The Reformed Faith

Readers of this blog might find Loraine Boettner’s booklet The Reformed Faith as a helpful resource in contrasting the systems of Calvinism and Arminianism, and showing why the former is biblical and the latter is not. An online copy can be viewed here. Of special interest is Boettner’s treatment of the so-called universalistic passages:

Probably the most plausible defense for Arminianism is found in the universalistic passages in Scripture. Three of the most quoted are: II Peter 3:9, “Not wishing [or, KJV, not willing] that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance”; I Tim. 2:4, [God our Savior] “who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth”; and I Tim. 2:5,6, “…Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.”

In regard to these verses we must keep in mind that, as we have said earlier, God is the absolute sovereign Ruler of heaven and earth, and we are never to think of Him as wishing or striving to do what He knows He will not do. For Him to do otherwise would be for Him to act foolishly. Since Scripture tells us that some men are going to be lost, II Peter 3:9 cannot mean that God is earnestly wishing or striving to save all individual men. For if it were His will that every individual of mankind should be saved, then not one soul could be lost. “For who hath resisted his will?” (Rom. 9:19).

These verses simply teach that God is benevolent, and that He does not delight in the sufferings of His creatures any more than a human father delights in the punishment that he sometimes must inflict upon his son. The word “will” is used in different senses in Scripture as in our everyday conversation. It is sometimes used in the sense of “desire” or “purpose.” A righteous judge does not will (desire) that anyone should be hanged or sentenced to prison, yet he wills (pronounces sentence) that the guilty person shall be punished. In the same sense and for sufficient reasons a man may will to have a limb removed, or an eye taken out, even though he certainly does not desire it.

Arminians insist that in II Peter 3:9 the words “any” and “all” refer to all mankind without exception. But it is important first of all to see to whom those words were addressed. In the first verse of chapter 1, we find that the epistle is addressed not to mankind at large, but to Christians: “…to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us.” And in a preceding verse (3:1), Peter had addressed those to whom he was writing as “beloved.” And when we look at the verse as a whole, and not merely at the last half, we find that it is not primarily a salvation verse at all, but a second coming verse! It begins by saying that “The Lord is not slacking concerning his promise” [singular]. What promise? Verse 4 tells us: “the promise of his coming.” The reference is to His second coming, when He will come for judgment, and the wicked will perish in the lake of fire. The verse has reference to a limited group. It says that the Lord is “long-suffering to us-ward,” His elect, many of whom had not yet been regenerated, and who therefore had not yet come to repentance. Hence we may quite properly read verse 9 as follows: “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some count slackness, but is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance.”

In regard to I Tim. 2:4,6 “Who would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth … who gave himself a ransom for all,” is used in various senses. Oftentimes it means, not all men without exception, but all men without distinction – Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, men and women, rich and poor. And in I Tim. 2:4-6 it clearly is used in that sense. Through many centuries the Jews had been, with few exceptions, the exclusive recipients of God’s saving grace. They had become the most intensely nationalistic and intolerant people in the world. Instead of recognizing their position as that of God’s representatives to all the people of the world, they had taken those blessings to themselves. Even the early Christians for a time were inclined to appropriate the mission of the Messiah only to themselves. The salvation of the Gentiles was a mystery that had not been known in other ages (Eph. 4:6; Col. 1:27). So rigid was the pharisaic exclusivism that the Gentiles were called unclean, common, sinners of the Gentiles, even dogs; and it was not lawful for a Jew to keep company with or have any deals with a Gentile (John 4:9, Acts 10:28, 11:3). After an orthodox Jew had been out in the marketplace where he had come in contact with Gentiles he was regarded as unclean (Mark 7:4). After Peter had preached to the Roman Centurion Cornelius and the others who were gathered at his house, he was severely taken to task by the Church in Jerusalem, and we can almost hear the gasp of wonder when, after Peter told them what had happened, they said, “Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance to life” (Acts 22:15), that is, not to every individual in the world, but to Jews and Gentiles alike. Used in this sense the word “all” has no reference to individuals, but simply to mankind in general.

When it was said of John the Baptist that “There went out unto him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (Mark 1:5), we know that not every individual did so respond. We read that after Peter and John had healed the lame man at the door of the temple, “all men glorified God for that which was done” (Acts 4:21). Jesus told his disciples that they would be “hated of all men” for His name’s sake (Luke 21:17). And when Jesus said, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself” (John 12:32), He certainly did not mean that every individual of mankind would be so drawn. What He did mean was that Jews and Gentiles, men of all nations and races, would be drawn to Him. And that is what we see is actually happening.

In I Cor. 15:22 we read, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be make alive.” This verse is often quoted by Arminians to prove unlimited or universal atonement. This verse is from Paul’s famous resurrection chapter, and the context makes it clear that he is not talking about life in this age, whether physical or spiritual, but about the resurrection life. Christ is the first to enter the resurrection life, then, when He comes, His people also enter into their resurrection life. And what Paul says is that at that time a glorious resurrection life will become a reality, not for all mankind, but for all those who are in Christ. And this point is illustrated by the well known fact that the race fell in Adam, who acted as its federal head and representative. What Paul says in effect this: “For as all born in Adam die, so also all born again in Christ shall be make alive.” Verse 22, therefore, refers not to something past, nor to something present, but to something future; and it has no special bearing at all on the Calvinistic-Arminian controversy.

Two other verses that also are often quoted in defense of Arminianism are “Behold, I stand at the door, I will come in to him and will sup with him, and he with me” (Rev. 3:20); and “…he that will [KJV, whosoever will], let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17). This general invitation is extended to all men. It may be, and often is, the means that the Holy Spirit uses to arouse in certain individuals the desire for salvation as He puts forth His supernatural power to regenerate them. But these verses, taken by themselves, fail to take into consideration the truth that already has been stressed in this article, that fallen man is spiritually dead, and that as such he is as totally unable to respond to the invitation as are the fallen angels or demons. Fallen man is as dead spiritually as Lazarus was dead physically until Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth,” and the Pharisee Nicodemus, “Except one be born anew [or, from above], he cannot see the kingdom of God”(John 3:3). And again, He said to the Pharisees, “why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word” (John 8:43). Apart from that divine assistance no one can hear the invitation or put forth the will to come to Christ.

Being Reformed v. Being Broadly Evangelical

Why should the Reformed community be committed to confessionalism? Greenbaggins gets it right:

I get really tired of people complaining about the Westminster Standards. These people want us to broaden our horizons beyond confessional boundaries so that we can be more ecumenical. I would like to ask these people, aren’t there enough generally evangelical denominations? Why do we need to become one of them, as well? The entire modern ethos is utterly opposed to confessional churches. It is surely not generally evangelical churches that need to be encouraged right now, but rather confessionally Reformed churches. NAPARC is about the only bastion of confessionally Reformed churches in North America, and all of NAPARC put together is pretty tiny. And even within NAPARC churches, there are strong pushes away from confessionalism. So, when you get right down to it, confessionally Reformed churches are rare birds, dare I say, even an endangered species.

But shouldn’t we desire to be “ecumenical”? Well, in a sense, we should, but the article continues:

Does the true unity of all believers consist in a denomination, or does it consist of all those who have faith in Christ Jesus? I would argue strongly that it is the latter. We do not all have to belong to the same denomination to be truly ecumenical. True ecumenicity is not visible, but invisible. Of course we should not give up talking to brothers and sisters in other denominations. Far from it. However, when it comes to our identity, why are we so often embarrassed to be part of a confessional denomination? I would strongly encourage everyone reading these words to prayerfully consider becoming more confessional, not less. These boundaries are not hurtful things, but helpful things.

A while ago, I was discussing the identity crisis of some within the ARP with another in our denomination. She was concerned that some in the ARP were trying to turn our denomination into another version of the PCA. I assured her this was not the case, but I see her point. It is not that the PCA is not a fine denomination with many great members, churches, and pastors; it’s that the ARP has its own unique identity and does not need to give that up as a denomination. But we lose that uniqueness and that identity if we try to be like another denomination, or worse, if we try to be just like everyone else.

See here for more on the ARP’s uniqueness.

Training Up a Child

This is just too cool. I can’t wait until I have the opportunity to do this with Grace!

Keep in mind this little girl is only 2 years old!

Pardon for the Greatest Sinners

Jonathan Edwards’ sermon based on Psalm 25:11 (“For thy name’s sale, O Lord, pardon my iniquity; for it is great.”), entitled “Pardon for the Greatest Sinners,” speaks powerfully to us today. There are many who might think their sins are too great for Christ to save them. Oh, but He is a far greater Savior than even the greatness of our myriad sins. Edwards says, in the concluding application to that sermon:

I. Some may be ready to object, I have spent my youth and all the best of my life in sin, and I am afraid God will not accept of me, when I offer him only mine old age.–To this I would answer, 1. Hath God said any where, that he will not accept of old sinners who come to him? God hath often made offers and promises in universal terms; and is there any such exception put in? Doth Christ say, All that thirst, let them come to me and drink, except old sinners? Come to me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, except old sinners, and I will give you rest? Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out, if he be not an old sinner? Did you ever read any such exception any where in the Bible? and why should you give way to exceptions which you make out of your own heads, or rather which the devil puts into your heads, and which have no foundation in the word of God?–Indeed it is more rare that old sinners are willing to come, than others; but if they do come, they are as readily accepted as any whatever.

2. When God accepts of young persons, it is not for the sake of the service which they are like to do him afterwards, or because youth is better worth accepting than old age. You seem entirely to mistake the matter, in thinking that God will not accept of you because you are old; as though he readily accepted of persons in their youth, because their youth is better worth his acceptance; whereas it is only for the sake of Jesus Christ, that God is willing to accept of any.

You say, your life is almost spent, and you are afraid that the best time for serving God is past; and that therefore God will not now accept of you; as if it were for the sake of the service which persons are like to do him, after they are converted, that he accepts of them. But a self-righteous spirit is at the bottom of such objections. Men cannot get off from the notion, that it is for some goodness or service of their own, either done or expected to be done, that God accepts of persons, and receives them into favour.–Indeed they who deny God their youth, the best part of their lives, and spend it in the service of Satan, dreadfully sin and provoke God; and he very often leaves them to hardness of heart when they are grown old. But if they are willing to accept of Christ when old, he is as ready to receive them as any others; for in that matter God hath respect only to Christ and his worthiness.

II. But, says one, I fear I have committed sins that are peculiar to reprobates. I have sinned against light, and strong convictions of conscience; I have sinned presumptuously; and have so resisted the strivings of the Spirit of God, that I am afraid I have committed such sins as none of God’s elect ever commit. I cannot think that God will ever leave one whom he intends to save, to go on and commit sins against so much light and conviction, and with such horrid presumption.–Others may say, I have had risings of heart against God; blasphemous thoughts, a spiteful and malicious spirit; and have abused mercy and the strivings of the Spirit, trampled upon the Saviour, and my sins are such as are peculiar to those who are reprobated to eternal damnation. To all this I would answer,

1. There is no sin peculiar to reprobates but the sin against the Holy Ghost. Do you read of any other in the word of God? And if you do not read of any there, what ground have you to think any such thing? What other rule have we, by which to judge of such matters, but the divine word? If we venture to go beyond that, we shall be miserably in the dark. When we pretend to go further in our determinations than the word of God, Satan takes us up, and leads us. It seems to you that such sins are peculiar to the reprobate, and such as God never forgives. But what reason can you give for it, if you have no word of God to reveal it? Is it because you cannot see how the mercy of God is sufficient to pardon, or the blood of Christ to cleanse from such presumptuous sins? If so, it is because you never yet saw how great the mercy of God is; you never saw the sufficiency of the blood of Christ, and you know not how far the virtue of it extends. Some elect persons have been guilty of all manner of sins, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; and unless you have been guilty of this, you have not been guilty of any that are peculiar to reprobates.

2. Men may be less likely to believe, for sins which they have committed, and not the less readily pardoned when they do believe. It must be acknowledged that some sinners are in more danger of hell than others. Though all are in great danger, some are less likely to be saved. Some are less likely ever to be converted and to come to Christ: but all who do come to him are alike readily accepted; and there is as much encouragement for one man to come to Christ as another.–Such sins as you mention are indeed exceeding heinous and provoking to God, and do in an especial manner bring the soul into danger of damnation, and into danger of being given to final hardness of heart; and God more commonly gives men up to the judgment of final hardness for such sins, than for others. Yet they are not peculiar to reprobates; there is but one sin that is so, viz. that against the Holy Ghost. And notwithstanding the sins which you have committed, if you can find it in your hearts to come to Christ, and close with him, you will be accepted not at all the less readily because you have committed such sins.–Though God cloth more rarely cause some sorts of sinners to come to Christ than others, it is not because his mercy or the redemption of Christ is not as sufficient for them as others, but because in wisdom he sees fit so to dispense his grace, for a restraint upon the wickedness of men; and because it is his will to give converting grace in the use of means, among which this is one, viz. to lead a moral and religious life, and agreeable to our light, and the convictions of our consciences. But when once any sinner is willing to come to Christ, mercy is as ready for him as for any. There is no consideration at all had of his sins; let him have been ever so sinful, his sins are not remembered; God doth not upbraid him with them.

III. But had I not better stay till I shall have made myself better, before I presume to come to Christ. I have been, and see myself to be very wicked now; but am in hopes of mending myself, and rendering myself at least not so wicked: then I shall have more courage to come to God for mercy.–In answer to this,

1. Consider how unreasonably you act. You are striving to set up yourselves for your own saviours; you are striving to get something of your own, on the account of which you may the more readily be accepted. So that by this it appears that you do not seek to be accepted only on Christ’s account. And is not this to rob Christ of the glory of being your only Saviour? Yet this is the way in which you are hoping to make Christ willing to save you.

2. You can never come to Christ at all, unless you first see that he will not accept of you the more readily for any thing that you can do. You must first see, that it is utterly in vain for you to try to make yourselves better on any such account. You must see that you can never make yourselves any more worthy, or less unworthy, by any thing which you can perform.

3. If ever you truly come to Christ, you must see that there is enough in him for your pardon, though you be no better than you are. If you see not the sufficiency of Christ to pardon you, without any righteousness of your own to recommend you, you never will come so as to be accepted of him. The way to be accepted is to come–not on any such encouragement, that now you have made yourselves better, and more worthy, or not so unworthy, but–on the mere encouragement of Christ’s worthiness, and God’s mercy.

4. If ever you truly come to Christ, you must come to him to make you better. You must come as a patient comes to his physician, with his diseases or wounds to be cured. Spread all your wickedness before him, and do not plead your goodness; but plead your badness, and your necessity on that account: and say, as the psalmist in the text, not Pardon mine iniquity, for it is not so great as it was, but, ” Pardon mine iniquity, for it is Great.”

May these words be an encouraging to dear saints, who may continue to struggle with past sins, or awakened sinners, who fear that they cannot be forgiven in Christ. Be encouraged in the Dear Savior, dear friends.

How Important Is Church Membership?

Is the church just a charitable organization? Not according to this quote from J. Gresham Machen (HT: Geneva Redux)

Church membership today often means nothing more, as has well been said, than a vague admiration for the moral character of Jesus; the Church in countless communities is little more than a Rotary Club.  One day, as I was walking through a neighboring city, I saw, not an altar with an inscription to an unknown god, but something that filled me with far more sorrow than that could have done.  I saw a church with a large sign on it, which read somewhat like this: “Not a member?  Come in and help us make this a better community.”  Truly we have wandered far from the day when entrance into the Church involved confession of faith in Christ as the Savior from sin.

Updates on Grace Cameron Phillips

The Missus has started a blog of her own — a journal through a site called Caring Bridge. You can follow updates on the condition of our new daughter (who is phenomenally cute, btw ) by going here.

Grace Cameron Phillips

Baby Grace Cameron Phillips wasn’t supposed to be born until March, but she decided to come a little earlier. My wife woke me at about 5:45 am on January 15th, explaining that her “water broke.” We rushed to the hospital and were told that she needed an emergency Cesarean. Baby Grace was born at 10:44 am. She is doing well, as is her mother. Here is a picture of me and Baby Grace.

Arguments for Infant Baptism

One of those “sticking points” with regard to embracing the Reformed faith is the practice of paedobaptism ( infant baptism, perhaps better termed “household baptism” or “covenant baptism”). Sometimes the charge is made that this is nothing more than Roman Catholic baptism — but this would more or less mean the person knows very little about the vast differences between a Roman Catholic infant baptism and a Presbyterian one (beyond the obvious similarities of water, and infant, and a Trinitarian formula, there isn’t that much in common). Furthermore, heretical groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons baptize adults by immersion; would we tar and feather credobaptists (those who reserve baptism for adults upon profession of faith) for the surface similarities here? Of course not, nor should we. Christian brethren should be far more gracious and far more wise in their analysis of such things. Anecdotally, I have been told of some credobaptist churches that maintain that a person cannot be saved unless they are immersed as an adult. Not only is that ignorant theology, it is false theology, and it should be rejected.

Below, I have included two helpful lists of arguments that show the foundations of the practice of paedobaptism. The first is a summary found in Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology (the list is found here); the second is a summary of points by Michael Horton (found here). Even if you are opposed to infant baptism, my hope is that through these points you will at least see that the practice has Scriptural foundations and is not simply based upon bare traditionalism, as is sometimes charged (i.e., even if you disagree, you will see there are valid reasons for the practice). Quite the opposite, the charge could be leveled at some credobaptists that they have never considered a position contrary to their own, and are following a system that they know simply through their own form of traditionalism. But consider the words of 19th century Presbyterian theologian Samuel Miller on this issue:

I can assure you … that, for more than fifteen hundred years after the birth of Christ, there was not a single society of professing Christians on earth, who opposed infant baptism on any thing like the grounds which distinguish our modern Baptist brethren.

Anyway, enough pontificating from me (pun fully intended ). Here are the lists:

In the present discussion, by the Church is meant what is called the visible Church; that is, the whole body of those who profess the true religion … With regard to infant baptism the following propositions may be maintained.

1. The visible Church is a divine institution …

2. The visible Church does not consist exclusively of the regenerate …

3. The commonwealth of Israel was the Church …

4. The [visible] Church under the new dispensation is identical with that under the old. It is not a new Church, but one and the same. It is the same olive-tree (Rom. 11:16-17). It is founded on the same covenant, the covenant made with Abraham …

5. The terms of admission into the [visible] Church before the advent were the same that are required into the Christian Church …

6. Infants were members of the [visible] Church under the Old Testament economy … This is really the turning point in the controversy concerning infant church-membership. If the Church is one under both dispensations; if infants were members of the Church under the theocracy, then they are members of the Church now, unless the contrary can be proved.

7. There is nothing in the New Testament which justifies the exclusion of the children of believers from membership in the Church …

8. Children need, and are capable of receiving the benefits of redemption …

God has brought us into a covenant of grace, and although not all members of this covenant will persevere (i.e., they are not elect and have not been regenerated), they enjoy special privileges of belonging to covenant people. This was true of Israel, and the New Testament simply applies this to the New Testament church as well (Deut. 4:20; 28:9; Isa. 10:22; Hosea 2:23; Rom. 9:24-28; Gal. 6:16; Heb. 4:1-11; 6:4-12; 1 Peter 2:9-10).

Even though bringing someone under the protection of God’s covenantal faithfulness does not guarantee that that person possesses true, persevering faith (Heb. 4:1-11), that does not mean it is unimportant as to whether children of believers are given the seal of the covenant.

Children were included in the covenant of grace in the Old Testament through the sacrament of circumcision, and in the new covenant (called the “better covenant”), God has not changed in his good intentions toward our children (Acts 2:38). Circumcision has been replaced by baptism (Col. 2:11). Therefore, our children must receive God’s sign and seal of covenant ownership.

The children of unbelievers are unholy, but the children of believers are set apart unto God. This is a distinction not only of the Old Testament (see the Passover, Exod. 12:42-51; also the distinction between the “house of the wicked” and the “house of the righteous,” especially in the psalms) but is continued in the New, where a believer’s children are regarded as holy (1 Cor. 10:2). How are they marked or distinguished from unbelievers, then? By the sign and seal of the covenant.

Household baptisms are common in the New Testament reports of such events. Surely at least some of them included infants. If so, this would have been perfectly consistent with the Jewish understanding of the Abrahamic covenant (above, #4).

There is an unbroken record in church history supporting the practice of infant baptism, beginning with the earliest generations. There would surely have been a major controversy if the immediate successors of the apostles departed from the apostolic practice on such a vital point. However, no such record exists.

If baptism were a testimony of the believer’s faithfulness to the covenant, it would not be capable of being applied to those who have no faithfulness to offer. However, baptism is the word of God, not of human beings. It is not chiefly a sign of the believer’s commitment to God (although it certainly entails that) but of God’s commitment to call out a people for himself. Because salvation is by grace alone, God acts in salvation prior to any human choice or action (Rom. 9:12-16). Infant baptism is an extraordinary divine testimony to his prevenient grace. Consequently, it obligates those who are baptized to remain faithful to the covenant but does not make their faithfulness a prerequisite of their inclusion.

The reason there are so many examples in the New Testament of baptism only upon profession of faith is that the first generation is in view. As with Abraham’s circumcision, an adult trusts in God’s promise and is justified–and only afterwards is baptized. But also like Abraham, we present our household to receive the sign and seal. No orthodox Christian body would accept the practice of baptizing adults without a profession of faith.

Remembering the Sabbath and Observing the Sabbath

The fourth commandment has fallen into general disfavor by many in our day, including many Reformed folks . In some respects (without using too broad a brush), this is another result of the popular culture invading the church. We are quick to criticize the church growth movement for doing this with regard to worship (among other things), but we often do the same thing in different ways. And it’s hard to believe that if things like the NFL, open stores and restaurants, etc. were not competing for our worship attention, it seems hard to believe that the fourth commandment would be so overlooked.

This devotion found over at The Christian Observer might help put some of these things into better perspective:

Observe the Sabbath

Exodus 20:8

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”

We are to “remember” the Lord’s Day–to give diligent attention to preparing for it and keeping it holy. But in Deuteronomy 5:12 Moses changed the word from “remember” to “observe.” And if we thought “remember” was important, “observe” is even more important.

The Hebrew word is, literally, “guard.” It’s the same word used in Genesis 3 to describe the cherubim with the flaming sword barring the way to the Garden of Eden. We are to guard the Sabbath against anything that threatens to rob it of its holiness. Any diversion or activity that breaks our focus on God and His work, that impedes our resting in and worshiping Him, or that continues the activities of the rest of the week into this holy time and space must be guarded against.

And the threats are coming at us from every angle, all day long, telling us not to be so strict about all this, loosen up a bit and just enjoy the day like everyone else. We’re not everyone else. And this is not just another day. God calls us to “remember” the Sabbath and to “guard” against losing it to other things.

Totally Dort

My friend Kevin Carroll has done it again, posting an excellent article at his blog on Calvinism and the origin of the so-called “five points” at the Synod of Dort. He points out the historical circumstances for this event (considering theological objections to Calvinism by the followers of James Arminius), and comments:

Now, the church agreed to consider revising their doctrinal statement and so they had a conference, called a synod, in the town of Dort. What’s more is they wanted to get input from all kinds of Protestants and so they invited men from Germany, Holland, England, and France. 84 men in all came. These 84 men met for 7 months, and 154 sessions in all. The key question that they discussed was, “Were the five issues raised by the Remonstrators biblical?” After 7 months and 154 sessions, 84 men from 3 different countries unanimously, agreed that the Remonstrators were not correct. The synod’s final statement was, “Salvation is to be viewed as the work of God’s grace from beginning to end.”

Kevin also begins a discussion on “Totally Depravity” (a term I do not generally like, as it is misleading to the uninitiated in our day). My personal opinion is that this doctrine (man’s utter deadness in sin and inability to save himself) must be a foundational stone in any soteriological system (along with God’s sovereignty, which is THE foundation). This is often lost on the modern culture, and it is little more than the by-product of faulty Enlightenment views of man’s autonomy. But Kevin explains:

Only God gets the credit for salvation. It is all of grace. There is no room for pride in salvation. Understanding Total Depravity affects how we view God. We begin to understand that he must be a God of sovereign grace. It affects how we worship. The consideration of our sinfulness and misery over against God’s grace should drive us to passion in our worship. It also affects how we serve God. We should serve Him with submissive obedience.

If it is God + us, it is no salvation at all, and we are right back at the trouble that threatened the churches in Galatia. And we would have no gospel at all (Gal. 1:6-9).