As I consider some of the relationships, I realize that many of these dear brothers and sisters will not be alongside of me for all of my ministry. Some will move back home after their military time is served, some will move away to school, and others will leave with their spouses and move on to bigger and brighter things. They will not always be at Heritage with me and my family. When I consider these things, I can often get discouraged and depressed at the prospect of constant relationship turnover in the Gospel ministry. Yet I am not without hope or an example....

The Apostle Paul was well acquainted with desertion in his ministry, yet the Lord never deserted him. 2 Timothy 4:17 says, "But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, so that through me the proclamation might be fully accomplished." Granted the context of this verse is a particular persecution and sinful desertion, the steadfastness of Christ is unchanging in all circumstances of Gospel ministry. As a minister of the Gospel, I am called to love my neighbors as myself, but not to love them more than Christ.

So what must one do when faced with the trial of relationship turnover and apparent desertion? We must trust the Christ who stands beside us to fulfill the ministry that he has placed before us! The glory of Christ is ultimate, not the companionship of ministry. Will it be hard? Yes! Will Christ stand beside us and empower us with his spirit? Absolutely, Just as He has promised!

May we fulfill our ministry to the glory of God by nurturing our relationships and abiding in the ministry that we have been entrusted with!

CBH

2 Timothy 4:16-18

"16 At my first defense no one supported me, but all deserted me; may it not be counted against them.  17 But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, so that through me the proclamation might be fully accomplished, and that all the Gentiles might hear; and I was rescued out of the lion's mouth.  18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen."

As I listened to the devotional on that cold March night, I remember feeling within myself the greatest sense of peace and satisfaction that I had ever felt in my life. The great tension of my joy and satisfaction found a resting place in the glory of God. Initially, I believed that I was simply "rededicating" my life to Christ, but it quickly became evident to me and to others in my life, that something had radically changed.

For seven years, I believed that I was okay, yet in a moment, all seven of those dark Pharisaical years of Southern Baptist religiosity were exposed to the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. In an instance, I was changed! I was forgiven of my sins! I was born again! I was a new creation in Christ Jesus! I was saved! And to this day, even during the darkest hours of my life since my conversion, my faithful Father has kept me by the grace of Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit! I am certainly not what I desire to be at this point in my life, but I am decades removed from what I once was because of the grace of God! All praise and glory to the triune God of heaven and earth!

If you have read this short testimony of what Christ did for me nine years ago and you are not Christian, I would ask that you please watch the following video and consider your life in light of its message...

The command was clear. The LORD said to Adam, “You may surely eat of every tree in the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil shall not eat[1].” With this command came the promise of both physical and spiritual death. In rebellion, Adam disobeyed God’s command and sinned not only for him but as the federal representative of mankind[2]. This was a defining event in history. Adam’s sin would affect all of his posterity, both physically and spiritually. The physical affect of his sin is clearly seen in the disease and death that universally plagues mankind. Among evangelicals, this fact is not often debated. On the contrary, it is the spiritual affect of Adam’s sin that has been both hotly debated and divided over since the days of the early Christian church. What affect, if any, did Adam’s sin have on the spiritual state of mankind? The goal of this essay is to summarize the historical discussions surrounding this question and to show from the Scripture that man’s will is not free to act contrary to its nature, but rather it is dependent upon God to impart life to man’s will if there is any hopes for salvation.

Historical Discussions

As early as the fourth century, disputations regarding Adam’s sin and its affect on the will of man were already present in the church. A British author by the name of Pelagius promoted the freedom of man's will to do whatever God commanded[3]. This belief was based off on his conviction that Adam’s sin did not affect man’s will to achieve righteousness and that “God never commands what is impossible for man to perform[4].” For Pelagius, God’s ability to command was limited by man’s ability to perform. This conviction was “roused” by reading a prayer written by his future opponent Augustine. Augustine’s prayer stated, “Grant what thou commandest, and command what thou dost desire[5].” For Pelagius, the idea that God would command anything that man was unable to perform was ridiculous. Pelagius reasoned that man’s responsibility would be destroyed if the ability to make the choice to obey was not naturally present in man. He believed that any God-dependent ability would make man a puppet, not a human. But Augustine of Hippo understood things differently. Because of the fall of man, Augustine understood the necessity of grace. But with this necessity of grace, he did not deny the reality of the will of man. On the contrary, he argued for the freedom of man’s will, but not in the same way of Pelagius. With Pelagius, man’s will made him autonomous and fully capable of achieving an acceptable righteousness before God. Augustine on the other hand, believed that because all of mankind was born sinful, God’s divine will to impart grace must supersede man’s will which was incapable of producing salvation on its own.

For Augustine, free will referred more to “the ability to choose without outside constraint[6]” as opposed to “the ability to choose any possible reality.” He believed that man’s will was free, but that it was a gift from God and unable to “disturb any part of divine order[7].” The difference is clear. Augustine believed that God’s divine will superseded man’s will without violating his freedom or removing his responsibility. Pelagius believed that God’s divine will could not supersede man’s will without violating his freedom or removing his responsibility. The philosophic problem that Pelagius encountered was easily solved by Augustine’s commitment to God’s revelation in scripture. Regarding the tension of divine will and man’s will, Augustine said, “When you feel that you don’t understand, put your faith in the inspired word of God and believe both that our will is free and that without God’s help it cannot turn towards God[8].” Augustine understood the need for grace due to the reality of man’s sinful nature and inability to freely choose to turn to God without God’s divine intervention.

As the history of the church progressed, the controversy over the freedom of the will would continue to be an issue. Semi-pelagianism was a modified version of Pelagianism that believed in a synergistic work of salvation that involved the co-operation between God and man. Contrasted to the monergistic work of regeneration represented by Augustine, semi-pelagianism was an attempt to find a middle ground between Augustine’s teaching on the necessity of grace and Pelagius’ teachings on the freedom of man’s will. The debated between the proponents of semi-pelagianism and Augustinianism would continue for centuries to come until the time of the reformation when the reformers would take the Augustinian theology and refine it to respond to the theological problems facing the Roman Catholic Church.

Labeled the “manifesto” of the protestant reformation, Martin Luther’s work The Bondage of the Will was written in response to the book written by Desiderius Erasmus called Diatribe concerning Free Will[9]. Unlike Pelagius, Erasmus was not so much as committed to philosophy as he was to the text of scripture. Erasmus was responsible for compiling the first Greek New Testament for common use and accessibility. Much thankfulness and appreciation is due to Erasmus, but his “peaceful” attempts to reform the church fell short because of his disregard for theology[10] and commitment to humanism[11]. Little did Erasmus know that his Greek New Testament would be instrumental to the Protestant Reformation that he despised. In contrast to Erasmus, Martin Luther was a German Augustinian monk who had a flair for controversy and deep-seeded understanding of his own sinfulness. Plagued by thoughts of the wrath of God and his own sinfulness, Luther would spend hours confessing his sins at the monastery[12]. Having been given the opportunity to further his studies in seminary, Luther became a tremendous scholar of the word of God. It was his commitment to the word of God that would first lead to his own personal salvation and then spill out over into the birth of Reformation. While in school, Luther was greatly influenced by the writings of Augustine. It is believed that Luther’s “tower” experience was triggered by reading one of Augustine’s commentaries regarding the righteousness of God from Romans 1[13]. It follows naturally that Augustine’s influence on Luther would shape his understanding for the need of grace and the ability of man’s will.

In Diatribe concerning Free Will, Erasmus defines free will as a “power of the human will by which a man may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from the same[14].” As seen from the definition, Erasmus believed that the free will was the power from within man to choose the “things” that lead either to eternal life or eternal punishment, without the involvement of any outside agency. In many ways, Erasmus definition looks much like Pelagius’ definition of free will, contending that “if a will is powerless without grace, then it is not really free.[15]” Luther responds to Erasmus’ definition by arguing that the being that can possess free will is God. Luther equate the words of Erasmus to mean that man has within himself the ability to do the things that lead to eternal life. From this, Luther goes on to explain that the things that lead to eternal life are ultimately the very words and works of God. Here is Luther’s conclusion regarding free will:

Erasmus informs us, then, that ‘free-will’ is a power of the human will which can of itself will and not will the word and work of God, by which it is to be led to those things that exceed its grasp and comprehension. If it can will and not will, it can also love and hate; and if it can love and hate, it can in measure keep the law and believe the gospel. For, of you can will and not will, it cannot be that you are not able by that will of yours to do some part of a work, even thought another should prevent your being able to complete it. Now, since death, the cross, and all the evils of the world, are numbered among the works of God that lead to salvation, the human will will thus be able to will its own death and perdition. Yes, it can will all things when it can will the contents of the word and work of God! What can be anywhere below, above, within or without the word and work of God, except God himself? But what is here left to grace and the Holy Ghost? This is plainly to ascribe divinity to ‘free-will’! For to will the law and the gospel, not to will sin, and to will death, is possible to divine power alone, as Paul says in more places than one[16].

It is clear that Luther believed Erasmus’ understanding of free will to undermine the very nature of salvation that entails the work of grace and the Holy Spirit. Luther reasoned that if the will of man was able to produce the works necessary for salvation apart from God, then what need was there for grace and the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. To Luther, free will unaffected by the fall and able to produce good works leading to salvation was considered an attack on the cross, which is the very foundation of Christianity[17].

Moving forward in history one does not have to look very far past Luther and Erasmus to find more disputes regarding the affects of the fall on the will of man. John Calvin, the great Geneva reformer, found himself in debate with the Dutch Roman Catholic theologian Albert Pighius over the nature of man’s will[18]. It was upon being shown Calvin’s Institutes and reading Calvin’s views on free choice and predestination that Pighius felt the need to write his own book in response to Calvin. The book entitled Ten Books on Human Free Choice and Divine Grace provoked Calvin to write a response in the form of a book entitled Defence of the Sound and Orthodox Doctrine of the Bondage and Liberation of Human Choice against the Misrepresentation of Albert Pighius of Kampen. In Pighius’ book, he articulates free will to mean that one who possesses it has the power to choose good or evil without coercion or any sense of being forcibly driven by an external impulse[19]. Calvin rejected Pighius’ understanding of free will asserting that the will of man is in bondage to sin before salvation and can in no way avail itself to grace without the divine work of the Holy Spirit. Calvin said,

But all that we say amounts to this. First, that what a person is or has or is capable of is entirely empty and useless for the spiritual righteousness which God requires, unless one is directed to the good by the grace of God. Secondly, that the human will is of itself evil and therefore needs transformation and renewal so that may begin to be good, but that grace itself is not merely a tool which can help someone if he is pleased to stretch out his hand to take it[20].

From this quote, Calvin is shown to believe that the will of man cannot produce anything good apart from the work of God’s grace. Therefore, according to Calvin, it cannot be said that the will of man is free to choose between good and evil without external assistance.

Keeping with the time period of the Protestant reformation, it is helpful to discuss the most famous opponent of the Augustinian understanding of the will, Jacobus Arminius. Unlike Pelagius, Erasmus, and Pighius, Arminius rejected the Pelagian understanding of the affect of the fall on the will of man. His departure with the reformers was not regarding the fall and corruption of human nature. As a matter of fact, Arminius actually wrote very strongly against the belief of an unaffected human nature. But it was his understanding of grace and its application that caused Arminius to depart from the teaching of the reformers on predestination and effectual grace. Arminius argued that the internal call of the Holy Spirit could be rejected. As Dr. R.C. Sproul puts it, “Arminius said that prevenient grace is sufficient but not efficient[21].” It is seen here that Arminius understanding of grace, greatly affected his understanding of the man’s will. For Arminius, prevenient grace was available to all man and was “sufficient” for all men, but ultimately it did not accomplish anything without the cooperative effort of the man’s will. Even though Arminius believed that by nature man’s will was in bondage, he believed that the presence of prevenient grace enabled man to make the choice to believe in Christ or reject Christ’s merits. To quote Arminius regarding the freedom of man’s will after the universal availability of prevenient grace,

All unregenerate persons have freedom of will, and a capability of resisting the Holy Spirit, of rejecting the proffered grace of God, of despising the counsel of God against themselves, of refusing to accept the Gospel of grace, and of not opening to him who knocks at the door of the heart; and theses things the can actually do, without any difference of the Elect and of the Reprobate.[22]

To Arminius, the ability to give grace belongs to God alone, but the ability to respond to grace is in the hands of the person cooperating with God[23]. If man does not cooperate, then God cannot save him.

Even after the death of the reformers and their opponents, the war over the freedom of the will and the affects of the fall has continued to wage. Even in the present age of Christianity, scholars are writing books to respond to the works of the others scholars regarding the issue of man’s will. A great example of this is seen in the written debates between Dr. James R. White and Dr. Norman L. Geisler. This written debate began after Dr. White read Dr. Geisler’s book Chosen but Free. Dr. Geisler claims to represent a moderate view of Calvinism, in which he systematically redefines many of the aspects of historical Calvinism. In summary, Dr. Geisler believes that regeneration is a cooperative effort between God’s power[24] and man’s will and that free will is self-determination that includes the ability to accept or reject God’s grace[25]. He believes that a measure of strong, but resistible grace is needed for salvation, but not a grace so strong that it is irresistible.  Dr. White rejects Dr. Geisler’s view of moderate Calvinism, claiming that the historical Calvinist position regarding the nature of man’s will is actually the position which Christ held nearly 2000 years ago. Dr. White cites John 6:37-34 as a definitive source from Scripture that teach the inability of man to respond to God’s calling on their own volition[26].

All of the men represented above cannot be right on the issue. The remainder of this essay will focus on presenting the Biblical position regarding the issue of man’s will and the fall of man.

Summary of the Biblical position regarding the will of man

As the representative of mankind, the details of Adam’s conduct cannot be overlooked. Romans 5:12-14 says,

¹² Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned- ¹³ for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.  ¹⁴ Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Much attention must be paid to this passage of Scripture for several reasons. First, it lays out the Biblical foundations for Adam’s representation of the whole human race. This is important because Adam’s actions had serious repercussions for the rest of humanity. What is seen from the text is that it was through Adam that sin came into the world, and not only sin, but death also. When Adam sinned, all of humanity sinned because of Adam’s federal headship that is established in the text. Had Adam been obedient, then his posterity would have had the same benefits of fellowship and the Garden of Eden that he enjoyed, but his sin forfeited that blessing not only for him but for all mankind.

After establishing the federal headship of Adam, the move must be made from representation to repercussion. If Adam represents mankind, then what are the repercussions of his conduct? As seen from the text, the propagation of sin and death to all mankind is the repercussion of Adam’s conduct. But what does verse 12 mean when it says that “death spread to all men because all sinned?” First, it means that the presence of sin within man produces death. If sin is present, then death is also present. But how can this be reconciled, since living men clearly commit sin and yet continue to live? The answer is that sin produces both physical and spiritual death. Therefore, Adam’s sin introduced both inevitable physical death and immediate spiritual death.

Spiritual death can be defined as the state out of which natural man is unable to perceive and respond to the spiritual things of God. By nature, man is unable to please God, because natural man is unable to respond the glory of God because God is spirit. God’s transcendent, holy nature makes it impossible for natural, spiritually dead men to traverse the infinite gap that exist between God and man due to sin. Adam’s conduct brought death into the world, and because of man’s relation to Adam, all men are born dead in their trespasses and sin. Sound hermeneutics and common sense affirms this truth when applied to text like Ephesians 5:1-3 that says,

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins ² in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience- ³ among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

This text clearly states that “by nature” mankind is “dead” in “trespasses and sins.” If one affirms the definition of spiritual death, that it is a state out of which man cannot perceive or respond to the spiritual things of God, then logical one must also conclude that man is unable in to respond to the general call of the Gospel without an effective external work taking places that moves man from a state of spiritual deadness to a state of spiritual life. Does not Jesus state the need for this effective external work whenever he teaches Nicodemus of the need to be born again by the work of the Holy Spirit? If one concludes that man is truly dead in their trespasses and sin, then the final conclusion must be that man does not possess the ability to produce within himself any acceptable act of righteousness that would merit or attract salvation.

Conclusion

So what must one make of the will of man after the fall? If the result of the fall is death passed to all man, and if man in the state of the spiritual deadness cannot respond to the spiritual things of God, then both Biblically and logically, one must conclude that that will of man is in bondage to sin before the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. The claim that a spiritually dead man can will to do something contrary to his nature is to make not only an unbiblical claim, but an illogical claim. Man cannot choose contrary to his nature. Therefore the only way to make a case for the freedom of man’s will is either to deny man’s spiritually dead nature as revealed in scripture or to explain the nature of man’s freedom in regards to his nature. Clearly, the latter is the only sound selection; since it has already been shown that man’s nature is inherited from Adam and undeniable corrupt from birth.

So how can man’s freedom be explained? Simply put, man is free to make choices that are consistent with his nature. If an unregenerate man chooses to sin, then the choice is consistent with his nature. If a regenerate man chooses to do good, then that choice is consistent with his nature. Unregenerate, natural man does not possess the ability to choose anything that pleases God; therefore God must be the initiator of all spiritual life and the source of salvation. This position represents God rightly, as the author and finisher of saving faith while placing man in a humble, gracious position of receiving God’s divine, irrevocable gifts.

[2] The Biblical Doctrine of Man, Gordon H. Clark, pgs. 62-67

[3] A Public Faith, Ivor J. Davidson, pg. 179

[4] Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul, pg. 34

[5] Confessions, Augustine, 10.29.40

[6] Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul, pg. 63

[7] The Apostle from Africa, David Bentley-Taylor, pg.135

[8] The Apostle from Africa, David Bentley-Taylor, pg. 136

[9] Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul, pg. 87

[10] The Bondage of the Will, Martin Luther, pgs. 13-19

[11] Reform and Conflict, Rudolph W. Heinze, pgs. 61-63

[12] The Reformation, How a Monk and  Mallet Changed the World, Stephen J. Nichols, pgs. 25-28

[13] Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul, pg.50

[14] The Bondage of the Will, Martin Luther, pg. 137

[15] Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul, pg.94

[16] Bondage of the Will, Martin Luther, pg. 140

[17] Theology of the Reformers, Timothy George, pgs. 73-79

[18] The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, John Calvin, pg. xiv

[19] The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, John Calvin, pg.  xix

[20] The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, John Calvin, pg. 311

[21] Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul, pg. 131

[22] The Works of James Arminius: The London Edition, 17.4, entitled “On the Vocation of Sinners to Communion with Christ, and to a Participation of His benefits.”

[23] Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul, pg. 132

[24] Chosen but Free, Norman L. Geisler, pg. 241-243

[25] Chosen but Free, Norman L. Geisler, pg. 181-187

[26] The Potter’s Freedom, James R. White, pgs. 154-170

Ephesians 6:18-20

^“18 With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints,  ¹⁹ and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel,  ²⁰ for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.”

This evening we will seek to answer three questions from our passage:

1)   How must we pray?

2)   For whom must we pray?

3)   For what must we pray?

How Must We Pray

We must pray continually in the Spirit.

“With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit…”

The first thing that we must see is that: WE MUST PRAY. In the vss. 10-17, Paul has given an extensive listed of armor for the Christian’s battle against the ruler of darkness. Though the list is wonderfully crafted and important, it is all vain without prayer. The grammatical structure of this paragraph suggests that while putting on the “whole armor of God” is certainly important, it cannot be done apart from pray.

The second thing that we must see is that: We must pray CONTINUALLY. Just as the armor must be worn at all time, so should pray be continually offered to God. It is continuous prayer or as Paul would put it elsewhere, “Pray without ceasing.”

The third thing that we must see is that: We must pray continually IN THE SPIRIT. This idea of praying in the Spirit is not intended to be mystical or to refer to “speaking in tongues”, but rather it is used to refer to the Spirit’s prompting and directing of our prayers according to God’s will. And how is that we know God’s will? We know it and understand it from God’s Word. When we plead the promises of God’s word, God is pleased to answer us because it is His will to do what we ask of Him.

For example, Scriptures teaches us that “God desires all peoples to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” Upon reading this, we ought to see that we now have Biblical warrant to plead with God to save all peoples, from every kindred, tongue, tribe and nation.

Do not let a misunderstanding of the doctrines of grace stifle your prayers for the lost. Instead, allow the doctrines of grace to be a wonderful encouragement for you to boldly ask God to save all types of people. Whether someone is elect or not is not your concern when praying for their salvation. God will never be angry with the child who indiscriminately prays with faith for the salvation of the lost. The moment that "belief" in the doctrines of grace causes one to feel as though they cannot pray with faith for the salvation of the lost, is the moment at which one becomes a hyper-calvinist.

It is not presumptuous to have faith that God will move and save the people that we are praying for, rather it is obedient and it glorifies God.

For Whom Must We Pray

We must pray for Christians and Ministers.

“And with this in view, be on alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints…”

Paul takes care to draw his readers’ attention to the urgent situation that the church is facing. The participle that is translated in vs. 18 as “be on alert” has the same “continuous” aspect as the Paul’s command to “pray at all times.” Paul wants his readers to be “on alert” continually for others within the body of Christ.

This idea of being “on alert” is an allusion to the wartime motif from the earlier verses. Paul is calling for His reader to keep their eyes open for their fellow Christians by continually praying for them.

But it is not only the brethren, but also the ministers of the Gospel. Look at vs. 19 which says, “and pray on my behalf.” Paul wants the church in Ephesus to not only pray for each other, but to also pray for him. But what for? What is the request that must be made for Paul? Well this takes us to our third and final point…

For What Must We Pray

We must pray for the advancement of the kingdom of God through the preaching of the Gospel.

“That utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel,  ²⁰ for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.”

Paul request is not a new car, job, or home. His concern is much more eternal. Paul is asking for prayer that the Gospel might be boldly proclaimed and sinners brought to faith in Jesus Christ.

This brings us to the last group of people for whom we must be praying: THE LOST.

For Paul, the Gospel was the power of the God unto Salvation. He knew that God’s mission for the church was the universal advancement of the Gospel to all peoples. For Paul to ask for the gospel to go forth was essentially Paul asking for the church to prayer for people to come to know and love Jesus Christ. This was and is the divine strategy through out all generations for the advancement of the kingdom of God.

Paul was calling for Militant Prayer. Prayer that would shake the kingdom of darkness as the gospel of the glory of the blessed God went forth with power and boldness. And so it is, as Paul commanded the church at Ephesus to pray for the advancement of the gospel, he is also commanding Heritage Baptist Church to pray for the advancement of the Gospel.

Application

So this evening, I challenge you to take up the shield of faith and make bold request of your God for souls to be saved as the gospel is proclaimed. Do not concern yourself with God’s hidden council regarding election, but rather take comfort in knowing that Jesus has said, “Ask, and it will be given to you; Seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.”

If you persist in asking God according to His will, then He has promised He will give it. But you must ask in faith and persist in faith and refuse to let go until He blesses you.

“When the church ceases to be militant (in prayer) it also ceases to be a church of Jesus Christ.” (R.B. Kuiper)

John Piper - Recap from T4G 2008 from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

There are very few people in history that have made the type of impact that J.P. Boyce made on the people of the Southern Baptist Heritage. It is as though his entire life was shaped and used by God to provide the foundational structure for all Baptist theological institutions that would be birthed from the Southern Baptist movement. His impact is undeniable, yet the details of his life are often unknown. This short biographical sketch was written to provide a simple overview of the life of the man, affectionately called, “Jim Peter.”

EARLY LIFE

James Petigru Boyce was born in Charleston, South Carolina on January 11, 1827 to Mr. and Mrs. Ker Boyce. Ker Boyce was a wealthy banker in the Charleston area that married Amanda Jane Caroline Johnston who had descended from a family of lawyers, judges, and statesmen of strict Presbyterian stock. James’ birth into the wealthy Boyce family afforded him with a vast amount of opportunities for educational and cultural experiences that would shape him into both a gentleman and a scholar. Boyce was blessed not only to have wealth, but also to have a Godly mother who was converted under the ministry of Basil Manly Sr. in 1830. From very early on, He was consistently exposed to the exposition of Holy Scripture by Manly, whose influence in James’ life was tremendous. Dr. Tom Nettles notes, “Boyce recalled an abundance of occasions when Manly had the right word, whether in the present of joy and mirth or sorrow or lament.” Nettles goes on to list a quote by Boyce regarding Manly Sr., “Would that I could venture to speak more at large about his life in this respect or to state personal recollections which crowd upon me as to that part his ministry.” Manly’s early influence on Boyce is unmistakable and becomes much clearer later on in his theological writings and practices.

EDUCATION AND CONVERSION

After completing Charleston High School, Boyce enrolled in Charleston College, where he would continue to sharpen his mind for work that God had in store for him. While attending Charleston College, Boyce excelled academically and made lifelong friendships with many of his classmates. It was during these times that great turmoil was facing the Baptist church. The northern Baptist and the southern Baptist were engaged in serious conflict over the matters of missionary support and slavery. The result would be a split between the two groups and the official birth of the Southern Baptist as a distinct entity from the northern Baptist. It was during this turmoil that Ker Boyce made the decision that James should transfer to Brown University to finish his education. It was at Brown that Boyce came under the influence of Francis Wayland. “Wayland was a renowned Baptist statesman and educator and one of the formative leaders of the Triennial Convention.” Broadus said that Wayland “made a more potent impression upon the character, opinions, and usefulness of James Boyce than any other person with whom he came in contact.” But more important that anything, Boyce was converted to Christ under the ministry of Francis Wayland. During the spring of 1846, the students of Brown University were gathering together for “college fast” to pray earnestly for the souls of the “impenitent.” During this time, several of the professors led times of Bible study and prayer on the campus. Boyce was deeply interested and attended many of these meetings prior to the spring vacation. While traveling home to Charleston, Boyce came under great conviction of sin while reading his Bible. Broadus comments saying, “He felt himself a ruined sinner, and, like the rest, had to look to the merits of Christ alone for salvation.” After spring vacation was over, Boyce returned to Brown and immediately began to serve the Lord as a new Christian. His service was spurred on by the spiritual renewal that was taking place at Brown in 1847. Boyce resolved to continue serving Christ “until not a soul can be found who has not felt and known the pardoning grace of God.” The outgrowth of this service would eventually manifest itself in the form of a formal call to the ministry.

PRINCETON, A PASTORATE, AND FURMAN

Just months before entering seminary, Boyce married Lizzie Ficklen on December 20, 1848. James had met Lizze at the marriage of his college friend, Milton Robert. James quickly became enamored with Lizzie and sought her hand in marriage in an immediate fashion. Lizzie initial refused, but through perseverance, James eventually won her heart. After marriage to Lizzie and further confirmation of the call to ministry, Boyce went on to Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied from 1849 to 1851. It was at Princeton where he came under the influences of men like Archibald Alexander and Charles Hodge. Timothy George notes that, “By the mid-nineteenth century, Princeton had become the theological center of Calvinist orthodoxy in America.” Though Boyce had been exposed to Calvinistic theology very early on from the ministry of Basil Manly Sr., it was during his time at Princeton that he “drank deeply from the wells of his great Reformed teachers.” Boyce completed his studies at Princeton without taking the exit examinations that were required for those entering the Presbyterian ministry. After spending time with his family, he was contacted by the First Baptist Church of Columbia, South Carolina to take on the role of pastor as of October 1. In late November, Boyce was ordained to the gospel ministry. He served in Columbia for two years before being elected to teach theology at Furman University. While teaching at Furman, Boyce delivered his famous inaugural address, entitled “Three Changes in Theological Institutions.” Dr. Albert Mohler notes, “The address set forth a bold, innovative, and thoroughly comprehensive vision for a central theological institution to serve the needs of Baptist in the south.” In summary, the address contained three ideals with explanation: openness, excellence, and confessional identity. Openness meant that Boyce desired to see everyone have an opportunity to receive a seminary education. He believed strongly in an education pastorate. Secondly, Boyce desired to see theological excellence that was “on par” with the other schools of the day. George writes, Boyce envisioned, as he put it, “a band of scholars,” trained for the original research and committed to accurate scholarship, which would go out from the seminary to contribute significantly to the life of the church by their teaching and writing as well as by their preaching and witness in the world. The last ideal that Boyce mentioned was that of “confessional identity.” Boyce believed in the doctrinal purity of theological institutions and he was convinced that by maintaining a confession of faith, that purity of the institution would be preserved. Mohler notes that, “The address must have stirred those who heard the young theology professor speak both from the clarity of his mind and the passion of his heart. In any event, his message set in motion and accelerated the move toward a centralized theological institution for the Southern Baptist Convention.”

THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Through the efforts of faithful Baptist men, Southern Seminary was founded in 1859. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary fully embraced Boyce’s vision of openness, excellence, and confessional identity. In regards to openness, the seminary provided theological education to all men from many different walks of life. As for excellence, the seminary employed some of the greatest theological minds that the Baptist heritage has ever known. As for confessional identity, the seminary adopted the Abstract of Principles as drafted by Boyce’s early childhood pastor’s son, Basil Manly Jr. Boyce’s dream was realized, but it was not without opposition and discouragement. Shortly after the founding of the seminary, the American Civil War broke into the plans of the seminary and caused the school to disband in 1862. Boyce was opposed to succession, but supported his regiment nonetheless. The dream of a centralized southern Baptist seminary seemed to be drifting away with each month of war, but Boyce did not lose heart. After the war, Boyce called the four professors together at Greenville to see if they could keep the seminary alive. Though the seminary had practically nothing, God preserved the men as they worked to see the seminary revitalized. Through patience and providence, God was pleased to preserve the work and Boyce’s dream continues till this day in the beautiful landscapes of Louisville, Kentucky.

THE LEGACY OF J.P. BOYCE

In the December 1888, James Petigru Boyce departed from this earthly life while visiting France. In the sixty-one years that he lived, Boyce lived his life to the fullest. Born into riches, he chose a life of faithfulness to Christ rather than a life of fleeting pleasures. His contributions to the Southern Baptist Heritage are simply incalculable. From the founding of Southern Seminary to his Abstract of Systematic Theology, J.P. Boyce serves the Baptist people as an example of vision, scholarship, perseverance, and piety. May the generations to come learn from the life and work of James Petigru Boyce!

Casey Hough: Compassion in an Urban Context

In seeking to prove the thesis, it would be vain to look outside of the Scriptures to substantiate the claims of this paper. In our journey to understand the sufficiency of Scripture, we must remember that tradition and history are but servants of the word of God. We are free to embrace tradition and history as long as they have passed the test of faithfulness to the Word of God. Likewise, where tradition and history are found to be inconsistent with the Scriptures, we must reject them and learn from there fallacies.

For the Christian to embrace Scripture as the all sufficient guide of their life, they must first understand its origin and nature. Second Timothy 3:16 says that, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” This text teaches that Scripture has it origin in God. This is important because God’s Words are consistent with His nature. For instance, Hebrews 6:13-18 teaches that it is impossible for God to lie or swear by a higher name. We see that God acts in accordance with his nature. God’s nature is holy and self-sufficient, not lacking or having need of anything (see Job 38-40, Isaiah 40-44). If God is unable to act contrary to his nature, then the revelation of His glory in His Word must also be holy and self-sufficient. If Scripture be the very Word of God, then it must exhibit the same characteristics of God.

It is this very truth that leads the Christian to see and understand the sufficiency of God’s revelation in the Bible. The glory of God’s righteous acts and words have been preserved in written form for the Christian to behold them and to be changed by them from “one degree of glory, to the next (see 2 Corinthians 3:18).” If God’s words are true and trustworthy, then they must also be obeyed. Trust and obedience are not mutually exclusive, but they are inseparable in the Christian faith. It is a contradiction in terms to say that one trust in God and yet lives in disobedience toward God (see 1 John 1:5-7). Likewise, it is impossible to live in obedience toward God without His Word. This is seen in Romans 7:7-12 where Paul defends the necessity of the law for the revelation of sin, while contending for its goodness and righteousness in its proper context. Furthermore, we see in Second Timothy 3:15, where Paul affirms that sufficiency of scripture to make one wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

In conclusion, it is clear from Scripture that to question the sufficiency of God’s Word is to question the sufficiency of His holy character. Is not the revelation of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (see 2 Corinthians 4:6) more than enough to spur one on to obedience and trust and faithful living? Is the Word of God a liar to say that God have granted us “all things pertaining to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Christ (see 2 Peter 1:3)?” And where are these visions of the glory of God found, but in the all sufficient Word of God. Were not the Scriptures the weapon that our Lord used to overcome the temptations in the desert? Did not David treasure and mediate upon the Word of God as the desire of his heart? O’ where will the Christian turn if not to the sufficient Word of God? For to forsake the Scriptures for other devices, to leave the revelation of the Lord for the methods of man, to need something more than the perfect Word of the Risen Christ, is to remain darkened in your understanding and blind to the glory of God. O’ Christian, turn to the Word!