7 Books to Read in 2018

Along with the Bible, make these 7 books your 2018 goal!

  1. God Is by Mark Jones
  2. Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John Murray
  3. Suffering and Sovereignty: John Flavel and the Puritans on Afflictive Providence by Brian Cosby
  4. 9 Marks of a Healthy Church by Mark Dever
  5. Desiring God by John Piper
  6. From the Protestant Reformation to the Southern Baptist Convention: What Hath Geneva to do with Nashville? by Thomas Ascol
  7. Thomas Aquinas by Scott Oliphint

The Role of Women in the Church

Pilgrim & Shire

The role of women in the church is vast in terms of its breadth, and vital for the health of the church.  Women have always played a significant role in the life of the church. In terms of value or worth, women and men are equal: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

In this post I would like to survey some of the more difficult passages in Scripture regarding women in the church. Can a woman teach a man? Does a woman have to remain silent? Is it a problem for a woman to wear her hair down?

1 Timothy 2:11-14 says this: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to…

View original post 5,309 more words

Salvation According to the Baptist Faith and Message (2000)

In this post, I would like to survey the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BFM) in order to understand what it has to teach about salvation. Specifically, is the teaching contained therein consistent with the Reformed tradition or the so-called “Traditionalist” understanding?


Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God.” (Article III).

According to the BFM, all humans inherit from Adam a nature that is inclined to sin. Because of this, at some point in time, all persons are both sinners (transgressors) and under the condemnation of God. It is “only the grace of God” that can bring a person out of this state of condemnation and into a “holy fellowship” with God. Humans are unable to do this on their own, but are “enabled” only by God’s grace. In other words, man cannot save himself—he cannot come to God—except by grace alone.

The Bible affirms more than this but it certainly does not affirm less than this. According to Scripture, Adam’s sin is imputed to every single person from birth (Romans 5:12-19); everyone is dead in sin (Ephesian 2:1); no one is seeking God (Romans 3:11); no one can seek God (Romans 8:6-9); everyone’s heart is sinful (Mark 7:21-23); sinfulness begins in the womb (Ps. 51:5; 58:3); everyone outside of Christ is a slave to sin (John 8:34; Rom. 6:20; Titus 3:3); and our hearts are inclined to do evil continuously (Genesis 8:21). In other words, we are both unable to come to God and our whole being is affected by sin. We are not, therefore, merely sick and in need of medicine; we are dead and in need of spiritual resurrection.


Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.” (Article IV, para A)

Given our spiritual deadness and inability to come to Christ apart from God bestowing His grace, we are in desperate need of a new birth. As this paragraph teaches, regeneration (i.e., being “born again”) comes before faith. There are three clues that point us in this direction. First, note the order of the paragraph. Regeneration is discussed first and then repentance and faith. Second, note the words “to which” and “responds”; that is, the response of repentance and faith is a response to the preceding regeneration. Third, keeping in unity with the rest of the BFM, if a person is unable to come to God because of an inherited sin nature and a subsequent condemned state, then faith cannot come naturally from the believer—it must be given.

In Scripture we see this very thing (c.f., 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1). Jesus said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44; c.f., 6:37). The Book of Acts also exemplifies this, saying, “One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul (16:14). Over and over, we are taught regeneration or being born again precedes faith. In fact, both faith (Acts 13:48; 18:27; Gal. 5:22; Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 1:29) and repentance (Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25-26) are gifts of God, not something naturally intrinsic to humans.


Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God’s sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.” (Article V, para 1).

In this paragraph, the BFM affirms that God elected people to salvation. Election is something that takes place before the foundation of the world. It is “according to” God’s choosing of people that He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies. In other words, from regeneration to glorification, the saving of people is rooted in God’s choice.

Many in both the Reformed and the Arminian traditions agree on this point. “The real difference,” writes Michael Horton, “emerges over whether the elect are chosen unto faith or in view of their faith. In other words, is election unconditional or conditional?”[1] The Reformed have argued that God chose some to salvation not for anything foreseen in the spiritually dead sinner but by God’s purpose and good pleasure alone. The Arminians have said that God looked down the “tunnel of time” and saw what the sinner would freely do and, based on the sinner’s choice, elected those He knew would choose Him.

Jack Cottrell, a Campbellite theologian writing against the Reformed position, argues:

 Those who accept Christ through faith do so of their own free choice. Their choice of Jesus Christ is not predestined. That choice, however, is foreknown; and as a result the choosing ones become the chosen ones, who are then predestined to receive the full blessing of salvation…. Election is conditional because it is based on God’s foreknowledge of who will freely meet the conditions designated by God for receiving salvation…. [Election and predestination] are the result of foreknowledge since by nature God foreknows prior to the event of creation who will and who will not meet the conditions.[2]

Writing from the Reformed position, John Piper, Baptist pastor and theologian, writes:

Election refers to God’s choosing whom to save. It is unconditional in that there is no condition man must meet before God chooses to save him. Man is dead in trespasses and sins. So there is no condition he can meet before God chooses to save him from his deadness…. God does not foreknow those who will come to faith apart from his creating the faith, because there are no such people. Whoever believes has been ‘called’ into faith by the sovereign grace of God. When God looks from eternity into the future and sees the faith of the elect he sees his own work. And he chose to do that work for dead and blind and rebellious sinners unconditionally. For we were not capable of meeting the conditions of faith. We were spiritually dead and blind…. If you are a believer in Christ, you have been loved by God from all eternity. He set his favor on you before the creation of the world.[3]

Which position does the BFM affirm? Given the teaching of the BFM, article 5 should be read as “unconditional election.” Because humans are unable to come to God apart from grace and because regeneration precedes faith, if God merely “looked down the tunnel of time,” He wouldn’t see much of anything going on, in terms of salvation. Unless he gives faith and repentance through regeneration, the sinner will remain dead. And since not everyone believes, it follows that God did not elect everyone.

This is exactly what we find in the Bible:

“Many are called, but few are chosen.” – Matthew 22:14

“And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” – Romans 8:30

“As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”  What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.” – Romans 9:13-23

“For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” – 1 Thessalonians 5:9

“He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved… In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will” – Ephesians 1:4-6, 11

“And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” – Revelation 20:15

“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” – Acts 13:48

“God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” – 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14

The Scriptural truth defended in the BFM is what is called monergism, meaning that salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9). It is God who saves, not man who saves. Instead of electing us based on foreseen faith, Paul says God elected us “according to the purpose of his will” (Eph. 1:5). The decisive reason why I am saved is because of God, not me.

This, says the BFM, “excludes boasting.” Because salvation is not by the will of man (Rom. 9:16), nor by the works of man (Eph. 2:8-9), all boasting is done away with. The one elected is not smarter or better than anyone else. Our only boast is Christ.

Before leaving this section, I think it would be helpful to have one more look at the Baptist Faith and Message (2000) statement on election:

Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God’s sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.”

Let us break this down line-by-line:

Election [God’s choosing, in eternity past, of some persons to be saved] is the gracious purpose of God.”

In other words, the motivation for election is not based on anything foreseen in the dead sinner, but is according to “the gracious purpose of God.” This is a paraphrase of Ephesians 1:5: God’s election is based on the “purpose of His will.” In other words, election is unconditional. The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith affirms, “Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions” (3.2).

 “According to [God’s election] God regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners.”

Based upon the sovereign choice of God, God regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies. That is, the reason someone is ultimately declared righteous (i.e., justified) is because of (“according to”) God’s choice of that person to be saved. This is a paraphrase of Romans 8:30: “And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” There is an unbreakable chain from being predestined to being glorified in heaven.

 “[Election] is consistent with the free agency of man”

In other words, there is a mysterious compatibility between man’s choice and God’s predestination. From an experiential standpoint, it’s like seeing an arch that reads: “Come to Me and I will give you rest… Whosoever will believe will be saved.” You think, “I want to be saved… I want rest.” You enter through the gate. Once in, you look back at the arch. The backside of the arch reads, “I chose you from the foundation of the world.” You rejoice, marvel, and worship. This is a paraphrase of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith:

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree (3.1).

 “[Election] comprehends all the means in connection with the end.”

In other words, you cannot say, “Well, God elected some people to be saved; therefore I won’t evangelize.” This statement is saying, “When God elected some to be saved, He also ordained the way in which they would be saved.” That is, God decreed in eternity past that you would evangelize Mr. X and that Mr. X would believe and be saved. All the means that lead up to an elect person coming to faith is part of God’s election. This is why Paul can say, “Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” (2 Tim. 2:10). This is a paraphrase of the 1689 Confession:

 As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation (3.6)

 “[Election] is the glorious display of God’s sovereign goodness.”

God’s sovereign choice of some to be saved is a display of His goodness and mercy. When all sinners deserve to be in Hell this very moment, God’s goodness is on display in the offer of salvation. If God only saved one person He would be the most gracious God. How much more so that He chose to save “multitudes”!

  “[Election] is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable.”

God’s choice to save some sinners—those whom He predestined in eternity past—is infinitely wise and holy. Also, it is unchangeable. That is, the number of those elected to salvation cannot decrease or increase. Here, again, we see a paraphrase of the 1689 Confession: “These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished” (3.4).

 “[Election] excludes boasting and promotes humility.”

Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9). From eternity past into eternity future, salvation is only of God and not of man. You are not saved because you were smarter or more noble or more moral or more worthy than others. You believe only because of God’s “good pleasure.” This causes “humility,” and excludes “boasting,” for how can you boast in something you did not merit? The Father chose you, the Son bought you by His blood, and the Spirit resurrected you from spiritual death—all to the praise of His glory. This is why your only boast in Christ.

I think it is now clear what Southern Baptists believe regarding the doctrine of election.

Free Offer of the Gospel

It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and of every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations. The new birth of man’s spirit by God’s Holy Spirit means the birth of love for others. Missionary effort on the part of all rests thus upon a spiritual necessity of the regenerate life, and is expressly and repeatedly commanded in the teachings of Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ has commanded the preaching of the gospel to all nations. It is the duty of every child of God to seek constantly to win the lost to Christ by verbal witness undergirded by a Christian lifestyle, and by other methods in harmony with the gospel of Christ.” (Article XI)

Once the truth of monergism is seen, one wonders if the offer to unbelievers is a genuine offer of salvation, or if it is only the elect who receive a genuine offer. Neither the BFM nor the Scriptures will allow us to posit such a view. The Christian must think concretely (i.e., biblically) and avoid abstract rationalism. So says Cornelius Van Til, “To think analogically, to be fearlessly anthropomorphic, is to think concretely, for it is to take all the factors of revelation into considerations simultaneously” (Common Grace and the Gospel, 216).

Scott Oliphint writes that God “sincerely offers the gospel to all who hear it—it is, indeed, a ‘well-meant’ offer—even though, by His decree, only the elect will respond to it.” He goes on to say that “God’s decree and desire need to be seen in a mysterious tandem.”[4] How can God’s election be unconditional and yet the offer of salvation be genuine to all who hear it? We don’t know (Deut. 29:29). Elsewhere, Oliphint elaborates on the pitfalls of abstract thinking:

To reason abstractly, is, for example, to take one truth – e.g., the truth of God’s unconditional election – and to deduce from it that history is meaningless because it is predetermined. Or, to use another example, abstract reasoning would deduce that God’s unconditional decree negates real, human responsibility. Abstract reasoning is inherently nonhistorical and thus nonbiblical. It moves the Arminian, as it does the unbeliever (as well as the denier of common grace), toward a conclusion that negates Scripture’s view of man and of history. And this is just to say that concrete thinking takes seriously the self-sufficiency (and meticulous sovereignty) of God, even while, at the same time, it affirms the meaningful progress of history and the real, meaningful, contingent, responsible choices of man (Common Grace and the Gospel, xxvii).

The sovereignty of God in salvation and the free offer of the gospel are limiting concepts. A limiting concept is when you have two God-revealed truths that seem irreconcilable, but actually require each other, interpret each other, and together advance biblical truth. Given the Creator-creature distinction and the fact that our knowledge is analogical (as oppose to univocal), there are going to be “hyperdoxes,” i.e., truths that we must affirm because they have been revealed, but ultimately go beyond our creaturely minds.[5]

Without being able to hold tensions—to think concretely and not abstractly—we would not be able to comprehend the teaching of Scripture without either doing damage to God’s sovereignty or to human responsibility. In fact, without limiting concepts, I’m not sure how Matthew 11 would be understandable:

At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (vv.25-30)

If God’s sovereign choice and the free offer of the gospel are not a problem for Jesus, then it shouldn’t be a problem to us. Far from squashing evangelism and missions, unconditional election motivates evangelism (Acts 18:9-10; 2 Tim. 2:10).

Once Saved Always Saved

All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.” (Article V, para 2)

The term “once saved, always saved” has been problematic in some circles. Some have walked an aisle, repeated a prayer, and got baptized at summer camp when they were 10 and, while their whole lives has been devoid of Christ, they still think, “I was saved back then, so I’ve still got my burn insurance.”

This is not what is meant by the BFM. All those who are “true believers” will not fall away. There can, however, be false believers. Some false believers will leave the church (1 John 2:19), and some will find out they were not true believers when they die (Matt. 7:21-23). Since it is outside of one’s power to save oneself, it is outside of one’s power to lose the gift of salvation. Perhaps a better term is “perseverance of the saints.”

This is precisely what we see in the Bible (Jer. 32:40; Matt. 13:20-22; Mark 13:13; Luke 8:9-14; John 10:27-30; Rom 8:30; 1 Cor. 1:8-9; 15:1-2; Col. 1:21-23; Phil. 1:6; 3:12; 1 Thess. 5:23-24; 2 Tim. 2:10-12; Heb. 3:12-13; 12:15-17; 13:20-21; 1 Pet. 1:5; 2 Pet. 1:3-11; 1 John 2:19; Jude 24-25; Rev. 2:7). If God has saved you, He will keep you – you cannot fall away.


The Baptist Faith and Message is solidly Reformed in its teaching, congruent with the Particular Baptists of the 17th Century. In fact, many of the early Southern Baptist were thoroughly Reformed in their theology.[6] It’s no wonder that those Southern Baptists whose theology is more in line with the Freewill Baptists or Campbellites or Wesleyans want to rewrite or, at least, edit the BFM, stripping it of its 1689 roots. Some have even proposed a more semi-Pelagian theological agenda for the BFM. Despite all this, the text of the BFM is clear: Humans are unable to come to God without grace, regeneration precedes faith, God elected unconditionally, the offer of salvation is genuine to all who hear the gospel, and a true believer cannot lose his or her salvation.

For more information on the theological roots of the Southern Baptist Convention, see:

Are Southern Baptists Cousins to the Anabaptists?

The Writers of the Abstract of Principles were Southern Baptists 

Theological Continuity Between Sandy Creek and Charleston

Deceitful Calvinists and an Evil God

“I am for Peace, but when I speak…”


© copyright J. Brandon Burks, 2017


[1]Michael Horton, For Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 53.

[2]Jack W. Cottrell, “The Classical Arminian View of Election,” in Perspectives on Election: 5 Views, ed. By Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2006), 81, 83.

[3]John Piper, Five Points: Towards A Deeper Experience of God’s Grace (Geanies House, Fearn, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 2013), 53, 60-61.

[4]K. Scott Oliphint, The Majesty of Mystery: Celebrating the Glory of an Incomprehensible God (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016), 137.

[5]Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel, second edition (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2015), vii-19.

[6]Thomas J. Nettles, The Baptists: Key People Involved in Forming a Baptist Identity, vol. 2 (Geanies House, Fearn, Great Britian: Mentor, 2005), 265; Thomas J. Nettles, Southern Baptist Sermons on Sovereignty and Responsibility (Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 2003).

What Does God Say About Alcohol?

In this article, I will explore the manifold ways in which God in His Word speaks about alcohol in hopes that the Church will stick closely to the teachings of Scripture, neither going beyond nor falling short. In some churches, any alcoholic consumption is deemed sinful, promoting instead a complete and total abstinence of alcohol. Churches on the other side of the spectrum, however, not only permit drinking, but they promote such activity within official church functions. How might the Bible speak into this quandary?

Let us begin by exploring the various ways in which Scripture speaks of alcohol.

Do Not Get Drunk

Throughout Scripture, there is a constant exhortation and command not to be a drunkard (Prov. 23:20-21; Isa. 5:11; Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 6:10; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:18; 1 Tim. 3:3, 8; 1 Thess. 5:8; 1 Pet. 4:3; 5:8). This has in view not only the frequency of drinking but also the prohibition of intoxication. That is, one is not to drink so much that one becomes drunk, and also that one is not to be involved with frequent, daily drinking.

Scripture is clear that “drunkards” will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:10), for “drunkenness” is a “work of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19-21)—something pagans do (1 Peter 4:3). Getting drunk is “debauchery” (Eph. 5:18) and those who partake in such excess are “not wise” (Prov. 20:1). Who has woe, sorrow, and strife? The one who “lingers over wine,” who seeks out “mixed wine,” for intoxication will cause you to “see strange things” and “utter perverse things” (Prov. 23:29-35).

As God’s people, we must be “sober-minded” (1 Pet. 5:8; c.f., 1 Thess. 5:8) and “filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18).

Do Not Cause People to Stumble

 Besides being a drunkard, Scripture prohibits us from causing another brother or sister to stumble (Rom. 14:21; 1 Cor. 8:9; 9:19-23). This could take different forms. First, if a brother or sister is struggling with alcohol addiction, it would be sinful to tempt him or her in their weaker, struggling state. Second, if a brother of sister believed that God was convicting him or her that alcohol was bad, it would be sinful to surround such a person with alcohol.

Paul is helpful here:

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. (Rom. 14:13-21).

In Romans 14, Paul speaks mainly of eating foods that were previously deemed unclean under the Mosaic covenant. Paul is likely exhorting the Gentiles not to “despise” the Jewish Christians who still avoid certain foods, and the Jewish Christians not to “pass judgement” on the Gentiles for not following their customs (14:3). While Paul declares all things clean, he also realizes there are some whose conscious will not permit functioning in that way. That is, there will be some who realize that all things are clean, but they themselves will continue to abstain. Thus, Paul gives the command not to cause a brother or sister to stumble (14:13).

In v.21, Paul expands his argument to apply not only to eating but to drinking wine and anything else that might cause someone to stumble. As John Murray notes, “For the first time we are informed that the drinking of wine was involved in the scruples of the weak” (p.195). Therefore, it would not be wrong to take “eating” as a synecdoche in this chapter. So Murray, “This passage deals with the question of the weak and the strong in a way that applies to every instance in which religious scrupulosity arises in connection with such things as those exemplified in this chapter” (p.174).  If this is the case, one could read v.3 as saying, “Let not him who eats [or drinks wine or whatever else has potential for stumbling] despise him who abstains, and let not him who abstains pass judgement on him who eats [or drinks wine or does something else with potential for stumbling]; for God has welcomed him.” Each side is to respect each other, refrain from judgement, and lovingly not cause the other to stumble.

As God’s people, we must love others and not damage their conscious.

Wine is a Blessing

While there are unyielding prohibitions in the Bible not to get drunk and not to cause others to stumble, the Bible also portrays wine as a blessing (Deut. 7:13; 11:14; 33:28; Neh. 8:10; Ps. 104:14-15; Prov. 3:10; Isa. 55:1-3; Amos 9:14). Having an abundance of wine in the land or feasting with wine is a blessing from God.

Israel dwelt secure in “a land of grain and wine” (Deut. 33:28). After Israel heard the law read, they were told: “Go your way. Eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions to anyone who has nothing ready, for this day is holy to our Lord. And do not be grieved, for the joy of the Lord is your strength” (Neh. 8:10). Israel obeyed: “And all the people went their way to eat and drink and to send portions and to make great rejoicing, because they had understood the words that were declared to them” (Neh. 8:12). Indeed, it is God who ultimately brings forth “wine to gladden the heart of man” (Ps. 104:14-15) and “approves” that you “drink your wine with a merry heart” (Eccl. 9:7), for wine “cheers both God and man” (Judges. 9:13; c.f., Num. 15:7).

As God’s people, we give thanks to God for His bountiful gifts (James 1:17).

Lack of Wine is a Curse

If wine is a blessing, the absence of wine is a curse or a punishment (Deut. 28:51; Isa. 62:8; Lam. 2:12; Hag. 1:10-11). If Israel rebels and breaks the covenant, other armies, warns God, “shall not leave you grain, wine, or oil, the increase of your herds or the young of your flock, until they have caused you to perish” (Deut. 28:51). When God brings merciless destruction upon covenant-breaking Israel, the infants will cry to their mothers, “Where is bread and wine?” (Lam. 2:12). And when God’s temple laid in ruins, unattended and unkept by His people, He punished Israel with a drought that extended even to their “new wine” (Hag. 1:10-11).

As God’s people, we heed the example of Israel.

Blessing of Wine Linked to the Messiah

In the Old Testament, the prophets spoke of a coming day when the Messiah would come and there would be an abundance of blessings. “Behold the days are coming,” says Amos, when “the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and all the hills shall flow with it,” and “they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine” (9:13-15).

It is no surprise that Jesus Himself drank wine (Luke 7:34), and that His first miracle was to turn water into wine (John 2:1-11). While many hosts would bring their best wine first and then offer their cheap, diluted wine once their guests had already had a few glasses, Jesus does the opposite: He brings out good wine and then even better wine. He does this by turning the six jars of water, which were set aside for Jewish purification, into wine. Why six jars? Because six, unlike seven, is a number associated with incompleteness. In this miracle, Jesus claims the insufficiency of Jewish purification rites and shows the people that the Messianic blessings have arrived. Only His blood (as symbolized by the wine) can cleanse and purify, and, now that the Messiah has arrived, the wine will flow!

As God’s people, we are thankful for the blood of Christ and the wine that flowed bountifully with his arrival.

Wine Used as a Metaphor for the Good and Desirable

Wine is also used metaphorically of good and desirable things. It is because wine is good that the metaphor makes sense. For example, Song 7:9: “Your mouth like the best wine. It goes down smoothly for my beloved, gliding over lips and teeth.”

As God’s people, we get the intimate imagery because we understand the metaphorical comparison.

Some Are Told to Drink Alcohol

In Scripture, there are times when people were told to drink alcohol. In Deuteronomy 14:23-26, the people enjoyed alcohol as a part of their tithe: “Spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household.”

And while one should never “drink away” one’s sorrows or seek help from a bottle instead of the Lord, God does say, “Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress” (Prov. 31:6). In the New Testament, Paul advised Timothy to drink some wine to settle his stomach (1 Tim. 5:23).

As God’s people, we learn from the examples in Scripture.

Wine Was Intended for the Lord’s Supper

The use of wine in the worship of God is well attested throughout the Old Testament (Exo. 29:40; Lev. 23:13; Num. 15:5, 10; 28:14). In the New Testament, the use of wine in the worship service continued with the observance of the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:18; 1 Cor. 11:21). Grape juice was not invented until 1869, so it was not an option for centuries of Christian worship. Instead of debating grape juice versus wine, it was sometimes debated whether white wine or red wine should be preferred. John Calvin weighed in:

In regard to the external form of the ordinance, whether or not believers are to take into their hands and divide among themselves, or each is to eat what is given to him; whether they are to return the cup to the deacon or hand it to their neighbour; whether the bread is to be leavened or unleavened, and the wine to be red or white, is of no consequence. These things are indifferent, and left free to the Church. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV, xvii, 43).

As God’s people, we drink the wine and eat the bread in remembrance of Christ’s body broken for us and His blood shed for us.

We Will All Drink Wine When Jesus Returns

When Jesus returns, sin will be done away with. We will receive glorified bodies never to sin again. We will all sit down with Jesus and drink wine and eat bread at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:6-9). Anticipating this, Jesus told His disciples, “I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29).

As God’s people, we long for Christ to return as we observe the Lord’s Supper each week—longing to drink and eat with Him.


As we have seen, the Bible speaks about alcohol from many different vantage points. As Bible-believing Christians we must stick to the teachings of Scripture and not go beyond. Some are so concerned about drunkenness that, in their zeal, they command everyone to abstain from any and all alcohol consumption. This, however, is going the way of the Pharisee. The Pharisees often erected manmade laws to “fence” God’s law. We must avoid this temptation.

Mark Jones has rightly said of this Pharisaical impulse, “This is what happens when the Bible is jettisoned for something else (e.g., worldly wisdom, pragmatism). And when one abandons the Scriptures, you necessarily end up with a form of legalism, which has no power to restrain the flesh.” He reminds us that the (singular) fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Gal. 5:19-23). Therefore, there is no such thing as Christian joy that is without self-control. He goes on to say, “And when you treat Christians like pagans, you’re not only entering into the legalistic realm that Paul and Christ so strongly rail against, but you’re also breaking the first commandment by denying the power of God (see 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 3:16).” He concludes, “In the end, this isn’t even so much about alcohol as it is about the principle of binding consciences, jettisoning biblical ethics, and denying the power of the Spirit to enable us to make a good use of God’s gracious gifts.”

Jones has rightly shown that drinking (not drunkenness) is a Christian liberty issue. When can a minister of the gospel exhort someone, on the basis of Scripture, not to drink? I can only see four situations when this would be biblical. First, if intoxication were in view. Second, if weaker brothers or sisters were present. Third, if a person was struggling with alcohol addiction and under pastoral care and counsel. Fourth, if the person was under legal drinking age (Rom. 13:1-7). Outside of these scenarios, one could not, on the basis of Scripture, command abstinence. If someone, say,  had the occasional glass of wine with dinner, this would in no way be sinful.

Joe Thorn, citing the book What Would Jesus Drink by Brad Wittington, writes:

In all, there are 247 references to alcohol in Scripture. 40 are negative (warnings about drunkenness, potential dangers of alcohol, etc.), 145 are positive (sign of God’s blessing, use in worship, etc.), and 62 are neutral (people falsely accused of being drunk, vows of abstinence, etc.) The Bible is anything but silent on the issue of wine. It, like all alcohol, must be treated carefully, seen as a blessing, and received with thanksgiving among those who drink it. It must not be abused. The old saying is true, “Wine is from God, drunkenness is from the Devil.”

As Bible-followers, let us affirm with Scripture that alcohol is a blessing, a potential danger, at times appropriate, at times inappropriate, and a present and future sacramental reality for the Church. Let us keep balance and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Let us resists manmade laws and legalism. Let us also resist lawlessness and using our freedom to hurt others. Indeed, wisdom, discernment, self-control, thankfulness, and biblical steadiness are required. While various organizations, for whatever reason, may require its members to abstain from alcohol, such a thing is not required by God.

The Historicity of Adam & The Gospel: A Letter

Dear George,

Your question regarding the historical Adam is a question in desperate need of answering in our day. I am going to address your concerns, but let me tell you upfront where I am headed in this letter:  I will argue that a rejection of the historical Adam does damage to the Bible and the gospel message. In other words, the historical Adam is a central component to the Christian faith.

In your previous letter, you reasoned that it does not follow to admit non-literal interpretations of the creation account, only to demand a historical Adam. Not only is this an inconsistency, but you also believe a historical Adam is a peripheral doctrine that has no substantial import to the central issues of, say, being made in the image of God, sin, and redemption.  I will address your former objection first.

As you purported, there are indeed non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1 that are considered orthodox (though, I personally disagree with those non-literal views). One example of this is the framework view held by Meredith Kline. In short, Kline maintains that the creation days are non-sequential and non-literal; that is, the days are structured in a literary framework and are not representative of twenty-four-hour periods.[1] Your question is natural: Given that the creation of Adam is found in a non-literal section of Scripture, on this view, why must one hold to a historical Adam?

To be sure, theologians have rejected a historical Adam, believing Adam was a myth or a “teaching device.” Friedrich Schleiermacher, for example, dehistoricized the creation account. For Schleiermacher, he speaks of the creation account as “an ancient attempt to make good the lack of a historical account of the beginnings of the human race”; nevertheless, we can glean “inner truths” that perpetuate our feeling of “absolute dependence.”[2]

Others have continued to purport a non-historical view: Emil Bruner considered Adam to be a myth, Karl Barth taught that the story of Adam was saga, and H.M. Kuitert believed Adam was simply a “teaching mode.”[3] Regarding Barth, he considered Adam not as a historical person, but a symbol for humanity: “We are all Adam.”[4] Influenced by Immanuel Kant, Barth posited two “dimensions”: Historie and Geschichte. The former is what you find studied by academic historians, while the latter is more akin to a story (which does not have to be completely true) that is not bound or verifiable by professional historians.[5]  Geschichte is where redemptive-history take place.

Kuitert, on the other hand, believed there was a “time-bound dimension” to the biblical writers; thus, Paul is not concerned with history, but with a model by which he can teach about Jesus.[6] A teaching model contains two elements: first, it is a self-effacing illustration, and, second, its significance is bound solely to the illustration.[7] These are just some of the proposals offered by those who reject a historical Adam.

Something to notice upfront is that non-literal does not equate to non-historical, as Kline and others are eager to emphasize.[8] Just because one understands something to be non-literal, does not entail it being ahistorical. There are several reasons why a non-literal reading of the creation account is permitted, while a non-historical view is not.

Broadly speaking, the reason Adam is to be viewed as a historical person is because of the way the rest of the Bible speaks of him. “The other Scriptures,” writes James Petigru Boyce, “both of the Old and New Testament, endorse the correctness of all the facts stated in Genesis by frequent allusions to one or another of them as undoubted truths.”[9]

One of these passages is Romans 5:12-21, which compares Christ over against Adam: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (v.12).[10] Adam is pictured here as “a type of the one who was to come” (v.14). This τύπος is sometimes designated “pattern” (NIV), “figure” (KJV), or “prototype” (HCSB). J.P. Versteeg says the meaning denotes “impression,” “imprint,” or “statuette”; “The word also takes on the meaning of the ‘mold’ with which an impression, imprint, or statuette is made.”[11]

Given what Versteeg said above, the text of Romans 5 is significant because Adam and Christ relate to each other in a mold-statuette relationship, which involves a fixed correspondence.[12] E.E. Ellis points out three factors regarding New Testament typology: First, the type is not to be separated from what God is doing in history; second, the connecting point between type and antitype is determined by God’s plan of redemption; and third, the Old Testament type and the New Testament antitype, which occur in two different dispensations, can only be understood “within the framework of the divine economy of salvation.”[13] In a more concise way, David Murray defines a “type” as “a real person, place, object, or event that God ordained to act as a predictive patter or resemblance of Jesus’ person and work, or of opposition to both.”[14] Therefore, when Paul calls Adam a “type” of Christ, this speaks directly to the historicity of Adam. It would require significant textual justification to take Adam as the only non-historical type in the Bible.

Also, in Romans 5, Paul contrasts the differences between Adam and Jesus, as he teaches on the state of those in Adam juxtaposed to those in Christ. Herman Ridderbos captures this, writing, “Christ and Adam stand over against one another as the great representatives of the two aeons, that of life and that of death.”[15] Thomas Schreiner likewise affirms, “Adam and Christ are analogous in that the status of all human beings depends on the work of Adam or Christ. The contrast between the two comes to the forefront in that Adam’s impact on humanity was evil and Christ’s was good.”[16] Given what Paul is doing in Romans 5, positing a teaching model would damage the unique position of Adam, “namely the position of ‘the one,’ the representative head of the old humanity.”[17]

Moreover, the gospel is highlighted by the structure of vv.12-19: All of humanity have sinned in Adam, and therefore need redemption in Christ. Paul begins his argument in verse 12 by introducing the protasis (ὥσπερ), makes a few supportive comments, and then gives the apodosis in verse 18 (οὕτως καὶ). His argument is that the “one sin” by which “all sinned” (aorist active) is the “one trespass” of Adam. In other words, Adam’s sin, by way of immediate imputation, renders all of humanity guilty in Adam. This plight is that which is overturned and undone by Christ. Murray elaborates on the argument of the passage:

[T]he comparison introduced in verse 12, though broken off and not completed in the express terms which the protasis of verse 12 would suggest and dictate, is in essential thought identical with that which is stated in its completeness in verse 18 and 19. This means that the sin referred to in verse 12, particularly in the last clause, must be that same sin that is defined in verse 18 as ‘the one trespass’ and in verse 19 as ‘the disobedience of the one man.’ And when we go back to the three preceding verses (15-17) and bear in mind the close knit unity of the passage, we must conclude that the same sin is in view in verses 15, 17 where it is called the trespass of the one…. Hence Paul is saying that death passed on to and reigned over those who did not personally and voluntarily transgress as Adam did, and therefore the ‘all sinned’ of verse 12 cannot refer to individual personal transgression. [18]

“Christ presupposes Adam and succeeds him,” says Herman Bavinck.[19] This is evidenced by Luke’s Gospel where he caps the beginning of Christ’s genealogy, writing, “the son of Adam, the son of God” (3:38). Genealogies during the first century were carefully investigated, which casts doubt upon the notion that Luke saw Adam as anything but a historical person; in no way is this called into question by the theological import of the genealogy, for the theological character is based on its historicity.[20] That is, there are no textual reasons to understand some persons as fictitious and others as historical in Jesus’ genealogy.

Adam is, furthermore, mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament. In Jude 14, Adam is again listed in a genealogy as being “seventh” from Enoch. Also, in 1 Timothy 2:13-14, Paul anchors his dual prohibition against women teaching and excising authority over a man in both the creation and fall narrative. “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor,” says Paul. Versteeg notes that if Paul is using Adam as an ahistorical teaching model, then Paul is concerned with a “generally valid truth,” which is exemplified by the Adam and Eve illustration. But what “generally valid truth,” he asks? Is it a generally valid truth that men are superior to women, and women are more susceptible to temptation? He concludes:

So, in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 Paul does not start from generally valid truths which Adam and Eve illustrate, but from historical facts. Nothing is said about a generally valid truth of a natural priority of man over women, but certainly something is said about the fact that Adam was formed first.[21]

For these reasons, the Bible will not permit us to speak of Adam as a non-historical person; his historicity is presupposed by the other biblical writers down into the New Testament. Therefore, while one may side with Kline on a non-literal reading of the creation days, he cannot import non-historical features into the creation account if he wishes to remain orthodox. But who cares, you ask? Is not this debate a pedantic enterprise, unconnected from the central truths of Christianity? I will now turn to address your second point.

As hinted above in Romans 5, the historicity of Adam has direct consequence for how one views sin and redemption. This become equally clear in Paul’s contrast of Adam and Christ in 1 Corinthians 15. Here, Paul speaks of people being “in Christ” or “in Adam” (v.22). F. Neugebauer proposes that “in Christ” is to be taken historically rather than locally or mystically. That is, one is “in Christ” with reference to an event: “’to be’ in Christ does not mean an ontological condition but the fact of being determined by the once-for-all work of Christ and having involvement in that event.”[22] Given how “in Christ” is functioning, “in Adam” would function in the same manner: “in Adam” is “the fact of being determined by the disobedience of Adam, through which death came into the world.”[23] Just as the events of Christ are historical, so too are the events of Adam.

First Corinthians 15 gives another comparison of gospel importance. In vv.42-29, Paul compares a dead, sinful body to a resurrection body, and Adam’s pre-fall body (c.f., Gen. 2:7) to Christ’s resurrection body. Interestingly, Paul identifies the “natural (or “psychical”) body” (σῶμα ψυχικόν) of vv.42-44a with Adam’s pre-fall “natural (or “psychical”) body” (σῶμα ψυχικόν) in vv.44b-45. Adam’s pre-fall body, being sub-eschatological, is death-like in comparison to the resurrected body of Christ (and ours, by extension).[24] Here, the covenant of works comes into view. Had Adam obeyed God and kept the covenant, he would have brought humanity from the state of innocence into the state of glory. Though Adam failed (Hos. 6:7), the second Adam kept the covenant of works and will bring His own into glory. According to Richard Gaffin, Paul’s

interest is to show that from the beginning, prior to the fall, a higher or different kind of body than the body of Adam, the psychical body, is in view. Adam, by virtue of creation (not because of sin), anticipates and points to another, higher form of somatic existence. The principle of typology enunciated in Romans 5:14 is present here, albeit somewhat differently: the creation body of Adam is ‘a type of the one to come.’ This suggestion of typology helps illumine the use of Genesis 2:7 in verse 45, especially the addition in 45c.[25]

The connection to sin and redemption could not be more clear. Regarding sin, Strimple astutely notes: the question, “Was Adam a historical person?” is really asking, “Was the Fall a real event in human history?”[26] Without a historical Fall, we are left asking if sin is somehow natural? If sin is natural to humanity, what, if anything, can be done to remove this sin, which is, on this basis, intrinsic to creation? There is much at stake here, for “without a doctrine of the Fall there is no hope of redemption. There is no ‘good news’! There is no biblical Christianity!”[27] Thus the correct, i.e., biblical, view of Adam is that he was a person, in history, who, while representing all of humanity, sinned against God. Humanity, then, relates to Adam in two significant ways, namely, in a natural sense (all are descended from him), and in a forensic sense (his sin is imputed to every human).[28]

Regarding redemption, Strimple rightly observes, “[U]nless we really stand guilty, condemned to death on the basis of the disobedience of Adam, there is no reason to believe that we are justified, declared to be righteous, on the basis of the obedience of the Second Adam, Christ.”[29] The work and mission of the second Adam is incomprehensible if the first Adam was a literary fiction.

One final central doctrine affected by the historical Adam discussion is the image of God. The historical Adam preserves the special creation of man, not after his kind, but by divine counsel (“let us make”). Man, brought to life through formation (Gen. 2:7a) and impartation (Gen. 2:7b), is crafted in the image of God.[30] “So the whole human being,” writes Bavinck, “is image and likeness of God, in soul and body, in all human faculties, powers, and gifts.”[31] After the Fall, the broad image remained (Gen. 5:1; 9:6; Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 11:7; Jas. 3:9) while the narrow image (i.e., knowledge, righteousness, and holiness) was destroyed, only to be regained through union with Christ (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10).[32] Here again, the parallels between Adam and Christ are such that to throw out the historical Adam is to throw anthropology into confusion.

That this is beyond a slippery slope is seen in Barth, whose rejection of a historical Adam led him to posit a view of “built-in sin,” and thus of “built-in grace” and a symbolical Christ.[33] Given the identical structure between Adam and Christ, what one does with the former has consequence for what one does with the latter.[34] To be sure, science gives pushback on the historicity of Adam, but it would do good to keep the words of Cornelius Van Til in mind: “revelation in nature and revelation in Scripture are mutually meaningless without one another and mutually fruitful when taken together.”[35] As I hope my letter has shown, there is ample reason to believe the Bible requires—nay, mandates—a historical Adam.

Yours Truly,

J. Brandon Burks

© copyright J. Brandon Burks, 2017

Also See:

Sabbath Musings

Theological Conviction: Humble or Arrogant? Martin Luther and the Perspicuity of Scripture

Amillennialism vs. Historic Premillennialism

A Puritan View of Witchcraft

[1]Lee Irons and Meredith Kline, “The Framework View,” in The Genesis Debate, ed. by David G. Hagopian (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001), 217-252.

[2]Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, ed. by H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1976), 244, 250.

[3]Robert B. Strimple, “Was Adam Historical?” in Confident of Better Things: Essays Commemorating Seventy-Five Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, ed. by John R. Muether and Danny E. Olinger (Willow Grove, PA: The Committee of the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2011), 215-216.

[4]Ibid., 215.

[5]John M. Frame, A History of Western Philosophy and Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2015), 377-379.

[6]J.P. Versteeg, Adam in the New Testament: Mere Teaching Model or First Historical Man? trans. by Richard B. Gaffin (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2012), 1-3.

[7]Ibid., 4.

[8]Irons and Kline, “The Framework View,” 219.

[9]James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 1977), 190.

[10]Unless otherwise stated, all Scripture taken from the English Standard Version (ESV).

[11]Versteeg, Adam in the New Testament, 9.

[12]Ibid., 10.

[13]Ibid., 11-14.

[14]David Murray, Jesus on Every Page: 10 Simple Ways to Seek and Find Christ in the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2013), 138.

[15]Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1975), 57.

[16]Thomas R. Schreiner, “Romans,” in Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 1998), 284.

[17]Versteeg, Adam in the New Testament, 29.

[18]John Murray, “The Imputation of Adam’s Sin,” in Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for us in Justification, ed. by K. Scott Oliphint (Fern, Ross-shire, Great Britain: Mentor, 2007), 221-222

[19]Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, vol. 2, ed. by John Bolt, trans. by John Vreind (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2004), 564.

[20]Versteeg, Adam in the New Testament, 32-34.

[21]Versteeg, Adam in the New Testament, 42.

[22]Ibid., 38.

[23]Ibid., 39.

[24]Lane Tipton, “The Context of Union with Christ:  The Resurrection of Christ as Life-Giving Spirit, Part I (I Cor. 15:42-49)” (lecture, Westminster Theological Seminary, Glenside, PA, 2017).

[25]Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1978), 82.

[26]Strimple, “Was Adam Historical?” 216.

[27]Ibid., 218.

[28]Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, ed. by James T. Dennison, Jr., trans by George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1992), 577.

[29]Strimple, “Was Adam Historical?” 221.

[30]John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2: Systematic Theology (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth, 1977), 6-7.

[31]Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 561.

[32]Ibid., 550.

[33]Strimple, “Was Adam Historical?” 222.

[34]Versteeg, Adam in the New Testament, 56, 66

[35]Cornelius Van Til, “Nature and Scripture,” in The Infallible Word: A Symposium by the Members of the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1967), 269; c.f., 267.

A Puritan View of Witchcraft

What follows is a section from a paper I wrote on the Salem Witch Trials. In the paper, I explore the theological context of the trials. Since this is a historical piece and not a writing in systematic theology, I will attempt to capture their understanding without evaluating the truthfulness of their understanding. The question I was wrestling with was this: In 1692, what would have been a general Puritan view of witchcraft in and around Salem Village?

To answer this question, I will survey the works of William Perkins (1558-1602), Nathaniel Holmes (1599-1678), Richard Baxter (1615-1691), Samuel Parris (1653-1720), and Cotton Mather (1663-1728) to form a general Puritan view of witchcraft during this time.[1] This section will, first, consider the nature of a witch, second, the affliction and power of the witch, third, ways the Puritans taught to fight against witchcraft, and, finally, how to detect and punish a witch.

The Nature of a Witch

“Witchcraft is a wicked art,” writes Perkins, “serving for the works of wonders, by the assistance of the Devil, so farre forth as God shall in justice permit.”[2] Or as Mather taught: “Witchcraft seems to be the Skill of Applying the Plastic Spirit of the World, unto some unlawful purpose, by means of a Confederacy with Evil Spirits.”[3] The witch, more specifically, is a “Magician, who either by open or secret league, wittingly, and willingly, consenteth to use the aide and assistance of the Devil, in the working of Wonders.”[4] The witch can be a man or a woman, though “the woman beeing the weaker sexe, is sooner intangled by the devils illusions with this damnable art, then the man.”[5]

Fundamental to the Puritan understanding of a witch is the covenant made between the witch and the devil. “THe Ground of all the practices of Witchcraft,” writes Perkins, “is a league or covenant betweene the Witch and the Devil: wherein they doe mutually bind themselves each to other.”[6] After Satan deceived humanities first parents in the Garden, he soon realized that man’s estate in the covenant of grace was better than before, and thus he covenants with men and women so that he “may testify both his hatred of God, and his malice against man.”[7]

Perkins taught that the covenant with Satan can be either expressed and open or secret and closed. If it is expressed and open, the witch binds himself by a solemn vow to Satan, promising to “renounce the true God, his holy word, the covenant he made in Baptism, and his redemption by Christ.”[8] The witch will also give the devil his signature or blood. In return, Satan

promiseth to be ready at his vassals command, to appeare at any time in the likeness of any creature, to consult with him, to aide and helpe him in any thing he shall take in hand, for the procurement of pleasures, honour, wealth, or prefer ment, to goe for him, to carry him whether he will; in a word, to doe for him, whatsoever hee shall command.[9]

The secret covenant is made between the witch and Satan when superstition is used: either superstitious forms of prayer or the use of superstitious means to bring about a desired result. This could be in the forms of charms or even the use of unknown or barbaric means of curing diseases. Such a person consents to Satan “in his heart.”[10] What is troubling about this latter sort of covenant is that one may not know he or she is evoking Satan’s help. Perkins maintains, regarding the ignorant, that “such persons have made as yet no league with Satan, but they are in the high way thereunto. And this course is a fit preparatiό to cause them to joyne with him in covenant.”[11] What is more, the superstitions and charms could be saturated in Scripture and yet be witchcraft nonetheless. Using Scripture or prayer in a superstitious manner, conducting elaborate, ritual exorcisms like the Church of Rome, or merely using the name of Jesus to drive out Satan are all unlawful forms of superstition.[12]

It is with regard to the covenant with Satan that the Colony diverges from Europe. On the Continent a league with Satan had an exotic twist. Baxter records:

 I think it most likely, that when Witches, Men and Women, confess their filthy Lying with Devils, that it is done more to exercise the Lust of the Witch than of the Devil: And that sometimes he doth it by a Body of gross Air, and sometimes may gratifie the Lust of one Witch on another, or on a tempted ignorant Wretch. He can bring a Witch in without opening the Door, can bring such an one (Male or Female) into another’s Bed.[13]

In another testimony, Baxter records that a twelve-year-old girl began sleeping with the devil and did so for thirty years. In fact, given the plethora of testimonies it is maintained that the “Concubitus of the Devils with Witches (Male and Female) hath so full Testimonies, as is not to be denied.”[14]

In the Colony, however, such testimonies were silenced. Increase Mather, the father of Cotton Mather, dismissed such testimonies as false memories and hallucinations planted by Satan.[15] “Continental witches had more fun,” commented Stacey Schiff, “The Massachusetts witch’s familiars—which she suckled, in a maternal relationship—were unexotic by comparison.” Schiff continues: “Even in her transgressions she was puritanical. She rarely enjoyed sexual congress with the devil.”[16] Thus, for the witches in Salem, eroticism was not part of the covenant bond with the devil.

The covenant bond with Satan was also enacted by ceremony and ritual. Just as God has his sacraments and seals of His covenant, so “the devil hath his words and certaine out ward signs to ratified the same to his instruments.”[17] Mather records that “Witches do say, that they form themselves much after the manner of Congregational Churches; and that they have a Baptism and a Supper, and Officers among them, abominably Resembling those of our Lord.”[18]

The devil is said to exhibit “himself ordinarily as a small Black man” and bids people to sign his book.[19] Mather records that over twenty people admitted to signing the book and entering Satan’s “horrid service” filled with “Hellish Randezvouzes,” and “Diabolical Sacraments” for the purpose of destroying the kingdom of Jesus Christ.[20] Normally, it is Satan who is said to initiate the temptation to sign his book, but sometimes Satan can be conjured. In one testimony from London, for example, the son of a minister read a book entitled Conjuration, which caused Satan to appear.[21]

As a corollary of entering into league with the devil, the witch was given a mark. The devil’s mark, Schiff describes, could be “blue or red, raised or inverted. They might resemble a nipple or a fleabite. They came and went. Essentially any dark blemish qualified, though a mark in the genital area was particular incriminating.”[22] It is unclear if the devil’s mark and the witch’s teat are the same mark, or if there are some differences. Regarding the latter, “anything raised or discolored could qualify as a teat.”[23] The purpose of the teat is not because Satan needs blood, but rather it allow the devil to enter the witch’s body and thus control it more efficiently.[24] Mather, recounting the evidence against Bridget Bishop, one of the women executed in Salem for witchcraft, recorded that a teat was found upon her body but disappeared within three to four hours.[25] What is more, many witches have imps, which are supernatural, demonic creatures used for the purpose of spying and carrying out diabolical acts. These imps would suckle a witch’s teat for nourishment. In one testimony, a woman came to take care of her sick mother only to discover her mother suckled an imp in the likeness of a mole (though she swore she was not in covenant with Satan).[26] Other reports in New England recount witches suckling yellow birds between their fingers.[27]

One might wonder, however, if this is the only sort of witch: diabolical and bent on doing evil. What about those “white” witches who claim to despise evil and want to do good? According to Perkins the good witch is the “more horrible and detestable Monster,” for the good witch will appear as a wise man or wise woman.[28] He or she is still in league with Satan, for this is how he orders his kingdom, “appointing to severall persons their severall offices and charges.”[29]  Suppose a man is afflicted by a bad witch only to be healed by a good one; while he was hurt by the bad witch, the good witch “hath done him a thousand times more harme, for

the one did only hurt the body, but the devil by means of the other, though he have left the body in good plight, yet he hath laid fast hold on the soule, and by curing the body, hath killed that. And the part thus cured, cannot say with David, The Lord is my helper; but the devil is my helper; for by him he is cured…. The good immediately accomplished his desire, by intangling the soule in the bands of errour, ignorance, and false faith.[30]

According to Perkins, there is still yet another distinction to be made with regard to witches. Not only are there good and bad witches—both being in covenant with Satan—but there are divining witches and working witches. The former are those witches who “reveal strange things either past, present, or to come, by the assistance of the Devil.”; the latter are those witches who are active and operative.[31]

The Afflictions Imposed by Witches

Having inquired into the nature of a witch, the afflicting power and capabilities of a witch will be discussed henceforth. Part and parcel with a discussion regarding a witch’s power, is an explanation of the devil, for it is believed that the witch can only work wonders by the power of Satan—and this only by the permission of God. According to Mather, the devil is a fallen angel, a spiritually wicked monster who works tirelessly to fight against the kingdom of God. And while he is more powerful and educated than any man on earth, God has him on a leash.[32]

Perkins highlights four reasons why God allows evil and witchcraft to occur: First, to punish the wicked for their sins, second, to avenge Himself of the ingratitude of those who have His word but do not obey it, third, to arise the godly who are slothful and living in sin, and, fourth, to test His people in order to see if they will cling to Him or follow Satan.[33]

According to Perkins, witchcraft is the chief ordinance in Satan’s kingdom. Through witches, the devil is able to work wonders toward the destruction of God’s kingdom. Satan’s power of illusion, his superior knowledge, the great number of his demonic army, and spiritual powers are the backdrop of the witch’s ministry.

Regarding Satan’s power of illusion, Holmes explains, “Then again, by his exceeding power and agility, he can either change the seeing power of the eye, or the condition of the air; or he can trouble the inward fancy, making it to take notice of phantoms present.”[34] By this power of illusion, witches have been seen to appear as wolves, lions, dogs, birds, toads, or other creatures, “but only in appearance, and phantasie corrupted,” for Satan, while powerful, cannot change the substance of a man into an animal.[35] It is by these illusions that Satan could appear in the likeness of Samuel when conjured by the witch at Endor.[36] The witch, by extension, has the power of juggling; that is, deceiving people by making them think they see things they do not.[37]

Moreover, it is by the devil’s superior knowledge that witches, of the divining sort, can come to know the future.[38] Satan knows the prophetic Scriptures and what is happening all over the world through the presence of his demonic informants; therefore, through the means of astrology, dreams, and other instruments the witch comes to know fantastical things. Satan is able to “frame dreams in the braine of a man,” and perform other such supernatural feats.[39] However, while Satan is skillful toward this end, “yet it is above his reach to determine of such things as these are, or to foretell them without helpe from God.”[40] In other words, while Satan is big and powerful, God is infinitely bigger and more powerful.

The great number of Satan’s demonic army, which is all over the world, allows a witch’s spells and charms to be made effective toward diabolical ends. The words she speaks have no power in and of themselves, but they are the Satan’s “watch words.” The charm or inchantment works by the power of Satan “who then is stirred up, when the charme is repeated.”[41]

Divining, charms, and juggling are the chief tools of the witch. By the spiritual powers of the devil, the witch can perform mighty deeds, to include creating storms or even sending her specter to do her evil bidding.[42] The witchs’ specter is commissioned by them and represents them in order to be “the Engine of their Malice.”[43] The specter has the power to haunt, bite, hit, or even kill, if permitted.[44] Mather records that the “learned Scribonius” was praying for someone afflicted by evil spirits when he himself received “an horrible Blow over the face” by an evil spirit.[45] “The people thus afflicted,” continues Mather,

are miserably scratched and bitten, so that the Marks are most visible to all the World, but the cause utterly invisible; and the same Invisible Furies do most visibly stick Pins into the bodies of the afflicted, and scale them, and hideously distort, and disjoint all their members, besides a thousand other sorts of Plagues beyond these of any natural diseases which they give unto them, Yea, they sometimes drag the poor people out of their chambers, and carry them over Trees and Hills, or divers miles together.[46]

Baxter warns, however, that it is hard to know when the specter is the devil, a witch’s specter, or a human spirit. He reasons that since “Angels can be here, and do their Office for us, without such Descent as shall abate their Joy and Glory; and why not blessed Souls too, if they shall be equal with Angels?” [See note].[47] Later, Baxter records of an event when a specter came to a woman in the likeness of her husband with appeals to enter her bed. She refused, but as the week progressed the specter became violent and afflicted those present by striking their faces with black smoke and their bodies with bruises.[48] Indeed, discerning whether the specter is Satan in disguise, a witch’s specter, or just that of a loved one has proven difficult.[49]

Before leaving the power and means by which the witch afflicts, the most prominent, albeit extremely odd, means must be discussed. In many cases, the bewitched are brought to vomit various objects: Stones, iron, nails, brass, crooked pins, blood, glass, white mercury, head-bodkins, nitre, dog’s hair, bone, veins, chestnuts, flesh, hen’s bone, horse’s teeth, cockleshells, horse dung, feathers, thread, knives, and straw have all been reported to have been vomited by the bewitched.[50] Baxter recorded an account of a woman who vomited over two-hundred crooked pins in one sitting, and then continued to vomit objects for nearly six months. Men inspected her mouth before and after the vomiting to insure there was no foul play.[51] In some cases, despite vomiting pins and sharp knives, there was surprisingly no blood [See note].[52] Some of the items vomited or voided were items that were previously seen in a witch’s basket.[53] As to how the items were placed into the victims, Mather records testimony of a bee flying into a boy’s mouth and placing penny nails into his throat.[54]

Fighting Against Witchcraft

Weapons against witchcraft range from the bizarre to the more conventional. Baxter records a remedy from Bartholomew Carrichters, who recommended mixing various greases and herbs together as a cure for the bewitched [See note].[55] This kind of “counter-magic” was condemned, however, by Samuel Parris, the minister of Salem Village. When Mary Sibley, a member of Parris’s church, attempted her own concoction to combat the present afflictions, Parris claimed she was “going to the devil for the help against the devil,” and setting up a satanic lightning rod.[56]

Perkins, taking a more conventional approach, taught that there are preventative and restorative means of combating witchcraft. If one wants to prevent from being bewitched, things such as becoming a member of the covenant of grace, partaking of Christ by faith, repenting of sin, living unto God in obedience and a newness of life, and sitting under the preached word are the prescribed means.[57] Restorative means of combating the effects of witchcraft are a bit more complicated. Perkins maintains that the apostolic gifts of casting out devils and curing witchcraft have ceased after about two hundred years subsequent Christ’s ascension.[58] Nevertheless, Perkins subscribes three restorative remedies to the afflicted: First, examine yourself and try to discover why God has allowed Satan to bewitch you, second, show forth your faith through prayer and fasting, and, finally, endure the affliction as discipline from God.[59] To this list, Mather adds that joining a church and consecrating your children are good means to prevent witchcraft, and when tormented by Satan, Mather suggests saying the following:

Satan, thy time with me is but short, Nay thy time with me shall be no more; I am unutterably sorry that it has been so much; Depart from me thou Evil-Doer, that thou would’st have me to be an Evil Doer like thy self; I will now for ever keep the Commandments of that God, in whom I Live and Move, and have my Being![60]

The Puritans repudiated the methods of Rome in the distinguishing of devils. The elaborate rituals, procedures, relics, and formulas were seen as itself an act of sorcery. “One great cause of the hardening of those Infidels, is, the frequent Impostures which the Romanists obtrude on the World in their Exorcisms and pretended Miracles,” records Baxter.[61] Since the casting out of demons has ceased with the apostles, “for any ordinary man now to command the Devil in such sort,” writes Perkins, “is meere presumption, and a practise of Sorcerie.”[62] The Papists, Perkins maintains, are heirs of Simon the Magician, have adopted satanic doctrines, and even some of their popes have been witches in league with the devil.[63] As was seen with Satan commissioning both good and bad witches to counteract each other, so the logic holds that some methods of witchcraft (e.g., Roman exorcisms) are able to combat the effects of witchcraft—as Parris stated: “going to the devil for the help against the devil” [See note].[64]

The Discovering and Punishing of Witches

In his book, On Witchcraft, Mather includes a chapter giving an abstract of Perkins’s way for discovering a witch, of which there are eight: (1) If there is presumption that warrants an occasion for examination; (2) If a man or woman is defamed for a witch; (3) If a fellow-witch has named the man or woman; (4) if after cursing a person, death or mischief follows; (5) if after quarrelling or threatening a person, death of mischief follows; (6) if the person is the child, servant, or friend of a convicted witch; (7) if the person has the devil’s mark; (8) if the suspect is inconsistent or argues from a guilty conscious.[65] It has also been testified that a witch cannot recite the Lord’s prayer, for Satan prevents those in covenant with him from doing so.[66]

During the interrogations, the Puritan’s sought to exercise care that innocent persons were not wrongfully charged with witchcraft. Perkins warns: “They [the jurors] would be carefull what they do, and not to condemne any party suspected upon bare presumption, without sound and sufficient proofes, that they be not guilty through their owne rashness of shedding innocent blood.”[67] Similarly, Mather explained, “[H]ow unhappy are we!” if innocent blood were to be shed.[68] Mather also warns that Satan, masquerading as an angel of light, can deceive people into thinking justice is being served when in truth it be only mischief. On the other hand, if only guilty witches are brought to justice then “How Happy!”[69]

Mather writes that the witch could confess and repent, at which time the authorities would rejoice “in a Soul sav’d from Death.”[70] Perkins shares the same sympathy: “All Witches judicially and lawfully convicted, ought to have space of repentance granted unto them.”[71] Though, Perkins maintained a stricter course: “wherein they may be instructed and exhorted, and then afterwards executed…. [T]he magistrate must execute justice upon malefactors lawfully convicted, whether they repent or not.”[72]

The Puritans held to theonomic principles wherein some of the laws of Moses were seen as being at work even in the new covenant church. Perkins taught that the law of Moses, which stated that witches were to be put to death (Exo. 22:18), was perpetual, for it seeks to maintain a perpetual moral precept and “hath in it the equitie of the Law of nature.”[73] In fact, Perkins ends his book, A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft, with this line: “Death therefore is the just and deserved portion of the good witch.”[74] Mather agrees with Perkins; he praises Constantine, believing all lands and nations are to be Christ’s, and that the magistrates promote holiness through the law.[75] Regarding New England, some Puritans referred to it as a “New England Israel,” and, as one historian noted, “Sin and crime were close cousins in seventeenth-century Massachusetts, which drew its list of capital offenses from the Bible.”[76]

© copyright J. Brandon Burks, 2017


[1]In these works, Perkins functions as the paragon, someone the rest appeal to. Baxter and Mather also show mutual appreciation, and Parris appeals to Baxter at points.

[2]William Perkins, A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft (1608; reprint Middletown, DE: Theophania, 2016), 15. The older works are filled with archaic spelling, capitalizations, and emphases. Unless otherwise stated, all oddities are to be assumed original.

[3]Cotton Mather, On Witchcraft (1962; reprint Mineola, NY: Dover, 2005), 131. The older works are filled with archaic spelling, capitalizations, and emphases. Unless otherwise stated, all oddities are to be assumed original.

[4]Perkins, A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft, 92.


[6]Ibid., 33. [Capitalization original].

[7]Ibid., 34-35.

[8]Ibid., 36.


[10]Ibid., 37-38.

[11]Ibid., 38.

[12]Ibid., 81-84.

[13]Richard Baxter, The Certainty of the Worlds of Spirits (1691; reprint Middletown, DE: Theophania, 2016), 14. In this volume, Baxter collects letters and testimonies of those who have seen, experienced, or heard about strange, supernatural occurrences. It can be difficult to locate where Baxter’s comments end and a collected letter begins. Thus, when using this volume, I will introduce a citation with “Baxter records” or “Baxter recounts,” as it is, after all, Baxter who is including these testimonies and letters into his book.

[14]Ibid., 71-72.

[15]Schiff, The Witches, 63.  Increase Mather (1639-1723) was raised in accordance to the strict puritanism of his father, Richard Mather. Attending Harvard at the age of twelve, Increase Mather would pastor Second Church in Boston for almost sixty-years. What is more, he had a leading role in various synods, to include the Boston Synod where he wrote the preface for their Confession of Faith, which was after the Savoy Declaration. He, further, vigorously upheld the older Puritan theocracy and establishment order in church and state. In 1691 when citizenship was defined in terms of property and not in terms of church membership, Mather became “deeply distressed.” Less mystical than his son, Cotton Mather, Increase Mather would write Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits, arguing against spectral evidence. The book played a role in ending the witch trials. Joel R. Beeke and Randall J, Pederson, Meet the Puritans (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage, 2006), 421, 431-434.

[16]Ibid., 62-63.

[17]Perkins, A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft, 35.

[18]Mather, On Witchcraft, 130; c.f., 167.

[19]Ibid., 67; c.f., 103, 163, 165-166. The “Black Man” image of Satan is rich in Puritan literature, though sometimes Satan is said to appear as an “Indian”—the very people many in the colony feared. Although, Baxter record him as a “Big, Black Man.” Baxter, The Certainty of the Worlds of Spirits, 32.

[20]Mather, On Witchcraft, 16, 68.

[21]Baxter, The Certainty of the Worlds of Spirits, 46-47.

[22]Schiff, The Witches, 61.

[23]Ibid., 193.

[24]Ibid., 194.

[25]Mather, On Witchcraft, 112.

[26]Baxter, The Certainty of the Worlds of Spirits, 41.

[27]Mather, On Witchcraft, 161.

[28]Perkins, A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft, 95.


[30]Ibid., 96.

[31]Ibid., 40, 73.

[32]Mather, On Witchcraft, 37-42.

[33]Perkins, A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft, 7; c.f., 30-31, 42, 117-118.

[34]Nathaniel Holmes, Demonology and Theology, ed. by Therese B. McMahon (1650; reprint Crossville, TN: Puritan Publications, 2014), 38.

[35]Perkins, A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft, 24-25; c.f., Mather, On Witchcraft, 92-93.

[36]Ibid., 64-66.

[37]Holmes, Demonology and Theology, 56-58.

[38]Mather elaborates, “Some of them that have been cry’d out upon a imploying Evil Spirits to hurt our Land, have been known to be most bloody Fortune-Tellers; and some of them have confessed, That when they told Fortunes, they would pretend the Rules of Chiromancy and the like Ignorant Science, but indeed they had no Rule (they said) but this, The things were then Darted into their minds. Darted! Ye Wretches; By whom, I pray? Surely by none but the Devils.” Mather, On Witchcraft, 19. [Emphasis original].

[39]Perkins, A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft, 59.

[40]Ibid., 61; c.f., 40-72.

[41]Ibid., 38, 80.

[42]Baxter records: “The raising of Storms by Witches is attested by so many, that I think it needless to recite them.” Baxter, The Certainty of the Worlds of Spirits, 73. Mather teaches that witches are made owners of specters by virtue of their covenant with Satan. Mather, On Witchcraft, 68-69.

[43]Mather, On Witchcraft, 68.

[44]Baxter records an account of an apparition bending down a boy’s neck until he died. Baxter, The Certainty of the Worlds of Spirits, 48.

[45]Mather, On Witchcraft, 5.

[46]Ibid., 68.

[47]Baxter, The Certainty of the Worlds of Spirits, 13, 15. Mather and other clergy surrounding the witch trials will believe similarly that the ghost of a murdered person can appear and name his or her murderer. Later Reformed theologians, however, shy away from the belief in ghosts. While the reality of angels and demons are affirmed, it is believed that the souls of the departed no longer have contact with the living. Herman Bavinck, for example, taught, “[N]owhere does it [the Holy Scriptures] teach the possibility or reality of the dead appearing…. Further, the whole of Scripture proceeds from the idea that death is a total break with life on this side of the grave…. Scripture consistently tells us that at death all fellowship with this earth ends. The dead no longer have a share in anything that happens under the sun (Eccles. 9:5-6, 10). Nowhere is there any sign that the dead are in contact with the living: they belong to another realm, one that is totally separate from the earth…. Those who have died in the Lord are with Jesus (Phil. 1:23), stand before the throne of God and of the Lamb (Rev. 7:9, 15), cry out and pray, praise and serve him (6:10; 7:10, 15; 22:17). Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Abridged in One Volume, ed. by John Bolt (Grand Rapids, Baker Academics, 2011), 711, 718. [Brackets mine].

[48]Baxter, The Certainty of the Worlds of Spirits, 25-26.

[49]Elsewhere Baxter records an account when the devil appeared in the likeness of someone’s dead husband. Ibid., 75.

[50]Ibid., 35-36, 45, 54-57, 66-68, 70, 76, 78.

[51]Ibid., 54-55.

[52]Ibid., 78. In still stranger tails, wood was found in a man’s rectum, and a woman voided a living eel in her stool. Ibid., 45, 66.

[53]Ibid., 78.

[54]Mather, On Witchcraft, 95.

[55]Baxter records the following recipe: mix 4 oz. of dogs grease (well dissolved and cleaned), 8 oz. of bears grease, 24 oz. of capons grease, three trunks of mistletoe of the hasle while green (cut into pieces and pound small, and bruised together with the wood, leaves, and berries) in a vial. Leave exposed to the sun for nine weeks. After such a time, anoint bodies of the afflicted with green balsam. Baxter, The Certainty of the Worlds of Spirits, 80-81.

[56]Schiff, The Witches, 26-27. Sibley mixed the girls urine into a rye-flour cake and baked it amid the embers on the hearth. She then fed the “cake” to the family dog. The counter-magic was supposed to, perhaps, draw the witch into the animal, transfer the spell to the animal, or maybe even scald the witch.

[57]Perkins, A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft, 9, 116, 118.

[58]Ibid., 121-125.

[59]Ibid., 121-122.

[60]Mather, On Witchcraft, 88.

[61]Baxter, The Certainty of the Worlds of Spirits, 59.

[62]Perkins, A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft, 129.

[63]Ibid., 7, 18, 24.

[64]Frederick Leahy taught something similar: “Pagan exorcisms are simply a trick by which Satan brings people increasingly under his power. The stronger demon in the sorcerer will most certainly expel the demon in a possessed person. But the person is not healed. He has not been delivered from the power of the enemy. The expelled demon can and probably will return.” Joel R. Beeke, Fighting Satan: Knowing His Weaknesses, Strategies, and Defeat (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2015), 27. It is interesting, however, that Jesus seems to suggest this is unlikely (Matt. 12:22-30). Commenting on Matthew 12:28 and Luke 11:20, Herman Ridderbos stated, “He [Jesus] shows the absurdity of the accusation by comparing the power of the devil with that of a kingdom or a town or a house, i.e., with an organically coherent unity. If one devil should cast out another, the kingdom of the devil would not stand but would fall asunder. But this does not happen. That is why there is only one explanation for Jesus’ power over the demons, viz., that by the Spirit (or the finger of God) he was able to cast them out.” Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (Philadelphia, PA: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1962), 61 [Brackets mine]. Admittedly, however, the matter gets complicated as those devoid of the Holy Spirit are still able to cast out demons (Matt. 7:21-23).

[65]Mather, On Witchcraft, 27-28.

[66]Ibid., 150.

[67]Perkins, A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft, 116. [Brackets mine].

[68]Mather, On Witchcraft, 132. [Brackets mine].

[69]Ibid., 133.

[70]Ibid., 23.

[71]Perkins, A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft, 132.

[72]Ibid. [Brackets mine].

[73]Ibid., 129-130.

[74]Ibid., 134.

[75]Mather, On Witchcraft, 36, 64, 78.

[76]Schiff, The Witches, 6, 45-46.

Theological Conviction: Humble or Arrogant? – Martin Luther and the Perspicuity of Scripture

According to Scripture, the word of God is “flawless” (Prov. 30:5) and, in its inscripturated form, “breathed out by God” (2 Tim. 3:16). As stated by the apostles, the Scriptures pass down the inspired “tradition” (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15); accordingly, those following the tradition are to hold fast to the “pattern of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13) “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). In fact, those who are gifted for public ministry of the word, should speak as one who speaks God’s words (1 Pet. 4:11). Indeed, being able to “exhort in sound doctrine” and “refute those who contradict” is a requirement for being a pastor/elder (Titus 1:9).

Throughout the history of the church, however, there have been like those in the church at Thyatira, who, while abounding in love and service, tolerated those with seductive teachings, i.e., those who led the sheep astray by falsehoods: the “deep things of Satan” (Rev. 2:19-24). While their ecumenism and devotion to love are commendable, Jesus said, concerning the one sowing false doctrine: “Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead” (Rev. 2:22-23). G.K. Beale elaborates:

However, the Thyatirans, like those at Pergamum, have given space to a false teacher (probably a woman) described here as Jezebel. Their sin—toleration—is the very thing commended in our postmodern culture as the greatest virtue. This new Jezebel, like the Jezebel of old (1 Kgs. 16:31; 21:25-26), stood for compromise with idolatrous practices, and so the teaching was probably similar to that of the Balaam party and the Nocolaitans at Pergamum.[1]

In modern times, this “hermeneutic of love” and meta-ecumenism have only been strengthened by post-modernism. Brian McLaren, for example, sees theological convictions as narrow, intolerant, overconfident, and naïve. “The last thing we need,” he writes, “is a new group of proud, super protestant, hyper puritan, ultra restorationist reformers who say, ‘Only we’ve got it right!’ and thereby damn everybody else to the bin of five minutes ago and the bucket of below-average mediocrity”[2] After defining “Orthodoxy” as “straight thinking” or “right opinion,” he says, “The last thing I want is to get into nauseating arguments about why this or that form of theology (dispensational, covenant, charismatic, whatever) or methodology (cell church, megachurch, liturgical church, seeker church, blah, blah, blah) is right.”[3] McLaren calls for a “generous orthodoxy” that includes elements of liberalism and evangelicalism, for in Jesus’ day, he maintains, to be “orthodox” one needed only to trust him (right attitude).[4] Thus, doctrinal distinctives are marginal at best—what counts is “doctrine-in-practice.”[5] The orthodoxy he recommends is one you internalize and hardly need to think about.[6] He goes on to say:

Sit down here next to me in this little restaurant and ask me if Christianity… is orthodox, meaning true, and here’s my honest answer: a little, but not yet…. We probably have a couple things right, but a lot of things wrong, and even more spreads before us unseen and unimaginable…. To be a Christian in a generous orthodoxy way is not to claim to have the truth captured, stuffed, and mounted on the wall. It is rather to be a loving (ethical) community of people who are seeking the truth (doctrine) on the road of mission…. [Orthodoxy is] a way of seeing and seeking, a way of living, a way of thinking and loving and learning…. doxa is orthodoxy.[7]

McLaren’s proposal seems to be clothed in humility. Orthodoxy is not in content, but in posture—a posture that allows one to be a “seed picker” (σπερμολόγος), finding “truths” through the grid of one’s own autonomy and ultimacy. Martin Luther’s proposal is different, entirely. It will be argued in this paper that, contra McLaren’s system, Luther maintained that to be humble is to have theological conviction. In this way, the McLaren-like method is merely cloaked in humility, abounding, rather, in arrogance of the highest order. For Luther, to sit at the foot of Christ, to receive His instructions, and to take Him at His word is the humblest way to live.

While he is known for his polemical tone and unfound courage, humility was also a central theme for Luther. “God has surely promised His grace to the humbled,” he wrote, “that is, to those who mourn over and despair of themselves.”[8] In his masterpiece, The Bondage of the Will, Luther engaged in a dispute with Erasmus over the notion of freewill. His closing remarks illustrate that, for him, debates over points of doctrine were not about his ego or his “system of thought,” but were about God and spreading the truth of Scripture:

By your studies you have rendered me also some service, and I confess myself much indebted to you; certainly, in that regard, I unfeignedly honour and sincerely respect you. But God has not yet willed nor granted that you should be equal to the subject of our present debate. Please do not think that any arrogance lies behind my words when I say that I pray that the Lord will speedily make you as much my superior in this as you already are in all other respects. It is no new thing for God to instruct a Moses by a Jethro, or to teach a Paul by an Ananias.[9]

Hinted at in Luther’s closing words is the belief that theological conviction comes from God.  In his debate with Erasmus, Luther pleaded for him to prove his case by Scripture,[10] and noted that theological conviction is not in his power to bring about, for “it is the gift of the Spirit of God.”[11] To despair of oneself is to be Christ-centered, taking all that he has said by faith. Luther’s belief in the ultimacy of Christ’s word looms large throughout the debate, even chastising Erasmus at one point, saying, “Your thoughts of God are too human.”[12]

It is this triumph of human reason over the revelation of God that Luther was concerned to guard against. “The Holy Spirit is not Sceptic, and the things He has written in our hearts are not doubts or opinions, but assertions—surer and more certain than sense and life itself,” wrote Luther.[13] In fact, to take no pleasure in assertions, he maintains, “is not the mark of a Christian heart; indeed, one must delight in assertions to be a Christian at all.”[14] The opposite of making assertions is to espouse skepticism, which is unbecoming of one who loves both the Scriptures and the Church:

The Christian will rather say this: ‘So little do I like sceptical principles, that, so far as the weakness of my flesh permits, not merely shall I make it my invariable rule steadfastly to adhere to the sacred text in all that it teaches, and to assert that teaching, but also I want to be as positive as I can about those non-essential which Scripture does not determine; for uncertainty is the most miserable thing in the world.’[15]

Luther believed Erasmus to lack conviction, and summarized Erasmus as being someone who would not care what one believes so long as the world is at peace, and one who encourages people to “treat Christian doctrines as no better than the views of human philosophers.”[16] Promoting ignorance towards God is not praiseworthy, for, as Luther says, “If I do not know God, I cannot worship, praise, give thanks, or serve Him.”[17] Knowledge of God is presented in the Scriptures and leads to proper worship.

Underlying Luther’s belief that theological convictions are central to Christianity, is the perspicuity of Scripture, both internally and externally. The former has to do with the indwelling Spirit of God who helps the Christian understand Scripture, while the latter maintains that “nothing whatsoever is left obscure or ambiguous, but all that is in the Scripture is through the Word brought forth into the clearest light and proclaimed to the whole world.”[18] Luther ponders: If Christ and the apostles appealed to Scripture as a clear witness—as the light shining in darkness—“with what conscious, then, do we make them to be obscure?”[19]

Those who would side with the papists and shroud the Bible in obscurity are merely blinding themselves. Luther’s word-picture is priceless: “As little children in fear, or at play, cover their eyes with their hands and think that because they see nobody, nobody sees them,” so too do those who claim the Scriptures to be of a blurred character.[20] Besides their convulsive attempts to cover “the clearest words,” what makes them particularly dubious is that they “use every means to pretend that [they do] not see what the facts are, in hope of persuading us that our eyes are covered also and that we cannot see them either.”[21] This, Luther believes, is a sign “of a mind under conviction, recklessly resisting invisible truth.”[22]

Positing some sort of metaphysical weakness and finitude will not exempt one from theological convictions. Indeed, “there is nothing better adapted for grasping God’s words than weakness of understanding, for it was for the weak and to the weak that Christ came, and to them that He sends His Word.”[23] Unless otherwise evidenced, it is the natural and plain words of Scripture that must be maintained,[24] words given to the weak by their Creator. They are not bid to look to the doctrines of men, but to the doctrine that is from above. This has been Luther’s quest: “What else do we contend for, but that the simplicity and purity of Christian doctrine should prevail, and that what men have invented and brought in along with it should be left behind and disregarded?”[25]

What Luther has set forth is, to put it mildly, not apiece with that of McLaren’s proposal. McLaren says the way trumps content, but Luther says the way is built upon content; McLaren believes it is humble to be uncertain, but Luther roots humility in looking solely to Christ as He is revealed in His word; McLaren grounds the Christian life in the never-ending process of knowing, but for Luther, the perspicuous, sufficient, and complete inscripturated word of God acts as a “lamp unto my feet” (Ps. 119:105). Both MaLaren and Luther believe that God is incomprehensible and mysterious, but they are defining those differently. For McLaren, these categories are concluding assertions, but for Luther, this is not so. Scott Oliphint describes the biblical approach to incomprehensibility and mystery:

Here is the paradox: A true, biblical view of mystery has its roots not in a lack of understanding, but in the teaching of Scripture. As a matter of fact, it is just the teaching of Scripture that gives us the biblical truth of that which we hold to be mysterious. A biblical view of mystery, in other words, is full of truth. It is truth that has real and glorious content. That content includes truths that we must affirm as well as falsehoods that we must deny, statements that are necessarily a part of a biblical understanding of mystery as well as exclamations that point us to its truth. So mystery, if we understand it biblically, is infused through and through with the truth that is found in the Word of God. Mystery is the lifeblood of the truth that we have in God’s revelation; it flows through every truth that God gives us. [The Majesty of Mystery: Celebrating the Glory of an Incomprehensible God (Bellingham, WA: Lexam Press, 2016), Kindle edition].

Commenting on what Luther would have said regarding postmodernism, Carl Trueman writes, “[H]is rejection of postmodern anarchy would be based on his belief that God is the supreme reality and ultimately the one who speaks and whose speech is therefore the ground of existence and of difference.”[26] “Reality,” he continues, “is determined not by the linguistic proclivities of any human individual or community but by the Word of God.”[27]

For Luther, childishly covering one’s eyes and claiming uncertainty and ignorance is a false humility; rather, to be humble is to read Christ’s word, believe Christ’s word, and live Christ’s word—with conviction. The true picture of humility is found in 1 Peter 2: “Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation—if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good” (vv.2-3). It is no wonder that at the end of their lives the apostles pointed the flock to the Scriptures as the “more sure word” (2 Pet. 1:19; c.f., 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Heb. 4:12). As pilgrims walking the narrow path to the heavenly city, the ancient words were designed to play a vital role in this pilgrimage. The written Word of God in conjunction with the Spirit of Christ and the Church of Christ is that which disciples and guides the sheep. Because of this, it can be said once more: “Denial of perspicuity is not humility; it is arrogance of the highest order.”[28]

© copyright J. Brandon Burks, 2017

Also see:

Sabbath Musings

Is Public School an Option for Christians?

Theological Study = Spiritual Death?

Amillennialism vs. Historic Premillennialism

Covenant Theology: Presbyterian or Baptist?

Spanking Children: 36 Thoughts

[1]G.K Beale and David H. Campbell, Revelation: A Shorter Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2015), 72.

[2]Brian D. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am A Missional + Evangelical + Post/Protestant + Liberal/Conservative + Mystical/Poetic + Biblical + Charismatic/Contemplative + Fundamentalist/Calvinist + Anabaptist/Anglican + Methodist + Catholic + Green + Incarnational + Depressed-Yet-Hopeful + Emergent + Unfinished Christian (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 23.


[3]Ibid., 23-24.


[4]Ibid., 28, 33.


[5]Ibid., 36.


[6]Ibid., 38.


[7]Ibid., 333-334. [Brackets mine].

[8]Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. by J.I Packer and O.R. Johnson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 1957), 100.


[9]Ibid., 319-320.


[10]Ibid., 235.


[11]Ibid., 299.


[12]Ibid., 87.


[13]Ibid., 70.


[14]Ibid., 66; c.f., 67.


[15]Ibid., 68-69.


[16]Ibid., 69-70.


[17]Ibid., 78.


[18]Ibid. 73-74.


[19]Ibid., 127; c.f., 129.


[20]Ibid., 212.


[21]Ibid. [Brackets mine].


[22]Ibid., 212-213.


[23]Ibid., 133-134.


[24]c.f., Ibid., 263.


[25]Ibid., 117.


[26]Carl R. Trueman, Luther on the Christian Life: Cross and Freedom (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 84.




[28]David B. Garner, “Did God Really Say?” in Did God Really Say? Affirming he Truthfulness and Trustworthiness of Scripture, ed. by David B. Garner (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2012), 135.