

Perhaps the question is not merely which text is older or which is more numerous, but how God intended His church to receive His Word. Did he intend to preserve it primarily through scholarly reconstruction, allowing it to fall into subtle corruption over time? Or has he seen fit to preserve it through the organic use of His church over the course of several hundreds of years?

I don’t believe it is necessary that the thoughtful Christian rush to answer this quesiton. The issue is complex, involving history, theology, and even devotion. But what we must affirm with certainty is that God has not left His Word uncertain. Both traditions testify with remarkable unity to the message of redemption in Christ, without ambiguity. The differences, though real, are minor in comparison to the overwhelming agreement among the manuscripts.

The church’s task, then, is not to despair at the existence of variants, but to give thanks that in the midst of human weakness, God’s truth endures, and will continue to endure till the end of time.

“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”
— Isaiah 40:8

Conclusion: A Humble Confidence

This article is an attempt to put my own thoughts down so that I may think through the issues, and it just so happens that I’m bringing you along with me. It may be that the Lord, in His wisdom, has allowed both the Alexandrian and Byzantine traditions to survive so that His people might learn humility — that we might labor to know the text, but also rest in His preservation. It might be that these two traditions exist as a way to get even closer to the truth than would otherwise be possible.

Whether one reads from a Byzantine-based translation or a Critical Text edition, the same Christ speaks, the same gospel saves, and the same Spirit illumines. Still, for those who love the Word deeply, the question remains and is worthy of patient study.

How has God preserved His Word? Through the widespread, time-tested text of the believing church? Through the ancient, carefully reconstructed readings of early witnesses? Or, perhaps, through both in different ways, each testifying to His faithfulness?

We may not yet have all the answers (although I am certain in time I will be compelled one way or the other). But, regardless, we can trust the God who does.

“Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.”
— Psalm 119:89

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Introduction

Statistics show that about 60-90% of children diagnosed with Down syndrome are murdered via abortion. Undoubtedly, couples who receive counsel to abort a child because of Down syndrome possess a unique struggle, but also, they possess a unique opportunity to glorify God in affliction. These couples stand in need of a rock solid doctrinal position that will motivate obedience to God throughout the pregnancy and the child’s life, despite receiving wicked counsel to abort the baby under the guise of “options.” The theological bedrock for these parents exists within the doctrine of the Image of God which helps inform, encourage, and motivate the decision to protect the life of the baby who may have Down syndrome.

Share Reformed & Confessional

The Image of God

The book of Genesis teaches that “God created man in His own image” (Gen. 1:27; cf. Gen. 5:1).[1] The terms “image” and “likeness” in Genesis show that mankind is “patterned after God.”[2] This doctrine affirms man’s “intellectual power, natural affections, and moral freedom.”[3] It displays the dignity and worth of all human beings because they exist to reflect their Creator. Dutch Reformed Theologian Herman Bavinck goes so far as to say that “a human being does not bear or have the image of God but that he or she is the image of God.”[4] Therefore, any attack on human life is an attack on the image of God, including abortion.

Connecting the doctrine of the Image of God with the sanctity of life begins with a brief anthropological review. God made humans with an inner man and an outer man. (2 Cor. 4:16). The outer man is biological; it is the part of a person you can see whether with the unaided eye or medical imaging. “Down syndrome is a condition in which a person is born with an extra copy of chromosome 21.”[5] Down syndrome is an outer man issue. These types of diseases and defects occur because of the sin of Adam; however, Louis Berkhof notes that the image of God “still remains in man even after his fall in sin.”[6] Genesis 9:6, 1 Corinthians 11:7, and James 3:9, all points in history occurring after the Fall, testify to this truth. Therefore, the baby with Down syndrome still possesses the image of God despite outer man defects like intellectual disability, a characteristic facial appearance, and weak muscle tone in infancy.[7]

The inner man is every other part of the individual that is not the outer man, including the baby’s thoughts, affections, desires, emotions, intentions, will, and motives. Therefore, since a soul is present at conception, the baby in the mother’s womb possesses a spirit that the Lord can save, counsel, comfort, lead, guide, and direct regardless of what occurs in their outer man. In his discussion on the image of God, Berkhof highlights this fact, saying, “The soul is united with and adapted to a body, but can, if need be, also exist without the body. In view of this we can speak of man as a spiritual being, and as also in that respect the image of God.”[8] None of this discounts the child’s body as made in the image of God but highlights that to abort a child because of an outer man defect is to completely disregard their soul which is: 1) present at conception, and 2) also made in the image of God. These facts should encourage and comfort the parents as they weigh the prospect of raising this child for the rest of their lives.

Share

Moreover, the baby made in the image of God possesses God-given life (Psalm 139:13-16; Luke 1:39-45; 2:12-16). In the sixth commandment, God says, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). Therefore, abortion must be firmly rejected as a God-honoring way to preserve the image of God and protect the sanctity of life.

Lastly, this couple will need practical encouragement from God’s word and God’s people. Their parenting challenges will be difficult at times but God promises to comfort them in affliction, help them in weakness, and reward them for obedience (2 Cor. 1:3-5; 2 Cor. 12:7-10; Rev. 19:6-9). Additionally, the pastors and parishioners of the local church will standby these families to help support them in practical matters like cleaning, cooking, educating, and paying medical bills, as applicable.

Conclusion

The doctrine of the Image of God in man helps inform and encourage couples to protect the lives of their children who suffer from medical issues in the womb. These children image God in their inner and outer person regardless of the effects of sin on them bodily or spiritually. The church must assist these families by instructing them in sound doctrine and by providing practical service, always pointing them to the day in glory when defects like Down syndrome will not be a part of the New Creation because of the completed work of Christ on behalf of God’s people (Rev. 21:3-4).

Sola Gratia.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Footnotes:

[1] Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references in this paper are to the New American Standard Bible, 1995 Text (NASB95) (La Habra: Zondervan, 2020).

[2] John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 410.

[3] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1976), 204.

[4] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Acadmic, 2004), 554.

[5] National Institutes of Health, “About Down Syndrome,” nhi.gov, June 20, 2018, https://www.nih.gov/include-project/about-down-syndrome.

[6] Berkhof, 204.

[7] National Institutes of Health, “About Down Syndrome,” nhi.gov, June 20, 2018, https://www.nih.gov/include-project/about-down-syndrome.

[8] Berkhof, 204.

New Birth Leading to Eternal Life

John’s emphasis on the new birth is helpful for the church to keep her kingdom focus today. In John 1, he writes, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). In Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, John records our Lord’s words, saying, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). A dozen verses later, Jesus says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16). These few verses discuss a new birth, initiated by the will of God through belief in the Messiah, leading to eternal life. New birth leading to eternal life is an emphasis that John carries throughout his Gospel, and one that the church ought to carry throughout her kingdom-expanding ministry today.

The Woman at the Well

John continues this theme in his fourth chapter as he depicts Jesus’ conversation with a lady we often call “The Woman at the Well.” In John 4:20, we read her theological persuasions as follows, “Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” She believes, or at least her kin believe, that geographical location is a defining factor in what is true and right worship.

There are several comparisons or dichotomies within this discussion, but two that tend to get the most attention are: 1) Jews vs. Samaritans, and 2) Jerusalem vs. Mt. Gerizim. Jesus, however, emphasizes a different, more eternally significant contrast, saying, “But an hour is coming, and not is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers” (John 4:23). Jesus is less concerned about the difference in a Jew and a Samaritan but rather the contrast between true worshipers and false worshipers. Jesus recognizes a difference in “you” and “we” in the text (Samaritans and Jews), but in the kingdom of God, such differences do not dictate who is on what side of good and evil. No, John’s composition makes it clear that the defining line in the kingdom is the new birth, and here is how we know.

Share Reformed & Confessional

Belief and Eternal Life

Remember John 1:12? It says, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name” (emphasis added). Note the word “believe” in this verse and follow me to the events immediately following Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well in John 4. John writes, “From that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified . . . Many more believed because of His word” (John 4:39, 41). True to John’s theme of new birth leading to eternal life, Jesus told the woman at the well, “whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life” (John 4:14). In John 4, Jesus draws from the well of himself and, by the will of God through belief in the Messiah, distributes the new birth leading to eternal life sumptuously to many Samaritans.

Application For Today

We are a reformed people not because of our physical birth— “who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God”— but because of a spiritual birth that Jesus calls being “born again” (John 1:12; 3:3; cf. Jer. 31:3-34; Heb. 8). Whether a person is born a Jew or a Gentile is inconsequential to their eternal soul’s destiny, for “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). Therefore, today’s church must focus less on one’s physical birth, the skin pigment and nationality that accompany it, and focus the waning hours of our lives on their impending rebirth into the kingdom of God where everyone looks like Christ. No, I am not advocating practices like “reverse-racism” or suggesting that we stop opposing them. But I am reminding Christ’s bride not to lose her focus despite what the world says about being white, black, Jewish, or Gentile. We must emulate the method of Jesus in John 4 and echo the message of God, who “is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30).

Share

Introduction

American Christians rightly howl at the devastation of no-fault divorce. We see the wreckage it leaves behind: fractured families, covenantal amnesia, and the normalization of abandonment dressed up as “self-care.” We understand, at least in theory, that marriage is not a consumer contract but a covenant sealed before God. And yet, with a straight face and a clear conscience, many of these same Christians practice what can only be called no-fault church separation. We denounce no-fault divorce on Sunday and then quietly commit its ecclesiastical cousin on Monday.

In civil society, no-fault divorce means a marriage can be dissolved for “irreconcilable differences,” dissatisfaction, or loss of personal fulfillment, no adultery required, no abuse alleged, no covenantal treachery proven. Preferences become grounds. Feelings become judges. Commitment becomes optional.

Share

In the church, we have baptized this same logic. Believers leave congregations over sermon length, music style, children’s programs, interpersonal awkwardness, parking convenience, or the vague complaint that they are “not being fed.” The coffee is weak. The pastor is dull. The people are irritating. And so, Bibles packed, vows forgotten, we move on. This is not faithfulness. It is spiritual consumerism, and it treats the bride of Christ like a subscription service.

Covenant Means You Don’t Get to Leave When It Gets Annoying

Scripture does not allow us to imagine covenantal relationships as disposable. Marriage, after all, is the great earthly icon of Christ’s unbreakable union with His Church (Eph. 5:31–32). God says plainly, “I hate divorce” (Mal. 2:16), not because every marriage is easy, but because covenant-breaking is violent. Jesus tightens the screws in Matthew 19: what God joins together, man is not authorized to casually dismantle. Divorce is permitted only in cases of objective covenantal rupture; sexual immorality, and as Paul later adds, abandonment by an unbeliever (1 Cor. 7). Not boredom. Not dissatisfaction. Not “we grew apart.” That logic matters, because marriage is not the only covenantal bond God takes seriously.

The New Testament does not envision the church as a loose association of religious shoppers drifting between spiritual vendors. The church is a body (1 Cor. 12), a household (Eph. 2:19), a holy temple (Eph. 2:21), a bride (Rev. 21:9). These pictures are communicating the sacredness of the church, and binding yourself in a Covenant with her.

The Westminster Confession of Faith does not treat the church as a voluntary association of like-minded individuals. It calls the visible church “the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” (WCF 25.2). That is not the language of casual attendance, but of belonging, obligation, and endurance.

Westminster again presses the point. The saints are bound, it says, “to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification” (WCF 26.2). That fellowship is not contingent on personal enjoyment. It is a duty, not a hobby.

You don’t amputate a foot because it’s awkward. You don’t abandon a family because dinner was unpleasant, or a certain rule was not to your liking. And yet Christians do this every week.

“Bearing With One Another” Is Not Optional Christianity

Paul does not command believers to “enjoy one another when it’s convenient.” He commands us to bear with one another in love (Eph. 4:2). That phrase assumes weight. It assumes friction. It assumes sinners in close proximity. Unity is not maintained by shared tastes but by shared obedience. Calvin comments on this passage that believers must endure “many offenses, many infirmities, many roughnesses” in one another, because unity is preserved by humility and patience.

Subscribe now

Colossians 3:13 is blunt: “Bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do.” Notice the assumption: complaints will exist. The response is not departure, but forgiveness.

Peter presses it further: “Above all things have fervent love for one another, for love will cover a multitude of sins” (1 Pet. 4:8). Not cover apostasy. Not cover wolves. But cover the daily irritations that arise when real people live real lives together.

The modern evangelical instinct is to flee discomfort rather than crucify preferences. We treat the church like a hotel, not a home. If the service is poor, we check out. But Scripture knows nothing of preference-driven ecclesiology.

When Leaving Is Right, and When It Is Sinful

To say all this is not to deny that leaving a church can sometimes be necessary. Scripture deals with the reality of sin. Westminster allows that visible churches may become “more or less pure,” and some so corrupt as to become “synagogues of Satan” (WCF 25.4). In such cases, departure is not schism. It is fidelity to Christ. Separation is warranted in cases of objective covenantal breach, not subjective dissatisfaction:

• Doctrinal apostasy (Gal. 1:6–9; 2 John 9–11)

• Unrepentant, scandalous sin tolerated by the church (1 Cor. 5)

• Corrupt or abusive leadership that refuses correction (1 Tim. 5:19–20; Rev. 2–3)

Even then, the biblical pattern is confrontation, patience, repentance, and restoration, not impulsive flight (Matt. 18; Gal. 6:1). What Scripture never authorizes is quiet disappearance because “it just wasn’t a good fit.” That language belongs to sinners on dating apps, not the kingdom of God.

The Damage of No-Fault Church Leaving

Just as casual divorce trains children to expect abandonment, casual church leaving catechizes believers in disloyalty. It fractures communities, demoralizes pastors, destabilizes discipline, and teaches younger Christians that vows are temporary and commitment is negotiable. Samuel Rutherford warned that separation from the church over non-essentials was “the mother of confusion and the grave of unity” (A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbytery in Scotland. 1642). The modern church-hopping impulse proves him right.

Worst of all, it lies about Christ. Jesus does not abandon His bride when she is difficult. He sanctifies her. He washes her. He remains faithful when she is weak. And then we, His people, turn around and treat His body as disposable when it becomes inconvenient. This ought not to be.

Leave a comment

A Call to Faithful Membership

Church membership is not about finding the perfect church. It is about being a faithful Christian in an imperfect but faithful one. If you have vowed yourself to a local body, then stay. Pray. Repent. Forgive. Serve. Submit. Speak truth. Bear burdens. Endure irritation. Grow in love. And if you must leave, let it be for reasons weighty enough to stand before Christ on the Last Day.

The church is not a product. She is a people.

Not a service provider. A covenant family.

Not a preference center. A cruciform body.

No-fault divorce hollowed out marriage. No-fault church membership hollows out the church. The Reformed faith demands better. Christ deserves better. And His bride is worth it.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Introduction

There is a question that tends to float around sometimes taking different forms or possessing subtle nuances or variations. But, the question is not a new one, in fact, it is as old as time. The question is, where does sin come from? Whether we’re talking about Satan’s first sinful impulse, Adam’s initial sinful urge, or Christ’s sinlessness, this question is a pressing one. In times past this question was framed in different ways. “How do we inherit sin?” or sometimes even, “why or how was Jesus sinless?” But in recent times the question has been framed around genetics. Is sin genetic? Said another way, are we genetically predisposed to certain sins? This is the question this article seeks to address.

As of late in the reformed world, this subject has jumped to the foreground and is (for better or worse) a big deal right now, and since it’s a big deal, pastors ought to have answers. With all the discussion around ethno-centrism, ethno-nationalism, nationalism, Kinism, Christian Nationalism, the role of natural theology, et al, the question of genetic involvement is fundamental and has become a foundational component of these debates, even if some (regardless of side) aren’t quite aware of it yet.

Now, this article is not intended to discuss the various issues listed above, at least not in any comprehensive manner, but let the reader understand, that they are in the background of this question and are points that need to be dealt with. However, it would be far too simplistic and even irresponsible to make a passing remark. So, those will wait for another article. But suffice it to say, to get at the heart of those issues, I believe we must start at the base; at the fundamental building blocks of the matter – so, let’s start with the smallest block, our genetics.

Our Genetics

Let’s start with some background on genetics. Technically speaking, genetics is a field of scientific study[1] and inquiry into “heredity [which is] the process of a parent passing certain genes to their children.”[2] To put it another way, genetics is a “term that refers to the study of genes and their roles in inheritance . . . [it is] the way that certain traits or conditions are passed down from one generation to another.”[3] Genes, which are units of heredity, carry instructions for protein creation, which in turn tells cells what to do, ultimately giving function to the body.[4] Your genes, in other words, make you what you are as it relates to your traits and/or conditions – all of which come from your parents.

One important aspect of genetics, as it pertains to this conversation, is the realm in which genetics affect the human being – to what extent do they determine what (or who) we are. Our genes affect our physical being, our bodies, our outer man (to put a biblical label to it), like our height, hair color, skin color, eye color, natural talents and abilities, even abnormal traits like color blindness, skin patches, the diseases we’re susceptible to, or even our cognitive abilities via our brain. When we consider genetics the only realm in which they exist is the physical – they do not, and cannot, exist in the immaterial, for the simple fact that they are tangible.

Human beings have 46 Chromosomes, and we all get 23 from each of our parents – 23 from mom and 23 from dad. “These consist of 2 chromosomes that determine what sex [we] are (X and Y chromosomes), and 22 pairs of nonsex (autosomal) chromosomes. Males are “46, XY” and females are “46, XX.”[5] In each pair of chromosomes, a person has one from mom and the other from dad, and these chromosomes carry effectively the same information - the same genes. At times there may be slight variations, but this occurs in less than 1% of the DNA sequence.[6] These variations may lead to genes not working properly which can amount to nothing, or it can produce an adverse dominant hereditary condition – a disease.

How Genetics Change

So, do genetics change? This is a pivotal question to answer, because if they change, then certainly they do (or may) play into our sinful tendencies. Well, the answer is yes, they do/can change, but it is a very qualified yes. Can someone born with “46, XY” chromosomes and wake up one day with “46, XX.” Chromosomes? Can a five-toed kid go to sleep and wake up with a 6th toe mutation overnight? Certainly not. Clearly, there are some things, genetically speaking, that absolutely do not change – never can and never will. But is that true for everything? No. No, it’s not.

According to the CDC, “A genetic change (sometimes called a mutation, gene variant, or genetic variant) is a change in a DNA base sequence.”[7] These are generally the types that are passed from parent to child – they occur in the germ cells which come from mom’s egg and dad’s sperm. However, what about genetic changes that occur after mom and dad have conceived a baby? Can changes occur then? Well, the answer to that question is also yes.

Our genes express themselves in various sorts of ways and this is called Gene Expression. This is “the process of making proteins using the instructions from genes”[8] and yet these genes are not always active, or “turned on” so to speak. This gene expression is what allows different parts of the body to function as they ought. The way these genes become active or inactive is through a process called DNA methylation. “DNA methylation works by adding a chemical (known as a methyl group) to DNA. This chemical can also be removed from the DNA through a process called demethylation. Typically, methylation turns genes “off” and demethylation turns genes “on.”[9]

DNA methylation is responsible for our gene expression from the moment of our conception to the moment of our death. Sometimes this gene expression is simply because we have different body parts that function differently. “For example, gene expression in the muscles is different from gene expression in the nerves.”[10] This kind cannot change. This gene expression, however, can also change throughout our lives – our DNA can change in other ways. However, the way this change occurs – the reason for it – is quite crucial. Sometimes this change can also come through “behaviors, such as smoking or exercise, or exposures in your environment”[11] and this all causes different gene expression.

Epigenetics

This particular way genetics changes has been called epigenetics. “Epigenetics refers to the ways a person’s behaviors and the environment can cause changes that affect the way the genes work. Epigenetics turns genes “on” and “off” and thus is related to gene expression.”[12] In other words, the things around us, and the choices we make, the places we go, the food we eat, the way we handle our body, can actually change our genetics – they can actually change what the bible calls our “outer man.” Isn’t that wild? At a fundamental level this is intuitive. If we get blasted with a beam of radiation, we know it will mess with our genetics. We won’t turn into the incredible hulk, but we could lose our hair, our teeth could fall out, and we can ultimately die. Regular exercise strengthens our heart, going out in the sun makes your skin darker, eating loads of sugar makes you fat. The list could go on, but you get the idea.

In a person’s life there are gene expressions that are built-in, so to speak, like what was mentioned above, muscles are different from nerves or having a penis rather than a vagina. These cannot be changed in any natural way. However, what the study of epigenetics shows us that there are some genes that have the ability to change depending upon the environment (e.g. Air pollution), in which they exist as well as human decision (e.g. Smoking).

A Summary So Far

Can our genetics change? Yes. But, again, it is a very qualified yes. Although our genetics can change, that genetic change is generally benign or disease causing. Skin darkening from sun (UV light) exposure is generally benign, however, too much exposure causes melanoma, which is not benign, but a genetic mutation classified as a disease. This individual may be more susceptible to melanoma due to their heredity, or their gene expression may change due to external factors.

Nevertheless, what is important to understand about genetics from a biblical perspective and as it pertains to sin, is that everything spoken of above is entirely consistent with the bible’s teaching on what a human being is, albeit consistent with only one side of the human being: the outer man; the body. Genetics, in other words, can change our outer man but never our inner man. When we look at genetics, we only have the ability to see the material, not the immaterial. Genetics does not evaluate the soul; therefore, it cannot evaluate sin. Your hair color and texture, eye color, muscular makeup, height, your ability to grow facial hair, even your intelligence to a degree, are all genetic. They deal with your organs, your bones, your muscles, you physical self. But none of these evaluate the immaterial portion of your being. This isn’t because science doesn’t want to gauge that aspect but is because science is utterly incapable of completing that task. Science has no ability or mechanism to measure that which is immaterial. By definition the immaterial lacks physical substance capable of being directly detected by scientific instrumentation. Happiness, consciousness, spirituality, motivation, faith, thoughts, depression, love, sadness, attraction, compassion etc. cannot be measured – and will never be measured scientifically – but, despite their immateriality these are clearly real, tangible, and powerful aspects of humanity. If they weren’t you wouldn’t cry when you laugh or get sad.

The Needed Ingredient

The point in saying all this, is to show that the question “is sin genetic?” or “can we be genetically predisposed to certain sin?” is a question unsuitable to ask in the realm of genetics – it is simply not a question genetics has the tools to answer. It’s like asking Hugh Laurie for medical advice. Good luck. There is simply no sinful genetic expression; genetic expressions affected by sin, certainly, but none that are sin itself. There are no adultery genes, or murder genes or the ever sought after gay gene. Scientists may attempt to say things that make it appear that there is some genetic connection, like hormonal or chemical imbalances (of which there are no ways to determine) but there is absolutely zero – ZERO – proof to back these statements, only theories, which are nothing but the ideas of ignorant men who don’t care about God’s thoughts. Additionally, whether genes are on or off is entirely dependent upon conditions outside of themselves. They must be acted upon for change; they do not do the acting. Genetic mutations are either hereditary, and gene expression is produced by personal choice, or environmental factors. And all of this is external to the gene, so to speak. And there is no hereditary marker labeled “sin.”

This means that science doesn’t have the answer to this question. It means that science will never have the answer to this question. When scientific journals and articles are discussing the immaterial and you see things like “genetics may explain…” or “researchers theorize that genetics…” understand that they are trying to pull you into their godless ideology and make you materialists just like them by discrediting all the immateriality of God’s creation. It means we must look elsewhere for the answer.

Statistics

With the current iteration of the question this article seeks to answer, statistics play an outsized role. For example, someone might argue that since there is far more violent crime among black populations compared to white populations (which is undoubtedly true[13][14]) these individuals are genetically predisposed to those particular sins. Because violent crime, in other words, is rampant in the very small black population compared to the very large white population there must be some logical (genetic) explanation.

This argument, however, is one from psychological minds the likes of Freud, Rogers, Pavlov, Skinner, etc. This means that it is not from the mind of God, but is reprobate. In the psychological world everything (and I mean everything) is labeled as a disease. Go pick up a DSM5 and have a looksie. One example is “alcoholism.” Alcoholism is considered a disease, called “Alcohol Use Disorder” and is “a medical condition characterized by an impaired ability to stop or control alcohol use despite adverse social, occupational, or health consequences.”[15] Further, the “scientists” and “psychologists” of our day will say that “there is a 50% chance of being predisposed to alcohol use disorder (AUD) if your family has a history of alcohol misuse.”[16] But this description smacks God’s description in the face. God commands us, saying “do not get drunk with wine” (Ephesians 5:18), and he tells us that all drunkards will burn in hell forever (1 Corinthians 6:10). So if God says that getting drunk is a sin, and yet the world calls it a disease, who is right? Are they the same thing? The world calls it a medical condition characterized by the inability to stop or control alcohol use. God calls it a sin, and all sin can be repented of (1 John 1:9; Proverbs 28:13) and forsaken forever. So, who is right? The psychological world that says a person may be genetically predisposed – from mom and dad – to alcoholism thereby having the inability to stop or control their drinking, or God who says that being a drunkard is a sin, which can and must be repented of and forsaken forever? If you’re a Christian, it must be the latter.

The reason the world has concluded that alcoholism is a disease is because of the “impaired ability to stop or control alcohol use.” Now, they are correct that people classified as Alcoholics have a compromised ability to cease their consumption of alcohol. But why is this? Were they born with an addiction to alcohol? No. No one is born with an addiction to alcohol.[17] Children may be born suffering the effects of their mother’s irresponsible consumption of alcohol, but this is not the same thing as addiction. But the reason there is this impaired ability to stop or control the drinking is because of the epigenetic change that has taken place due to the individual’s incessant consumption of alcohol. The body becomes a slave to the substance and is physiologically dependent upon it so that the wretched feelings of detoxification are not experienced. But this is not a “genetic” problem per se. It is a choice made by an individual that has altered the gene expression in their body resulting in addiction. Biblically, this is the principle of reaping and sowing. The person has reaped sin by a disordered love for drink and is suffering from natural recompense. Far form this being a disease caused by genetic abnormalities, this is a self-imposed problem that the scientific and psychological communities have tried to morph into a disease, so people don’t have to feel the shame and guilt of their sin.

When this argument is then transferred to an entire population – such as the black population – we are essentially succumbing to secular thought. If we look at the statistics and conclude that since murder is far more abundant in black communities than white ones, and subsequently conclude that these people must be genetically predisposed to breaking the 6th commandment, (just like the drunkard), we are guilty of having adopted a psychological mind, we have abused the study of genetics, we have neglected biblical doctrine, and we have removed all moral agency from the individuals we are labeling. Like it or not, if someone is told that they have a genetic predisposition to a certain sin, they have just been handed a “get-out-of-jail-free” card that they will wield anytime they are under pressure and succumb to their sinful pleasure. Because after all, it’s genetic, they were born that way.

If a married man with “Hypersexuality”[18] commits adultery against his wife and then the pastor says, “that’s a sin, you can’t do that, you must repent” and the man says, “but pastor you don’t understand, ‘the biological causes of sexual addiction include [my] physiology and genetics. Concerning biochemical imbalances, addictive behaviors are generally associated with differences of certain chemicals in [my] brain’ and after all ‘Neuroscientists [have concluded] that the possibility of [sexual] addiction for the general population is about 50% genetic and 50% environmental.’[19] so, really what am I supposed to do? This I just how I’m wired! I’ll repent, but this is out of my control!” The pastor will call him to repent, but if the root of the problem is genetic at any level whatsoever, then the nature of this sin has left the spiritual and has entered into the physical, in which case, you might as well repent of having blue eyes or a cleft lip. This kind of behavior has led our culture to pity the man with a “sex addiction” rather than demand he cease, control his body, change his desires, forsake his sin, and hold fast to his covenantal promises.

From Whence Doth Sin Come?

As we have already seen, genetics is a study of the material. All science is, actually, only the study of the material. It is altogether inappropriate to seek answers regarding the metaphysical/immaterial world from science, psychology, or the like. It is entirely inept in answering those questions.[20]

As Christians, therefore, where do we go to gain knowledge and wisdom regarding the metaphysical/spiritual aspect to our existence? That knowledge must come from God who not only is spirit, but also bestows spirit. This comes from the scriptures of course. And here too, is where we find the answer for where sin comes from.

There are several theories to this question, but I will address two. One theory is that sin is inherited through the father’s line – his seed. Because Jesus inherited his humanity from Mary, but did not have an earthly biological father, and he did not possess original sin, then original sin must pass through the father to the offspring - genetically. Since Jesus had no earthly father, he was sinless. Another theory is that sin nature passes spiritually. Original sin is immaterial and doesn’t need to pass along to offspring via genetics. It is passed along, universally and spiritually, by the virtue of all humanity being descendants of Adam. But, because God is ruler of all, he withheld original sin from entering Christ in the womb.

Let’s tackle these views one at a time:

1) Sin is inherited through the father’s line.

This possibility exists, frankly, because of the evolutionary theory and it’s strangle-hold on the minds of many. Fundamental to this worldview is materialism and naturalism. Naturalism is the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. Materialism is the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. Thinking, therefore, that sin could be passed down from a father, materially, through his seed, into a mother’s womb, is the wholesale endorsement of evolutionary foundations. This should frighten the Christan, because this means your mind is being renewed by the devil and sin rather than the scriptures and its logic.

But how can I say such things? This is because Jesus had to deal with this exact same argument during his ministry. The pharisees were convinced that their hands, cutlery, and dishes needed to be clean otherwise they would be sinning. The material condition of these material things was the cause of their sin. Their sin or righteousness, in other words, came through the physical nature of these materials. However, Jesus corrects this thinking with an incredibly clear teaching on where sin comes from. In Matthew 15:17-20, Jesus says,

“Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.” (emphasis mine)

If we could change Christ’s words a little bit to fit the thesis, “to be born of human seed does not defile anyone. For out of the heart comes all sin.” What is the heart, you may ask. Biblically, the terms heart, mind, soul, and spirit, are used interchangeably to designate your inner man in contrast to your outer man (2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 3:16 Romans 7:22-23). The inner man is the true you, your spiritual nature. This is why Proverbs 23:7 can say “for as he calculates in his soul (for as a man thinks in his heart), so is he,” and this is why Psalm 14:1 can say “the fool says in his heart…” rather than in his mind “that there is no God. This is why we’re called to love God with all our heart, mind, and soul, because this summarizes the entire inner you, this is the you that images God. This is simply how God speaks. So, when Jesus says that your heart produces all evil, he is, in no uncertain way, saying that sin comes from your inner, metaphysical/immaterial, invisible soul. It comes from the you that isn’t touched by genetics.

But let’s consider a couple examples. Adam, the first man was given life by way of pure spirit (Genesis 2:7) not seed. If ever there were perfect genetics to be had, Adam had them (Genesis 1:31). He had no original sin, and he had no evil seed from a father. This means that genetics can exist without sin nature, and that sin is not intrinsically bound to genetics.

Consider also, Satan and his cohorts. Whatever else can be said of them, they do not possess human genetics and are entirely immaterial with the ability to translate from one realm to the other. And yet, they are sinful without human seed all while being the product of God’s immediate and good creation.

One more nail in this coffin for good measure.

Ezekial 18:4-20 “Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die. If a man is righteous and does what is just and right— if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Isreal, does not defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman in her time of menstrual impurity…if he fathers a son who is violent, a shedder of blood, who does any of these things (though he himself did none of these things)…his blood shall be upon himself. Now suppose this man fathers a son who sees all the sins that his father has done; he sees and does not do likewise…he shall not die for his father’s iniquities, he shall surely live…Yet you say why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father? When the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die.”

Notice a few things. First, God could not say “the soul that sins shall die” if our sinning is a result of the genetics that we are handed down through heredity. That would either make God a liar or entirely unjust. Next, we have three generations of men here. We have a righteous father, followed by an unrighteous son, followed by a righteous son. These are two sons which are the product of the same seed from the same righteous man. God is very specific to point out that the first man is indeed very righteous, and yet his son is unrighteous, and the text is diligent to tell us that his father “did none of these [unrighteous] things” that the unrighteous son did. There was, in other words, obviously no genetic transference from one generation to the next, otherwise the son would be righteous. This is further solidified, when we see the unrighteous man produce from his seed a righteous son. Although this son saw all the evil of his father, he did not delight in it. Instead, he chose/desired a different path, a righteous path, and chose to be the opposite of his father. His desires – which are metaphysical – were different from his fathers’. What this text communicates without any ambiguity, is that sin is in no way passed through male seed or genetics. It is instead a choice of the heart. God shows that he holds us accountable for our own sins, not someone else’s. Sin is something we do, not something that is passed through our genetics.

2) Sin nature passes spiritually

Again, it is important and necessary to reiterate that our Lord tells us that “out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, [and] slander.” (Matthew 15:17-20). These sins come from the heart of a person, meaning the inner (immaterial) man, and because sin is independent of genetics or the material world, sin does not need a father’s genetic material to be produced or pass on. We recall, that both Adam and Eve were pure and sinless creatures, not defiled by any sin or a sinful nature, corrupted genetics, gang violence, racial disparity, population segregation, or any other ill we deal with today. And yet, they were each lured and enticed by their own desires, ultimately giving into those desires and giving birth to sin (James 1:14-15). Now, if someone is adamant in claiming that we do inherit sin, then we could only inherit it from one man: Adam. This is because one trespass led to condemnation for all men, and one man’s disobedience made all men sinners, and just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to all men, because all sinned (Romans 5:12-21). However, even here, we inherit sin spiritually, not genetically. Adam was our covenant head and represented all of humanity in his created status as prophet, priest, and king. Adam failed, and so all those he represented also failed. So, even still, we may inherit Adam’s sin guilt but even here it is not hereditary, but spiritual.

To prove this point, it must be noted, that “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22).

1. Original sin translated to death for all.

2. Salvation from death translated to being made alive in Christ.

Christ, the second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:47), produced the exact opposite of what Adam produced. Adam produced death; Christ produced life. Adam caused degeneration; Christ caused regeneration. Adam destroyed, Christ builds. Adam failed, Christ succeeded, etc. So how is righteousness and salvation from Christ passed to his people? It is passed spiritually, not carnally. If salvation is passed spiritually, then sin and damnation must, likewise, be passed spiritually, not genetically. However Christ operates in imputing to us righteousness and regenerate hearts is exactly how we must understand the degeneration of our hearts being imputed to us from Adam.

Christ, is therefore, not sinful because sin and the guilt of Adam’s sin was not imputed to him by virtue of his conception by the Holy Spirit, rather than the corrupted spirit of man (Genesis 5:3).

Relationship Of Body and Soul

Although we possess and inner and outer man, one should not assume that these exist independent of each other. Our bodies and our souls interact and can either positively or negatively affect one another. These two aspects of our being, however, must never be confused. They are connected, yet distinct. Like the Father and Son, they are both God, equal in power, might, and all the rest, but they are not the same. They are unified, yet distinct. Just like a husband and wife are one flesh, really and truly, yet they must not be confused. Being one flesh does not result in the loss or confusion of femininity or masculinity. Each stay entirely what they are, albeit, united. So it is with our body and soul.

We are what is called a psychosomatic union. The term psychosomatic originates from the Greek word’s “psyche” meaning “soul” or “mind” and soma, meaning “body.” We are a unification of soul and body, by the design of God. This is why when you feel sad you cry. Your metaphysical self affects the physical tear ducts in your eye lids. This is why when you imagine having a heated debate with someone your heart may start to race. Your metaphysical self is affecting your physical heart causing it to pump faster and harder.

The question is though, if sin is spiritual, what role or affect does our physical body have on our soul in that sin? In other words, can the weakness of our bodies cause us to sin? If I have a poor diet, lack regular exercise, lack regular sex in my marriage, or spend time around people who cause me a lot of stress, will this make sin easier or more difficult? In each of these situations the correct questions need to be asked. It is not a matter of diet, exercise, sex, or sanity. The question is what do you want, what do you feel as though you deserve, and what are you willing to do to get it? If a lack of sex in your marriage causes you to watch porn and masturbate, and when caught you say something like “well, you wouldn’t have sex with me, so I had no choice! Its not my fault, you wouldn’t have sex with me!” Congratulations, you are of your father Adam. He too blamed his sin on his physical circumstances. If you are surrounded by people in your family or work who stress you out and you become sinfully angry because you “just want some peace” then you must recognize that you are an angry person. The people didn’t make you angry, you lack the ability to control yourself, and you are simply showing the real you.

James is clear. We sin when we are tempted by what we desire (James 1:14). It isn’t wrong to want to have sex with your spouse, but when you don’t get what you want what are you willing to do about it? No matter your circumstances, you can choose to live righteously according to God’s word, or unrighteously and blame your physical circumstances. Certainly, having a good diet, exercising regularly, and getting adequate sleep can be helpful, because they all aid in the proper functioning of your outer man, but if those things are not present for whatever reason, you and I still do not have one single, solitary excuse for any sin we commit. We can never blame our biting words, or short fuse on a lack of sleep. We sinned, because we did not get what we sinfully desired. That is all.

In Matthew 5:29 and 18:7-9 Jesus talks about cutting off our hands and gouging out our eyes if they cause us to sin. Why does he say this? It sure does seem as though Jesus is saying that our hands, feet, or eyes can cause us to sin, but is he really? To understand this passage properly, we need to compare it to other places that are more clear.[21] [22] In Matthew 5:29 Jesus says something very similar, but he adds a glimpse into the heart. He says, “everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” It is essential to remember that lust is metaphysical and begins in the heart (Matthew 15:19) not the eyes. Only after this does Jesus use the same language as before, saying, “if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out.” Jesus is clear, that there is a movement of the heart that takes place before the movement of the eyes. There is a sinfully disordered desire in the heart that causes the eyes to move. There is a proper order of operations here. The heart has longed for something, and the eyes have obeyed.

In James 1:14-15 James gives a wonderful explanation of how sin starts and where it comes from. James indicates that desire begets temptation, then temptation is conceived (it is entertained), then sin takes place and death occurs. This is on the heels of James telling us that God does not tempt anyone, because temptation is evil. Therefore, when someone experiences temptation, it is entirely because this person has desired something that is wholly evil. For instance, a man who desires no other woman than his wife, will not be tempted by other women around him. If, however, that same man desires other women in his heart, he will be tempted to undress other women with his eyes when they are around him. This is because sin always begins in the heart with our affections.

Our bodies are the medium through which our souls interact with the physical. And this is a glorious thing, because this is how the Lord has designed our being to function. The physical and the spiritual are both glorious, but our immaterial souls cannot interact with the material except through a medium. However, because our outer man is wasting away and subsequently, our inner man is being renewed day by day (2 Corinthians 4:16) it is evident that our bodies are but a lifeless shell without the soul that animates them. Our body cannot sin, in other words, unless the soul that causes sin is within it.

So, What About the Statistics and All Those Violent Crimes?

How should we account for these numbers? How do we account for major disparities of sin from one population to another? Well, as we have sufficiently proved, it is not due to genetic differences. After all, all human beings are 99.9 percent identical in our genetic makeup.[23] Literally, all the differences between people from height to skin color is from the remaining .01 percent. To attribute the escalation of violent crime in black communities to genetics is, therefore, far too simplistic (not to mention unbiblical) and will never result in the actual improvements needed in those sectors. It will also likely produce ethnic vainglory for the other non-violent-crime-ridden populations, and it will also cause covenant heads to relinquish blame and accountability for the condition of their people.

God, however, has not left us without answers to this most pivotal question. God has said that he “visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and fourth generation” (Exodus 34:7). It is clear from other places that this does not mean that God will cause the son the suffer for the iniquity of the father (Ezekial 18:20) in the sense that the son will be guilty of their father’s sin. But what God is communicating is that there is a natural and expected trend of behavior from father to son. There are myriad expected negative behaviors that result from a fathers capitulation in the lives of their children. Generally speaking, how a son sees his father acting, speaking, loving, and leading will be what he emulates when he gets older. One only needs to look at the fatherlessness statistics in America to see the truth of God’s decree.[24] [25]

When we look at the example of Eli for instance (1 Samuel 2:12-36), we see that he was a capitulating failure of a father. He knew all the evil that his sons were doing, and yet he did nothing to restrain them (1 Samuel 3:13). In this, we see God visiting the iniquity of Eli on his children. They were deep in sin because they did not learn from their father how to honor Christ or live righteously, therefore God killed them and Eli.

Looking at the black population and seeing a drastic increase in violent crime, we must recognize that this is entirely due to the failure of the fathers who have led their sons astray. Of course, this is a complex problem in which the federal government has played an unfortunate role, and of course those in the black population are guilty of their own sin, but we must recognize that roughly 85 percent of incarcerated youth came from fatherless homes[26] and this is not an insignificant data point. This is the outflow of God’s promise to visit the iniquity of the fathers on their children. They do what they have been taught to do. They do what they know. They live out what they have seen exemplified for them.

The glory of viewing the problem of sin this way is immediately evident. This perspective recognizes that the cause of sin is not genetic, which means all who are affected by it can actually change, for the better, and forever. All that is needed is to seek the Lord and repent of sin which will lead to a forsaking of old ways to follow Christ all their days. Any genetic connection to sin is not only unbiblical but I also removes every scintilla of ability to give hope to the people in these circumstances and encouraging them to honor Christ, turn from sin, and walk in obedience.

Conclusion

Sin comes from the heart and everything people think, say, and do comes from the heart also. There is simply no way to adhere to the biblical witness and conclude anything else. Genetics is an important field of study that allows proper care for our outer man to get better as time passes, but it is no indicator of sin, whatever. If we are to be Christian, we must be adamant to view literally everything in this life through the lens of the bible. Everything, including science, statistics, politics, psychology, etc. must come under the sever scrutiny of God’s divine revelation and we must be willing to reject science, call foul on statistics, disagree with political movements, and dismiss psychological prescriptions if the scriptures require it, without blushing. Without hesitation, we must be a people of the book first and foremost, clinging to all that Christ has said, with exhaustive sufficiency, willing to die without boots on.

[1] You study genetics you have genes

[2] https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002048.htm

[3] https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Genetics-vs-Genomics

[4] ibid

[5] https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002048.htm

[6] ibid

[7] https://www.cdc.gov/genomics-and-health/about/

[8] ibid

[9] ibid

[10] ibid

[11] ibid

[12] ibid

[13] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43

[14] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2782848/

[15] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/understanding-alcohol-use-disorder

[16] https://americanaddictioncenters.org/alcohol/hereditary-genetic

[17] https://newday-recovery.com/blog/addiction-born-way/

[18] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22690-sex-addiction-hypersexuality-and-compulsive-sexual-behavior

[19] https://www.bps.org.uk/blog/sexual-addiction-symptoms-causes-consequences

[20] Psychology is (unfortunately) considered a science. The degree to which the psychological world works with the “soul,” therefore, is not in a metaphysical sense, but they would understand the soul (if there is such a thing) to be nothing more than the mind/brain. Even here they make no distinction between mind and brain, ultimately conglomerating the two causing a materialism fit for only for rank paganism. Thus, Christian integrationists are but derisory pawns in the secularists’ scheme, trying to combine fresh water with salt, and then claiming that the food is still too bland while their faces shrivel all in an effort to maintain their credibility and have a seat at the table.

[21] WCF 1.9 The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

[22] WCF 1.10 The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence, we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

[23] https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Genetics-vs-Genomics

[24] https://www.fatherhood.org/father-absence-statistic

[25] https://www.nolongerfatherless.org/statistics

[26] ibid

Introduction

As I write, the Round of 32 is wrapping up at the 2026 World Cup. The most recent victors are about to enter the Round of 16 where each participant must win their remaining games or suffer elimination on the international stage. For over three weeks, teams representing 48 countries have competed for national pride and the chance to win the FIFA World Cup Trophy. The grandeur of the event is undeniable as teams and fans have traveled across 16 stadiums in three North American countries: the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Although each team hits the pitch in opposition of one another, there is an astoundingly rare quality of unity present at this quadrennial event. It is unusual to witness representatives from the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia harmoniously converging on one place with one focus for weeks at a time. When I see the scores of fans and players from diverse nations packing three to four stadiums each day in the name of soccer (futbol), I am reminded of the eschatological reality that by His blood, Christ has won for Himself a people “from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9).

Undoubtedly, there is an incredible amount of pagan idolatry occurring during the World Cup. For example, I heard one announcer state that the people of Argentina should worship Lionel Messi! For being good at soccer?! Psht. Blasphemy. A hat trick cannot compare to creating the cosmos and forgiving the sins of humanity (Col. 3:16-17; 1 John 2:2). Additionally, I am pretty sure that Morocco was not relying on the mediatorial work of Christ when their head coach led them in prayer just before they took PK’s against the Dutch (great game, by the way). Nonetheless, the redeemed mind can look on the event and readily imagine a time when people with differing languages, customs, and ethnicities will experience a stronger unification than what is taking place during the ongoing international soccer tournament.

A Holy Nation

One day, if you are Christ’s, you will witness with your eyes the present spiritual reality that God has made for Himself one “holy nation” comprising of people from every tribe, tongue, and nation (2 Pet. 2:9). The basis for the holy nation’s unity far exceeds a child’s game and a chance to win an 18-karat gold trophy. The Name at the center of their unity is supremely holy and far above mortal men like Messi, Mbappé, Ronaldo, Haaland, and Pulisic. Their song is not a unique national anthem but rather they lift one banner singing one anthem in exaltation of the One King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev. 4-5).

A Blessed Nation

Coinciding with the festivities of the World Cup is the 250-year anniversary of one of the host nations: the United States of America. Media reporters have gushed with the retelling of how much Europeans who came to watch their nation participate in the World Cup possess a newfound love for America and Americans. While I wish their reasons for admiring the States revolved around the godliness of its people, their reverence for the Lord, and the beautiful architecture of our faithful churches, I am thankful to a degree for objective praise. America, despite all its idolatry, political unrest, and its wavering economy, is a great place to live. Why? Because God has blessed and is blessing her.

Share

When I was a teenager, I said rather innocuously, “God bless America.” A liberally minded friend angrily asked, “Why should God bless America? Why should he bless America more than any other nation?” I don’t remember what I said but I do remember being shocked. And I remember that her fists were clinched. If I could relive this moment and respond again, I would say, “He shouldn’t. But he has. And being blessed by God is good.” Sure, we could talk about the Christian morality of the Deistic Founders and the many unshakable Christian churches, people, and pastors in America’s history as reasons to garner God’s blessing; but we do not have to reach deeply into our bag of Calvinism to know that every American has been or is totally depraved and undeserving of anything good from God. So today, I thank you God for Your blessing of 250 years upon a nation that is not always united, not often obedient, and ever forgetful of how marvelous it is to be blessed by You. With the psalmist, I praise You, saying, “You are good and do good” (Ps. 119:68).

The Blessing of All Nations

Now, with the World Cup and my friend’s emotionally charged question in mind, I turn to say that God has blessed every nation no matter their political structure, military capability, financial well-being, or religious ideology (and yes, all nations should bend the knee to Christ, see Psalm 2). How can I make such a claim that God has blessed every nation? Thankfully, the World Cup’s eschatological prodding has reminded me that before the foundation of this world, it was God’s good intent to raise up His Son Jesus to conquer sin, death, and hell through His sinless life, gruesome death, and miraculous resurrection. Then, with an eye on people from every nation, the Son of God commissioned eleven men who, by the power of God the Spirit, took the message of Christ into Europe, Asia, and Africa (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 1:8). The message could not be stopped and 2,000 years later, it is still saving souls from every tribe, tongue, and nation. Every nation is blessed because God blesses people from every nation. He does this chiefly through salvation in Christ by making members from every nation into members of a holy nation that will still thrive millenia after the final World Cup champion has been crowned. Therefore, as Christians, we do not support the blurring of boundaries, erasing of national and cultural distinctions, or institutionalized or functional racism. Why? Because the existence of various nations comprising of people who look different, sound different, and cheer for a different soccer team uniting to form one holy nation through Christ alone brings God glory. If there are no nations, how shall God gloriously possess a people from every nation?

So, fill in your nation’s name here: God bless ________! And if you mean it, go share the gospel with your countrymen. I hope to see America in the Quarterfinals and hope to see Americans in the New Heaven.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Introduction

In a Roman prison, buffeted on every side; hated by critics, uncertain of his future, and a body marked by years of hardship and suffering, the Apostle Paul writes his heartfelt letter to the Christians in Philippi. Despite these many afflictions, his tone in this letter is surprisingly not one of complaint or despair. He writes this:

“Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me.”

In this passage the Apostle confronts us directly in seasons when suffering seemingly presses far too hard; when life seems to shift without warning; when the future feels veiled in fog and out of our control; when our daily bread feels far too elusive. In this passage you will not find Paul offering a technique for emotional self-control: deep breathing, anxiety medication, or mindfulness. What we find is a testimony to a grace-wrought discipline that Paul had to learn. It isn’t biological, it isn’t inherited, it isn’t achieved by temperament; no, this sort of discipline is something that can only be acquired by and in the furnace of God’s providence.

Share Reformed & Confessional

Contentment

Contentment, according to the Apostle, is not at all the absence of the desire for relief or the stoic suppression of feelings and the neglect of emotions. Rather, it is the settled conviction that, in everything and in every way and at every time, Christ is enough. The conviction that Christ is enough whether one is brought low or abounds. Paul had known both extremes: the abundance of former religious prestige and the want of chains and hunger. He had tasted the approval of men and the rejection of the world. He had been blessed by the church and fellow workmen at times, and at others had been abandoned and betrayed by the same trusted men. Through it all, however, he discovered that his sufficiency did not rise and fall with his circumstances; despite the reality that he “worked harder than any [other Apostle]” (1 Cor 15:10), his adequacy did not depend upon his effort. Rather, his sufficiency and adequacy rested in the living Christ who strengthened him.

This “secret” that Paul learned is no blank check for personal ambition or material prosperity. When a rich and famous football player claims, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” in the context of his 10 Million Dollar NFL contract, he is misusing and abusing this text to make a pretext for his religiosity. In context, the “secret” Paul is remarking on is the power to remain faithful, joyful, and content in every condition – whether the cup is full or empty, whether the path is clear or shrouded, whether the hits keep on coming, whether the waves continue to crash down. Because if joy in Christ and contentment in Christ and fidelity in Christ require our outward circumstances to be just right, pleasant, and agreeable, then that isn’t Christianity – it is idolatry.

Nevertheless, the same Lord who upheld Paul in the dungeon still upholds His people today. The strength promised is not the power to escape a trial, but the power to endure every trial with a heart at rest in the providential, perfect, and sovereign will of God.

Therefore, when suffering comes – whether through bodily affliction, loss, betrayal, financial strain, or any other thing – fight the temptation to measure God’s love for you by the absence of pain in your life. Look instead to the One who was “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief” (Isaiah 53:3). Look to the One who was, himself, “despised and rejected by men” (Isaiah 53:3). Look to the One who, although crushed by his own Father, was and is a dearly beloved son. Look to the one who now lives to intercede for you. The same Savior who, in the midst of agony and suffering, sweat drops of blood in Gethsemane, and cried to the Father, “Not my will, but yours, be done,” now supplies the grace you need to say the same in your own garden of sorrow: not my will, oh Lord, but yours be done.

Share

Beloved, the secret Paul learned is still available to every believer, because every believer is united to Christ by faith. Christ knew how to be content and settled in the bosom of his Father, and we see this contentment throughout his entire life and especially in his death. And as Paul learned Christ, he, too, learned contentment. He didn’t learn this secret overnight, nor did he learn it after one round of agony. No. He learned this over years of hardship, pain, loss, and difficulty. But he knew that every affliction he faced was given him from the kind hand of the Lord, and it was meant to draw him nearer to Christ and prepare him for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison. In other words, this secret cannot be learned quickly, nor is it learned apart from the very trials that make the secret necessary. God often teaches us contentment by withholding what we think we must have and by giving us what we think we cannot bear – and it may be that through many tears we discover that Christ Himself is the only portion that satisfies when every other portion is removed.

Conclusion

So what are we to do? Well, fix your eyes on Christ, of course. Do not fix your eyes on the things that are seen, for they are transient. Rather fix your eyes on things that are unseen for they are eternal (2 Corinthians 4:18). Look to Christ, the author and finisher of your faith, who, for the joy set before Him endured the suffering, mockery, horror, pain, and humiliation of the cross (Hebrews 12:2). In Him you have strength sufficient for every circumstance, because in Him you have a Savior who will never leave you nor forsake you (Hebrews 13:5) even in the midst of your deepest suffering.

May the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction so that we may comfort others (2 Corinthians 1:3–4), grant you the grace to learn this sacred secret afresh. And may the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus, both now and until the day when every tear is wiped away, and all uncertainty gives way to everlasting joy.

Amen.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share Reformed & Confessional

Beloved, one aspect of the nature of our existence is suffering. Suffering is bound up with our existence in a world that has fallen under the curse of sin. Since our first parents’ rebellion in Eden, creation itself has been subjected to futility and groaning. Suffering is the common and often perplexing experience of those who live east of Eden. It is not an illusion or a mere appearance; it is the bitter reality that marks life in a world that is broken by sin.

A persistent temptation, when we suffer, is to conclude that every instance of suffering must be the direct and immediate consequence of personal sin. We think: this wouldn’t be happening unless I deserved it. This was the assumption of the disciples when they saw the man born blind: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2). It was the error of Job’s friends, who insisted that such great affliction on Job could only mean great hidden guilt. We are quick to imagine that if we are suffering, we must have sinned; we must have practiced some unrighteousness in some particular way to bring it upon ourselves. We imagine that God is simply giving us our comeuppance.

Our Lord Jesus Christ corrects this misconception with the compassion of a shepherd and the clarity of a teacher. He says: “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9:3). The affliction was not punishment for a specific sin of the man or his parents. It existed for a higher, God-glorifying purpose. The same Lord who spoke these words would, Himself, endure the deepest and most gruesome suffering, though He was without sin. He was “a man of sorrows” and a man “acquainted with grief” (Isaiah 53:3), and He “learned obedience through what he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8). If the sinless Son of God was acquainted with suffering, we cannot assume that every trial in our lives is God’s judicial response to our personal transgressions.

What then are the reasons for suffering in the life of the Christian? Scripture reveals several purposes, all of which are under the wise and loving hand of God. Suffering is often the Father’s loving discipline, intended to mortify remaining sin and train us in holiness. “For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives” (Hebrews 12:6). It is also a means of refining and proving our faith, “so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:7). Trials equip us to comfort others with the comfort we ourselves have received from God (2 Corinthians 1:4). And frequently, suffering becomes the very stage upon which the power and grace of Christ are most clearly displayed, as when the apostle Paul learned that Christ’s power is made perfect in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9).

C.S. Lewis observed that “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains; it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” Suffering has a way of arresting our attention and exposing our deep need for God in a manner that ease rarely, if ever, achieves.

Yet beneath all these proximate reasons lies the ultimate cause of every event in heaven and on earth: the sovereign providence of our triune God. Nothing in all existence occurs by random chance or outside the eternal decree of Him “who works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11). Secondary causes—human actions, natural processes, even the malice of the evil one—remain real, but they operate only within the boundaries of God’s wise and holy decree. Joseph could say to his brothers, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:20). The cross itself was accomplished “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). When the causes of our particular afflictions remain hidden from us, what are we then called to do? We are called to restrain curiosity and rest in the character and promises of the One who ordains all of them. As Moses declared, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Share

Therefore, beloved, I exhort you: in the midst of suffering, difficulty, pain, exhaustion, and trials, do not lose heart. Do not imagine that God has abandoned you or that your pain has no meaning. For nothing can “separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:39). Look to Jesus, the Man of Sorrows, who bore the curse in your place so that there is now no condemnation and no ultimate curse upon the afflictions of His people. Cast your cares upon Him, for He cares for you (1 Peter 5:7). Endure with patience, knowing that these “light momentary afflictions are preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison” (2 Corinthians 4:17). On this Lord’s Day, bring your sorrows into the presence of the risen Christ. Worship Him who has promised, “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5). Adore the one who “will deliver you from the snare of the fowler and from the deadly pestilence” and “cover you with his pinions” so that you will not “fear the terror of the night, nor the arrow that flies by day, nor the pestilence that stalks in darkness, nor the destruction that wastes at noonday” (Psalm 91:3-6).

May the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. To Him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Introduction

The act of forgiveness is five-fold, and consists of confession, repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration. These are distinct but interconnected steps in a spiritual process of mending broken relationships with God and with other people. The sequence begins with a sinner’s honest admission of wrongdoing and concludes with the restoration of the relationship to a state of peace and fellowship.

Subscribe now

Confession

Biblical confession is the act of admitting and taking responsibility for your sin to God and, when necessary, to others you have wronged. It is not an excuse or a minimization of sin but an honest acknowledgment of rebellion against God’s holy law. Sin is any lack of conformity to, or transgression of the law of God. So again, any lack of love in thought, word, or deed is sinful, both toward God and your spouse.

• Confessing to God: All sin is ultimately against God. When King David sinned against Bathsheba and Uriah, he confessed, “Against you, you only, have I sinned” (Psalm 51:4). This is because God is preeminently important—over and above any human. We must confess to him first before any creature.

• Confessing to others: If you have wronged another person, confession and a request for forgiveness are necessary for the sake of reconciliation and healing (James 5:16).

Repentance

While confession is admitting the sin, repentance (Greek: metanoia, “change of mind”) is the subsequent action of genuinely turning away from sin and toward righteousness (right living) according to the word of God. It is more than just feeling regret or remorse; it is a conscious decision to change your behavior and align your life with God’s will.

Share

• A changed direction: True repentance results in a changed life, with observable fruit and a persistent pursuit of holy living (Luke 3:8, 2 Timothy 2:19).

• God’s gift: Repentance is not something we accomplish on our own, but is a gift granted by God, who works in us to produce this spiritual change (Acts 5:31).

Forgiveness

Biblical forgiveness is the cancellation of a debt. The promise of God’s forgiveness is received through repentance and faith, and Christians are called to extend this same grace to those who sin against them (Ephesians 4:32).

• Conditional on repentance: Forgiveness from an offended party is granted when the offender genuinely repents and asks for it.

• Freedom from vengeance: As a conscious choice, forgiveness frees you from bitterness and the desire for revenge. It is an intentional action, not a feeling (Luke 17:3).

• It isn’t forgetting, it’s not remembering: Forgiveness does not mean pretending the offense never happened. Instead, it involves a promise not to hold the wrong against the person or bring it up to harm them ever again.

  • Jeremiah 31:34 “For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more”

  • Isaiah 43:25 “I, I am her who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.”

  • Hebrews 8:12 “For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more”

Reconciliation

Reconciliation is the restoration of peace and fellowship in a broken relationship. Here the barrier of the sin committed is removed and there is no longer anything between the two parties

Share

• With God: Through Christ’s death on the cross, God took the initiative to reconcile humanity to himself, changing our relationship from one of enmity to friendship (2 Corinthians 5:18–19).

• With others: A relationship between believers can only be fully reconciled when both the offender and offended participate in the process of confession, repentance, and forgiveness.

• May not be identical: Reconciliation doesn’t always mean a return to the exact same closeness as before the offense. Trust may need to be rebuilt over time, and consequences of the sin may remain.

Restoration

Restoration is the final stage of the process, where God and the affected parties work to return things to their proper or original state. It signifies a renewal that aligns with God’s original purpose.

• Renewed Relationship: Here the offending and offended parties draw near each other as they rebuild what was broken due to the sin. There is a need to “draw” near to each other. In James we are told to draw near to God, and he will likewise draw near to us (James 4:8). Because the sin is no longer between the parties due to reconciliation, restoration is now possible.

• Holistic renewal: This concept encompasses physical, spiritual, and relational renewal. It is God’s promise to heal wounds, renew spirits, and rebuild what was broken.

• Begins internally: Restoration is often a lengthy process that begins with deep, inward change, not merely external actions. It is God’s work, but it requires human cooperation.

The Seven A’s of a Good Confession: (Matthew 7:3-5; 1 John 1:8-9; Proverbs 28:13)

1. Address everyone involved (everyone your sin has touched)

2. Avoid if, but, and maybe (no blame shifting. No one made you sin)

3. Admit specifically (don’t be vague; be specific about what you did and why)

4. Acknowledge the hurt (our sin hurts those we sin against; acknowledge the pain that your sin has caused)

5. Accept the consequences (sometimes our sins require consequences: loss of trust, loss of freedom, etc. you must accept them without complaint)

6. Alter your behavior (this is repentance; agree with God that your actions were against his will)

7. Ask for forgiveness

The Four Promises of Forgiveness: (Matthew 6:12; 1 Corinthians 13:5; Ephesians 4:32)

1. I will not dwell on this incident

2. I will not bring the incident up and use it against you

3. I will not talk to other about this incident

4. I will not allow this incident to stand between us or hinder our personal relationship

Subscribe now

Share Reformed & Confessional

Leave a comment

The following article is a revision from a previous version that includes clarifying anecdotes and removes some citations. Its new release coincides with the need for today. May the Lord bless you and solidify His work within your heart!

After God had created all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created; being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness; having the law of God written on their hearts, and power to fulfill it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change. (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7; Ecclesiastes 7:29; Genesis 1:26; Romans 2:14, 15; Genesis 3:6).

-Second London Baptist Confession 4.2, Of Creation

Besides the law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which whilst they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures. (Genesis 2:17; Genesis 1:26, 28).

- Second London Baptist Confession 4.3, Of Creation

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

- Second London Baptist Confession 7.1, Of God’s Covenant

Arguments Against the Covenant of Works

Before I begin to examine a position against the Covenant of Works, I’d like to recognize the person behind the argument: Paul R. Williamson. I do not know this man personally, nor do I seek to defame his character presently. Paul (P.R.) Williamson is an Old Testament, Hebrew, and Aramaic lecturer in Sydney. His academic credentials are of no question. I have read multiple helpful, edifying scholarly articles and essays by this man, and I am thankful for these works. However, I hope to utilize his argument rejecting a Covenant of Works to present a viable position in the area to avoid contending against a “straw man.”

Share Reformed & Confessional

In Williamson’s most pointed contention against the Covenant of Works, he states, “prior to [Genesis 6:18] there is not even a hint of any covenant being established—at least between God and humans.”[1] He reiterates his claim, stating that “the corroborate evidence for an antediluvian [or pre-Flood] covenant between God and creation is rather tenuous.”[2] Countering the Reformed perspective, Williamson writes, “Other scholars, however, are unpersuaded and identify only those explicitly described as such in Scripture as divine covenants. While not denying that the Triune God planned human salvation before the Creation of the world, or that God established a relationship with Adam involving mutual obligations, or that God’s relationships with humanity express a single creative and redemptive goal, they carefully distinguish such ideas from the concept of a covenant—one that involves additional elements such as a sworn and/or enacted oath.”[3]

Williamson’s argument against the Covenant of Works is not solely reliant on a supposed lack of evidence in Genesis 1-3. He also takes issue with Hosea 6:7, a text often quoted by Reformed theologians supporting God’s covenant at Creation.[4] Williamson writes, “even with no adjustments to the Masoretic Text (MT) the text may be translated several ways that clearly militate against using it as proof text for a hypothetical Adamic covenant.”[5] The thrust of Williamson’s argument is that Hosea 6:7 is a verse Hosea presents in a geographical sense. Williamson arrives at this conclusion by translating the phrase “like Adam” in Hosea 6:7 as “in/at Adam.” He also uses the context of Hosea 6:8-10 as contextual support for his geographical claim.

Presenting the Evidence

Williamson defines a covenant as “a solemn commitment guaranteeing promises or obligations undertaken by one or both covenanting parties.”[6] Using this definition as a launching pad, we will now set out to counter his argument against the alleged “tenuous” evidence supporting a covenant in Genesis 1-3 by displaying that the covenant criteria within his definition are present between God and Adam at Creation. The key elements of a covenant are as follows: 1) the existence of one or more parties, 2) commitment/promise, and 3) sanctions, which guarantee blessings or curses depending on the nature of the commitment and the actions of those bound to the covenant. In Genesis 1-3, each of these elements is present between God and Adam. The commitment is that man will keep the garden and not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil in exchange for eternal life and perfect communion with God. The sanctions made by God toward Adam are death upon disobedience and the removal of perfect communion with himself. When Adam breaks the covenant, God reiterates the sanction of death (Gen. 3:17) and expels him from the garden (Gen. 3:23-24). In short, God requires perfect obedience from Adam and Eve, and upon their subsequent covenant-breaking disobedience, they are subject to death. In summary, here is the evidence for a covenant at Creation from Genesis that Williamson fails to recognize:

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:15-17).

In summary, the existing parties in the Covenant of Works are God and Adam (Genesis 2:15), the commitments consist of Adam working and keeping the garden and not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:15-17), and the sanctions are death upon disobedience and expulsion from the garden, putting an end to perfect communion with Yahweh (Genesis 2:17; 3:23-24).

Leave a comment

Addressing the Absence of the Word Covenant in Genesis 1-3

Luke 3:38 concludes a genealogy of Jesus, saying, “the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” I was once told by an impassioned Christian that we may not assert that Adam is a son of God because in the original Greek Luke 3:23-38 does not use the term “son.”If this person’s conclusion is correct, then nobody in the entire genealogy of Luke 3:23-38 may be considered a son of their father. We may not consider David a son of Jesse or Isaac a son of Abraham because the term “son” does not appear in verses 32 and 34 respectively. The point of a genealogy is to display familial lineage. In the case of Luke 3:23-38, its point is to show God’s sovereignty in the birth of Christ who was the son of God that Adam failed to be, which is a significant covenantal implication in itself. Demanding that the term “son” be present to display fatherhood in Luke 3 not only ignores the use of the genitive case in Greek to show possession but neglects the context of the passage and the purpose for the Holy Spirit’s inclusion of the genealogy in Luke 3.

Demanding the presence of the word “covenant” in Genesis 1-3 commits similar errors. In the words of Paul Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, “The absence of the word for ‘covenant’ . . . is no argument at all against the notion that divine-human covenant is established at Creation, if exegesis can demonstrate the idea is there.” We stand on the same footing everytime we speak or write the term “Trinity” to describe our Triune God. Although the word is absent from the Canon of Scripture, exegesis shows that the concept is present (Matt. 28:19-20; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; Titus 3:4-6; Acts 3:3-4). When you cross the threshold of an area with four walls, a ceiling, and a floor, nobody has to say the term “room” for you to know that you’re in one. Nonetheless, one element of Williamson’s argumentation against a Covenant of Works is the lack of the term “covenant” in Genesis 1-3.

Simultaneously, however, he argues effectively in support of the covenantal elements within Genesis 22, the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac, despite his admittance that this text contains no mention of the term covenant. He states,

The covenantal significance of this incident would also account for the necessity of a sacrifice (even after Isaac’s life had been spared), the timing of the second divine speech (Gen 22:15-18) and the emphasis on Abraham’s obedience (Gen 22:16b, 18b; cf. 26:5). Most important, it would explain why the international aspect of the divine promise—the aspect of the programmatic agenda that had not yet been ratified by the divine covenant—was reiterated at this point (Gen 22:18). Admittedly, the term covenant is not expressly used in the immediate context. Nevertheless, the sacrificing of the ram and God’s swearing of an oath (cf. Gen 21:22-31) indicate that this is indeed a covenant-making occasion.[7]

Clearly, Williamson understands the elements of covenant and observes their appearance in Genesis 22; therefore, he asserts the presence of covenant in this chapter. For Williamson, the occurrence of a sacrifice and an oath are enough to constitute the legitimacy of a covenantal occasion, and to his point, the covenants between God, Noah, and Abraham contain a sacrifice (Genesis 8:20-22; 22:13-18); however, we must recognize that upon the initiation of the Covenant of Works, there was no sin, no death, and no need for the slaying of animals. It was only after the first sin when God gave the first sacrifice and established the Covenant of Grace (Gen. 3:21). Williamson’s implied sacrificial requirement is anachronistic for the pre-Fall era. Hebrews 10:17-18 states, “‘I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.’ Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.” If there is no sacrificial requirement where there is forgiveness for sin, then certainly there is no need for sacrifice prior to Adam and Eve’s sin. Therefore, one cannot deny the Covenant of Works due to the absence of a sacrifice.

Share

Lastly, the condition of an oath has been demonstrated by God’s promise to Adam, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17).

Addressing Hosea 6:7

Hosea 6:4-10

4 What shall I do with you, O Ephraim?

What shall I do with you, O Judah?

Your love is like a morning cloud,

like the dew that goes early away.

5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets;

I have slain them by the words of my mouth,

and my judgment goes forth as the light.

6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,

the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

7 But like Adam they transgressed the covenant;

there they dealt faithlessly with me.

8 Gilead is a city of evildoers,

tracked with blood.

9 As robbers lie in wait for a man,

so the priests band together;

they murder on the way to Shechem;

they commit villainy.

10 In the house of Israel I have seen a horrible thing;

Ephraim’s whoredom is there; Israel is defiled.

As you see, Hosea 6:7 states, “But like Adam, they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.” Williamson offers support for his geographical argument from vv. 7-10. However, theologian Douglas Stuart supports the use of Hosea 6:7 to confirm a covenant at Creation, saying, “v 7 is as closely connected to the thought expressed in vv 4-6 as it is to what follows, and especially relates to v 4b as a general statement of Israel’s infidelity.”[8] For Stuart, context determines meaning, and the context of verses 4-6 (more than Williamson’s claim on verses 7-10) determines the meaning of verse 7 within Hosea chapter 6.

Why Does it Matter?

Why does recognizing a covenant between God and Adam at Creation matter? According to the Apostle Paul, the relationship between God, Adam, and Adam’s posterity is the framework for understanding our relationship to Jesus (specifically the doctrine of imputation). Where Adam’s disobedience imputes a sin nature to his posterity, Christ’s perfect obedience imputes righteousness to those whom the Father has given him (Romans 5:15-17). Christ’s work in the New Covenant is necessary because of the transgression of Adam in the Covenant of Works. The denial of Adam’s representation of humanity in the form of a covenant misunderstands Paul’s correlation between Adam and those whom he represents and Christ and those whom he represents. Thus, it is said, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to the justification and life for all men” (Romans 5:18).

Conclusion

Williamson, to his credit, understands the soteriological implications of the interactions between God and Adam in Eden.[9] Still, his denial of the Covenant of Works is not consistent with his definition of the term covenant and his application of that definition (see the discussion on Genesis 22 above). Therefore, we must reject Williamson’s position in favor of the Apostle Paul’s understanding of the relationship between Adam and Christ, the context of Hosea 6:4-6, and the exegetical proof of a covenant between God and Adam in Genesis 2:15-17.

Notes:

[1] P.R. Williamson, “Covenant,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, eds. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: InterVaristy Press, 2003), 141.

[2] Williamson, “Covenant,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 141.

[3] Paul R. Williamson, “The Biblical Covenants,” The Gospel Coalition, accessed December 12, 2021, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-biblical-covenants/.

[4] Jonty Rhodes, Covenant Made Simple: Understanding God’s Unfolding Promises to His People (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 27.

[5] Williamson, “Covenant,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 141.

[6] Williamson, “Covenant,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 139.

[7] Williamson, “Covenant,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 148.

[8] Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah Volume 31, World Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 110.

[9] Paul R. Williamson, “The Biblical Covenants,” The Gospel Coalition, accessed December 12, 2021, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-biblical-covenants/.

The following is a manuscript from a sermon preached on February 15, 2026 at Burning Bush Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, MI.

Isaiah 26:1 In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah; We have a strong city; salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks.

2 Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in.

3 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.

4 Trust ye in the Lord for ever: for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength:

5 For he bringeth down them that dwell on high; the lofty city, he layeth it low; he layeth it low, even to the ground; he bringeth it even to the dust.

6 The foot shall tread it down, even the feet of the poor, and the steps of the needy.

Introduction

Good evening, church. It is, once again, an honor to preach the word of God to the people of God for the glory of God. This past Thursday evening, a precious young man in our congregation called me and I could hear worry, sorrow, and a sense of duty in his voice. He informed me that his one-year-old daughter had a seizure and that she was in an ambulance on the way to the hospital. Just the night before, at our mid-week service, my two-year-old daughter was hugging on his daughter. My wife was holding his daughter as she peacefully laid her head upon my wife’s shoulder for respite. In that moment, on the phone, I asked a few questions to assess the need and then, I said, “Brother, I remind you of God’s promise in Isaiah 26:3, ‘Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.’” I reminded him that the Creator of the heavens and the earth is keeping him, his wife, and his daughter, even in times of great difficulty, in perfect peace. Today, we are reminded that although we will face times of discouragement, doubt, and despair we are kept in perfect peace by our perfect Savior.

Putting the Text in Context

We approach our text tonight by looking at the historical setting that Isaiah writes within. Isaiah served Judah beginning in 739 BC. He served under Kings Uzziah, Jothan, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. Recall with me that it was not until the year 586 BC that Judah was exiled into Babylon. Isaiah would have been dead for about 80-100 years at that point in history. This detail is important for us because our text tonight is in Isaiah 26 and it looks forward to the day that Judah returns from an exile that she has not yet experienced. For Isaiah, he provides this song to help Judah keep their mind on God although they will live in a foreign land, enduring times of discouragement, doubt, and despair. This explanation provides great application for our modern audience. Similarly, we are waiting on our arrival into Beulah Land, that is the Heavenly City that we shall inhabit one day. As we eagerly await that day, we too, will face times of discouragement, doubt, and despair but we, God’s covenant people, can continually sing the truths of Isaiah 26 and maintain peace of heart and mind, despite the external chaos that may exist around us. Now that we have looked at the setting, we want to look at the text.

Explanation

Tonight, we will briefly observe the truths of verses 1 and 2 before examining verse 3 more fully. The phrase “In that day” is a phrase used six times in Isaiah 24-27 to discuss the Lord’s victory, the fate of his people, the fate of his foes, and the strong city with open gates. “A song will be sung” to call to memory the covenant faithfulness of Yahweh even though Judah will exist in exile. They look forward to “a strong city” with salvation acting as her walls to keep the good in and the evil out. According to verse 2, the gates of this city are open to the righteous and those who keep the truth (faith). And we must point out that if this strong city is characterized by salvation, righteousness, and faith, it sounds a lot like the heaven we are to inherit. For this reason, many authors think this text has an eschatological feel to it.

Now, as we embark on verse 3, we note the citizens of the strong city possess peace. We want to break verse 3 down and see why we, people subject to discouragement, doubt, and despair, may have peace within. When we examine verse 3, we see a Who, What, and Why.

1) Who – Yahweh is the one doing the keeping.

Here, we ought to think of the words of Jesus in John’s Gospel:

John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

The idea of “keeping” means to guard as one would a fortified city. Jesus prays that Yahweh would “keep [them] through thine own name.” Especially in the Old Testament, a person’s name represented the totality of their person and character. When Christ calls upon His Father to keep us through His name, He is saying keep them through the totality of You who are. Every attribute of God keeps us. His love, mercy, kindness, sovereignty, justice, incomprehensibility, eternality, etc. Every bit of who God is keeps us in perfect peace. Such a truth produces peace in itself.

Subscribe now

2) What – Perfect Peace

Not only are the citizens of the strong city described as those who possess salvation, righteousness, and faith but also peace. The phrase “perfect peace” in the Hebrew is rendered “Peace, Peace.” This displays that perfect peace does not waiver or oscillate. It is not double-minded. How can this be? It is because perfect peace is only possible because it is founded on promises from a perfect Savior who does not waiver or oscillate. Christ, His person and work, is as steady as it gets. These promises, bestowed upon us by Him, include a strong city whose citizens possess salvation, righteousness, and faith.

3) Why – Whose mind is stayed on thee

Why are we kept in perfect peace? The text says “whose mind is stayed on thee.” When we contemplate the term “stayed,” we can think of it as unflinching, settled, and sustained. In his commentary on Isaiah 26:3, John Calvin makes a case that we should understand this phrase “whose mind is stayed on thee” as not referring to your mind staying on God but rather His mind staying on you, His church. He reasons that if “perfect peace” is dependent upon our mind continually “staying” on God, then we will never achieve it and this is not a promise but a hope dashing away like ash in the wind along with our fleeting thoughts. Instead, Calvin says that we are kept in perfect peace because God’s mind stays on thee. His mind is always, unceasingly, and without diminishing, stayed upon thee. Though it helps to keep your mind upon the Lord to promote peace, your peace is perfect because His mind perfectly stays on thee.

How do we keep our mind stayed on God? Trust. Trust means to be confident and sure that there awaits a strong city, walled in with salvation whose gates are open for the righteous. Trust places itself in the One who preserves the strong city in eternity, reasoning that , “Oh, God! If you can preserve the strong city until the day of your second coming, surely you can preserve me now in this hard circumstance.”

Application

How do we take these truths and apply them to our lives? Verse 1 says, “In that day shall this song be sung.” Literally, we should sing the promises of God. When your daughter has a seizure and you have to rush her to the hospital, sing the psalter the whole drive. When your boss is domineering and overbearing, sing the psalter all work day long. When your children disobey, sing the psalter over them, around them, and with them. When you feel like you do not have peace, sing the song of Isaiah 26 to remind yourself that you have a God who keeps you in perfect peace both now in Babylon and forever in the strong city.

Share Reformed & Confessional

Conclusion

Today, we have seen that there waits for us a strong city. Salvation hems her citizens within the city. Her gates are open to the righteous and those who keep the faith. And lastly, peace characterizes the citizens of this city. I ask you church, who provided your salvation? Who imputed his righteousness unto you? Who gave you the gift of faith? Well, the answer is none other than the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ. We should walk away from this portion of Isaiah, not only singing the promises, but worshiping Jesus in our hearts who is the basis for our perfect peace. To hold the promises of Isaiah 26 in our heart is to hold onto the perfect work of Jesus Christ. Tonight, I ask, do you know Christ as Savior and Lord? When you die, will you be a member of that strong city? Or will you be on the outside of the walls of salvation like those who stood outside of the Ark in the days of Noah? Will the gates be shut to you? Are you void of peace? If so, I implore you to seek Christ in salvation for forgiveness of your sins. Come to him for faith, asking for repentance, a new heart, new motives, new love . . . that you would be a recipient of perfect peace from a perfect Savior.