Hebrews 6

 

Pastor:

I realize that you don’t need a layperson’s contribution as you prepare to preach Hebrews 6. However, you expressed angst with respect to your presentation, and I wanted to share a synthesis - largely cobbled together from John MacArthur et al. that I’ve found especially helpful when discussing eternal security with friends from more confessional traditions.

Hebrews 6:4-6 raises serious questions, often driven by the assumption that although Christ will never drive believers away, they themselves may forfeit salvation through moral or spiritual failure - and that such a loss is final. Yet this reading creates an immediate and unresolved tension with the text itself, particularly the assertion that “it is impossible…to renew them again to repentance.” If this passage describes a true believer losing salvation, then Scripture would be teaching not only conditional security, but irreversible loss - something nowhere else affirmed in the New Testament.

Context is decisive. Hebrews was written to Jewish professing believers who were under pressure to retreat from the New Covenant back into the Mosaic system. The central issue throughout the epistle is not how salvation is lost, but whether Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice is truly sufficient, or whether the old sacrificial system must be retained as a remedy for ongoing sin.

For that reason, Hebrews 6 is not addressing union with Christ (salvation), but matters that accompany salvation, namely fellowship, maturity, and perseverance in faith. This distinction is made explicit just a few verses later, when the author reassures his readers: “We are convinced of better things concerning you - things that accompany salvation” (Heb. 6:9). The writer deliberately separates the warning from the reality of salvation itself.

To suggest that a true believer could commit an act that irretrievably nullifies salvation stands in direct contradiction to the consistent testimony of Scripture: believers are sealed by the Holy Spirit “for the day of redemption” from the moment of faith (Eph. 4:30). Salvation rests not on human perseverance, but on divine preservation.

What then, constitutes “falling away” in this context? These Jewish hearers had genuinely experienced the blessings of proximity to the gospel: they had tasted the goodness of God’s Word, witnessed the powers of the age to come, and participated in the life of the early church. Yet they were being tempted to seek relief from sin not through confession and faith in Christ’s finished work, but by returning to daily sacrifices under the Old Covenant.

Such a regression would not undo salvation, but it would render repentance - understood as a turning fully to Christ alone - functionally impossible. By treating Christ’s death as insufficient and placing it alongside the repeated sacrifices of the Law, they would, in effect, be “crucifying once again the Son of God and holding Him up to contempt.” The issue is not losing Christ, but dishonoring Him by denying the finality of His work.

Thus, Hebrews 6 warns against a rupture in fellowship, not a dissolution of union. To abandon reliance on Christ alone is to forfeit spiritual growth, assurance, and joy - not eternal life itself.

Claims that salvation is a gift God will not revoke, but one we may personally abandon, require more than theological nuance; they require rewriting Scripture. When Jesus says, “No one will snatch them out of My hand” (John 10:28), the text does not permit the unspoken exception, “no one - except themselves.”

Paul’s conclusion in Romans is equally decisive:

“For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers…nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38–39).

If “anything else in all creation” includes angels and demons, time and eternity, height and depth, it must also include the believer himself.

Five Truths from Hebrews 6 That Militate Against Loss of Salvation

• The warning is followed by reassurance: Hebrews 6:9 explicitly distinguishes the warning from “things that accompany salvation,” implying the prior verses do not describe salvation itself.

• The impossibility of renewed repentance would imply permanent loss - an outcome contradicted everywhere else in Scripture if applied to genuine believers.

• The audience is covenantally-Jewish, facing pressure to return to the Mosaic system, making the warning about abandoning Christ’s sufficiency, not forfeiting justification.

• The metaphor of fruit-bearing land (6:7–8) contrasts usefulness and judgment, not saved versus unsaved status, aligning with fellowship and reward rather than eternal destiny.

• The passage culminates in God’s preserving promise (6:17–20), anchoring the believer’s hope not in personal endurance, but in God’s unchangeable purpose and oath.

Exegesis Hebrews 5:11-6:3

 

1. Literary and Theological Context

Hebrews 5:11–6:3 functions as a rhetorical and pastoral interruption. The author has begun to expound Christ’s high priesthood “according to the order of Melchizedek” (5:10), but pauses because the audience is not presently able to receive the depth of that teaching. This is not a digression; it is a necessary diagnostic. The warning and exhortation here prepare the reader for the severe admonition of 6:4–8 and the renewed encouragement of 6:9–12.

The passage is thus both rebuke and invitation: rebuke for stagnation, invitation to growth.

---

• The problem is moral-spiritual, not cognitive.

• The audience once had capacity, but has failed to advance (cf. 5:12).

• Hearing in Hebrews is covenantal: to “hear” is to respond in obedient faith (cf. Heb 3–4; Ps 95).

---

1. “Oracles of God” (λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ) refers to divine revelation, not human tradition. In the Jewish context, this would include the Scriptures, especially as fulfilled and clarified in Christ.

1. “Basic principles” (στοιχεῖα) denotes elementary components—the ABCs, not errors or falsehoods.

1. The rebuke is not that they know these basics, but that they still require re-teaching, despite having had sufficient time to mature.

---

• Milk represents foundational teaching appropriate for spiritual infancy.

• Solid food represents teaching that requires discernment, reflection, and spiritual exercise—especially Christ’s priesthood, covenant mediation, and the implications of perseverance.

---

• Habitual practice (“by constant use”)

• Discernment (διάκρισις)

• Moral perception (“good and evil”)

---

---

• Works of the Mosaic law apart from faith in Christ, or

• Sinful actions that lead to spiritual death.

• Jewish ceremonial washings

• Early Christian baptismal instruction

• Identification and blessing

• Commissioning

• Reception into the covenant community

---

• Growth is necessary, but not autonomous.

• Human responsibility and divine sovereignty are held together.

• Progress in understanding and perseverance is a gift of grace, not merely effort.

---

• Spiritual stagnation is dangerous, not benign.

• Foundational doctrines are essential but insufficient for perseverance.

• Maturity involves practiced discernment shaped by obedience.

• Growth beyond basics is required to rightly apprehend Christ’s priesthood and covenant mediation.

• Advancement in faith occurs under God’s sovereign permission and enabling grace.

2. “Dull of Hearing” (νωθροὶ ταῖς ἀκοαῖς) — Hebrews 5:11

The phrase translated “dull of hearing” does not indicate intellectual incapacity, nor a congenital deficiency. The adjective νωθρός carries the sense of sluggish, lazy, negligent, or apathetic. It is used again in Hebrews 6:12 (“so that you may not be sluggish”), forming an inclusio that frames this section.

Key observations:

Thus, “dull of hearing” refers to a culpable dullness, a willful resistance to deeper engagement with God’s revealed truth.

3. “The Basic Principles of the Oracles of God” (τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογίων τοῦ θεοῦ) — Hebrews 5:12

Several points are critical here:

This is a warning against arrested development. Remaining at the elementary level is not neutral; it is dangerous when growth is expected.

4. “You Need Milk, Not Solid Food” — Hebrews 5:12–13

The metaphor is pastoral and relational, not contemptuous.

Importantly:

“Everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness” (5:13).

The issue is not ignorance of facts, but lack of practiced discernment. The “word of righteousness” likely refers to instruction that shapes judgment, obedience, and perseverance in alignment with God’s righteous purposes in Christ.

5. “Solid Food Is for the Mature” — Hebrews 5:14

“Mature” (τέλειος) in Hebrews does not mean sinless perfection, but teleological completeness—being oriented rightly toward the end (τέλος) for which one is called.

Maturity is defined by:

This echoes wisdom literature and anticipates Hebrews’ emphasis on endurance, obedience, and faith expressed through action.

6. “Let Us Leave the Elementary Doctrine of Christ” — Hebrews 6:1

This phrase is often misunderstood. The author is not urging abandonment, but movement beyond repetition.

“Leave” (ἀφέντες) means to move forward from, not to discard. Foundations are not despised; they are built upon.

The phrase “doctrine of Christ” here likely refers to instruction about Christ as Messiah, particularly in its foundational, catechetical form.

7. The Enumerated Foundations — Hebrews 6:1–2

The six items form three paired foundations, likely reflecting early catechetical instruction common to Jewish-Christian converts.

a. Repentance from Dead Works

This refers to turning away from actions that do not produce life—possibly:

Repentance is foundational, but not the sum of Christian life.

b. Faith Toward God

Faith is covenantal trust, oriented toward God as revealed in Christ. Again, foundational—but meant to issue in perseverance.

c. Instruction About Washings (βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς)

The plural “washings” suggests ritual purification concepts, likely encompassing:

This points to transitional catechesis rather than mature theological reflection.

d. Laying on of Hands

This could include:

Again, essential but introductory.

e. Resurrection of the Dead

A core eschatological doctrine shared with Judaism, now clarified in Christ.

f. Eternal Judgment (or Eternal Punishment)

A sober reminder of final accountability—essential to moral seriousness, but not the entirety of Christian hope.

8. “And This We Will Do, If God Permits” — Hebrews 6:3

This brief statement is profoundly theological.

This anticipates both the warning of apostasy and the assurance that follows.

9. Theological Synthesis

Hebrews 5:11–6:3 teaches that:

This passage thus prepares the reader to grapple with the tension Hebrews consistently holds: God’s sovereign preserving grace alongside real warnings against falling away, including the sobering reality that not all who profess faith ultimately demonstrate saving faith.

“We the People” and the Burden of Government: Why the Federal Power Often Moves Slowly in the Face of Disorder

The opening words of the Constitution are not merely ceremonial. They are a moral declaration of purpose:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

These phrases articulate what government is for. Justice. Tranquility. Defense. Welfare. Liberty. They speak not only to the protection of borders, but to the safeguarding of neighborhoods, businesses, families, and the basic conditions of civil life. When citizens watch cities burn, property destroyed, and people harmed while federal authority appears hesitant, a profound question arises: Why does a government formed to “insure domestic Tranquility” not move more quickly to quell violence against its own people?

The answer lies not in indifference, but in the careful architecture of American constitutional order.

---

The Preamble as Moral Vision, Not Operational Blueprint

---

Federalism: Why Washington Often Waits

---

The Shadow of History: Power That Once Overreached

---

The Moral Tension: When Restraint Becomes Neglect

---

“Domestic Tranquility” and Ordered Liberty

---

A Call for Constitutional Courage

---

Conclusion

The Preamble sets forth the ends of government, but it does not assign specific powers. Those powers are distributed throughout the Constitution with deliberate restraint. The Founders feared both anarchy and tyranny. They understood that a government strong enough to crush disorder must also be constrained enough not to crush liberty.

Thus, while the Preamble commits the nation to justice and tranquility, the body of the Constitution defines how those goods may be pursued—and just as importantly, who is authorized to act.

Public order within cities and states is primarily entrusted to state and local governments. Police powers—law enforcement, public safety, and criminal prosecution—belong first to governors, mayors, and state authorities. This is not a defect of the system but a feature designed to keep power close to the people.

The federal government cannot simply deploy forces at will inside states without constitutional justification. Historically and legally, federal intervention is reserved for limited circumstances:

• When a state formally requests assistance.

• When state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect constitutional rights.

• When insurrection or rebellion obstructs the execution of federal law.

Absent these conditions, rapid federal action risks violating the very liberty the Preamble promises to secure.

American hesitation toward internal federal force is shaped by memory. From colonial resistance to standing armies, to the post–Civil War backlash against military governance, to the tragic lessons of excessive force in the 20th century, the nation has learned that order imposed without consent can fracture legitimacy.

The same Constitution that mandates tranquility also safeguards due process, freedom of assembly, and limits on military involvement in civilian affairs. A government that intervenes too aggressively may restore temporary calm at the cost of long-term trust and constitutional integrity.

Yet this constitutional caution creates a moral dilemma. When anarchic violence destroys livelihoods, terrorizes neighborhoods, and endangers lives, restraint can appear indistinguishable from abandonment. Citizens rightly ask: Is government fulfilling its covenant with the people?

Property is not merely economic; it represents labor, vocation, and provision for families. Bodily safety is not merely political; it is a moral imperative. Scripture itself affirms that governing authority is ordained “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” When disorder is allowed to metastasize, the state risks failing its most basic calling: the protection of the innocent.

The Preamble does not envision peace as the absence of force, but as the presence of justice. Tranquility is not silence after destruction; it is the secure enjoyment of daily life under law. Liberty cannot flourish amid fear, nor can justice exist where mobs replace courts.

Yet neither can true liberty survive unchecked central power. The American system, at its best, holds these truths in tension: strong enough to restrain evil, restrained enough to avoid becoming it.

The question is not whether the federal government may act in the face of sustained violence, but whether it will do so with constitutional courage—firmly, lawfully, and morally. When states are overwhelmed or unwilling to protect citizens, federal authority is not merely permitted; it becomes a solemn responsibility.

To “secure the Blessings of Liberty” requires more than procedural fidelity. It requires a willingness to defend communities from those who would dissolve order itself. The Preamble is not a poetic ornament; it is a covenant between government and governed.

“We the People” established a government neither impotent in the face of chaos nor omnipotent over conscience. The slow pace of federal response to domestic unrest is born of constitutional design, historical caution, and a deep fear of tyranny. Yet when restraint hardens into inaction, the very purposes of the Constitution are endangered.

Justice, tranquility, defense, welfare, and liberty are not abstract ideals. They are the lived conditions of families, churches, businesses, and neighborhoods. A government faithful to its founding must protect them—not rashly, not tyrannically, but decisively and lawfully.

For the promise of the Preamble to endure, the people must continue to call their leaders to both constitutional humility and moral resolve.

Liberty of Conscience (WCF Ch. XX)

 Liberty of Conscience (WCF Ch. XX)

• Christian liberty is a gift purchased by Christ. Believers are freed from the guilt of sin, God’s condemning wrath, the curse of the moral law, bondage to Satan, and the dominion of sin. This liberty includes free access to God and willing obedience rooted in love rather than fear. While such liberty was known under the Old Covenant, it is expanded under the New in freedom from the ceremonial law, greater boldness before God, and fuller experience of the Spirit.

• God alone is Lord of the conscience. No human authority may bind the conscience with doctrines or commands that are contrary to, or beyond, God’s Word in matters of faith and worship. To require blind submission or implicit faith in human teaching is to undermine true Christian freedom and the proper exercise of reason.

• Liberty of conscience does not authorize error or coercion. To believe or obey man-made rules as though they were divine commands is a betrayal of Christian liberty. Genuine freedom is preserved only when conscience remains subject to Scripture alone.

• Christian liberty is never a license for sin. Those who appeal to liberty in order to practice sin or indulge sinful desires contradict its very purpose, which is that believers, having been delivered by Christ, might serve God in holiness and righteousness throughout their lives.

• Liberty and lawful authority are meant to uphold one another. Christian freedom does not justify resistance to lawful civil or ecclesiastical authority. Teachings or practices that oppose God’s order, undermine godliness, or disrupt the peace and unity of the Church may rightly be addressed through church discipline and, where appropriate, civil authority.

Chosen by God - Summary Chapter 1

Key issues Dr. Sproul raises in Chapter 1, “The Struggle,” while acknowledging the range of theological perspectives on predestination:

The emotional and pastoral tension: Sproul highlights that predestination is not merely an abstract doctrine; it touches fears about fairness, love, and human dignity. Many believers struggle because the teaching seems, at first glance, to conflict with God’s goodness or with genuine human choice.

Competing theological instincts: The chapter introduces the broad spectrum of Christian views—from strong assertions of divine sovereignty to approaches that emphasize human freedom. Sproul frames the discussion as an honest wrestling within the household of faith rather than a debate between believers and skeptics.

The question of justice and “fairness”: A central issue is whether election implies arbitrariness in God. Sproul insists that Scripture defines justice differently than modern intuitions, pressing readers to consider whether salvation is owed to anyone or is always an act of grace.

Scripture as the final authority (tota Scriptura): Sproul urges readers not to build theology from isolated passages or emotional reactions, but to submit both difficult texts on God’s sovereignty and equally clear texts about human responsibility to the full counsel of God’s Word.

Humility in doctrinal disagreement: While Sproul clearly defends the Reformed understanding of election, the chapter models a posture that recognizes sincere faith among those who differ, calling for careful listening, charity, and a shared commitment to Christ even amid unresolved tensions.

Provisionalism, Traditionalism, and Reformed Theological Perspectives

 

Provisionalist Emphases

• Salvation is genuinely offered to all people — Christ’s atonement is sufficient for every person, and God sincerely desires the salvation of every hearer (John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4).
• The gospel call is universally meaningful — When Scripture calls all to repent and believe, that call is not merely formal but truly available to each individual.
• Human response is enabled but not coerced — God provides conviction, illumination, and grace, yet does not override the person’s capacity to respond in faith.
• Election is understood in corporate or conditional terms — God chooses “in Christ,” and individuals partake of that election by faith rather than by an unconditional decree.
• Faith is a real condition for salvation — While faith itself is made possible by God’s grace, it is not irresistibly imposed but freely exercised.

---

Traditionalist Emphases

• Salvation originates entirely in God’s gracious initiative — No one seeks God apart from His prior work through the Word and Spirit (John 6:44).
• The Spirit convicts and draws through the gospel — God uses preaching, Scripture, and conscience as means by which people are brought to genuine repentance and belief.
• Responsibility and accountability remain intact — Human beings are morally responsible for responding to God’s revelation; unbelief is not blamed on divine withholding.
• No one is saved apart from personal faith in Christ — Justification is by grace alone through faith alone, not by works, ritual, or heritage (Eph. 2:8–9).
• Perseverance is grounded in continuing trust in Christ — Assurance flows from an ongoing, living faith that evidences itself in obedience and love.

---

Shared Non-Reformed Commitments

• God’s character is both sovereign and just — Divine authority never contradicts God’s goodness, sincerity, or righteousness in calling sinners to repentance.
• The gospel must be preached indiscriminately — Evangelism is meaningful because anyone who hears may truly come to Christ.
• Salvation is Christ-centered from beginning to end — From conviction to conversion to perseverance, redemption is accomplished only through the person and work of Jesus.
• Scripture is the final authority (tota Scriptura) — Doctrinal conclusions must account for both God’s sovereignty and the biblical reality that not all who profess faith are truly regenerate (Matt. 7:21–23; 1 John 2:19).

---

One Gospel, Three Frameworks: How Salvation Arises

Within conservative evangelical Christianity, sincere believers affirm the authority of Scripture, the necessity of grace, and the centrality of Christ. Yet they differ on how salvation is applied to individuals. Three broad frameworks often emerge: Provisionalism, Traditionalism, and classic Reformed soteriology. These views do not disagree about whether salvation is by grace through faith, but about how grace, human response, and divine sovereignty relate in bringing a sinner to Christ.

---

I. The Shared Foundation

All three affirm:

• Salvation is grounded in Christ alone (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).
• Justification is by grace through faith, not works (Eph. 2:8–9; Rom. 3:28).
• The gospel must be preached to all people (Matt. 28:19–20).
• Scripture is the final authority (tota Scriptura), even when passages appear in tension.

The difference lies not in the message of the gospel, but in the mechanism by which sinners come to believe it.

---

II. Provisionalism

Core Emphasis

Salvation is genuinely available to all; God provides sufficient grace for every person to respond to the gospel without coercion.

Key Distinctives

• Christ’s atonement is universal in provision.
• God desires the salvation of every person without exception.
• Grace enables but does not determine the human response.
• Election is commonly understood as corporate or conditional upon faith.

Representative Proof Texts

• John 3:16 – God loved the world; whoever believes may have eternal life.
• 1 Timothy 2:4 – God “desires all people to be saved.”
• 2 Peter 3:9 – God is not willing that any should perish.
• Titus 2:11 – Grace has appeared “bringing salvation for all people.”
• Matthew 23:37 – Christ laments those who “were not willing.”

Contrast with Reformed Theology

• Rejects unconditional election: God’s choosing is tied to faith in Christ rather than a prior decree.
• Denies irresistible grace: God’s call may be genuinely resisted.
• Sees universal gospel invitations as evidence of universal saving opportunity, not merely universal obligation.

---

III. Traditionalism (Non-Reformed Conservative Evangelical)

Core Emphasis

God initiates salvation through the Word and Spirit, yet human responsibility in responding to the gospel remains fully real and morally accountable.

Key Distinctives

• Humanity is fallen and dependent on God’s gracious initiative.
• The Spirit convicts through Scripture and proclamation, but does not override the will.
• Faith is a real condition for salvation; unbelief is culpable.
• Perseverance is tied to continued trust in Christ rather than an unconditional decree.

Representative Proof Texts

• John 6:44 – No one comes unless the Father draws.
• Romans 10:17 – Faith comes by hearing the Word of Christ.
• Acts 16:31 – “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.”
• Deuteronomy 30:19 – A genuine call to choose life.
• 2 Corinthians 5:20 – God appeals through us: “Be reconciled to God.”

Contrast with Reformed Theology

• Affirms divine initiative but denies that regeneration must logically precede faith.
• Rejects a deterministic view of election while maintaining God’s sovereignty.
• Emphasizes that gospel commands presume a real capacity to respond, even in human weakness.

---

IV. Classic Reformed Soteriology

Core Emphasis

Salvation arises from God’s sovereign, unconditional grace applied effectually to the elect, ensuring that all whom God intends to save will indeed come to faith.

Key Distinctives

• Total depravity: Humanity is spiritually unable to come to God apart from regenerating grace.
• Unconditional election: God chose individuals for salvation before the foundation of the world, not based on foreseen faith.
• Particular redemption: Christ’s atonement is designed to secure the salvation of the elect.
• Irresistible grace: God’s inward call effectively brings the elect to faith.
• Perseverance of the saints: Those truly regenerated will be kept by God to the end.

Representative Proof Texts

• Ephesians 1:4–5 – Chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.
• Romans 8:29–30 – The unbroken chain of foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification.
• John 6:37, 44 – All whom the Father gives will come; no one comes unless drawn.
• Acts 13:48 – “As many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”
• John 10:27–29 – Christ’s sheep hear His voice and are eternally secure.

Contrast with Provisionalism and Traditionalism

• Interprets universal gospel invitations as commands to repent, not as proof of equal salvific opportunity.
• Understands human inability as moral and spiritual, not merely relational or informational.
• Sees regeneration as causally prior to faith, rather than faith as the condition that triggers new birth.

---

V. Points of Tension: Where the Debate Centers

Question	Provisionalist	Traditionalist	Reformed
Who can respond to the gospel?	All, with enabling grace	All, under conviction by Word and Spirit	Only the elect, by effectual grace
Nature of election	Corporate or conditional	Not unconditional	Unconditional, individual
Grace	Resistible	Resistible	Irresistible
Extent of atonement	Universal in intent	Universal in scope	Particular in design
Order of salvation	Faith → New birth	Faith → Regeneration	Regeneration → Faith

---

VI. Theological Humility and Scriptural Tension

Each view must wrestle honestly with passages that seem to press in the opposite direction:

• God’s sovereignty (Rom. 9; Eph. 1)
• Human responsibility (Acts 17:30; John 5:40)
• Universal invitations (Isa. 55:1; Rev. 22:17)
• Warnings about false professions (Matt. 7:21–23; 1 John 2:19)

Faithful interpretation requires tota Scriptura: allowing Scripture to speak in its full range rather than selecting only the texts most congenial to one’s framework.

When Brothers Turn on Brothers: Internecine Conflict and the Call to Tota Scriptura

 

The Necessity—and Limits—of Doctrinal Distinctives
Appreciating Agreement Without Erasing Difference
Tota Scriptura: Letting All of Scripture Speak
A Better Way Forward

Few things have done more harm to the public witness of Christianity than internecine conflict among those who confess the same Lord. Disagreements within the household of faith are not new; the New Testament itself records sharp disputes, earnest exhortations, and necessary corrections. Yet there is a difference between contending for the faith and consuming one another in the process. When believers turn doctrinal disagreement into personal attack - especially across denominational or theological lines - the result is not clarity but carnage.

This is particularly evident in debates among those within the broad evangelical and Reformed orbit: Reformed theologians, traditionalists, and provisionalists. These streams differ in significant ways, especially regarding soteriology, divine sovereignty, and human responsibility. To pretend otherwise would be dishonest. Doctrinal distinctives matter, and they matter because truth matters. However, the manner in which those distinctives are defended often undermines the very truth being proclaimed.

The Christian faith is not a vague spiritual sentiment; it is a revealed truth grounded in the self-disclosure of God in Scripture. Doctrinal boundaries are therefore unavoidable. The church must teach, clarify, and sometimes draw lines. To abandon doctrinal specificity in the name of unity is not unity at all but confusion.

Yet doctrinal clarity does not require doctrinal hostility. When distinctives become badges of superiority rather than tools for edification, they distort their purpose. Theological systems - whether Reformed, traditionalist, or provisionalist - are attempts to faithfully synthesize biblical data. None are Scripture itself. When systems are absolutized, those who disagree are no longer seen as fellow students of the Word but as adversaries to be defeated.

A healthier posture begins by recognizing that substantial doctrinal agreement already exists. Those across these traditions affirm the authority of Scripture, the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, the necessity of repentance, and the call to holiness. These shared convictions are not marginal; they are foundational. To ignore them while magnifying secondary disagreements is to reverse biblical priorities.

Genuine theological charity does not require minimizing disagreement, but it does require maximizing understanding. Too often, caricatures replace careful listening. Reformed believers are accused of denying human responsibility; provisionalists are accused of denying divine sovereignty; traditionalists are dismissed as inconsistent or evasive. Such accusations may occasionally reflect real tensions, but they more often reveal a failure to appreciate the internal logic and biblical motivations of each position.

When believers take the time to understand one another, they often discover that disagreements arise not from a rejection of Scripture, but from differing judgments about how best to integrate its teaching. This realization should temper rhetoric and foster humility. It reminds us that our interlocutors are not enemies of truth but fellow servants striving - sometimes imperfectly - to be faithful to the same Word.

At the heart of these debates lies a shared commitment that must not be compromised: tota Scriptura. Faithfulness to God requires grappling with the whole counsel of Scripture, not merely the passages that fit comfortably within a preferred framework.

Scripture speaks with unmistakable clarity about God’s sovereignty. God “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11). Salvation is described as God’s gracious initiative, not human achievement. Any theology that mutes these truths does violence to the text.

At the same time, Scripture is equally clear that not all professions of faith are genuine. Jesus Himself warns that some who call Him “Lord” will be turned away (Matthew 7:21–23). The apostle John speaks of those who depart from the faith as revealing that they “were not of us” (1 John 2:19). These passages cannot be dismissed as mere anomalies; they are part of the same inspired canon.

Tota Scriptura requires holding these truths together in tension, even when the tension is uncomfortable. Attempts to resolve the tension by denying either divine sovereignty or the reality of false professions inevitably flatten the biblical witness. Faithfulness does not demand that every mystery be solved, but it does require that no portion of God’s Word be silenced.

Internecine attacks flourish when confidence turns into contempt. The church does not need less conviction; it needs more charity shaped by conviction. When believers speak as though their theological opponents are intellectually dishonest or spiritually deficient, the body of Christ is wounded, and the watching world sees not truth adorned but truth disfigured. 

A better way forward begins with repentance - repentance for careless words, for pride disguised as orthodoxy, and for a willingness to wound fellow believers in the name of being right. It continues with a renewed commitment to Scripture in its fullness and to one another in love.

Christ prayed that His people would be one, not so that truth and love would be diluted, but so that they would be displayed. When those who affirm the same gospel learn to disagree without devouring one another, they offer a compelling testimony: that truth and love are not rivals, and that the Lord of Scripture is honored when His Word is handled with both reverence and grace.

I left the class this morning feeling as though, like Athanasius contra mundum, the PCA, as articulated by its Elders, presents itself contra non-Reformed. This appears to be an unfortunate result of Scripture-sniping rather than adhering to the tota scriptura we profess.

Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 18)

  

Simplified Summary of Chapter 18 (Assurance of Salvation)

1. False vs. true assurance
   Some people wrongly convince themselves they are saved, but that hope will fail. True believers—those who genuinely trust Christ, love Him, and seek to obey Him—can know in this life that they are saved and can rejoice confidently in God’s promises.

2. Assurance is certain, not guesswork
   True assurance is not a mere feeling or hopeful guess. It rests on:

   • God’s trustworthy promises

   • Evidence of real spiritual fruit in a believer’s life

   • The Holy Spirit confirming in the heart that one belongs to God

3. Assurance may take time
   A believer may have real faith yet struggle for a long time before gaining assurance. Still, through ordinary means—Scripture, prayer, obedience—believers can grow into assurance. Seeking assurance strengthens joy, gratitude, and obedience rather than encouraging sin.

4. Assurance can weaken but not disappear completely
   Even true believers may lose their sense of assurance for a time because of sin, neglect, temptation, or God’s discipline. Yet God never removes saving faith itself. The Spirit preserves them from complete despair and restores assurance in due time.

---

Five Key Differences: Calvinism vs. Arminianism (Chapter 18)

1. Ground of assurance

   • Calvinism: Assurance rests on God’s unchanging promises and His sovereign work in the believer.

   • Arminianism: Assurance is often more dependent on the believer’s continued faithfulness and choice.

2. Possibility of losing salvation

   • Calvinism: Assurance may fade, but salvation itself cannot be lost.

   • Arminianism: Many hold that true believers can fully fall away and lose salvation.

3. Role of the Holy Spirit

   • Calvinism: The Spirit inwardly testifies and permanently seals believers.

   • Arminianism: The Spirit may assure, but that assurance can be undone if faith is abandoned.

4. Nature of doubt

   • Calvinism: Doubt affects assurance, not one’s actual standing with God.

   • Arminianism: Doubt may reflect a real danger of losing salvation.

5. Purpose of assurance

   • Calvinism: Assurance leads to humility, gratitude, holiness, and perseverance.

   • Arminianism: Assurance is often treated cautiously, to avoid presumption or complacency.