by CBTS Student | Aug 20, 2025 | Practical Theology
Chaplains: Professionally Compassionate
As I step out into the world of clinical chaplaincy, I find myself without an anchor. With 20 years of pastoring experience, I have a fairly solid foundation for serving in the church, but what orients my faith and practice as a professional spiritual care provider? What are the parameters of my contributions to a care team? Any good and lasting endeavor requires a foundation—a purpose. “For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?” (Luke 14:28). To be an effective Reformed Baptist clinical chaplain, I need to build a similar tower upon the bedrock of God’s Word.
I reject the notion espoused by some who say, “Professional chaplains must be able to move aside their own belief system(s)/theology and support the system of the person to whom they are providing chaplaincy care.”[1] Chaplaincy is not at odds with compassion. It is not something that must be moved aside but embraced. Christian theology not only allows for, but demands compassionate care for all mankind, in spite of the spiritual state of the sufferer.
I set out to build a theological foundation for the Christian chaplain through a careful study of the Parable of the Good Samaritan and other relevant biblical passages. The Parable of the Good Samaritan is the locus classicus of chaplaincy, and the word upon which the entire parable turns should be the starting point of any meditation concerning clinical spiritual care. That word is compassion.
Jesus Christ came into the world and was moved with compassion. After John the Baptist was beheaded, Jesus sought solitude in the wilderness, but the multitudes followed him out of their cities, apparently bringing their sick friends and family with them. Jesus did not separate himself from them, but “was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick” (Mat 14:14). In those days, Jesus was serving as the sole physician, nurse, and chaplain. He couldn’t escape the crowds of sufferers. And what motivated his physical and spiritual wellness program? “He was moved with compassion toward them.” The Greek word behind the English phrase “moved with compassion” is in the passive voice which implies this affection is happening to Jesus, not by Jesus. The Light of the World came into contact with the pain and suffering of this world, and compassion overcame him. This compassion is the moving cause of his healing ministry, here and in passages like Matt. 14:14, 15:32, 20:34; and Mark. 1:41, 8:2.
The quintessential passage that describes Christ’s compassion is the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10. In the parable, a certain man fell among bandits on the road to Jericho, was robbed, wounded, and left half dead (Luke 10:30). A Jewish priest and a Levite dispassionately ignored the sufferer, and the crisis appeared bleak. But the parable turns on the word compassion. A third traveler comes upon the sufferer: “a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him” (Luk 10:33). Once again, this verb is in the passive voice meaning the Samaritan was moved with compassion. This movement of compassion resulted in the Samaritan bandaging the sufferer’s wounds, setting him on his own pack animal, and taking him to an inn in Jericho where he paid for the man’s care. Jesus presents this parable as the reasonable service of all who share in humanity, saying, “Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise” (Luke 10:36-37).
Jesus is moved with compassion when he encounters the pain and suffering of mankind. This movement of affections occurs in his human nature, not his divine. The divine nature cannot be moved by anything outside of himself, for He is immutable (James 1:17). God the Father cannot be moved to compassion. Therefore, Christ was moved to compassion in his human nature—the nature which he took upon himself at his incarnation, which he shares with all of us.
Therefore, it is this shared humanity that moves Christ to compassion upon the plight of human sufferers. “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). For every high priest “can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity” (Heb. 5:2). Ultimately, this compassion allows Christ to bear the infirmity of mankind’s sin on the cross. Secondarily, it allows Christ to be moved with compassion for the earthly plight of his fellows.
Since all Christians share Christ’s human nature, we are to be likewise moved. “But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?” (1 John 3:17). Since Christ’s human nature was moved with compassion for the needy, it is assumed that we will be moved with compassion as well.
This movement of compassion, just as it was with Christ, will occur when we come into contact with suffering. Paul tells us that in allowing ourselves to be transformed by the renewing of our mind, we will rejoice with them that rejoice and weep with them that weep (Rom. 12:2, 15). This implies that the more we are transformed, the more empathy we will experience toward sufferers. Although the Holy Spirit can move anyone to compassion, he mostly reserves this good fruit for those who now walk as children of light (Eph. 5:8,9). Compassion is a movement of the Spirit of Christ working in us “to will and to do his good pleasure” (Php. 2:13).
And just like with Christ, we are especially moved to compassion when we come into contact with the suffering of our fellow human beings. This is part of what the author of Hebrews calls letting brotherly love continue: “Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body” (Heb 13:3). You don’t have to suffer incarceration to be bound with the incarcerated in compassion. You don’t have to suffer the exact same adversity as your brother to experience brotherly love. The prerequisite to compassion is not shared experiences, but fellowship with Christ in his sufferings on behalf of mankind (2 Cor. 1:3-5).
All those who commune with Christ by faith are little by little, more and more, conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29), having their compassion sanctified. The movement of compassion toward mankind is by the Spirit working in Christ’s people by faith, empowering each of us to act upon that compassion according to our shared humanity. However, as with all of God’s gifts, there are some who are called to something more.
Some, like Nehemiah, Jesus, the Apostles, Stephen, and Philip, were moved with an extraordinary compassion which led them to leave their vocations to concentrate on spiritual care. This kind of compassion flourished in the first decades after Christ. Clement wrote that many in the early church gave themselves into prison in order to ransom their imprisoned brother, and many willingly sold themselves into slavery and used the money to ransom their brother out of slavery.[2] All Christians are capable of great acts of mercy. However, the Spirit does move some to extraordinary, full-time compassion.
It is reasonable, therefore, that those who are moved by the Lord’s compassion in an extraordinary way might, like the apostles and deacons of the early church, make compassion their vocation. In Acts 6 for example, Stephen and Philip, among others, were chosen and set apart for vocational mercy toward the widows of the church. Just as some are called to minister the word, some are called to compassion in the field of chaplaincy.
Those who are called to vocational compassion need instruction and experience in the finer details of compassionate spiritual care. Education and training are indispensable for effective preaching ministries, and so they are for effective mercy ministries. For three years, the Apostles followed the greatest mercy minister the world has ever seen, studying and experiencing the Lord’s compassion on multitudes of people. Soon after his death, resurrection, and ascension, we find Christ’s disciples fine tuning their own massive ministries. Peter, for example, became so proficient at healing, that sufferers sought a cure from his mere shadow (Acts 5:15). Compassionate elders in the church were so highly practiced in compassionate care that James said with confidence, “the prayer of faith shall save the sick” (James 5:13,14).
Peter’s healing ministry differed slightly from that of Stephen and Philip, whose main subjects were those within the community of faith. Although Peter was a respected leader of the early church, his healing ministry reached the world at large. In this way, it could be said that Peter functioned like a modern chaplain as well as one of the pillars of the church. Clinical chaplains seem to follow in Peter’s healing footsteps, and ultimately in Christ’s, in that they are moved to compassion for all suffering people, regardless of faith, and seek to grow in compassion and hone their skills. Clinical chaplains may come out of the church with its shared Christianity, but their ministry extends to the whole world because of their shared humanity. Their connection with the sufferer is not fellowship in redemption, but fellowship in creation.
About the Author
Ken Klein is a retired Pastor of 20 years in the Southern California area. Ken is a MABC student at CBTS and enrolled in the ACPE program at Loma Linda University Health in Loma Linda, CA. He and his wife, Marjorie, have been blessed with six children and five grandchildren.
[1] Martha R. Jacobs, “Creating a Personal Theology to Do Spiritual / Pastoral Care,” in Professional Spiritual & Pastoral Care: A Practical Clergy and Chaplain’s Handbook, ed. Stephen B. Roberts (Woodstock, VT: Skylight Paths Publishing, 2012), 10–11.
[2] Pope Clement I et al., The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Kirsopp Lake, vol. 1, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1912–1913), 103.
This blog post is authored by a student of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.
by Tom Hicks | Aug 19, 2025 | Ecclesiology
Many Christians today question whether it’s necessary or even biblical to join local churches. Some think joining a church will rob them of personal freedom and independence. Others believe they may attend several different churches without ever committing to just one. Some even believe they don’t need to be part of any particular local church, but that they may stay at home, pray privately, and watch sermons on the internet for their personal edification. I once met someone who said that his “church” was his personal circle of Christian friends.
But all of these attitudes are a novelty in church history, and they reflect the radically individualistic and autonomous spirit of our age. Such beliefs are contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture, orthodox theology, and the historical witness of the church.
Some Historical and Confessional Witnesses to Church Membership
The great prince of the Puritans, John Owen (1616-1683), wrote, “It is the duty of everyone who professes faith in Jesus Christ, and takes due care of his own eternal salvation, voluntarily and by his own choice to join himself to some particular congregation of Christ’s institution.”
The early English Particular Baptist, Benjamin Keach, in his magnificent work, The Glory of a True Church, wrote:
A Church of Christ, according to the Gospel-Institution, is a Congregation of Godly Christians, who as a Stated-Assembly (being first baptized upon the Profession of Faith) do by mutual agreement and consent give themselves up to the Lord, and one to another, according to the Will of God; and do ordinarily meet together in one Place, for the Public Service and Worship of God; among whom the Word of God and Sacraments are duly administered, according to Christ’s Institution.
The most influential confession of faith among English Baptists and early American Baptists, the Second London Confession of Faith 26.6, says:
The members of these [local] churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ;[12] and do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ; giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel.[13]
12. Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2
13. Acts 2:41,42, 5:13,14; 2 Cor. 9:13
The Second London Confession is not alone. Other Reformed confessions speak of church membership, including the Second Helvetic Confession (XXI, XXX), the Savoy Declaration (Institution of Churches), and others. Having looked at parts of the church’s historical and confessional witness to church membership, we now need to consider what it means to join a local church.
What Does it Mean to Join a Local Church?
To join a local church, a credibly professing believer must enter into a covenant with a local church as a whole. Church membership is a bilateral covenant in which individuals make promises to the church as a whole, and the church as a whole makes promises to individual members. A covenant is a formalized agreement, or commitment, by which two or more parties make promises to one another. The basic promises between individuals and churches in a church covenant include:
1. Individual Promises. Each individual church member promises the whole church to trust and obey the Lord Jesus Christ together, to love other church members, to attend faithfully and participate in the life of the church, to receive the means of grace, and to be in submission to the pastors and to the church as a whole for the sake of growing in the knowledge of Christ for His glory.
2. Church Promises. The church as a whole and her pastors promise to trust and obey Christ, to love individual members in their midst, to foster a community of truth and love, to maintain biblical orthodoxy and godly character, to administer the Word and sacraments, and to watch over the souls of individual church members for their growth in the knowledge of Christ for His glory.
A church covenant is bilateral (a two-way commitment), and it is breakable, which means one party may break the covenant, such that individual members may be disciplined for heresy or gross unrepentant sin, or individuals may call the whole church to account for heresy or gross unrepentant sin.
Some question whether a church has authority to make such a covenant. But the Bible provides examples of human beings making covenants with one another to keep the Word of God (Neh 9:38; 10:28-32ff). Church covenants are valid because churches are formed, not on the basis of any historical succession of churches or apostolic succession, but only on the basis of the Word of God. The Word of God forms a church when a group of Christians agree together (covenant together) to believe and obey the Bible and to be a church together.
Why is Joining a Church Necessary?
Consider seven important reasons that joining a church is necessary: (1) for the church’s existence, (2) for the church’s purity, (3) for pastoral ministry, (4) for church discipline, (5) for congregational government, (6) for growth in love, and (7) because church membership is implied by the New Testament.
1. Joining a church is necessary for the existence of a local church.
A local church (ekklesia) is a “gathering” or “assembly” of credibly professing believers. That which distinguishes one local church from another is the mutual agreement of credibly professing believers to be a church together. Thus, for a particular local church to exist at all, it must be an assembly of credibly professing believers, who have agreed to be members of one particular local church, rather than another.
The New Testament teaches that local churches were well-defined local assemblies. It uses language such as “the whole congregation” (Acts 6:5), “the church in Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1), “the disciples in Jerusalem” (Acts 9:26), “in every church” (Acts 14:23), “the whole church” (Acts 15:17). A church is a known and specified group of professing believers in a local assembly (1 Cor 5:4; 14:23; and Heb 10:25).
1 Corinthians 14:23 says, “If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?” This passage identifies a well-defined local assembly as “the whole church.”
But it also recognizes two other categories of people, who may be present in the assembly but are not part of the church: outsiders and unbelievers. The term “unbelievers” clearly refers to people visiting the church who do not believe in Christ. The term “outsiders” likely refers to believers who are not members of the church of Corinth. This implies that to be a Christian or member of one local church does not make a person a member of all local churches. If a Christian is a member of one church, he’s still an “outsider” to all other local churches.
Therefore, for a local church to exist at all, it must be composed of credibly professing believers who have agreed, or covenanted, either implicitly or explicitly, to be a part of that local church. An explicit membership covenant makes the people of a particular local church clear to all.
2. Joining a local church is necessary for the church’s purity.
True churches are composed of people who credibly profess to be “saints” (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; Phil 1:1, etc). A “saint” is a Christian, someone whom God has declared holy (sanctified) and given a holy (sanctified) or regenerate heart. When Paul wrote to the church of Corinth, he noted that the people of the church were rich in “all speech and all knowledge” of Christ (1 Cor 1:5). He knew they were rich in all speech and knowledge because “the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you [meaning the church as a whole]” (1 Cor 1:6). That is, those who wanted to join the Corinthian church were first required to give a credible “testimony” of conversion to Christ. Then their testimony had to be confirmed, or certified as valid, by the whole church, proving that they were rich in all speech and knowledge of Christ.
Confirming the credible testimonies of membership candidates is a necessary precondition of joining a church because it guards the church’s purity of membership for the sake of her worship, mutual edification, as well as her witness to the world. Any candidate who lacks a credible professions of faith must be excluded from church membership, so that the church will be a pure church. Therefore, church membership is necessary to guard the purity of the church, that is, to ensure that the church is only composed of credibly professing believers.
3. Joining a local church is necessary to have a pastor.
Pastors are shepherds of particular local churches, and they have responsibilities to the churches they pastor. Consider Hebrews 13:17, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.” This passage gives instructions both to pastors and to the churches they lead.
First, pastors are to keep watch over souls and they will give an account for their ministries (Heb 13:17). But how does a pastor know whether or not he will give an account for a particular Christian’s soul, unless that Christian agrees that a particular pastor is his pastor? The pastor of one church is not responsible to shepherd souls in another church. Every pastor is not responsible to shepherd all Christians everywhere. Pastors can only give an account for the spiritual well-being of his church, if he knows who belongs to his church. A pastor can only shepherd a flock if he knows who is a member of the flock and who is not a member.
Second, the Bible requires Christians to obey their pastors and submit to them (Heb 13:17). But how can a Christian possibly obey this passage unless he knows who his pastor is? How does a believer know which pastors to obey? Christians are certainly not required to obey and submit to all pastors everywhere. A believer will only be able to obey this biblical command, if he has joined a particular church and agreed for a particular pastor (or pastors) to be his pastor(s).
4. Joining a local church is necessary for church discipline.
Church discipline is not possible, unless the church knows exactly who is part of the church and who is not part of the church. Does a church have the right and responsibility to discipline any Christian who happens to come on Sundays? How long would a person have to come to a church before he is eligible for discipline? The only way to know that a person is part of a particular church, and therefore subject to discipline, is if the person agrees by way of covenant to be a member of that church. Church discipline is only possible, therefore, if the church knows who is part of the church.
In Matthew 18:15-17, our Lord Jesus outlines the process of church discipline for private sins.
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Unless the church is a well-defined assembly, it is not possible to obey Christ’s teaching to “tell it to the church.”
1 Corinthians 5:11-13 provides the procedure of church discipline for public sins.
But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Churches are only to discipline those inside the church and not those outside the church. But there is no way to identify who is “inside” the church and who is “outside” the church, unless Christians agree to be “inside” one particular local church, rather than another.
A church is only authorized to discipline Christians who are “inside” that particular church, not all churches. The fact that the final stage of discipline requires a church to “purge [remove or expel] the evil person from among you [plural, the church]” implies that a person was once a member of a church, and as a result of the process of discipline, is now no longer a member. Church discipline of individual Christians is only possible, therefore, if a church knows who is inside the church and subject to the church’s discipline.
5. Joining a church is necessary for congregational church government.
Congregational church government means that the church as a whole decides the most important matters in the church, such as the church’s confession of faith, constitution and bylaws, membership, elders and deacons, cases of church discipline, churchly associations, and the church’s budget.
The Bible gives us a theology of congregational church government in various passages. For example, Matthew 18:15-20 teaches that the church as a whole has ultimate authority to excommunicate members. Acts 6:1-7 teaches that the whole church chose the first deacons from among themselves to care for the Hellenistic widows. In Acts 13:2-3, the church chose Barnabas and Saul to be missionaries to the Gentiles. In Acts 15, at least two whole churches, Jerusalem and Antioch, worked together by sending messengers to an associational meeting to collaborate on an important doctrinal difficulty that had arisen among them. In 1 Corinthians 5:4-5 Paul instructs the whole church of Corinth to excommunicate a sinful man. In 2 Corinthians 2:6, we see that the majority of the church voted to excommunicate that sinful man, but that it should also vote to welcome him back after his repentance.
Congregational church government is not possible, however, unless the church knows who is part of the congregation and who is not. How can a congregation govern the church, if no one knows exactly who is part of the congregation?
Only credibly professing believers, who have voluntarily covenanted with a church, and who have been accepted into membership, have the right and responsibility to vote on matters of church government. It would greatly damage the church if random visitors, unbelievers, or marginally committed long term church attenders had an important role to play in the government of the church. Thus, congregational church government implies a well-defined church membership.
6. Joining a local church is necessary for growth in love.
When a believer joins a church, he binds himself to the rich and the poor in that church, to the old and the young, to people with families and without families, to the sick and the healthy, to introverts and extroverts, to people of higher education and lower education, to those with white collar jobs and blue collar jobs, and to believers of varying levels of sanctification. Joining a church means covenanting to love a diverse group of people because of mutual communion with Christ.
Historically, Christians who sought holiness in isolation from the church became puffed up in pride and self-righteousness. The Bible teaches that the only way to learn to love like Christ is to be covenantally bound to a local church in love. When a believer covenants with one local church, he renounces membership in all other local churches and prioritizes the people of his church. It means he does not choose preferred social groups or people to whom he is most naturally fitted over the Christians in his church.
The only way a believer can be more and more conformed to Christ’s image is by learning to forgive church members who sin against him. He grows in Christ by learning patience toward those who try his patience, by rejoicing with those who rejoice, and by weeping with those who weep. He becomes more like Christ, and thus, grows in the knowledge of God, in subjective union with Him, and in participation in the divine nature, when he keeps the nursery, wipes the tables, attends funerals, celebrates at weddings, goes to the hospital to pray for a brother before surgery, and takes a meal to a sister who just lost a loved one.
He does these things, not because he necessarily naturally likes all of these people, but because he is covenantally committed to loving them from the heart by virtue of church membership, and in that way, he actually learns how to love others from the heart like Jesus. Believers can only learn to obey the New Testament’s teaching about Christian love by joining a particular local church and being committed to its people.
Consider some of the “one another passages” of Scripture, which teach this doctrine of committed love for a particular local church. Each of these texts is directed to a local church, not to individual Christians. Their application is to the local churches to which they were written. Romans 12:10 says, “Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.” 1 Corinthians 12:25 asks, “that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.” Galatians 6:2 says, “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” Ephesians 4:32 says, “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” Colossians 3:16 says, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” 1 Thessalonians 5:11 says, “Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing.” Hebrews 10:24 says, “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works. James 4:11 says, “Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.” 1 Peter 5:5 says, “Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.’”
It is only possible to fulfill these commands to “one another” if we are part of a local church where we know who the “one another” are.
7. Joining a local church is implied in the New Testament.
The New Testament knows nothing of independent Christians who are not members of local churches. Consider that many of the letters in the New Testament are addressed to particular local churches. For example, Paul wrote Ephesians to the whole church at Ephesus. He knew the people at Ephesus, and he wrote with that particular local church in mind. The same could be said of Romans, Philippians, and others. The Bible assumes Christians will commit themselves to a particular local church, rather than another, that they will be under its ministry and authority.
Scripture teaches that new converts were baptized and added to a specific local church (Acts 2:41, 47; 5:14; 16:5). They were then “added to the number” of members in these local churches, showing that there was a definite and known number of members in local churches (Acts 2:41, 47; 16:5).
The New Testament also implies church membership when the member of one church is commended to another church when he or she moved or traveled (Rom 16:1; Col 4:10; cf. 2 Cor 3:1-2). Passages like this are the basis of the “letter system” in Baptist churches, where a church gives a letter of commendation for one of its members, who is seeking membership in a different church.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the very existence of a local church requires individual members to join. Many of the doctrines of a local church assume a clear and well-defined membership. These doctrines include regenerate church membership, pastoral ministry, church discipline, congregational church government, and committed love for others in the church.
For these reasons, faithful teachers and confessions of faith throughout church history have consistently taught that individual Christians should join themselves in covenant to a particular local church. This doctrine of church membership runs contrary to the autonomous spirit of our age, but it is nothing less than biblical Christianity.
by Ben Habegger | Aug 19, 2025 | Eschatology, Old Testament
*Editor’s Note: This blog is the third of six installments in a series by Ben Habegger titled “An Amillennial Interpretation of Zechariah 14.” As more installments of the series are released, they will be linked together here.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Zechariah 14:6–11: The Lord’s Reign from Jerusalem
Once the Lord arrives to rescue Jerusalem, the Lord remains to forever reign from Jerusalem; and as the apostle John would later note, “there will be no night there” (Rev. 21:25).
6 In that day there will be no light; the luminaries will dwindle. 7 For it will be a unique day which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light. 8 And in that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter. 9 And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one. 10 All the land will be changed into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem; but Jerusalem will rise and remain on its site from Benjamin’s Gate as far as the place of the First Gate to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king’s wine presses. 11 People will live in it, and there will no longer be a curse, for Jerusalem will dwell in security.
Several items here require attention, including the light without luminaries, the living waters, the universal worship of Yahweh, the exaltation of Jerusalem above the surrounding land, Jerusalem’s secure population, and the absence of a curse.
The text and translation of verse 6 are difficult, but when taken along with verse 7, the larger point seems clear.[1] The “luminaries” are probably the heavenly bodies. The failing of these heavenly bodies has both literal and figurative significance throughout the prophets, especially in connection with “the great and awesome day of the Lord” (Joel 2:31; cf. also Isa. 13:9–13; Joel 3:15; Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:24–25; Luke 21:25; Rev. 6:12–13). Bryan Gregory also observes, “The disruption to the normal cycles of day and night is significant. In God’s promise to Noah, he had promised that the normal rhythms of seasons and days would not cease for as long as the earth endures (Gen. 8:22).”[2] Thus Zechariah indicates that, although he speaks in terms of the old city of Jerusalem and land of Judah, this holy city and promised land will be part of the new creation. The earth as his readers know it will have passed away.[3]
MacKay helps to illumine the significance of the “living waters”:
Jerusalem was always poorly provided with water, but the renewed city is the source of a divinely provided supply. Zechariah here resumes the picture presented by Joel and Ezekiel of the Temple as a source of water (Joel 3:18; Ezek. 47:1–12). This is not just typical of physical change, but of the spiritual blessings that water represents. It is ‘living’ water flowing freshly from a spring or fountain, and symbolic of true spiritual life given in salvation (Jer. 2:13; John 4:10; 7:38). This looks back to the river of Paradise, when ‘a river watering the garden flowed from Eden’ (Gen. 2:10), and it looks forward to Paradise restored…. Truly ‘there is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy place where the Most High dwells’ (Ps. 46:4).
Unlike Ezekiel’s river which flowed only to the east (Ezek. 47:1, an embarrassment for those who take both prophecies to refer to the same literal future event), the water splits half to the eastern sea, that is the Dead Sea, and half to the western sea, that is, the Mediterranean. In this way it is available for all the land. And it is available all the time, in summer and in winter. Many streams in Palestine were only winter torrents which dried up in the heat of summer, when the need for water was at its greatest. Not so this source of supply. It is available all the year round. There is no disruption of the bliss of the new creation ‘for the old order of things has passed away’ (Rev. 21:4).[4]
Verse 9 expresses the consummated, universal submission and worship given to the one true God in the age to come. “And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one.” Night forever gone. The river of living water. All the earth serving and worshipping the Lord. If these things do not point us to John’s vision of the eternal state in Revelation 21 and 22, I doubt much will.
Continuing our discussion of verses 6–11, we pick up with the prophecy of the holy city being raised above the now leveled land surrounding it. The exaltation of Jerusalem in verse 10 reflects a common prophetic theme. Perhaps the clearest parallel appears in Isaiah 2:2–3:
2 Now it will come about that in the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord will be established as the chief of the mountains, and will be raised above the hills; and all the nations will stream to it. 3 And many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us concerning His ways and that we may walk in His paths.” For the law will go forth from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
The words of this same prophecy are also found in Micah 4:1–2, where they follow and contrast the Babylonian desolation of an impure Jerusalem (Micah 3:11–12). God removed his presence from the temple because of Jerusalem’s iniquity; but one day, God’s presence will eternally dwell in a purified Jerusalem, and the city will nevermore be put to shame. Zion will tower over all the earth, and all nations will be under its dominion. The kingdom of the heavenly Zion will become a great mountain and fill the whole earth (Dan. 2:35).
The geographical markers here mentioned by Zechariah had symbolic meaning which we might easily miss. Bryan Gregory explains:
Before the exile, Geba and Rimmon denoted the northern and southern boundaries of Judah during the days of Josiah’s reform. In other words, the land will be restored to her preexilic, pre-disaster state, and being ‘leveled out,’ will provide a geological setting for the crown jewel of the new creation, the city of Jerusalem…. The city itself will then be defined by distinct boundaries, stretching from the Gate of Benjamin (on the city’s northern side) to the place of the First Gate (the location of which is now lost but possibly denotes an old gate on the east side of the city), down to the Corner Gate (on the western side), and from the Tower of Hananel (probably near the northwest corner) down to the king’s winepresses in the south. The boundaries are not only a way of tracing the city’s limits but are more importantly an allusion to Jeremiah 31 where the Lord had promised that the city would be rebuilt from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate (Jer. 31:38). Part of the promise to Jeremiah was that the whole city would once again become holy, never again to be uprooted or demolished (Jer. 31:39–40; cf. Zech. 14:20–21). In other words, the boundaries paint a picture of Jerusalem as a city entirely safe from the threat of violence.[5]
In terms the contemporary inhabitants of Jerusalem understood, Zechariah echoed Jeremiah, promising that the holy city would remain intact from one end (or wall) to the other, and that it would be exalted above the whole land.
Verse 11 pointedly states that “people will live in it.” “In the period after the return from the Exile,” says MacKay, “there seems to have been an ongoing problem with population in Jerusalem. Many of those who returned preferred to live in the countryside and had to be forced to come to the capital (Neh. 7:4; 11:1–2). But there will be no problem about getting people to live in the capital when the king has returned to it.”[6] The absence of a curse, as MacKay goes on to explain,
refers to the ‘ban’ which the Lord imposed on the cities of Canaan because of their great wickedness (Josh. 6:17–18; see also Mal. 4:6). The fate of God’s people for their rebellion had been understood in similar terms (Isa. 43:28). But when the Lord returns to the city, ‘no longer will there be any curse’ (Rev. 22:3). His people will have been purified and will be ready to enter into his presence.[7]
Given the factors we’ve discussed in the last post as well as this one, Zechariah’s prophecy fits better within the context of the new Jerusalem which “will dwell in security” in the new creation than it fits with a millennial Jerusalem which continues to experience day and night and the (lightened) effects of the Adamic curse and is eventually surrounded by a Satanic coalition of nations bent on her destruction (Rev. 20:9).
[1] Boda, Zechariah, 760–61, fn.b., 762.
[2] Bryan R. Gregory, Longing for God in an Age of Discouragement: the Gospel According to Zechariah, The Gospel According to the Old Testament, ed. Iain M. Duguid (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2010), 207.
[3] Boda also suggests an allusion in the Hebrew text to Genesis 1:3–5, implying a recreation. “This suggests that 14:7 refers to a day of recreation, with 14:6 returning the earth to a state prior to the creative activity in Genesis 1, and 14:7 initiating the process of creation in Genesis 1. This recreation day, just as the original creation day, is known only to Yahweh, in whose hands are the times and seasons (see Ecclesiastes 3). However, the fact that the light appears now in the evening suggests a clear shift in the cosmos, so that there is perpetual light and no night. This is a feature of texts envisioning a future idyllic age (cf. Isa. 60:19, 20; Rev. 21:25; 22:5).” See Boda, Zechariah, 762–63.
[4] MacKay, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 308–309.
[5] Gregory, Longing for God, 208–209.
[6] MacKay, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 311.
[7] Ibid.
Ben Habegger first served in full-time pastoral ministry near Detroit, Michigan from 2013-2017 and has now been vocational pastor at Hope Reformed Baptist Church of Aloha, Oregon (formerly Glencullen Baptist Church of Portland, Oregon) since January of 2020. He has a Master of Divinity degree from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and a Master of Arts in Reformed Baptist Studies from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. Ben and his wife Theresa have four children.
by Ben Habegger | Aug 12, 2025 | Eschatology, Old Testament
*Editor’s Note: This blog is the second of six installments in a series by Ben Habegger titled “An Amillennial Interpretation of Zechariah 14.” As more installments of the series are released, they will be linked together here.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Zechariah 14:1–5: The Lord’s Coming to Jerusalem
The opening verses of chapter 14 portray the final conflict between the nations and the holy city. This conflict culminates in the sudden arrival of the Lord God and his heavenly hosts.
1 Behold, a day is coming for the Lord when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. 2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. 3 Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. 4 In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. 5 You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him![1]
Verse 2 puts this final conflict into proper perspective: the Lord himself “will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle.” This time when God gathers his enemies against his people “for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty” (Rev. 16:14) is prophesied in several places throughout scripture (cf. Ezek. 38:1–23; 39:1–6; Joel 3:2; Rev. 16:12–16; 19:19; 20:8–9). Here we must focus on the unique picture which Zechariah paints of this event.
The nations gather and battle against Jerusalem, and they are initially successful. They capture the city, loot the houses, rape the women, and even succeed in carrying away captive half the inhabitants. Still, the other half of the city’s people will not be killed or exiled. Why? The Lord himself will appear on the scene and catch the nations in their heinous act of desecration; and when God arrives, he will descend in full battle array. When he touches down on the earth right outside the walls of Jerusalem, the Mount of Olives will split to form a valley, a way of escape for the beleaguered inhabitants of the city. John MacKay explains verse 2 this way: “The message is that the future of the church will involve a time when it will be surrounded by its enemies and seemingly overwhelmed by them…. Under the metaphor of the pillaging of an ancient city, the church is presented as suffering grievously at the hands of her enemies, and yet there has been a remnant left.”[2]
The reference to the Mount of Olives should remind us of Ezekiel’s words, written a generation before Zechariah’s time. MacKay makes the connection when discussing verse 4:
‘His feet’ indicates a theophany, perhaps one where the presence of God causes the earth to shake (Ps. 68:8; 97:4; Micah 1:3–4; Nahum 1:3, 5). The addition ‘east of Jerusalem’ – which was scarcely needed to locate this well-known hill – links this vision with that granted to Ezekiel when the Lord’s glory left Jerusalem and ‘stopped above the mountain east of it’ (Ezek. 11:23). The Lord whose visible presence with his people had then ceased now returns in power, as was similarly forecast in Ezekiel 43:2. It is not of course to some reconstructed city that he comes, but to the New Jerusalem which is the reality symbolised in these visions. It is the city that bears the name ‘the Lord is there’ (Ezek. 48:35).[3]
Dean Davis further opines, “Verse 4 pictures the LORD creating an unexpected way of escape for his people; verse 5 pictures them using it…. Quite intentionally, the imagery used here reminds us of Israel’s miraculous deliverance at the Red Sea (Exodus 14:1ff).”[4]
But what about the details of the earthquake and Azel, and should we expect the Lord Jesus to descend upon the literal hill called the Mount of Olives? If the prophecy uses the land of Judah and the city of Jerusalem as veiled references to the New Testament church, why are certain geographical markers emphasized?
For instance, why does Zechariah stress that the valley of escape created by the divided Mount of Olives will reach all the way to Azel? Davis sees in these details a great deal of symbolism involving the escape of God’s people to a city of refuge.[5] More likely, much of the description of the earthquake, including the mention of Azel, simply refers to details of the historical earthquake during the reign of Uzziah.[6] It is as if the prophet rehearses the details of that past event to say, “It will be like that again when the Lord comes to defend his city. His people will have a way of escape.” That is certainly the comparison in verse 5: “Yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah.” There is also conflicting manuscript evidence here which should be factored into the interpretation.
Either this valley will become an escape route for the Hebrews fleeing Jerusalem in the face of the assault against the city by the nations (so niv, nlt, nrsv; following the mt), or the valley will be filled and blocked like it was during the earthquake at the time of King Uzziah (so nab, neb, njb; following the lxx; Targ.). A different vowel pointing of the same Hebrew root word renders the two separate meanings, and ‘either is equally possible’. Baldwin’s (1972: 218) mediation of the difficulty is helpful, noting: ‘It is impossible to be sure how the text read originally, but the general meaning is clear. The earth movements which open a valley eastwards will also block up the Kidron valley, so providing a level escape route from Jerusalem.’[7]
The earthquake of Uzziah’s time is barely mentioned in scripture. Amos prophesied two years before what was apparently the same earthquake (Amos 1:1). Such an earthquake must have been severe if it was still remembered over two centuries later in post-exilic Judah. It was an unforgettable national disaster which doubtless gripped the imaginations of Zechariah’s original audience.[8] That historical event is likened to the Lord’s coming, which will shake the entire earth (cf. Hag. 2:6–7; Heb. 12:26–27) and bring terror to those caught desecrating his holy dwelling.[9]
While appreciating the complex imagery of the text, we should perhaps not forget that the literal Mount of Olives may have a prominent role at the Second Advent of Christ. Matthew and Mark pointedly state that Jesus sat on the Mount of Olives as he taught his disciples about his Second Advent (Matt. 24:3; Mark 13:3). Luke also says that Jesus ascended to heaven from the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:12). At the time of Christ’s ascension, two men in white announced to his disciples that he would come back in just the same way which they had seen him leave (Acts 1:10–11). Jesus ascended to heaven bodily, and he will return bodily; he may also return to the same place, the Mount of Olives.[10] This would be in keeping with how the prophecies of his First Advent were fulfilled. The Christ came out of Bethlehem in Judah symbolically, since he was David’s seed and Bethlehem was David’s ancestral town; but Jesus was also born in the literal city of Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2; Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4–7, 11).
[1] All scripture quotations are taken from the nasb Updated Edition of 1995.
[2] Ibid., 303–304.
[3] Ibid., 305. Cf. also Andrew E. Hill, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, ed. David G. Firth, vol. 28 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 261.
[4] Dean Davis, The High King of Heaven: Discovering the Master Keys to the Great End Time Debate (Enumclaw, WA: Redemption Press, 2014), 397. Cf. also Barry G. Webb, The Message of Zechariah, The Bible Speaks Today, ed. J. A. Motyer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 179.
[5] Davis, High King of Heaven, 397–98.
[6] For a discussion of the word Azel, see Mark J. Boda, The Book of Zechariah, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 758.
[7] Hill, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 262. See also Hill’s discussion of the name Azel on the same page.
[8] These online articles give summaries of fascinating archeological evidence for this major earthquake: https://patternsofevidence.com/2019/01/20/biblical-quake-confirmed/ https://www.icr.org/article/scientific-scriptural-impact-amos-earthquake.
[9] Josephus makes an intriguing connection between Uzziah’s attempted desecration of the Holy Place (2 Chron. 26:16–20) and the earthquake. Azariah the king (called this in 2 Kings 15 but Uzziah in 2 Chron. 26) attempted to usurp the role of Azariah the high priest; but the Lord struck the king with leprosy and drove him out of the temple. Josephus says that the earthquake also happened at the same time. He even records certain effects of the earthquake which seem to mirror Zechariah’s words: “And before the city, at a place called Eroge, half the mountain broke off from the rest on the west, and rolled itself four furlongs, and stood still at the east mountain, till the roads, as well as the king’s gardens, were spoiled by the obstruction.” See Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, book 9, chapter 10, paragraph 4, verse 225, William Whiston. In any case, the parallels between King Uzziah and the “man of sin” who will attempt to usurp Christ’s prerogatives are worthy of note (see 2 Thess. 2:3–8).
[10] Hill, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 261.
Ben Habegger first served in full-time pastoral ministry near Detroit, Michigan from 2013-2017 and has now been vocational pastor at Hope Reformed Baptist Church of Aloha, Oregon (formerly Glencullen Baptist Church of Portland, Oregon) since January of 2020. He has a Master of Divinity degree from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and a Master of Arts in Reformed Baptist Studies from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. Ben and his wife Theresa have four children.
by Sam Waldron | Aug 6, 2025 | Apologetics, Systematic Theology
Do We Still Believe in Sola Scriptura?—Three Years Later …
I am not one of those guys who says very often or even likes to say, “I told you so.” In fact, so much do I dislike saying, “I told you so” that left to myself, I might have thought it was never a good, right, or polite thing to say.
But the problem with that is the Apostle Paul himself. In at least one situation, he actually said, “I told you so.” It is in Acts 27. Paul had told the crew of the ship he booked passage on not sail on in search of better wintering facilities:
9 When considerable time had passed and the voyage was now dangerous, since even the fast was already over, Paul began to admonish them, 10 and said to them, “Men, I perceive that the voyage will certainly be with damage and great loss, not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives.” 11 But the centurion was more persuaded by the pilot and the captain of the ship than by what was being said by Paul. (Acts 27:9-12 NAU)
They did not, however, listen to Paul. The result was the disastrous voyage in the storm that now threatened to wreck the ship and kill them all. In this situation, Paul speaks again and says—with good reason and with the best intentions—‘I told you so.’ Listen to him:
21 When they had gone a long time without food, then Paul stood up in their midst and said, “Men, you ought to have followed my advice and not to have set sail from Crete and incurred this damage and loss. 22 “Yet now I urge you to keep up your courage, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship. (Acts 27:21-22 NAU)
Yes, Paul here says, “I told you so.” He does it for good reasons—to encourage his shipmates—, but he certainly says the equivalent to “I told you so.” He even says, “you ought to have followed my advice.” Even this assertion was not arrogant. It was necessary.
Where am I going with this? Almost three and a half years ago, I waded into an issue in a blog for which in some circles I was scorched with disagreement and, by some people, with ridicule. I warned that respect for what is called widely “the Great Tradition” was beginning seriously to cause the boat of sola scriptura to list. I saw the danger of a departure from the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura.
The response of not a few was emphatic disagreement and dismissing of my concern. “Nothing to see here!” was the response. There was no concern about anyone “swimming the Tiber” and going back to Rome.
To all of this, will you now permit me to say, “I told you so” and “You should have listened to me?” I say this not merely because I have heard of some who have engaged in “swimming the Tiber” back to Rome, but I also say it now because a widely respected teacher has begun that move. You see, there is an island in the middle of the “Tiber” occupied by Lutherans and Anglicans. Matthew Barrett, to whom several Reformed Baptists looked as an influential thinker in the “retrieval movement” and an advocate of the “Great Tradition,” has now cast off his Baptist convictions and clearly and consistently adopted Anglicanism. He now advocates episcopacy. He now adopts paedobaptism.
Do you ask, “Where is his biblical warrant for these things?” The answer is not hard to understand. He does not need sola scriptura for these doctrines. They may be adopted (at least in part) on the basis of the first five centuries of the church’s tradition. This is perfectly good Anglican teaching, but it is not the Reformed understanding of sola scriptura. I do not want to misrepresent Barrett. Read him for yourself at https://matthewbarrett.substack.com/p/i-am-leaving-the-sbc-and-becoming.
At CBTS, we believe in Credobaptism and Puritan Congregationalism because we hold the old, strict, Reformed understanding of sola scriptura. We do not regard the first five centuries of church history as authoritative. Though we love Nicea and Chalcedon, we believe much else in those centuries deviated from the apostolic tradition. That apostolic tradition is only gradually being recovered throughout the development of church history.
This is why I am posting again what I posted almost three and a half years ago. I think events since then have shown that my concerns should not have been dismissed as foolish and ridiculous.
Theme: Do We Still Believe in Sola Scriptura?
I. What I Believe and the Reformed Faith Teaches
The Reformed faith believes or holds sola scriptura (the doctrine of the Scriptures alone as the basis for faith and practice) and does so “with a vengeance.” It disagrees with Roman Catholicism which holds that the rule of faith and practice is the Scripture plus oral, apostolic traditions preserved infallibly in the church. It even disagrees with Lutherans and Anglicans who, though they held sola scriptura with regard to the doctrines of the faith, did not regard the polity and practice of the church to be part of the doctrines of faith. Hence, Luther did not think he needed clear, scriptural basis for infant baptism. Cf. Paul Althaus in The Theology of Martin Luther, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 359f. Hence, Anglicans do not think that they need to ground their view of church government in the Scriptures but may ground it in Scripture plus the creeds and traditions of the first five centuries of church history. Richard Hooker is representative of Anglican views. In his work, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, he expressly denies the regulative principle. One writer says of Hooker’s classic work, “Its object is to assert the right of a broad liberty on the basis of Scripture and reason.” Cf. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, (Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 1909), vol. V, p. 360.
The Reformed (beginning with Calvin) disagreed. While Luther adopted the policy of preserving the worship of Medieval Catholicism except where it contradicted Scripture, Calvin, on the other hand, adopted the principle that said that the contents of worship had to have warrant in Scripture. Cf. John Calvin, “The Necessity of Reforming the Church,” Selected Works, 1:128-129. Calvin remarks: “we hold that the Word of God alone lies beyond the sphere of our judgment, and that the Fathers and Councils are of authority only in so far as they accord with the rule of the Word.”
A clear example of the difference between the Reformed and the Lutherans may be seen here. The Reformed believed that, if infant baptism was to be practiced, it had to have a scriptural basis. They believed that the government of the church, like the worship of the church, had to have a scriptural basis either explicitly or by good and necessary inference. They made this belief explicit in the Westminster Confession of Faith and these beliefs are explicitly reiterated in our own 1689 Baptist Confession.
Worship had to have clear, scriptural basis. Here is the Westminster at 21:1 (and the same wording may be found in 22:1 of the 1689).
… But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.
Like worship, church government is to be deduced from Scripture—only the circumstances being left to Christian prudence and the light of nature. Here is the Westminster at 1:6 (and the same wording may be found also at 1:6 of the 1689.)
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
The Westminster (again followed by the 1689) emphasizes this commitment to the sufficiency of sola scriptura by affirming the supremacy of Scripture at 1:10:
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
I find these confessional assertions to be fully and completely scriptural. Anyone committed to one of these confessions also ought to find in them clear and important scriptural truth.
II. Why I am Concerned
With such clear and crucial scriptural truth and confessional affirmation before us, I have become concerned in recent years with assertions by Reformed men which (seem to me) directly to undermine the truth of the supremacy and sufficiency of sola scriptura.
First Troubling Statement
This statement troubled me when I heard it.
Semper Reformanda … does not mean changing doctrine, but it means applying the doctrine to our lives. It is a clarion call to a vital experiential understanding of the truth in the lives of Christ’s sheep. So it’s not changing our doctrine, but applying the doctrine that we already know to be biblical.
The origin of the phrase semper reformanda does seem to emphasize bringing our practices into line with our confessional doctrines. Cf. W. Robert Godfrey’s online article here: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-does-semper-reformanda-mean.
At the same time, it seems to me, whatever semper reformanda originally meant, we must embrace the notion that our confessions are subject to being reformed on the basis of sola scriptura. Even our confessions must be subject to being reformed by Scripture. Yes, our practice must change, but sometimes our confessional statements need to be modified. The American Presbyterians had to do this with the Westminster Confession in and around 1788-89 to take out of it the deadly doctrine of the union of church and state. Let us not deny that our confessions are subject to the authority of Scripture and subject to being reformed by Scripture.
Second Troubling Statement
Recently, someone wrote online:
2LCF 1.1 confesses the following: “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience…” Notice what Scripture is sufficient for. Is it everything? No. It is not sufficient for changing the oil on my truck. It is not sufficient for installing a new hard drive in my computer. It is sufficient for saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. Everything necessary for the Christian life is found in the Bible. But not every detail of the faith is there.
True, the Bible does not tell us how to change the oil. But this cannot imply in any way that “every detail of the faith” is not derived from it. Scripture is the only rule for faith. It is right there in the Confession.
Here is what I think. If something is not in Scripture either explicitly or by good and necessary inference, then it is not the faith. Whatever else it is, or may be, it is not the faith. This is what sola scriptura requires us to say. We must not say—we may never say—of Scripture “but not every detail of the faith is there.”
Third Troubling Statement
In my recent reading I came across another statement from a Reformed brother that worried me. Here it is:
To depart from the creed is to depart from scriptural teaching itself. … Heresy is a belief that contradicts, denies, or undermines a doctrine that an ecumenical church council has declared biblical and essential to Christianity. What makes heresy so subtle and dangerous? It is nurtured within the church and is wrapped within Christian vocabulary. Its representatives even quote the Bible. It often presents itself as the whole truth when it is a half-truth.
Once more, there is an element of truth in this statement. But it is only a half-truth! Until the Reformation, practically speaking, heresy did consist in views that contradicted the scriptural teaching regarding the Trinity and the Person of Christ which were articulated in the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds. But surely, formally and authoritatively speaking, heresy has to be defined as false teaching that overthrows foundational scriptural teaching. This is what 26:2 of the 1689 says: “not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation.” Such errors must be finally determined by Scripture. Remember 1:10 of the Westminster and 1689?
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
A statement like the one quoted above raises serious questions. So, when and where were the errors and heresies of Roman Catholicism condemned by an “ecumenical church council?” And how shall we decide if it was an ecumenical church council? Must not the answers to such questions finally be determined by sola scriptura? Heresy is not finally defined by church councils, but by Scripture Alone.
Fourth Troubling Statement
Here is a report I received about a conversation they were having with a Reformed brother. It also troubles me.
When pressed on the lack of biblical evidence for this, he insinuated that I was being a biblicist. I said that our doctrine should come both implicitly and explicitly from Scripture, he said some of our doctrine comes from outside of Scripture. He said this in response to my appeals to show the validity of that doctrine from Scripture. His concern was that there is significant historical precedent for this doctrine, and this indicates its validity in spite of the lack of data in Scripture.
Now perhaps my friends drastically misunderstood their friend in this conversation. Or perhaps this was simply a mis-statement by their friend. But if this report is accurate, it once more illustrates the troubling confusion about the implications of sola scriptura spreading in Reformed circles.
Really? Some of our doctrine comes from outside of Scripture? We may have opinions that come from outside Scripture. We may have convictions that come from outside Scripture. We may have applications that depend on something beyond Scripture. But if we believe sola scriptura, we may not have doctrine that comes from outside of Scripture.
Fifth Troubling Statement
I can summarize this fifth troubling statement this way. Thomas Aquinas held sola scriptura. Yes, there is a serious conversation going on over the last several years about whether Thomas Aquinas held sola scriptura! Fine Reformed men and other Evangelicals are in print affirming that he did. I do not need to mention their names. You can look them up yourself if you are interested.
Well, I am with my friend, James White on this matter. Thomas did not believe in sola scriptura; and it is not even a close call. Furthermore, White is right when he says that the fact that Aquinas did not hold sola scriptura is a foundational matter of doctrine. This means that he is not a safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture. Cf. James White’s broadcast on “Reformed Thomists?” It may be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR3ExDuY8Ic.
The fact that people can be confused on this shows that they are quite confused about the meaning of sola scriptura and its implications. Perhaps the problem here is that people have not realized the complexity of the issue of sola scriptura prior to the Reformation. I would urge anyone to read Heiko Oberman’s Forerunners of the Reformation on this matter. He deals with the problem of Scripture and tradition in chapter 2 on pages 51 to 120. I think you will see that this matter is “complicated.” I think a failure to see how complicated it is which has led some to naively quote statements of Thomas Aquinas out of context. While such statements show that he believed in Scripture, they do not show that he believed in Scripture Alone or sola scriptura.
I cannot in this article go into detail about this. I do, however want to illustrate it by looking at one commonly cited statement of Thomas which sounds like sola scriptura. I suggest a perusal of this site for more detail: http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a113.htm. The statement often quoted is this: (I place the key statement in bold italics.)
“It should be noted that though many might write concerning Catholic truth, there is this difference that those who wrote the canonical Scripture, the Evangelists and Apostles, and the like, so constantly assert it that they leave no room for doubt. That is what he means when he says ‘we know his witness is true.’ Galatians 1:9, “If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema!” The reason is that only canonical Scripture is a measure of faith. Others however so wrote of the truth that they should not be believed save insofar as they say true things.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of John 21)
This sounds to many like sola scriptura. But it is not. Several things must be noted.
- First, the contrast Thomas is drawing in context is between canonical Scripture and non-canonical writings. He is not contrasting Scripture with the oral traditions of the church.
- Second, he does not say that the canonical Scripture is the measure of faith, but “a measure of faith.” The author of the article on this site makes this point clearly. “First, what does it mean that “only canonical Scripture is a measure [or rule] of faith” … What St. Thomas is doing is contrasting Scripture to other apocryphal or non-canonical writings (as noted by Catholic Dossier above). And Catholics/Orthodox today would agree. Aquinas was not opposing “the canonical Scriptures” against the Church or her tradition which he also affirmed was a measure, a rule for faith and practice. In other words, St. Thomas is not saying sacred tradition is not ALSO A rule for faith and practice. How do I know this? He says so below.”
- Third, Thomas Aquinas explicitly repudiates sola scriptura in a number of places in his writings. Here are a couple of examples:
Summa Theologica: Third Part, Question 25, Article 3:
“The Apostles, led by the inward stirring of the Holy Ghost, handed down to the churches certain instructions which they did not leave in writing, but which have been ordained in accordance with the observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful as time went on. Therefore the Apostle says: ‘STAND FAST, AND HOLD THE TRADITIONS WHICH YOU HAVE LEARNED, WHETHER BY WORD’ — that is by word of mouth — ‘OR BY OUR EPISTLE’ — that is by word put into writing (2 Thess 2:15)….”
Summa Theologica: Third Part, Question 64, Article 2 on “Whether the Sacraments are instituted by God alone?”
“REPLY 1: Human institutions observed in the Sacraments are not essential to the Sacrament, but belong to the solemnity which is added to the Sacraments in order to arouse devotion and reverence in the recipients. But those things that are essential to the Sacrament are instituted by Christ Himself, who is God and man. And though they are not all handed down by the Scriptures, yet the Church holds them from the intimate tradition of the Apostles, according to the saying of the Apostle : ‘THE REST I WILL SET IN ORDER WHEN I COME’ (1 Cor 11:34).”
III. What I Want to Warn You About
Is Sola Scriptura Now Biblicism?
There is such a thing as biblicism. But what is biblicism properly understood? It is the demand for explicit, scriptural prooftexts and the rejection of what may be by “good and necessary” inference deduced from Scripture. Not a few “New Testament” scholars today seem unwilling to allow systematicians to synthesize the teaching of Scripture. Instead, they require explicit prooftexts before they will accept any teaching.
Biblicism is also interpreting Scripture without the benefit of the guidance of the pastor-teachers whom Christ has given the church over the last 2000 years. We need and benefit from those pastor-teachers. This teaching tradition ought never to be ignored. When it is neglected or denied, that is a kind of biblicism. Such biblicism trusts its own interpretation of Scripture blindly against the “great tradition.”
Yet (contrary to Roman Catholicism) this great tradition is neither unified nor universal. There are differences in the tradition. It is certainly not inerrant or infallible. Some parts of that tradition actually deviate from apostolic doctrine.
Nor does that tradition have any authority apart from Scripture. Its value, like the value of any good teacher, is simply to help us see what is already there. The good teacher does not tell us to believe something just because they say it—on their own authority. The good teacher shows us what is already there and helps us to see it for ourselves. Thus also, the “great tradition” simply helps us to see what is already in the Bible with our own eyes. It has no more “authority” than this.
Like Luther, then, we must be convinced from Scripture of what we must believe. We cannot take the word of creeds or councils as the basis of our faith. Luther said it clearly at the Diet of Worms in 1521: “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me.”
Here is the bottom line. The “great tradition” is a wonderful guide and teacher to what the Bible says and means. But it is a terrible lord and master. We listen to guides and teachers, but we only sola scriptura is our lord and master. I sometimes fear that this distinction is being lost in the wave of emphasis on interpreting the Scriptures according to the “great tradition.”
Do We Understand the Danger with the Current Emphasis on the Analogy of Faith?
The hermeneutical principle of the analogy of faith is a valuable help in the interpretation of the Bible. It says that no assertion of Scripture should be interpreted in such a way as to contradict another clearly taught doctrine of Scripture. It is at least implied by the statement of its sister principle the analogy of Scripture in the 1689 Baptist Confession at 1:9: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.”
Once more, however, I think a warning is in order. While the principle is true, our applications of it may be false. The classic illustration of this misuse of the analogy of faith is the one made by the Protestant Reformed and Herman Hoeksema when they argued that, since the doctrine of unconditional election is true, the doctrine of the free offer of the gospel and common grace cannot be true. God cannot offer Christ freely and show common grace to people whom he has not elected to salvation. He perceived that the free offer of the gospel and common grace contradicted the doctrine of election. Hence, the free offer of the gospel was ruled out by the analogy of faith. This is a bright, flashing, yellow light cautioning us against an over-confident use of the analogy of faith.
And this leads me to another concern.
Have Our Systematics Become Incorrigible To The Bible?
I am a systematician. That is the area in which I did my PhD studies. I love and believe in systematic theology with all my heart. I think the lack of systematic teaching is a blight on a lot of modern preaching.
But we must never become so enamored with the logic of our systematics that we are unable to hear the Scriptures plainly contradict our views. This is what I mean by our systematics becoming incorrigible to the Scriptures. Our systematic theology must always be able to be corrected by the Scriptures. It must never be put in a place where it is incorrigible, irredeemable, or incurable by sola scriptura.
Did the Development of Doctrine Cease in the 17th Century?
I love the high Reformed and Puritan theologians of the 17th century. I have read most of Richard Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Unquestionably, it was a great advance on the confusion of the Medieval period and even on the adolescence of the Early period of church history.
But I cannot accept the view (which I hear sometimes implied) that the development of doctrine ceased in the 17th century. This really seems to be the perspective of some. The New Testament, in contradiction to this perspective, teaches that the organic development of Christ’s church continues throughout this age and only ceases when the church is finally built and Christ returns. This infers the development of doctrine throughout this age.
Please don’t now attribute to me what I am not saying. I am perfectly happy with Classical Theism, the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, and the Chalcedonian Christology. I see no need for any alteration in these great truths.
But there have been important theological developments since the 17th century. The doctrine of last things is clarifying in the modern period. The doctrine of the relation of church and state is becoming clear with the entire shedding of the idea of a state-church in the modern period. The clear distinction between natural and moral ability associated with Jonathan Edwards and Andrew Fuller may be another example of such development.
We must not assume the perfection and finality of the High Reformed construction of doctrine. They did not assume it. We should not either. All of our development of doctrine is subject to the lord and master of the faith, sola scriptura!
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
