Ligonier Ministries Blog

1. New Book from R.C. Sproul: Holy Week

   We’ve all experienced life-changing moments—experiences that leave a lasting impact on the way we view ourselves and the world around us. But Holy Week is a celebration of the most important week in history, the week that changed the world. It recalls Jesus’ final days in Jerusalem when the Son of God accomplished His mission to bring forgiveness of sin and eternal life to all who trust in Him. Holy Week is a new book collecting several of Dr. R.C. Sproul’s reflections on the climactic week in Jesus’ redemptive ministry. As you read, you’ll be prompted to meditate on Christ’s atoning work for our sins. In These Pages You Will: Examine the meaning of the Last Supper, Witness the drama of Judas’ betrayal, Consider the gravity of Christ’s atoning death, and Dwell on the significance of Jesus’ resurrection. Read a sample of the book today. Dr. Sproul proclaimed the significance of Christ’s resurrection throughout his ministry, teaching and preaching with confidence in our Lord’s redemptive work. Gathering several of his sermons on Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection, Holy Week is a book designed to strengthen your faith and deepen your devotion to the risen Savior. Order your copy today.

2. Death Is No Stranger

   The value of life grows in magnitude when we stare death in the eye. Death is obscene, a grotesque contradiction to life. The contrast between the vibrancy of a child at play and the limp, rag-doll look of a corpse is revolting. The cosmetic art of the mortician cannot disguise the odious face of death. The death of a friend or loved one robs us of a cherished companion and reminds us of our own mortality. Death is no stranger to my household. I have hosted its unwelcome visit too many times. The two visits I recall most vividly are the times the black angel came for my parents. Both died at home—both deaths left trauma in my soul. We chisel in stone the last words of epic heroes: “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country,” said Nathan Hale in 1776 before being hanged by the British as a spy. “Oh my God,” gasped John F. Kennedy, as he clutched his throat in a car in Dallas on a fateful Thursday in November 1963. “Et tu, Brute,” Caesar moaned, as he fell mortally wounded at the foot of Pompey’s bust in the Roman Forum. I remember my father’s final words—how can I forget them? But what haunts me are my last words to him. Death often leaves a burden of guilt to the survivors who are plagued by memories of things left unsaid or undone or of hurts imposed on the deceased. My guilt resides in the insensitive, nay, the stupid words I said to my father. I said the wrong thing, the juvenile thing for which death gave me no opportunity to say, “I’m sorry.” I long for the chance to replay the scene, but it is too late. I must trust the power of heaven to heal the wound. What is done can be forgiven—it can be augmented, diminished and, in some cases, repaired. But it cannot be undone. Certain things cannot be recalled: the speeding bullet from the gun, the arrow released from the bow, the word that escapes our lips. We can pray that the bullet misses or that the arrow falls harmlessly to the ground, but we cannot command them to return in midflight. What did I say that makes me curse my tongue? They were not words of rebellion or shouts of temper; they were words of denial—a refusal to accept my father’s final statement. I simply said, “Don’t say that, Dad.” In his final moments my father tried to leave me with a legacy to live by. He sought to overcome his own agony by encouraging me. He was heroic; I shrank from his words in cowardice. I could not face what he had to face. I pled ignorance as I only understood enough of his words to recoil from them. He said, “Son, I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” He was quoting the Apostle Paul’s closing words to his beloved disciple Timothy. But I failed to recognize that fact. I had never read the Bible—I had no faith to keep, no race to finish. My father was speaking from a posture of victory. He knew who he was and where he was going. But all I could hear in those words was that he was going to die. What impertinence for me to reply, “Don’t say that!” I rebuked my father in the most valiant moment of his life. I tramped on his soul with my own unbelief. Nothing more was said between us—ever. I put his paralyzed arms around my neck, hoisting his useless body partially off the ground, supporting him on my back and shoulders, and dragged him to his bed. I left his room and shifted my thought to my homework assignments. An hour later my studies were interrupted by the sound of a crash from a distant part of the house. I hastened to investigate the sound. I found my father sprawled in a heap on the floor with blood trickling from his ear and nose. He lingered a day and a half in a coma before the rattle of death signaled the end. When his labored breathing stopped I leaned over and kissed his forehead. I did not cry. I played the man, being outwardly calm through the following days of funeral home visitations and burial in the grave. But inside, I was devastated. How much value did my father have to me then? I would have done anything I could, given everything I had, to bring him back. I had never tasted defeat so final or lost anything so precious. That was 34 years ago, but it does not require a psychiatrist to recognize that I am not over it yet. My mother’s death was different. Her death was tranquil, as she gained the exit from this world we all covet. She died in her sleep without a struggle. Her last words to me were joyful. She said, moments before retiring to bed, “This is the happiest day of my life!” She had lived a widow for nine years after losing her husband. Being a career woman she continued her work, investing her future joy in her children and grandchildren. Our first child was a daughter, bringing countless hours of delight to her grandmother. My mother had two future goals she yearned to reach. She wanted to see my ordination to the ministry and she wanted a grandson who would carry on the family name, as I was the last surviving male on the Sproul side of the family. My mother embarrassed me more than once with the pride she displayed about these passions. She would introduce me to her friends by saying, “My son is going into the ministry.” No Jewish matriarch was ever more proud. The family name was almost a fetish. I had been christened R.C. Sproul III. I almost wish she would have named me “Sue,” both for all the teasing I endured from my peers about that Roman numeral and for all the scatological puns that the monicker “The third” can yield. Mother made me promise that the tradition would live on, if my marriage produced a son. It was nonnegotiable; he had to be called R.C. IV. I was not sure whether I was trying to sire a son or to continue a dynasty, but who can refuse a widowed mother’s pleas? What made my mother’s last day on earth so happy was the converging of dreams into one single day of glorious realization. While she was applying her makeup in preparation for going to work, I was pacing the floor of the expectant fathers’ waiting room in a hospital 12 miles away. I had been there before but still did not feel like a confident veteran. The same man who delivered our daughter finally came to the waiting room, with green mask dangling from his neck, to announce the birth of our son. My wife was fine and the dynasty was intact. After sharing the most tender of moments with my wife in the recovery room, I hurried to the phone to relay the news to my mother. Nothing would do but that my mother would go to the hospital to see her new grandson. I picked her up at her office and took her to the hospital nursery to see the orange-haired, prune-faced newborn infant she declared uncommonly handsome. After a leisurely dinner at a restaurant, during which she expressed her unbounded ebullience, we went to her apartment where I was invited to spend the night. As we reached the entrance to the building, we found two packages stacked against the doorway. Once inside the apartment, she tore open the packages like a child on Christmas morning. The first package contained engraved invitations to my ordination scheduled only weeks away. The second package was from Maxine’s, a stylish women’s dress shop in Pittsburgh which featured the latest fashions. It contained an elegant dress, undoubtedly the most expensive garment she had purchased since her husband’s death. She danced before the mirror holding the dress in front of her, taking waltz steps around the room. She bought it for the ordination but wore it at her funeral. It was too much excitement for one day as one dream was fully realized and the other’s proximate certainty was confirmed by the symbolic presence of the invitations and the dress. Within the hour she protested that she was weary and wanted to go to bed. We said our good-nights and she retired to her bedroom, but not before poking her head around the door to say, “This is the happiest day of my life.” I was exhausted from the events of the day and quickly fell asleep in the next room. When morning came I knocked on my mother’s door and was mildly puzzled by the lack of response. I opened the door and instantly realized that the woman in repose on the bed was dead. It did not seem possible. I walked to her side and clutched her wrist. She had been dead for several hours; rigor mortis had set in and her body was icy to the touch. The sensation was eerie, defying logic. Sleep makes the passage of time seem instantaneous. In what seemed like the span of a few minutes, my mother had changed from a breathing, warm, excited person to a lifeless statue. I stood transfixed in disbelief, caught in the absurdity of it. Within the span of 24 hours, I passed through the emotions of seeing my son take his initial breaths of life and seeing my mother in the coldness of death.

3. Save on Digital Discipleship Resources

   Whether you’re spending a quiet evening at home or you’re traveling the world, digital discipleship resources from Ligonier help you take trusted Bible teaching with you wherever you go. For a limited time, explore a variety of discounted discipleship materials. Save on ebooks for $1; audiobooks, audio teaching series, and music for $3; and video teaching series for $5. Browse the collection today and save on more than 200 digital resources. With each download, you’ll receive lifetime digital access to faithful Bible teaching that can encourage your Christian growth. Access your purchases anytime in your Learning Library. Stock up today on biblical discipleship resources at a discounted price. This sale ends Saturday, March 29, at 11:59 p.m. ET.

4. The Arminian Challenge and the Reformed Response

   As the Reformation spread throughout Europe, it was regularly beset by various controversies. One of the most significant such controversies arose at the end of the sixteenth century. It centered on the teachings of the Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius (1560–1609) and his students. The impact of this controversy continues to be felt to this day. Who Was Jacob Arminius? Arminius was educated in Reformed universities. He studied, for example, in Geneva under Theodore Beza and was considered by Beza to be an outstanding student. He was ordained in the Reformed Church in the Netherlands, which meant he was to teach according to the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. He served as a pastor in Amsterdam for many years before assuming a teaching position at Leiden. During his time as a pastor, questions were raised about his theology as he preached through Romans. Questions continued to be raised during his time as a professor. An investigation into Arminius’ theology was initiated, and at the request of the magistrates, Arminius wrote his Declaration of Sentiments in 1608. The theological focus of this work is the doctrine of predestination. Arminius’ colleague at Leiden was Franciscus Gomarus (1563–1641). Gomarus’ doctrine of predestination was supralapsarian, meaning that he believed God’s decree of election came logically prior to His decree of the fall, and Arminius had strong objections to this view. The debate between Gomarus and Arminius was cut short when Arminius died of tuberculosis in October 1609. The controversy, however, did not end there, as Arminius’ students picked up where he left off. The Arminian Articles In January 1610, under the leadership of Johannes Uytenbogaert (1557–1644), forty-three Dutch ministers met and drew up a public petition. This Remonstrance contained the Arminian Articles, five articles in which the Remonstrants discussed the points of doctrine on which they differed with the Reformed confessions. The first article presents the doctrine of conditional election. The second article teaches unlimited atonement. The third article states the Remonstrants’ view of the fall and grace. The fourth article teaches the doctrine of resistible grace. Finally, the fifth article raises doubts about the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. The controversy continued to intensify, and in 1619, the Synod of Dordt was called to deal with the matter. Most of the delegates were Dutch, but there were also many from the Reformed churches in surrounding nations. The leader of the Remonstrants at the synod was Simon Episcopus (1583–1643). The Synod requested, and the Remonstrants eventually submitted, a statement of their views. The Opinions of the Remonstrants is a much more detailed document than the 1610 Arminian Articles. It is also much more clearly opposed to the confessions of the Dutch Reformed Church. Article 1 deals with predestination and asserts: > God has not decided to elect anyone to eternal life, or to reject anyone from the same, prior to the decree to create him, without any consideration of preceding obedience or disobedience, according to His good pleasure, for the demonstration of the glory of His mercy and justice, or of His absolute power and dominion. It continues: “The election of particular persons is decisive, out of consideration of faith in Jesus Christ and of perseverance; not, however, apart from a consideration of faith and perseverance in the true faith, as a condition prerequisite for electing.” In other words, election is conditional. God elects those whom He foresees will believe and persevere. In Article 2, the Remonstrants unambiguously assert the doctrine of unlimited atonement, saying: > The price of redemption which Christ offered to God the Father is not only in itself and by itself sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race but has also been paid for all men and for every man, according to the decree, will, and the grace of God the Father; therefore no one is absolutely excluded from participation in the fruits of Christ’s death by an absolute and antecedent decree of God. The document combines articles 3 and 4 on God’s grace and man’s conversion. The main ideas found here are the doctrine of prevenient grace and the denial of irresistible grace. We read, for example: > The efficacious grace by which anyone is converted is not irresistible; and though God so influences the will by the word and the internal operation of His Spirit that he both confers the strength to believe or supernatural powers, and actually causes man to believe, yet man is able of himself to despise that grace and not to believe, and therefore to perish through his own fault. In Article 5, the Remonstrants no longer raise doubts about perseverance. They now completely deny it: “True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish.” With regard to assurance, the Remonstrants teach that believers can be assured of their present salvation, but they cannot be assured that they will never fall away. The Synod of Dordt The Synod of Dordt responded to the Remonstrant doctrines in the Canons of Dordt. One of the first things to notice about this is that the Synod of Dordt was not called to provide a summary of Reformed doctrine or a summary of “Calvinism.” The Remonstrants set forth their doctrine in five articles, and the Synod responded to those five articles. As Daniel Hyde explains in his book on the doctrines of the Synod of Dordt, “What Reformed churches in the Dutch tradition believe is most fully confessed in the thirty-seven articles of the Belgic Confession and 129 questions and answers of the Heidelberg Catechism.” In other words, there are far more than five points of Calvinism. The so-called five points of Calvinism are specific responses to specific criticisms on certain doctrines related to soteriology. The Canons of Dordt respond to the Remonstrant teachings point by point. Under each head of doctrine, several articles expound the biblical doctrine. This is then followed by a rejection of various errors related to the doctrine in question. The first head of doctrine, for example, discusses predestination. Eighteen articles are devoted to a positive biblical explanation of the doctrine. This is followed by a rejection of nine errors. The first head of doctrine teaches unconditional election: > Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He hath out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen, from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect, and the foundation of salvation. (First Head, Art. 7). The Second Head of Doctrine outlines the doctrine of definite atonement. The Synod first observes the value of the death of Christ in Article 3: “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” In Article 8, the Canons explain the specific purpose of the death of Christ: > For this was the sovereign counsel, and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them free from every spot and blemish to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever. The Third and Fourth Head of Doctrine explain the doctrines of total depravity and God’s grace. Article 3 states concerning the state of fallen man: > Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto, and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, or to dispose themselves to reformation. This is why irresistible grace is necessary, as Article 12 explains, “so that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe.” Finally, the Fifth Head of Doctrine reaffirms the confessional Reformed doctrine of perseverance of the saints. As Article 8 explains: > Thus, it is not in consequence of their own merits or strength, but of God’s free mercy, that they do not totally fall from faith and grace, nor continue and perish finally in their backslidings; which, with respect to themselves, is not only possible, but would undoubtedly happen; but with respect to God, it is utterly impossible, since His counsel cannot be changed nor His promise fail, neither can the call according to His purpose be revoked, nor the merit, intercession and preservation of Christ be rendered ineffectual, nor the sealing of the Holy Spirit be frustrated or obliterated. Historical Impact The Arminian challenge to the doctrine and practice of the Reformed Churches was far-reaching and long-lasting. Although the Synod of Dordt rejected the Remonstrant doctrines, the teachings survived in various ecclesiastical settings. Some Arminians continued to develop the doctrines in a more and more Pelagian direction. Others developed the doctrines along more evangelical lines. We see this, for example, in Wesleyan theology. Twentieth-century dispensationalists often referred to themselves as four-point Calvinists because they accepted one of the points of Arminianism—namely, unlimited atonement. All of this started as a result of Arminius’ difficulties with predestination and his suggestion that election is conditional upon foreseen faith. Often, in contemporary debates, one will hear this idea expressed in these words: “God looks down the corridors of time and elects those whom He foresees will believe in Jesus.” A moment’s consideration, however, will reveal the serious problems with this idea. What exactly are “the corridors of time” that God is looking down, and where did these corridors come from? For God’s election to be truly as unconditional as Arminians desire, these “corridors” would have to exist independently of God. That, however, would lead us outside of biblical Christianity altogether. But if the “corridors” and all that is going on within them are not independent of God, then neither can election be conditional in the Arminian sense of the term. In other words, as the Synod of Dordt understood, if God is God, Arminian doctrine is ruled out.

5. What Does the Bible Teach About Sexuality?

   More than fifteen hundred years have passed since the fall of the Roman Empire, yet the moral decay and indulgence that contributed to its collapse continue to echo through Western civilization today. The Roman statesman and orator Cicero once proclaimed, “History is the teacher of life” (Historia magistra vitae est). While proponents of so-called “progressive” lifestyles celebrate their cause, history reminds us that what is labeled as progressive is often regressive. This regression, though troubling, is not entirely surprising. What is truly alarming, however, is the eagerness of the visible church to adopt secular ideas about sexuality, even celebrating them as virtuous. Ordaining “gay pastors” was once thought to be confined to mainline denominations—surely, a Reformed church would never host an LGBTQ-affirming conference. Or would it? In the midst of such widespread confusion, God’s light shines in the darkness. To understand biblical sexuality, it’s essential to consider both the biblical proscriptions—God’s “no”—and the biblical prescriptions—God’s “yes.” A comprehensive understanding of what the Bible teaches about sexuality requires a well-rounded and thoughtful theology on the subject. At its core, a proper theology of sexuality must begin with the foundation of marriage. In fact, one of the most compelling defenses of biblical sexuality is presented by Jesus Himself in the gospel of Mark. From the beginning of creation: > “God made them male and female.” “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. (Mark 10:6–9) Jesus responds with a sharp rebuke, condemning the practice of ending marriages for trivial reasons and exposing the hardness of their hearts (Mark 10:5). Rather than drawing from the many passages that affirm the lifelong nature of the marriage covenant, He points to the foundational example—the union of Adam and Eve. This Edenic prototype underscores the sacred and covenantal essence of marriage as God intended. Marriage is a sacred institution created by God, making Him the One who unites man and woman as one. The command “Let not man separate” reminds us that divorce contradicts God’s design and intentions “from the beginning.” It is not for humans to undo what God has joined together. To intentionally forsake the marriage bond without biblical grounds is, in essence, an act of defiance and an attempt to usurp God. If Jesus’ sole intention was to reaffirm the unity of marriage, referencing “one flesh” from Genesis 2:24 would have sufficed. Yet, He deliberately includes the binary distinction of “male and female” from Genesis 1:27—a detail that may initially seem unrelated. However, it is deeply relevant: the institution of marriage is inseparable from the biblical framework of male and female. Jesus tethers the creation of “male and female” (Gen. 1:27) to the creation of the “one flesh” marital union (Gen. 2:24). This beautifully illustrates that God both differentiates male and female at creation and unites one male and one female in marriage. Thus, when God made male and female, He already had in mind the marital union that followed. Genesis 1:27 carries profound implications for marriage and humanity that cannot be overlooked. This verse not only establishes the reality of sexual differentiation but, more importantly, serves as the foundation for the doctrine of the imago Dei. Thus, Jesus’ words in Mark 10:6–8 teach us not only that male and female are essential to marriage but also that marriage points to the image of God—thus bringing together both the nature of marriage and the nature of humanity. Marriage, therefore, is not a basic human or civil right but a sacred covenant designed by God. As Christians, we do not claim rights of our own; our only identity and purpose are found in Christ. Furthermore, sex is not about personal freedom or what individuals choose to do with their bodies. “From the beginning,” God’s design for marriage is a lifelong covenant between male and female, intended to reflect His own nature and character. Any distortion of marriage—including adultery, premarital sex, or same-sex unions—not only violates God’s will but also dishonors the image of God that marriage is designed to reflect. The confusion surrounding sexuality today is not just a cultural issue—it’s a spiritual one. When we distort marriage and sexuality, we are distorting the very image of God. But Christ, the perfect image of God (Col. 1:15), came to restore what was broken. He calls us not to conform to the world’s shifting definitions but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom. 12:2). True freedom is not found in redefining sexuality but in surrendering to the One who created it.