A REVIEW OF R. C.

SPROULS
GRACE UNKNOWN:
THE HEART OF REFORMED THEOLOGY
ROBERT N. WILKIN
Editor
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society
Irving, Texas
R. C. Sproul is the author of forty books, founder of Ligonier
Ministries, and the daily radio teacher for the nationally broadcast
Renewing Your Mind. He is also known as one of the easiest to
follow communicators from the Reformed perspective.
Last year I had the opportunity to attend the Orlando Ligonier
Conference at which Sproul spoke. There were approximately 5,000
in attendanceevidencing Sprouls strong following.

I. THE AIM OF THIS BOOK

The dust jacket of the book gives its aim:
Youve heard of Reformed theology, but youre not certain
what it is
Who better to teach you about Reformed theology than R. C.
Sproul? He has made theology understandable and exciting to
ordinary people for decades, and he knows Reformed theology
inside and out.
When R. C. speaks and writes, he often refers to Reformed
theology. For years people have asked him what it is. Grace
Unknown is his first book-length answer to this question.

Sproul does a fine job of explaining Reformed theology. He covers

the five points of Calvinism (TULIP) in five fairly concise and readable
chapters. However, he doesnt start the book there. Rather, he begins
with five chapters dealing with what he calls Foundations of Reformed
Theology. The titles are instructive: Centered on God, Based on Gods
Word Alone, Committed to Faith Alone, Devoted to Prophet, Priest,
and King, and Nicknamed Covenant Theology.
It doesnt appear from the book that Sproul was significantly
concerned with proving that Reformed theology is derived from the
3

Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society

Autumn 2001

Scriptures. We do not find, for example, much in the way of exegesis

in the book. Rather, Sproul is preaching to the choir here. His intended
audience already believes in Reformed theology and is simply looking
for a coherent and reasonably comprehensive explanation. This is not
to say that Sproul ignores the Scriptures. He does cite Scripture often.
However, due to the nature of the book,
he cites men (especially Calvin, Luther,
He cites men
and Edwards on 33, 36, and 8 pages,
and the
respectively) and the councils of men
(especially the Westminster Confession
councils of
of Faith, with citations on 24 pages, by
men much more
my count) much more frequently than
frequently
he does Scripture.
I found that he cites Scripture on 59
than he does
of
the
216 pages of the body of the
Scripture.
book.1 In a secular book that would be a
high percentage. However, for a
theology book to limit its mention or discussion of Scripture to 27% of
the pages is rather startling. That is especially so when this is compared
with books like Absolutely Free! by Zane Hodges (94%),2 or So Great
Salvation by Charles Ryrie (54%).3 The difference is marked.

II. WHAT SPROUL SAYS ABOUT THE

FREE GRACE POSITION
While he never directly mentions our position, he does cite Zane
Hodges on a few pages. There he makes it clear what he thinks of his,
and our, theology.
According to Sproul the idea that regeneration precedes faith is
absolutely central to the Christian gospel (pp. 179-96). Therefore, at

I do not count places in which sources he is quoting cite Scripture. If

those were added in, the total would increase slightly. What I counted were
places where he quoted, discussed, or even merely referred to a text of Scripture.
2
I found only 12 out of 203 pages in which Hodges failed to quote, discuss,
or refer to Scripture. In fact, on most pages there were many references and
many exegetical points made.
3
Scripture was cited on 84 of 154 pages, by my count.

A Review of Grace Unknown

one point in this discussion he mentions Hodges and his book Absolutely
Free!.
After giving Hodges mild praise for saying that regeneration is a
miraculous work of God, he asks,
The question is, however, when does this miracle take place?
According to Hodges it occurs when the Word is received in faith.
Faith precedes regeneration and is the necessary condition for it.
This places Hodges squarely in the semi-Pelagian camp.4

I found this a rather extreme example of overstatement. SemiPelagianism is the view that eternal salvation requires both the work of
God and man. People must turn from their sins and obey God in order
to gain and keep salvation. A few pages later Sproul indicates as much:
Are there some who have genuine faith who do not endure to the
end and are therefore not ultimately saved? The semi-Pelagian
answers yes. Semi-Pelagianism teaches that a person may come
to true, authentic, saving faith and fall away from that faith, losing
his salvation.5

Thus Sproul appears to believe that Zane Hodges teaches that one
can lose eternal salvation. How else could he say that he is squarely in
the semi-Pelagian camp? If he believes that, he hasnt even done a
good job of skimming Hodgess writings. If he doesnt believe that,
then he is guilty of grossly misstating the position of Zane Hodges.
And, it should be noted, Sproul is placing all who believe that faith
precedes regeneration, and that includes nearly all of us in the Free
Grace camp, under the semi-Pelagian banner. That is nearly a curse
word in Reformed circles.
I was surprised that in his discussion of perseverance and eternal
security Sproul failed to indicate our position. He said that there are
three views as to what happens to professing believers who fall away
from the faith. First, he says they may not have been saved in the first
place (pp. 208-209). Second, he says that they may be genuinely saved
and if so, they will repent of their sin and be restored before they die
(p. 209). Third, he indicates a biblically impossible position, which he

R.C. Sproul, Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology, (Grand

Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 194.
5
Ibid., 198.

Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society

Autumn 2001

again calls the semi-Pelagian position, that they were genuinely saved
and lost their salvation (p. 209). Does he not know that there is a fourth
position? Did he not read Absolutely Free! well enough to realize that
we teach that genuine believers may fall away and yet remain eternally
secure? That he doesnt even mention this position is an incredible
mistake for a serious theologian!

III. WHAT SPROUL BELIEVES ABOUT

FAITH AND ASSURANCE
A. FAITH DEFINED
Sproul does not mention or show any familiarity with the
outstanding work, Faith and Saving Faith, by the late Reformed scholar
Gordon Clark. That is a shame, for his discussion of faith suffers from
lack of attention to the points made by Clark.
Sproul suggests that faith has three components: knowledge
(notitia6), understanding (assensus), and trust that loves the object of
trust (fiducia).7 Of course, trust is a synonym for faith. As Clark has
shown, to say that trust is an element of faith is to say that faith is made
up of faith!
Sproul states:
The presence of both notitia and assensus is still insufficient for
justification. Even the devil has these elements. Satan is aware of
the data of the gospel and is more certain of their truth than we
are. Yet he hates and despises the truth of Christ. He will not rely
on Christ or his righteousness because he is the enemy of Christ.
The elements of notitia and assensus are necessary conditions for
justification (we cannot be justified without them), but they are
not sufficient conditions. A third element must be present before
we possess the faith that justifies.8

Before going on to see what he says about fiducia, notice his logic.
Satan has knowledge of the gospel and he assents to its truthfulness.

Sproul normally spells this notitia (pp. 71, 72 twice, 226 ). However, he
also spells it noticia on one occasion (p. 71).
7
Ibid., 69-72.
8
Ibid., 72.

A Review of Grace Unknown

Yet he is not regenerate. The conclusion demanded, it seems, is that

more than knowledge and assent is needed to have eternal life.
Yet think this through a bit more. Did the Lord Jesus die for Satan
and demons? Of course not. Thus even if they did whatever Sproul
requires to have the faith that justifies, they still wouldnt be justified.
Justification is impossible for non-humans.
Notice that Sproul admits that Satan is more certain of the truth of
the gospel than he himself is. He writes, Satan is aware of the data of
the gospel and is more certain of their truth than we are (italics added).
Im not sure what he means here. Does he mean that we are not sure
that the gospel is true? That is the impression given.
Luke 8:12 makes it clear that Satan believes the gospel. He knows
that any living human being that comes to faith in Christ has eternal
salvation that can never be lost. Hence he is busy snatching away the
Word lest people believe it and are saved.
The problem with Satan is not lack of faith, or lack of the right
kind of faith, as Sproul would say. His problem is that he rebelled
against God and once he did, God set his eternal destiny once and for
all. There is no changing of his condition, or the condition of the angels
who fell with him.
How does this view stack up against the Gospel of John? Do we
find more than knowledge and assent in the case of the woman at the
well and the other Samaritans who came to faith in Christ (John 4)?
Where is commitment indicated in the man born blind (John 9)? Or in
the Lords simple statement to Martha (John 11:25-27)? Johns Gospel
knows nothing of some third element of saving faith. Indeed the purpose
statement of the book says that whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God, has everlasting life. Clearly in John nothing more than
understanding and acceptance (or assent) are required for eternal life.
The same is true in the entire Bible (compare, for example, Gen 15:6
and Rom 4:1-8).
Here is what Sproul says about the supposed third element:
This [third] element is fiducia, a personal trust and reliance on
Christ, and on him alone, for ones justification. Fiducia also
involves the affections. By the power of the Holy Spirit the believer
sees, embraces, and acquiesces in the sweetness and loveliness of
Christ. Saving faith loves the object of our faith, Jesus himself.
This element is so crucial to the debate over justification. If a

Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society

Autumn 2001

sinner relies on his own works or on a combination of his

righteousness and that of Christ, then he is not trusting in the
gospel.9

This is remarkable. It amazes me how a number of Reformed

theologians have expanded the meaning of fiducia. No longer is it
merely trust in Christ. (Of course, even that would not be an element
of faith, but merely a synonym for it.) Now it is trust that also involves
the affections. That is a vague statement. How does one know when
his affections have been sufficiently involved so as to show he has true
saving faith and not the other kind, whatever it is?
If by the power of the Holy Spirit the believer sees, embraces,
and acquiesces in the sweetness and loveliness of Christ, then how
could the believer ever sin? If saving faith loves the object of our
faith, Jesus himself, then would not sinlessness be true of all with
saving faith? Surely sin is never an expression of love for Christ. The
Lord Himself said, If you love Me, keep My commandments (John
14:15).
Of course, Sproul might counter that the believers life is merely
characteristically loving and obedient. Thus temporary incidents of
sin occur. However, keep in mind that Sproul is defining here what
saving faith is. According to his theology, saving faith must be
continuous to be genuine. If it ever ceases, then one proves he never
truly believed in the first place. Thus under this reasoning if a Christian
ever failed to see, embrace, or acquiesce in the sweetness and loveliness
of Christ, would he not be proving that he never believed in the first
place?
B. REGENERATION PRECEDES FAITH
As previously noted, Sproul calls all who believe that faith is a
condition of regeneration semi-Pelagians.
He begins his chapter on the I in TULIP talking about this issue.
He indicates that when John H. Gerstner was a college student many
years ago, he was stunned when his professor, John Orr, wrote in large
letters: REGENERATION PRECEDES FAITH. Gerstner thought Orr
transposed the words regeneration and faith. Once he heard his

Ibid., 72.

A Review of Grace Unknown

professors cogent argument, Gerstner was convinced and his life was
set on an entirely different course.10
I was saddened by this story. Imagine what John Gerstner might
have accomplished for the Lord and His gospel if he had been in the
Free Grace camp. If he had sat under the teaching of men like Charles
Ryrie, Zane Hodges, and Howard Hendricks, he might well have
become a powerful Free Grace spokesman. Im not sure from this or
other stories about him whether he once was in our camp or not.
However, this anecdote makes it clear that Gerstner once believed that
faith is a condition of the new birth.
Sproul goes on to say something even more startling. He says,
This tends to be something of a pattern for Calvinists. As Roger
Nicole declared, We are all born Pelagians. Conversion to Christ
does not instantly cure us of our Pelagian tendenciesIn the
church we are widely exposed to Arminianism, which has had
American evangelicalism in a stranglehold since the days of
Charles Finney.11

What is amazing is that this Reformed theologian believes that a

person can at the moment of new birth believe in a works-salvation
gospel. For that is the gospel of Pelagianism (or, Arminianism). Maybe
that isnt so amazing after all. For in their view the key is perseverance.
As long as someone comes to the right doctrines eventually, they were
saved in the first place. In essence they, like Luther, hold to a linear
view of eternal salvation.
Sproul cites the raising of Lazarus as an example of how a spiritually
dead person must be born again before he can come to faith (pp. 18487). Yet he fails to explain how a regenerate man, a believer, can be an
example of how an unbeliever is regenerated. Would not Lazarus better
illustrate how believers can become bound up and need God to deliver
them from their bondage to sin? Did not the Lord say to believers,
You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (John
8:32)?
According to Reformed thought it is heresy to suggest that an
unregenerate person can respond in any way to God. Yet what do they
do with the account of Cornelius in Acts 10? He was an unregenerate
10
11

Ibid., 179-80.
Ibid., 180.

10

Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society

Autumn 2001

man. Yet God was moved by his prayers and alms to send an angel to
him to give him a message. Cornelius heard the message and sent for
Peter who told him what he needed to do to be saved.
And what of Acts 17:27? Hebrews 11:6?
Sproul presents the case as either Arminianism or Five-Point
Calvinism. He scoffs at the idea of Four-Point Dispensational Calvinists
(pp. 192-96). The uninformed reader who realizes that Arminianism is
not correct is left with the impression that the only other option is
Reformed theology. It seems to me that Sproul should do a better job
of presenting the third option so that his readers at least have enough
information upon which to base their
beliefs. As mentioned above, his
His caricature
caricature of Hodges and other Free
of Hodges
Grace proponents as semi-Pelagian is
and other
a gross misrepresentation.

Free Grace
proponents as
semi-Pelagian
is a gross
misrepresentation.

C. ASSURANCE AND FAITH

Sproul devotes eight pages (pp.
199-206) to the doctrine of assurance
of salvation. That is a fair amount of
space in a book of this size attempting
to discuss all aspects of theology.
Unfortunately, his book is as
confusing on this subject as is the Westminster Confession of Faith.
After a brief quote from the Westminster Confession, his first
sentence speaks volumes. How a person introduces a subject is vitally
important. Here is how Sproul starts his discussion of assurance:
The [Westminster] confession acknowledges that there is such a
thing as false assurance.12

That is quite telling. His primary concern is not how a believer can
have assurance. Rather, his main concern is to warn believers that any
assurance they may have may well not be real assurance at all. Not
only that, but should we not also be concerned that he quotes from the
Westminster Confession and not the Bible to establish the grounds for
the discussion?

12

Ibid., 199.

A Review of Grace Unknown

11

He says that false assurance comes from two difficulties: 1) from

an incorrect view of salvation, or 2) [from] an incorrect assumption
about ones personal faith (p. 199). Unfortunately, he doesnt explain
what he means by either of these statements. In light of the entire book
and his other writings, he would consider the Free Grace view of
salvation to be an incorrect view that leads to false assurance. And his
view of ones personal faith is that faith is unknowable on merely a
mental basis. To know if one truly believes he must look at the works
which he is doing. Those works give clues as to whether his faith is
genuine or not. Since the Free Grace position adopts what he would
call an incorrect assumption about ones personal faith, he would
conclude that any assurance we have is false.
He goes on to suggest that all elect people are saved. Thus, he says
if we can figure out if we are elect or not, we can know if we are saved
(p. 200).
The problem here is that he has things backwards. Assurance comes
from knowing we are saved. Once we know we are saved, we know we
are elect. There is no sign of election other than that you believe the
gospel and hence know yourself to be regenerate. However, since
Reformed theology looks for proofs of election, and since they look at
ones works to find this, they end up with no certainty.
Sprouls next major point is chilling to me:
One thing, however, is certain. There is clearly a link between our
assurance and our sanctification.13

The reason I find this chilling is because if assurance is based even

in part on our progressive sanctification, then absolute certainty is
impossible.
In spite of this, twice in the next few sentences Sproul says that
one can be certain of his salvation (pp. 200-201). This leads him to a
section of the Confession where it speaks of certainty and infallible
assurance. After saying this, however, he goes on to say that if one
obtains certainty, it can and probably will be shaken and lost:
Our faith and assurance tend to be frail and fragile. Assurance can
be easily disrupted and rudely shaken. It can be intermittent. It is

13

Ibid., 200.

12

Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society

Autumn 2001

particularly vulnerable to sinWhen we commit it, we ask

ourselves, How can a true Christian do such things.14

Sproul claims to believe that a person can be certain he is saved.

Yet when this claim is examined carefully, it doesnt make sense.
If sin destroys assurance, as he says, then every time we are aware
of sin, we wonder if we are truly saved. Since all believers sin many
times each day, how could anyone ever be sure?
Lets say you got in a minor spat with your wife or kids before
leaving for work. There went your assurance. Now say you got it back
after prayer and confession. But then you said something wrong at
work before lunch and lost it again. And so it went all day. You doubted
your salvation time and again. How many days would it take like that
before you concluded that it is a fantasy to speak of certainty? Such
certainty is not certainty since all believers sin (1 John 1:9, 10).
In Reformed thought true believers persevere and false professors
dont. Both believe the same things in their heads. The way to find out
which category you fall in is by seeing if you persevere. Of course,
you cant be sure you will persevere until youve died. So the best you
can do is look at your works and see if they look like the types of
works that the Spirit does. If they do, then it is quite possible you will
persevere and prove you are saved. Of course, even false professors
produce temporary good works that look like the real thing. So any
assurance we have is at best tentative.
Indeed, after discussing Assurance and Sanctification, Sproul
considers Perseverance in Salvation. Note well the first sentence here:
We have seen the close link between the assurance of salvation and
perseverance in the Christian life (p. 207). He then continues, We
must also remember, however, that they are not to be identified with or
equated with each other. They are to be distinguished, but not separated.
Assurance is our subjective confidence in both our present salvation
and, by extension, our future salvation.
Actually the Westminster Confession gives both objective and
subjective grounds for assurance. But Sproul is right (assurance is our
subjective confidence). The bottom line in Reformed theology is that
the subjective elements (the works we do and the inner witness of the
Holy Spirit) are the real grounds of assurance. The objective promises

14

Ibid., 204-205.

A Review of Grace Unknown

13

of God only apply to me if Christ died for me, and He only died for me
if I am elect and I can only know if I am elect by subjective means.
What about professing believers who fall away? Are they saved or
unsaved? The first possibility is that their profession was not genuine
in the first place (p. 208). The second possible explanation of those
who make a profession of faith, give outward evidence of conversion,
and then repudiate the faith, is that they are true believers who have
fallen into serious and radical apostasy, but who will repent of their sin
and be restored before they die. If they persist in apostasy until death,
then theirs is a full and final fall from grace, which is evidence that
they were not genuine believers in the first place (p. 209).
In other words, if a believer falls away and dies in that state, he
never was saved in the first place. Since no believer can be sure he will
not fall awayeven Paul wasnt sure (1 Cor 9:24-27)thus no believer
can be certain he is genuinely saved until he dies.
Despite his few comments on certainty, full assurance for Sproul
is not certainty. The best a believer can hope for is a high degree of
confidence. However, even that is wishful thinking, since every sin
produces doubt in his mind.

IV. WHAT SPROUL SAYS ON OTHER MATTERS

A. THE ATONEMENT
The title of Sprouls chapter on the atonement is Christs
Purposeful Atonement (p. 163). While all systems of theology agree
that Christ had a purpose in dying on
the cross, when Reformed theology
Sproul feels
speaks of purposeful atonement, these
that the
are code words for limited atonement.
That is, Christ didnt die for everyone.
unlimited
He only died for the elect. Sproul
atonement
makes this clear from the first page of
position is a
this chapter and throughout the entire
works-salvation
chapter.
Dispensationalists and all who
theology.
believe in unlimited atonement are
called semi-Pelagians at the start and
end of this chapter (pp. 165, 177). Sproul feels that the unlimited
atonement position is a works-salvation theology. He reasons in this

14

Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society

Autumn 2001

way. Most will not be saved. But if Christ died for all, then all will
be saved unless there is some condition they must meet. If people
must believe in Christ in order to be saved, then they must do
something. Since faith includes commitment and thus obedience,
faith itself is a work. This would make salvation a human work,
rather than a gift of God. Thus all who believe in unlimited atonement
believe in works salvation according to Sproul!
Sproul is either unaware of or withholds from the reader the view
of Dr. Chafer and others that the atonement made all people savable.
The Lamb of God took away the sins of the world (John 1:29) in the
sense that no ones sins represent a barrier to him being saved. He is
now free to gain eternal life by faith in Christ. Of course, the one who
dies in unbelief dies in his sins (John 8:24). Taking away sins is not the
same as the granting of eternal life.
That is the point of the cross. Jesus has made the whole world
savable. Our sins no longer represent a barrier to us gaining eternal
life. However, prior to the new birth, we are indeed spiritually dead.
Only by believing in Christ can we be born again.
Unlimited atonement does not mean universalism. Since most reject
the free offer of eternal life, most will die in their sins. Still, they will
not be able to claim they were unable to gain life. The cross means that
all are savable.
Before moving on, I thought Sproul should have discussed Calvins
view on this point. Scholars are divided on whether Calvin himself
believed in limited or unlimited atonement. Sproul fails to mention
this. In fact, he doesnt mention Calvin even once in this chapter.15
Statements seeming to prove both positions can be found in Calvins
Institutes. The best study Ive seen shows that Calvin indeed held to
unlimited atonement. Since Sproul is defending what are typically called
the five points of Calvinism, it would seem essential that he point out
that modern Calvinism is not necessarily in sync with Calvin on this
point.

15

This is especially surprising in view of the people he does mention. He

cites the views of J. I. Packer, John Owen (two lengthy quotes), and the
Westminster Confession.

A Review of Grace Unknown

15

B. PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION (DOUBLE PREDESTINATION)

The author is remarkably candid on this highly controversial point.
Even many five-point Calvinists reject what is called double
predestination. Double predestination is the teaching that God arbitrarily
elected some to eternal life (predestination #1) and chose all the rest to
eternal damnation (predestination #2). According to this view, it isnt
merely that God passed over the non-elect with the result that they
experience the consequence of their own unbelief. Rather, God actually
chose people to spend eternity in hell. These people, according to
Sprouls form of Reformed theology, never had a chance to believe
since they were constitutionally unable to believe.
Sproul puts it this way:
Some advocates of predestination argue for single
predestination. They maintain that, though some are predestined
to election, no one is predestined to damnation or reprobation.
God chooses some whom he will definitely save, but leaves open
the opportunity for salvation for the rest. God makes sure that
some people are saved by providing special helps, but the rest of
mankind still has an opportunity to be saved. They can somehow
become elect by responding positively to the gospel.
This view is based more on sentiment than on logic or
exegesis. It is manifestly obvious that if some people are elect and
some are not elect, then predestination has two sides to it. It is not
enough to speak of Jacob; we also consider Esau. Unless
predestination is universal, either to universal election or universal
reprobation, it must be double in some sense.16

How is God fair in condemning people who were predestined never

to come to faith? That question doesnt bother Sproul. God is God and
anything He does must be just, for He is just. That is true. However, it
is manifestly obvious, to use Sprouls term, that punishing someone
eternally for failing to do something they were incapable of doing is
unfair. Surely that should drive double predestinarians back to the
Scriptures to see if they dont teach something else.

16

Sproul, Grace Unknown, 157.

16

Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society

Autumn 2001

C. TOTAL DEPRAVITY (HUMAN INABILITY)

Chapter 6 is entitled Humanitys Radical Corruption. We do not
find here some of the harshness on this subject found in works of other
Reformed theologians. For example, MacArthur illustrated what he thinks
it means to be dead in trespasses and sins with the story of a woman
whose baby died. The woman was crazy with grief, and even kept
talking to the baby and touching it, evidently hoping she could revive
him. But there was no response. Here is MacArthurs conclusion:
Spiritual death is exactly like that. Unregenerate sinners have no
life by which they can respond to spiritual stimuli. No amount of
love, beseeching, or spiritual truth can summon a response. People
apart from God are the ungrateful dead, spiritual zombies, deathwalkers, unable even to understand the gravity of their situation.
They are lifeless. They may go through the motions of life, but
they do not possess it. They are dead even while they live
(cf. 1 Tim 5:6).17

Sproul ends up in the same place. But he does so without an

insensitive illustration, and without being as in-your-face as MacArthur.
He indicates that the unregenerate do in some sense have free wills
(pp. 130-34). However, until God regenerates a person, he can only
exercise his free will to do sin and never to seek God or respond to
Him. He says, The spiritually dead must first be made alive
(quickened) by the Holy Spirit before they have any desire for God
(p. 136).
What should we conclude about Cornelius in Acts 10? Before he
was born again his prayers went up to God. He received a message
from God from an angel. And he understood the message and obeyed
it! Only after he had sought God was he born again. Sproul, however,
does not discuss Cornelius or other examples which contradict his
position (e.g., Lydia, Acts 16).
D. PERSEVERANCE
For some reason both Arminianism and Five-Point Calvinism teach
that only those who persevere in faith and good works will make it into
the kingdom. Despite the seeming differences between those two

17

John F. MacArthur, Jr., Faith Works: The Gospel According to the

Apostles (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), 65.

A Review of Grace Unknown

17

theological systems, their views on perseverance show that they are

indeed quite similar at their core.
As previously mentioned, in Reformed thought assurance of
salvation is conditioned upon perseverance. Sproul makes this point
repeatedly in Chapter10 (see especially pp. 207-209). In fact, this chapter
which is on perseverance begins with an extended section on assurance
of salvation.
When I went to seminary I thought that the fifth point of Calvinism
was all about eternal security. I thought it meant that all who come to
faith are eternally secure regardless of whether they live for Christ or
not. I quickly learned that is not the Reformed position. Sproul brings
this out clearly time and again. In his first sentences in a section entitled
Perseverance and Preservation, he notes, The perseverance of the
saints could more accurately be called the preservation of the saints
The believer does not persevere through the power of his unaided will.
Gods preserving grace makes our perseverance both possible and
actual.18
Here is his reasoning. God promises that no regenerate person
will fall away. Regeneration guarantees transformation that lasts. Thus
while it is true that all believers are eternally secure, this security is
never true of a person who falls away from the Lord and dies in that
state. Such a person proves he was never saved in the first place. Eternal
security is only true because perseverance/preservation is guaranteed.
I found it rather remarkable that Sproul indicated that as part of
the process of our sanctification, perseverance is a synergistic work.
This means it is a cooperative effort between God and us.19 At first
glance, this statement seems fine. Do not Free Grace people believe
that perseverance is a synergistic work? Of course we do. And do we
not believe that perseverance is a part of sanctification? The answer is
yes, but the problem is that for Sproul and Reformed theology,
justification flows into sanctification in such a way that the two cannot
be separated. If a person fails to persevere, he proves he was never
justified in the first place. Thus, perseverance is required to get into
the kingdom. Of course, we do not believe that and so we have no
problem saying that perseverance is a synergistic work. However,

18
19

Sproul, Grace Unknown, 210.

Ibid., 212.

18

Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society

Autumn 2001

since Sproul believes perseverance is required to get into the kingdom,

he should be totally unwilling to say that perseverance is a synergistic
work. Sproul is here implying what Gerstner made explicitly clear in his
book, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth.20
A theology that vehemently denies any sense of synergism in
justification ends up essentially contradicting itself because of its view
of perseverance in sanctification.
E. SOLA SCRIPTURA
JOTGES readers would agree with what Sproul says in this section
(pp. 41-57). He defends inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy, and the
authority of Scripture. We would say a hearty Amen to his remarks
here.
He also expresses concern that individuals should not use their
freedom to interpret the Bible
to condone a sloppy handling of
They [Reformed
the Word of God:

theologians] stand
firmly for the
authority and
inerrancy of the
Word of God.

The right of private

interpretation means that
every Christian has the right
to read and interpret the
Bible for himself or herself.
This does not give an
individual the right to
misinterpret or distort the Bible. With the right of private
interpretation comes the responsibility of handling the Bible
carefully and accurately. Nor does this right suggest that teachers,
commentaries, and so forth are unnecessary or unhelpful. God has
not gifted teachers for the church in vain.21

While we certainly find fault with some of the interpretations of

Sproul and other Reformed theologians, we are quite happy that they
stand firmly for the authority and inerrancy of the Word of God.

20

John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of

Dispensationalism (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, 1991).
See especially pp. 209-50. Note this statement, Thus, good works may be said
to be a condition for obtaining salvation in that they inevitably accompany
genuine faith (p. 210).
21
Sproul, Grace Unknown, 55.

A Review of Grace Unknown

19

V. CONCLUSION
Sproul selected the title Grace Unknown because he feels, rightly
I believe, that most Evangelicals fail to grasp the wonder of Gods
amazing grace.
According to Reformed theology, only those who persevere in the
faith are truly saved. And no one can be sure he will persevere until he
dies. Hence absolute certainty that one is eternally secure is impossible
prior to death.
Thus the title has meaning on another level as well. It is not merely
the authors audience that needs a better grasp of Gods grace. The
very theology the author is advancing leads the author himself to be
unaware of the grace of God.
Grace Unknown is an ironic title for this book. Grace is indeed
unknown to those who adopt the traditional understanding of five-point
Calvinism.22
Imagine a person who believes it is impossible to be sure you are
saved going out to witness to others. What does he hope to accomplish?
He hopes to lead his listeners to adopt his views. Thus if his listeners
accept what he is saying, then they too will be convinced that it is
impossible prior to death to be sure that they are eternally secure.
That is the position of Reformed theology. They hope to convince
all in Christendom that we might not really be saved. They wish to get
us to focus our attention on our works. Fear of hell is a desirable
motivation in this system of theology.
The gospel debate is no academic exercise conducted in a vacuum.
The issues here are a matter of life and death. Only one gospel is truly
good news.
I recommend this book as a helpful introduction to Reformed
theology. Read it with your eyes open and you will come away with a
profound sadness. Well-meaning leaders have lost that which is the
heart of the good newsassurance of eternal salvation. Grace
Unknown is indeed The Heart of Reformed Theology.
22

It should be noted that there are some five-point Calvinists who are Free
Grace advocates. I have met a few of them. That is why I speak here of the
traditional understanding of five-point Calvinism. Those five-pointers who
are in the Free Grace camp hold to a very loose understanding of perseverance
(some works, some time, but they may not be recognizable to us and the person
may die in rebellion to God).