"No More Night" by David Phelps

"Oh Holy Night" by David Phelps

Insignificant Is Beautiful by Mark Galli

Generation Y is into social justice — so say generation gurus. This is often said in contrast to other generations, like baby boomers, who are supposedly into success. But of course, the boomers made their mark on the world with social justice. Our generation ended the Vietnam War and prodded the country toward civil rights. We even broached the idea of environmental care, which is now catching on. This legacy will be pretty tough to top, but Generation Y is probably up to it.

That Generation Y cares about social justice is linked to another aspiration: the yearning for significance. This generation wants to make a difference in the world, to work on things that matter, engage activities that change the world. Again, this is hype, since people in every era want this. But it is nonetheless something to celebrate whenever we find it.

But before we break out the champagne, we are wise to consider the seamier sides of this aspiration.

First, the yearning for significance can be nothing more than ego masked as altruism. As one young writer put it in Relevant magazine, "Based on my work among college students and young professionals, I will venture to say that the drive for significance in many young women today is rooted in the desperation to feel known and to know that our lives count. We're not just significance addicts, after all. We're hoping that if we can keep up with the big boys, then we will be truly worthwhile and interesting."

This is not exactly a Christian virtue but, as the writer, Shirin Taber, suggests, just another form of narcissism.

Second, the search for significance, especially if it requires changing the world, can blind us to the everyday tasks, the mundane duties, and the dirty work that is part and parcel of the life of discipleship.

I have a good friend who has been caring for his elderly mother. She sits in a wheel chair, complains a lot, and requires constant attention — to the point of cleaning her up after regular bouts of diarrhea. What my friend and his wife are doing is heroic, virtue with a capital V. But it is hard to see how it is "world changing" as we normally think about such things. Such an act doesn't even change the mother's life, only makes it less miserable. It's not even "significant," by our usual calculation, but "merely" an act of love.

When we think of making a difference, we think about making the world a better place for the next generation, not taking care of people who have no future. This is one reason we are quick to push the incontinent into "managed care" staffed with "skilled nurses." No question that this is indeed a necessary move for many families—I had to do it with my own father, sad to say. But let's face it. A fair amount of our motive is mixed. How much skill does it take to clean up excrement from an elderly body? Mostly it takes forbearance—and a willingness to give oneself night and day to something that, according to our usual reckoning, is not all that significant.

Or take the case of dissident Gao Zhisheng. He is a self-taught lawyer who has been described by The New York Times as "one of China's most high-profile human rights lawyers." He has been disbarred, detained, and tortured by the Chinese secret police a number of times after taking on human rights cases.

Those cases include defending fellow and religious minorities like Falun Gong and Chinese underground Christians. After one term in jail, authorities warned him not to mention the electric shocks and cigarette burns he had received. But within days of his release, Gao wrote an open letter on the Internet about his treatment. Many believe his disappearance on February 4, 2009, was due to that open letter. When he resurfaced in March 2010, he said he would no longer criticize the government, but apparently this wasn't good enough for the authorities. He disappeared once again on April 21, 2010.

Let's assume he is still alive (one can hope), subject to solitary confinement while the authorities try to figure out what to do with him. It is hard to imagine that alone in a bare cell—isolated from loved ones, unsure of his fate, for all intents and purposes lost to the world—he comforts himself with his life of significance or the way he has changed the world.

Naturally, we are tempted to wax eloquent about his stand for justice, affirming that his life will not be wasted. But let's be honest: Tens of thousands of dissidents have been murdered by governments brutal and authoritarian—from the former Soviet Russia to present North Korea—whose names are lost to history, whose courageous stands have gone unnoticed. It's hard to believe that many of us today—no matter our generation—would be willing to endure this level of suffering for the sake of making a difference. We want to be noticed, and regularly praised, for making a difference — not forgotten or forsaken. Besides, our idea of a life of significance must allow time to Tweet and chat on Facebook, or, in my case, play the occasional round of golf. A life of significance, yes, but with plenty of time for the insignificant, please.

We should honor any generation that strives for significance, especially if it is a longing to make a difference in the world. Better this than striving to make money and live a comfortable life! But the human heart is desperately wicked and the human soul subject to self-deception, and this colors even our highest aspirations. Even the best of intentions mask the mysterious darkness within, which is why we need to be healed also of our best intentions.

As usual, Jesus turns this whole conversation on its head. Economist E. F. Shumacher wrote a classic during the boomers' salad days (1973) in which he argued for using small, appropriate technology. The book was titled Small Is Beautiful. If Jesus were to have written a book on ethics, he might have titled it Insignificant Is Beautiful. His is an ethic that glorifies giving a mere cup of water to a thirsty soul (Matt. 10:42), praises the relatively worthless donation of an indigent widow (Mark 12:41-44), visits those who have disappeared from history, and honors the one who changes the diapers of the incontinent.

Mark Galli is senior managing editor of Christianity Today. He is author of Jesus Mean and Wild: The Unexpected Love of an Untamable God (Baker), and the forthcoming Chaos and Grace: The Liberating Work of the Holy Spirit (Baker).

"This article first appeared in (10-28-2010) issue of Christianity Today. Used by permission of Christianity Today International, Carol Stream, IL 60188."

This is just awesome!

Awesome God!

My Trip to Boston

On my visit to Boston many years ago, actually, I believe it was 1982; I visited many of the old churches in the downtown area. I was totally fascinated by the pews of some of these beautiful old, stately churches. At the ends of each pew (which these pews were very, very long), were small gates, so when anyone entered into the pews they were locked into place. Then, on the corresponding walls, hung very long, wooden poles, much like pool sticks only much longer, but this was no pool game.

Some hand-picked parishioner, usually a churlish-faced, Amish-type person, who looked more warden-like than an angelic being sitting on a cloud, would summarily jab the offending person(s), with the poles, if they nodded off or if they were found daydreaming during the sermons. And sometimes these sermons lasted for hours upon hours. Imagine sitting there, on hard pews, with no air conditioning, suffocating under layers of cumbersome clothing, locked into place like a crash test dummy, listening to a sermon much like the sermon given by Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in The Hands of An Angry God.”

Which brings me to wonder, do we have a shallow repentance because we have shallow sermons? Do we need the shock value of sermons like this, and hard wooden pews that force a posture of attentiveness to create in us a deep well of repentance? Are our sermons lackluster, causing us to cozy up to sin too much, do we need the hard-edged-truth more often to keep us vigilant and acutely aware of the God dishonoring sin in our lives? Maybe more often than not we need to be pricked in our hearts, convicted in our souls, admonished by our brothers and sisters, and summarily jabbed with a pole, straight to the head, because life is not a game of pool. It is serious business, and our repentance should be one of deep, Godly sorrow, and never taken lightly.

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (Eph 6:12). 

IS IT RIGHT: To Judge, To Expose Error, & To Call Names?

Many today believe that it is wrong to expose error and to name names. Liberals have always seemed to believe this, but in recent times it has been widely espoused by evangelicals and charismatics. Now we are seeing the same fatal error being declared by those who profess to be Bible believing fundamentalists. Those who are faithful in exposing error according to the Bible are now being widely denounced, and are accused of being unloving and unkind. In this tract we intend to present the teaching of the Bible on this vital subject.
I. It Is Right To Practice Biblical Judgment

One of the most misused verses in the Bible is, "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matt. 7: 1). Every Scripture verse should be read in its context, if we are to properly understand the true meaning. In vs. 2-5 of this same chapter it is evident that v. 1 is referring to hypocritical judgment. A brother who has a beam in his own eye should not be judging the brother who may have a mote in his eye. The lesson is plain, you cannot judge another for his sin if you are guilty of the same sin.

Those who cling to "Judge not, that ye be not judged, " to condemn those who expose error should read the entire chapter. Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing... " (v. 15). How can we know false prophets unless we judge them by the Word of God? If we know the false prophets, how can we fail to exam the sheep of these "ravening wolves?" All through the Bible we find proof that they should be identified and exposed.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit" (vs. 16,17).

Did the Lord mean that we could not judge the tree (person), by the fruit of their life and doctrine? Certainly not, for you cannot know without judging. All judgment should be on the basis of Bible teaching, not according to whims or prejudices.

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment " (John 7:24).

Here our Lord commands that we are to "judge righteous judgment, " which is judgment based upon the Word of God. If judgment is made upon any other basis, other than the Word of God, it is a violation of Matt. 7: 1. Webster's Dictionary says that a judge is "one who declares the law. " The faithful Christian must discern or judge on the basis of God's inspired law, the Bible.

A fornicator is described in I Cor. 5:1-13. Paul "judged" (v.3) the man even though he was absent, and he told the Church at Corinth that they were to "judge" (v. 12) those that were within. The Greek word for "judge" is the same here as in Matt. 7: 1. Paul did not violate "judge not, that ye be not judged, " in judging the man, nor in instructing the Church to judge also. All of this judgment was according to the Word of God.

A person who is able to discern between good and evil, has at least one of the major marks of spiritual maturity.

"But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil" (Heb. 5:14).

W.E. Vine says of the meaning of discern, "a distinguishing, a clear discrimination, discerning, judging; is translated 'discerning' in I Cor. 12: 10 of discerning spirits, judging by evidence whether they are evil or of God. " Strong also agrees that it means to judge.

Those who are unwilling or incapable of discerning or judging between good and evil are in this manner revealing either their disobedience or their immaturity.

II. It Is Right To Expose False Teachers

False teachers are free to spread their poisonous doctrines today because there is a conspiracy of silence among many Bible believers. Wolves in sheep's clothing are thus enabled to ravage the flock, thereby destroying many.

John the Baptist called the Pharisees and Sadducees (the religious leaders of his day) "a generation of Vipers" (snakes) (Matt. 3:7). Today, he would be accused of being unloving, unkind, and unchristian.
Jesus said to the religious Pharisees, "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" (Matt. 12:34). To many evangelicals and some fundamentalists, this would be unacceptable language today, but it is biblical language and it came from the mouth of the Son of God.
Standing face to face with these false teachers, Jesus Christ the Son of God, called them "hypocrites", "blind guides, " "blind, " "whited sepulchres, " "serpents, " and "ye generation of vipers" (Matt. 23:23-34). Yet, we are told today that we are to fellowship with men whose doctrines are just as unscriptural as those of the Pharisees. Some who say they are Bible believing Christians insist on working with Roman Catholics and other assorted heretics. Yet, according to many, we are not supposed to rebuke them for their compromise.
Near the beginning of His ministry, "Jesus went up to Jerusalem, And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence, make not my Father's house an house of merchandise" (John 2:13-16). Our Savior is presented today as one who was meek, lowly, kind, and loving, even to false teachers, but this is entirely false. When dealing with false teachers and prophets, His words were sharp and His actions plain.

Near the end of His public ministry, Christ found it necessary to cleanse the temple once again. The exposure of false doctrines and practices is a never ending job. At that time He said, "Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves" (Mark I 1: 17). Is it any different today? The thieves come into the house of God, and rob God's people of the Bible and peddle their perverted Bibles instead. At the same time this den of thieves rob the people off the doctrine of separation and the doctrine of sanctification. Then you can hardly tell God's people from the people of the world. In all honesty, should not these thieves (false teachers) be exposed?

In our day these false teachers have come into the churches with their books, music, literature, movies, psychology, and seminars, and have turned the Father's house into a den of thieves. It is time that men of God stand up and expose their errors for all to see.

The Bible Admonishes Us To Expose Error

We are to TRY them. "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (I John 4: 1). All doctrine and teachers are to be tried according to the Word of God. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isa. 8:20). Every message, messenger, and method is to be judged according to the Word of God. The church at Ephesus was commended because they had "tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars " (Rev. 2:2[). The church at Pergamos was rebuked because they tolerated those that held "the doctrine of Balaam, " and "the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate" (Rev. 2:14,15). It is never right to tolerate false teachers, but they are to be tried by the Word of God, and exposed. Of course those who want to disobey the Word of God will seek by every means to avoid this teaching.
We are to MARK them and AVOID them. "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them " (Rom. 16:17). Those whose conduct and teaching contradicts the Word of God are to be marked and to be avoided. This requires discernment and judgment in the light of the Bible. The ecumenicalists, new evangelicals, and compromising fundamentalists will resist any effort to obey this Scripture. They cannot be marked and avoided, unless they are judged according to the Word of God.

We are to REBUKE them. "Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith " (Titus 1: 13). This was written to Titus, because there Were those going from house to house and subverting whole houses with false doctrine (v. 10-16). Oral Roberts, Robert Schuller, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson, and others are subverting whole houses with their false doctrine today. Are we to sit silently by, while they do this, without rebuking and admonishing people to avoid their teaching? No, the faithful servant of the Lord is to be "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers " (Titus 1:9).

We are to have NO FELLOWSHIP with them. "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them " (Eph. 5:11). Reprove means to censure, condemn, find fault, rebuke, and to refute. How can we obey this Scripture unless we try them by the Word of God?

We are to WITHDRAW from them. "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us " (II Thess. 3:6). We are to withdraw from those whose doctrine and conduct does not conform to the Word of God. The context clearly shows that obedience to sound doctrine is what Paul has in mind, for he says, "if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet, count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother" (2 Thess. 3:14-15). Paul admonished Timothy to "withdraw thyself " from those who "consent not to wholesome words ... and to the doctrine which is according to godliness " (I Tim. 6:3-5).

We are to TURN AWAY from them. Concerning the last days, he says that some will have "a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. from such turn away" for such people are "never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (11 Tim. 3:5,7). How can we turn away from them if we do not identify them, and this requires that their message be compared to the Word of God. It is the business of the true preacher to: "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine " (II Tim. 4:2). This is usually an unpopular and thankless task but it is the duty of the God-called man.

We are NOT to RECEIVE them into our house. "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds " (11 John 10, I 1). There is no doubt about who John is speaking about, it is " Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ... " (v.9). By radio, TV, music and literature, false prophets are brought into the homes of many Christians today. Brethren, this ought not to be!

We are to REJECT HERETICS. "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject " (Titus 3: 10). We should reject those who deny redemption by the blood of Christ. There are many who deny this or some other doctrine of the Word of God.If they will not respond to being admonished, then they are to be rejected.

We are to look out for those who preach another gospel. Paul warned about those who preached "another Jesus ... another spirit ... or another gospel" (2 Cor. 11:4). How can we know them unless we judge their Jesus, their spirit, and their gospel by the Word of God? Paul called such preachers "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ" (2 Cor. II:13). He explains in v. 14-15 that these preachers are the ministers of Satan. The God-called man must be just as faithful today in exposing the ministers of Satan.

Paul warned the Galatians about those who "pervert the gospel of Christ." He also said, "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (See Gal. 1:6-9). Multitudes today are preaching a perverted gospel. Those who teach salvation by baptism, or by works, are teaching a perverted gospel. Those who preach a salvation that you can lose, are preaching a perverted gospel. The charismatics, Catholics, many evangelicals, and many fundamentalists (?) are preaching a perverted gospel. Yet, we are supposed to cooperate with them in evangelism and Christian work, according to many today. If we fail to expose these false prophets, then we have betrayed Christ and His gospel.

We are to SEPARATE from them."Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch no the unclean thing; and I will receive you " (2 Cor. 6:17). This makes it plain. God's people are to come out of apostasy and religious error. How can any Bible believer remain in the National Council or World Council of Churches? How can they remain among compromising evangelicals and wishy-washy fundamentalists?

III. It Is Right To Name Names

Many mistakenly believe that it is wrong to expose error and to name the guilty teachers; but they are wrong according to the Bible.

Paul named Peter publicly. Peter was guilty of unscriptural practice. "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed ... But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Gal. 2:11-14). The whole issue revolved around salvation by the law or by grace. When the integrity and purity of the gospel is at stake, then we have no choice when it comes to the matter of exposing error and naming names.

Paul named Demas for loving the world. "For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world" (II Tim. 4:10). Those who forsake the cause of Christ for worldly living and pleasures should be named and exposed.

Paul named Hymenaeus and Alexander. Paul told Timothy to "war a good warfare; Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some have put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme " (I Tim. 1: 18-20). God's true servants should war a good warfare, and name those who have departed from the faith that was once delivered to the saints. Paul is not here discussing the faith of salvation but the faith as a system of doctrine. These men had made shipwreck of it and Paul exposed them and called their names.

Paul named Hymenaeus and Philetus. He told Timothy to "study" that he might be able to "rightly" divide "the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth as canker. of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some " (11 Tim. 2:15-18). False doctrine overthrows the faith of some, so those who are proclaiming it must be exposed.

Paul named Alexander the coppersmith. "Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil. the Lord reward him "cording to his works: Of whom be thou ware also, for he hath greatly withstood our words " (II Tim. 4:14-15). It is clear that this is not a personality problem, but a doctrinal problem. Alexander had withstood the words and doctrine of Paul. He was an enemy to the truth. Godly pastors face the same problem every day. They stand and proclaim the truth, then their members go home and hear this truth disputed by radio and TV preachers. Often times these false prophets are sending their publications into the homes of members of true churches. Then the man of God is suppose to keep his mouth shut, according to many. Only a coward will be silent when the truth of the Bible is under attack.
John named Diotrephes. "I wrote unto the church; but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not" (3 John 9). He related how this man had prated against him "with malicious words " (v. 10). He further said, "Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God, but he that doeth evil hath not seen God " (v. I 1). It is not wrong to name those whose doctrine and practice is contrary to the Word of God.
In fact, the whole Bible abounds in examples of false prophets being named and exposed. All this modem day talk about love, used as an excuse for not exposing error, is not really biblical love but is really sloppy agape.
Moses called the name of Balaam. (See Num. 22-25). Peter exposed "the way of Balaam ... who loved the wages of unrighteousness " (II Pet. 2:15). Balaam was a prophet that was in the work for money, just like some of the TV false prophets today. They beg for money and live like kings, while multitudes of innocent people send them their hard earned money. They are always building colleges, hospitals, TV network satellites, and amusement parks that have a water slide for Jesus. And then we are suppose to keep our mouth shut about these religious charlatans. How can we be silent and be true to God?

Jude exposed "the error of Balaam " (Jude I 1). John exposed "the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication " (Rev. 2:14). This gets right to the heart of the matter, concerning the doctrine of separation. Balaam never did curse Israel even though he wanted the wages that he was offered to do so. The men of Israel committed "whoredom with the daughters of Moab ... and bowed down to their gods " (Num. 25:1,2). Why did they do this? Because Balaam taught Balac how to break down the barrier of separation between the Moabites and the Israelites. We know this to be so because it is plainly stated in Rev. 2:14 and Num. 31:16. This sin resulted in 24,000 men of Israel dying under the judgment of God.
False teachers are breaking down the barrier of separation between God's people and false religion. There is too little preaching and teaching on the doctrine of separation. Balaam breached the doctrine of personal separation by causing the men of Israel to commit fornication with the Moabite women. He breached the doctrine of ecclesiastical separation by causing the men of Israel to bow down to Baal. This brought a curse upon Israel. Until we get back to teaching the truth about personal and ecclesiastical separation, we can expect the continued widespread havoc that we have today.

It seems to be believed by many that some people are too high and mighty to be named or exposed. Men in high places, pastors of large churches, and those with great radio or TV audiences, are supposedly above criticism. Whatever they may do or say, no matter how contrary to the Bible it may be, is supposedly all right. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Nathan identified the man. There was a man in a very high place who was a secret adulterer. Surely this man who held the highest office in the land could not be rebuked by a lowly unpopular prophet. Nathan went right into the presence of David, revealed the sin in a parable form, and then told the enraged David, "Thou art the man " (II Sam. 12:7).

Hanani named king Jehoshaphat. In many ways Jehoshaphat was a good king, but he mistakenly forgot to practice religious separation. He caused his son to marry wicked king Ahab's daughter. (See II Chron. 18: 1; 21:1-6). He made an alliance with Ahab and went to the battle of Ramoth-gilead with him (II Chron. 18). Hanani "said to King Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? " (II Chron. 19:2). We have a question for those, "Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord?"

Yes, it is right to expose error and to name those who are in error. It is right to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). It was once delivered and it has never been recalled for revision. We had better beware of "false teachers ... who privily shall bring in damnable heresies " (II Pet. 2: 1). Faithful messengers will warn the sheep of these heretics, and identify them by name. It is not enough to broadly hint of their identity, for the young lambs will not understand and will be destroyed by the wolves.

US Capital Tour with David Barton

A Luther-like Moment

I am reminded of Martin Luther's many attempts to eradicate the horrible stain of sin from his life. We were all born under the same death sentence of sins bondage, and subsequently find much joy in contributing to this folly, whole heartily our entire lives, unless and until we are quickened by God's Spirit. Luther thought it was extremely hard to follow after God and His impeccable standards of righteousness. How true this is for all unconverted souls. It is hard to follow after God without the Holy Spirit first causing us to be born again.

Luther was hounded by the fruitless attempts and endless endeavors to obliterate sin from his bountiful life, lived in flagrant disobedience to God's Word. He did penance, self-flagellation, and spent numerous hours in the confessional, to the point where many of his roommates, in the monastery, thought him a bit unhinged. He was obsessed with the onerous task of scrupulously living up to standards of righteousness that no man could possibly live up to. He beat his body into submission along with torturing his mind endlessly to work out his ill-fated, ill-informed heart‘s desire to be good enough for God to accept him. All his attempts to eradicate sin from his life, of his own doing, by good works and self-flagellation, proved to be the insanity of Luther’s well-deserved, early-on reputation. Until that one bright and shining moment, when he lit upon the doctrine of justified by faith alone. It was a turning point for Luther in every respect.

He realized that “all men have fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23),” and that, "there is none righteous, no, not one (Rom 3:10).” And only by resting in the perfect sacrifice of Christ on the cross is any man justified and declared righteous before God. He knew God had very high, unattainable standards, and felt it was impossible to live up to such extreme standards of sinless perfection. All this time salvation was available to him, but God in His infinite wisdom needed to demonstrate to Luther why he could do NOTHING to accomplish his own salvation, nothing to obtain or merit the free gift of redemption. Luther had to stop white washing the outside and allow the Holy Spirit to cleanse and renew the inward man and allow Christ to pay his sin debt in full, so he could rest peacefully in Christ’s finished work, knowing that it was finished, and he needed to do nothing but believe in the ONE who justifies.

And this is how it is for all of us, thus the reference to the bitter sweet state of affairs of the life of the ever-mercurial Luther. It IS hard to follow after God without the Holy Spirit to guide and help us, God’s perfect standards seem insurmountable, like a mountain too high for the saintliest of saints to traverse, but with Christ all things are possible (Matt 19:26).” This is why we need to be reminded that: “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an ADVOCATE with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous (1 John 2:3).” We do not rely on our own efforts, but we rest in Christ alone for the remittance of sins.

God's yoke is easy, if we rest totally in Jesus' work alone, on the cross. This was the full, demonstrable testimony of Luther’s whole life experience for all of Christendom to stand up and take note of. We are justified by faith alone.

Luther's experience is a common one among all true Christian's, we find our stain of sin unbearable, and find no relief from our own ill-fated attempts to procure a remedy. We all have a Luther-like moment. Even the publican experienced a moment such as this, when he deemed himself unworthy to even come to the temple. "And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner (Luke 8:13)."



And some people find Luther unimportant.

Start your Christmas list early!

Share the Good News of Christmas from Crossway on Vimeo.

Mark Gaither on lust, sin, divorce...

Dear Jordan:

Mark is a theologian who used to post over at Shepherd's Fellowship, he also wrote the book Redemptive Divorce.  He DOES (sorry, I said earlier he didn't) speak about the verse you referred to over at teampyro; I hope this helps explain it some for you.  Mark is also the son-in-law of the well known preacher, Chuck Swindoll. 

The Sin of Lust

Earlier in His ministry, Jesus commented on the teaching of the rabbis concerning the Law and then offered His clarification as the divine Author. “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17). He then took the opportunity to breathe new life into some Old Testament laws in order to correct the teaching of the Pharisees. Note how He presented His lessons:

* “You have heard . . .” (v. 21), “But I say to you . . .” (v. 22), followed by teaching on murder and resentment.

* “You have heard . . .” (v. 27), “But I say to you . . .” (v. 28), followed by teaching on adultery and lust.

* “It was said . . .” (v. 31), “But I say to you . . .” (v. 32), followed by teaching on divorce and fidelity.

* “You have heard . . .” (v. 33), “But I say to you . . .” (v. 34), followed by teaching on vows and integrity.

* “You have heard . . .” (v. 38), “But I say to you . . .” (v. 39), followed by teaching on justice and kindness.

* “You have heard . . .” (v. 43), “But I say to you . . .” (v. 44), followed by teaching on fair play and grace.

In each case, Jesus extended the application of the Law given through Moses to include what the rabbis had omitted. Furthermore, He amplified the divine revelation in the Old Testament to reveal the full measure of God’s standards. Not only must we refrain from murder, but we must also avoid hatred. Not only is adultery an abomination, so is lust.

While the laws of the Old Testament reflect God’s righteous character, they were primarily intended to regulate the public affairs of a nation, much like the laws of our own government. But we generally understand that a person must be more than merely law-abiding to be considered moral. Obedience to the law is a minimum standard. The rabbis in Jesus’ day not only reduced righteousness to mere obedience to the Law, but they also played clever word games with Scripture to lower the standard even further! They lowered the standard of righteousness in order to call themselves righteous.

When Jesus equated lust with adultery, He was not suggesting the men apply the Law accordingly. It was to point out their hypocrisy. It was to confront the wayward rabbis for lowering the standard of righteousness. It was to convict the self-righteous of their sin.

Correlating the Teaching of Christ on Lust and Divorce

As we examine the teaching of Christ on the Law, we must apply it in the New Covenant sense rather than under the Old Covenant. If we are to apply the Old Covenant strictly (Lust = Adultery = Grounds for Divorce), we must do so consistently: Lust = Adultery = Grounds for STONING!)

When Jesus confronted the rabbis, His purpose was to show that no one can be called righteous, even those who are not guilty of murder or adultery. Our hearts are thoroughly polluted with sin; even our thoughts make us guilty. Therefore, ALL are guilty before God and ALL need His grace.

If we apply the teaching of Matthew 5:27–28 in the same spirit Jesus gave it, then equating lust with adultery is the kind of confrontation needed by men viewing pornography. They want to rationalize their sin by stating it doesn’t involve actual contact with another. We must help them raise the standard of righteousness, not lower it if they expect God to bless their marriages and hear their prayers (1 Peter 3:7)

Mark's blog is http://www.redemptiveheart.com/.  I forgot to mention this earlier.

Pride

Paul Washer - Faith Alone

Picture of the week-Say cheese with an arm attached!

The Crust and The Core by Kevin DeYoung

If we are to be fruitful and godly Christians we need to have a theological core without being theologically crusty.

In desiring a theological core I don’t mean that all Christians must be bookish and given to intellectual contemplation. I mean that every Christian must be shaped from the inside out by a set of convictions about who God is and what he has accomplished in Jesus Christ. As Christians we should be animated (given life) and motivated (compelled to action) by a core of doctrinal truths–truths like God is loving, sovereign, and holy; God created the world and created it good; as a result of Adam’s sin humans are bent toward evil; Jesus Christ was God’s Son, begotten not created; Jesus suffered and died on the cross for sins and rose again on the third day; the Holy Spirit is God and fills us with power, enables us to believe, equips us with gifts, and bears fruit in our lives; the Bible is God’s word; Jesus is coming again to judge the living and the dead, and justification is by faith alone.

These truths need to be more than a set of beliefs we assume. They should be the lens through which we look at ourselves and the world. There are many Christians and churches that don’t deny any cardinal doctrine of Christian faith, but they still don’t have a theological core. They have, instead, a musty statement of faith they barely understand and hardly believe and wouldn’t dare preach. They are animated and motivated by politics, church growth, relational concerns and the like, but the gospel is merely assumed. “Yes, yes–of course we believe in the Virgin Birth, and the atonement, and the resurrection, and heaven and hell,” they say. But its all periphery, not core. It’s all assumed, not all-consuming. Theologically hollow congregations and pastors may like to think they will bequeath a gospel legacy to the next generation, but the truth is we only pass on what is our passion. New converts and new kids won’t think and live and love like mature Christians, let alone be able to articulate the Christian story, if our beliefs rest in a pamphlet and not in our hearts.

I make no apologies for having a theological church. The church ought to be about the business of the gospel, and the gospel is a message of historical fact plus God-given interpretation. That’s theology. I hope we never feel like we have the “theology thing” down at URC just because we have solid book studies and long, meaty sermons. The “theology thing” is a lifelong project of being transformed by the renewing of our minds. We want to be thinking Christians who know what we believe, why we believe it, and live and die in the comfort of these beliefs.

Having a theological core means, among other things, that our unity is theological. Of course we want to be united in love and purpose too. But whatever actions and affections we share in unison ought to radiate from a theological core. There is so much talk around the broader church about being missional Christians that it’s easy to think the church should be missional-centric. And in one sense, mission is certainly at the center of what we do. But mission itself is not what ties us together or fires us up. It’s only when the mission is defined and it’s genesis is proclaimed that we can rally around mission.

What I mean is that we should be, first of all, Christocentric; that is, centered on the cross of Christ. Christ is our identity, our passion, and our hope. And because of this identity, passion, and hope we pray, and evangelize, and do missions. But missions is not the center. Christ is–which shapes, defines, and launches us into missions. It’s like John Piper’s famous line: “Mission is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is.” Being missional is not a sufficient basis for unity. One, because I’m never quite sure what missional means. Two, because the blazing hot center of Christian identity, passion, and hope is not that we are all doing things in Jesus' name. Of course, we should be doing things in Jesus’ name. But the blazing hot center is what God has already done for us in Christ. This must always be explained and rejoiced in, not merely assumed.

Which brings me back to the main point. We desperately need Christians and pastors and missionaries and churches and denominations and movements and institutions which are theological to the core, where doctrines are not simply items to be checked off the dogmatic grocery list or statements to be dusted off out of the ecclesiastical attic. We must all be theological because being a Christian means we embrace a message about who Jesus is and the victory he won for us. And that’s theology.
So, core, yes. Crust? No.
Please, don’t skip the last part of this post, especially if you really liked the first part. Because you may just be a crusty Christian if you’re not careful.

What makes a Christian crusty? A number of things. For starters, it’s an attitude. It’s a demeanor where being Calvinist or paedobaptist or inerrantist (three things I am gladly) are put on like armor or wielded like weapons, when they are meant to be the warm glow of a Christian whose core radiates with love for Christ and the gospel. I believe in theological distinctives–I believe in them and I believe it is good to have them–but if the distinctives are not manifestly the flower of gospel root, the buds aren’t worth the blooming.

A second mark of crusty Christians is approachability, as in, not having any. There is a sizing up-ness that makes some theological types unnecessarily prickly. They are bright and opinionated and quickly analytical. As a result, knowingly or unknowingly, they emit a vibe which communicates something between “You Max Lucado reading moron!” and “I wish R.C. Sproul were here to teach you a thing or two!” Crusty Christians are hard to be around. They are intimidating instead of engaging and growling instead of gracious. They are too willing to share their opinions on everything and unable to put any doctrine in any category not marked “absolutely essential.”

When theology is more crust than core, it’s not so much that we care about good theology too much, we just don’t care about some other hugely important things in the same proportion. So we end up largely skeptical of a prayerful, fruitful, warm-hearted, godly, Arminian leaning pastor. Now, I might think such a pastor is prayerful, fruitful, warm-hearted and godly despite too much emphasis on libertarian free will, but I sure hope to be mighty thankful for all his prayerfulness, fruitfulness, and warm-hearted godliness. Some Christians allow evangelism to trump all other considerations, others size up fellow Christians by their attention to social justice concerns, but a lot of us do our judging with theology. If the theology fits, the lack of mission, prayer, and compassion doesn’t matter much. But if a few theological pieces are misplaced in the puzzle, see you later and don’t let Hymenaeus and Philetus door hit you on the way out.

Striking the balance is not easy. But let’s try hard to be discerning and grounded without always looking for the next theological misstep in our friends, our family, or the songs we sing. And let’s be able to tell the difference between wandering sheep and false teachers. We must delineate between a slightly ill-informed wording of a phrase and a purposeful rejection of truth. We must pursue a passion for fidelity to Scripture and a winsomeness that sweetens the already honey-like drippings of the word of God. Let us be more like a chocolate covered raisin, likeable on the outside and surprisingly good for you on the inside, and less like a tootsie roll pop with its brittle, crunchy exterior that must be broken through before anyone can get to the good stuff. Our theological heart, if it is worth anything, will pulse throughout our spiritual bodies, making us into someone more prayerful, more godly, and more passionate about the Bible, the lost, and the world around us. We will be theologically solid to the core, without the unnecessary crust.
 
6 Questions for the Potentially Crusty

Yesterday I wrote about the necessity of having a theological core and the danger of being spiritually crusty. I certainly don’t get it all right myself, but here are a few questions that can help prevent crustiness as we unapologetically exult in the precious truths of Scripture.

1. Do we actually care about evangelism? The plight of the lost should break our hearts and the opportunity to share the gospel should be a delight.

2. Do we wear smallness as a badge of honor? “Successful” ministries are not always sell-outs and small churches are sometimes just not very healthy.

3. Are our passions in the right proportion? It’s fine to be passionate about our view on baptism, as long as this passion does not outshine our passion for the cross, the Trinity, and the glory of Christ.

4. Do we (or our pastors) preach with personal, passionate, pleading? The truths we believe are not for dissecting as much as for heralding with joy and humble intercession.

5. Do we know ourselves? We need to understand our gifts, our personalities, our strengths and weaknesses. We need to be ok with who we are and not try to be Driscoll, Piper, Keller, or anyone else. A sense of humor also helps. The Lord probably laughs at us on occasion so we should be able to laugh at ourselves.

6. Are we fighting the battles that matter most in our context? Don’t spend gobs of time preaching on the emergent church if no one in your church has heard of it. Don’t waste a lot of time defending the Pauline authorship of Ephesians if no one around you has ever thought anything different. Understand the issues of worldliness and disobedience that most affect your friends, church, and family.


6 More Questions for the Potentially Crusty

I’ve been writing about the need for core theological convictions without a crusty, crotchety shell. Christians should be a kind of inverse tootsie roll pop–a soft, sweet exterior surrounding a strong, solid interior. Yesterday I suggested six questions to help prevent crustiness in the theologically devout. Today, six more questions.

7. Are we bringing everything up all the way to the glory of God? This is is one of the things I appreciate most about John Piper. Instead of just arguing for justification by faith alone or God’s all-controlling sovereignty, he shows how these precious truths bring glory to God. If we don’t bring everything up to the level of God, our churches will have factions of book people, youth people, social justice people, evangelism people, etc. We need to see how our unique interests and callings relate to God.

8. Are we experts in Scripture first? It’s quite possible to be well-versed in Van Til’s apologetics, Calvin’s third use of the law, and David Well’s critiques of evangelicalism without knowing well the verses of the Bible. We need to know the Bible better than any other book, memorize it, pray it, and teach it (not just a catechism) to our children.

9. Are we theological snobs? If many of my readers are Calvinists, then many of my readers have gone through a crusty Calvinist stage. Some, sadly, never leave it. Certainly, we need to be discerning and help our people grow in their understanding of truth and appetite for meat. But beware the “I’m hipper than thou” attitude that looks down on everyone interested in Left Behind or Facing the Giants are benighted fools. The truly wise learn to benefit from those who don’t get everything right.

10. Can we accept that there are Romans 14 issues? The tricky question (the trickiest question in my opinion) is which issues are Romans 14 issues. But for starters, we should at least affirm in principle that sometimes we will agree to disagree. We will say at times, “Let each person be convinced in his own mind.” This doesn’t mean the issue is pointless or unimportant. It means we recognize that the Scripture is not abundantly clear on every issues and we must allow for differences.

11. Are we resounding gongs and clanging cymbals? If we have convictions and disagree with others, some people will call us loveless. But, that doesn’t mean we have to live up to the charges. We need to love our friends, love the church, and love our enemies. We should not be scared to love and talk about love just because liberals have hijacked the word.

12. Do we possess deep and pervasive piety? I know that pietism is a bad word in some circles. It conjures up notionas of anti-intellectual sentimentality. But we got pietism because Protestant scholasticism had gotten dry (or at least many of the churches of the time had). If we want to be more than intellectual people who happen to be into theology, we need to cultivate deep affections and deeper sanctification. As Reformed Christians (assuming many of you are), let’s lead the way, not only in theolgocial integrity, but also in meditation, Scripture memory, intercession, and earnest worship. What our families, friends, and churches need most from us is our own personal holiness.

The History of Justified by Faith Alone

The History of Justification by Faith Alone up to the Reformation
by
Thomas R. Thompson

The history of the doctrine justification by faith alone is difficult to trace before the Reformation in the 1500's. A clear line of development of this doctrine from the Apostles to Martin Luther simply does not exit. This does not mean however that this doctrine is a modern invention. The doctrine of justification by faith alone has its foundation in the purpose of God entering the human race in the person of Jesus. The doctrine of justification by faith alone may have received notable attention as stated by Martin Luther, but his statement concerning this doctrine is simply an answer to one of the oldest questions that face mankind. That question being, by what means can a person's sins be forgiven? Whereas the doctrine of justification by faith alone was essentially not a concern of the church before the Reformation, the church was concerned about the means by which one is forgiven of his sins.

The history of justification by faith alone is really the history of the church attempting to find the answer to this question, how can a man be forgiven of sins, and by what means is it accomplished? The early church viewed baptism as a means by which sins were forgiven. This made perfect sense to them for Peter himself said to repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins. This immature thinking that some human work was effectual for the remission of sins, would lead to further errors. For example, if baptism was indeed effectual for the remission of sins, how are sins to be remitted after baptism? The early church should have considered this problem, and concluded that baptism was not effectual for the remission of sin. They should have determined that no human work could accomplish this, and looked more deeply into what Christ accomplished on the cross.

However, they did not do that, and instead started the foundation of a system whereby man can atone for his own sins. This foundation would be built upon for 1500 years. Each successive generation after the Apostles would add new works for man to do to atone for his sins. Each successive generation would corrupt God's plan for the remission of sins more than the previous generation. Towards the end of this corrupting process, a system would be in place that relegated the atonement of Christ to something symbolic, and irrelevant. Instead of the atonement viewed as the only sufficient means for the remission of sins, a complete system is erected whereby sinful man atones for his own sins. This system would become a stench in the nostrils of Martin Luther, and to expose its corruption was something he was willing to lay down his life to do.

Therefore, to trace the doctrine of justification by faith alone, the development of the system whereby man atones for his own sins must be considered first. Then it will be seen how the doctrine of justification by faith alone would rise in response to such a corrupt system. This corrupt system starts growing while the Apostles are still alive. Consider Paul's response to the initial corruption of the atoning work of Christ.

Paul defends the basis for the forgiveness of sin (c. 55)

Paul started a church in Galatia, where the teaching of justification by faith alone was clearly proclaimed and accepted. He taught one's only basis for the forgiveness of sins is faith in the merits of Christ's sacrificial death. After a time Paul received word this church had departed from its initial foundation. He was amazed at the early believers departure from the truth, and sent them a letter in an attempt to guide them back to the truth they initially received. This Paul states in the opening of his letter to the Galatians.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel... (Gal 1:6)

This young church was being agitated by Judizers. These Judizers were actively trying to bring the Gentile Christians back under the law and into the fold of Judaism, and it appears they were successful. The Judizers were teaching that faith in Christ was needed for the forgiveness of sins, but it was not enough. They were teaching that circumcision was also needed. Paul proves the error of this false doctrine by showing God has never changed His method for forgiving sins. He uses the example of Abraham, whose faith was credited to him as righteousness. Paul references Genesis 15:6 when he writes the following.

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (Gal 3:6)

Paul was emphasizing that a person's only basis for salvation is in the merits of Christ. If one wants to add circumcision, almsgiving, baptism or anything else, Paul says Christ will then be of no profit to that person, and "he is a debtor to do the whole law," (Gal 5:3)

One may consider this a minor error to add things concerning righteousness to the gospel, but history shows this not to be the case. The problem is, once something is added room for something else can always be found. Paul knew of this danger and warns the Galatians by saying, "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." (Gal 5:9) That is, accepting doctrinal error concerning how one is justified will cause one's whole doctrinal system to collapse. The doctrine of justification by faith alone gets so corrupted in the next few hundred years, it is essentially unrecognizable by 250 A.D. The shift started after the apostles. While some of the Apostolic Fathers give evidence they understood the doctrine of justification by faith alone, they certainly did not understand the need to fight for its purity.

Christ plus a moral life (c. 95)

Clement was a teacher of the scriptures who immediately followed the Apostles. It his writings, one finds clear evidences of his understanding that the only basis for sins being forgiving is the atonement of Christ. Consider this statement from a letter Clement sent to the church at Corinth.

So all of them received honor and greatness, not through themselves or their own deeds or the right things they did, but through his will. And we, therefore, who by his will have been called in Jesus Christ, are not justified of ourselves or by our wisdom or insight of religious devotion or the holy deeds we have done from the heart, but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning. To him be glory forever and ever. Amen. (Clement, Clement's First Letter, 32.3-4)

In some respects, Clement's statement on how one is justified is clearer than the Apostle Paul's. Not only does Clement affirm Christians are justified by faith in the work of Christ alone, but he also affirms that unless God calls a person he will never be awakened to place his faith in Christ. However, when confronting the morality problem in the Church at Corinth, Clement did not see this as a valuable weapon. Rather than providing an exhortation from the scriptures, emphasizing that Christians are dead to sin, and those living in immorality are not part of the body of Christ, Clement appeals to the social aspect of the gospel. This is a subtle shift. Clement leaves room in his teaching to suggest that a person becomes justified before God by living a righteous life. Whereas, the emphasis should have been that those who are justified by faith live righteous lives. Consider the below example of Clement's association of salvation with a moral life. Some in Corinth had removed church leaders from their offices, of which Clement is now rebuking.

Your contention and rivalry, brothers, thus touches matters that bear on our salvation. You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which contains the truth and is inspired by the Holy Spirit... You will not find that upright people have ever been disowned by holy men. The righteous, to be sure, have been persecuted, but by wicked men. They have been imprisoned, but by the godless. (Clement, Clement's First Letter, 45.1-3)

Clement here links the grounds of one's salvation to performing good deeds. This is a link that must never be made. The grounds of being forgiven are the merits of Christ alone, not the fallible works an individual produces. Clement should have exhorted the Corinthians to examine if they were truly in the faith, rather then trying to adjust their moral behavior. The Corinthians were producing evil fruit that was not consistent with a branch grafted into Christ. Rather than call attention to the tree they were grafted into, he was calling attention to the fruit that was being produced.

Clement did not intentionally desire to lead his listeners away from Christ as the only means of being justified, but if the teaching is not clear, it can point one in the direction of heresy. This is what happened during the period of the Apostolic Fathers. Their warning against heresies were not clear and sharp, and many were overtaken by false doctrines. Clement understood the Apostles teachings on this subject, he just did not understand the crucial nature of the doctrine, and how sinful men by nature desire to pervert it. Nor could Clement foresee into the future how far this doctrine would drift from the original Apostolic formulation of it.

In general though, the tone of Clement's letter is a mixture of forgiveness based on the merits of Christ, and the merits of man. This is an unholy mixture one must be diligent to avoid. The relationship between these was not clearly understood in the church at this time, and perhaps not by Clement either. The work of Christ as the only grounds for being forgiven of sins is being leavened with works based forgiveness by the teachers succeeding the Apostles. Rather than this error being recognized and cut out, it would leaven the whole doctrine in time. Then nothing could be done except start over. After this subtle leavening of forgiveness based on the works of Christ with the merits of man, more leaven would be added to it in the form of baptism.

Christ plus baptism (c. 100)

Among the writings of the early church leaders, many occurrences to the teaching of forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ plus baptism can be found. It was accepted without analysis and handed down in succession to each following generation. An example of this teaching can be found in "The Shepherd of Hermas." In this writing, Hermas describes a vision he had of a great stone tower being built upon water. He is told by the shepherd the tower is the church, and Hermas then asks why the tower is built on water. The shepherd answers.

Hear then why the tower is built on water: because your life has been and will be saved through water. (Hermas, The Shepherd of Hermas, 11.5)

The symbolism of the church being built on water baptism emphasizes the weight the early church placed on baptism. This to the modern evangelical is so far from Biblical teachings, one can easily find verses to refute it. But most in the early church did not have easy access to the scriptures. It would not be until 387 A.D. that the first list is produced that corresponds exactly with today's New Testament canon. Further, the Shepherd of Hermas was considered a canonical book by some churches. It was read during early worship services along with the canonical books.

This water baptism doctrine for the forgiveness of sins is not some spurious doctrine drifting among a few of the early churches, but rather is the dominate understanding of how sins are forgiven. By the year 250 A.D. it is being taught with fervor.

Although there can be no other than the one baptism, they [heretics] fancy they baptize. Forsaking the fountain of life, they promise the grace of living and saving water. Men are not washed there, they are dirtied; their sins are piled up, not purged. (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church, 11)

Those holding this "Christ plus baptism" view recognized the deficiencies of this teachings. But rather than correct a bad teaching, more bad teachings are added in an attempt to cover the problems with the initial bad teaching. The initial recognized deficiency being, what is the state of those professing faith in Christ, but never baptized. Are their sins not forgiven until they are dipped in water? Cyprian, the water baptism champion "addresses" this question. He contends there exists two ways a person can still attain forgiveness, even though the person was not water baptized.

1. If one is martyred. Cyprian says, "they are baptized with the most glorious and most precious baptism of blood, of which the Lord himself said, I have another baptism to be baptized with." (Cyprian, Letter 69, The Baptismal Controversy, 22)

2. If the church neglected its duty to baptize. Cyprian says, "the Lord in his mercy is able to grant them indulgence and not separate from the privileges of his Church.." (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church, 23)

The early church is now far from the Apostles teachings that man is saved on the grounds of Christ's merits through faith, and moving further away with each new generation. At this point in time, a few generations have passed since the Apostles, and the Apostles original teachings on forgiveness bases on the works of Christ are all but lost. But before this doctrine surfaces again, it would be buried even deeper in works based salvational systems.

The early church after having shored up, or so it thought, the problems with its baptism doctrine, a new problems arises. Up to now the majority belief was that one is justified by God through baptism, but the early church was soon forced to consider how to deal with sins committed after baptism.

Christ plus the faith of a confessor (c. 250)

Cyprian's solution at removing the weaknesses with the "baptism forgives sin" doctrine, was really no solution at all. He did handle a few additional problems with his enhancements, but the issue of what to do with sins committed after baptism is still not resolved. This becomes a significant problem for the early church.

The early church was persecuted by wicked and ruthless emperors. One emperor even passed a law making it illegal to be a Christian. If a person was suspected of being a Christian, he could be taken to court. If he at the court proceeding denied being a Christian, he would be released without any further actions. But, if he confessed to being a Christian, he would be tortured and most of the time it was unto death. Many Christians under such persecution were able to make noble confessions and admit they were Christians, even after being beaten without mercy for hours, and sometimes days. Yet some under the pressure lapsed, and denied being a Christian to spare their life. Those that were able to pass through the persecution were honored, and given special privileges within the church.

After the time of persecution was over, some of these lapsed Christians wanted to be forgiven and reinstated into the church. Those who were persecuted and did not lapse were taking it upon themselves because of their extra merits they were believed to have, to restore those who had lapsed. This Cyprian says is not valid. By divine law he says, only the bishops have such authority. Cyprian does propose a solutions to the problem.

Finally, it is possible for the lapsed, by undergoing martyrdom afterwards, to receive the promises of the kingdom. (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church, 19)

To suggest the only way for a lapsed Christian to be restored is with his own blood, is to say Christ's atonement was not sufficient for certain sins. This same error was made by those who passed through persecution, and granted forgiveness to others based on their heroic faith. Rather than correct a bad baptismal doctrine, many more bad teachings in addition to the ones illustrated above will be created to prop it up. At this point it should have been observed that fixing their baptism doctrine one problem at a time was not working. They should have considered the bigger question, by what means are sins forgiven, rather then trying to determine how individual sins would be forgiven. The sadness in all this is that people are looking away from the merits of Christ in the atonement, and replacing His merits with their own. This trend will continue until the Reformation.

Christ plus Apostolic Succession (c. 251)

Just when one might think the church is at a low and ready to rise out of the false theories of forgiveness it has been teaching, another false doctrine is introduced. Cyprian introduces a forgiveness of sins by church membership. With this false doctrine men are the gate keepers determining who is forgiven and who is not. He says, there is no salvation (forgiveness) outside the church. Cyprian's motives were pure. He was simply trying to protect the church from heretics, but in doing so damaged the church by the errors he introduced.

Cyprian was correct in his stating that there is no salvation outside the church, but he had the wrong definition of the church and this gave birth to even more errors. If he simply viewed the church as all those professing faith in Christ making up the spiritual body of Christ, he would have avoided much error. But instead, he viewed the church as the physical body of people whose local Bishop can be traced back to an Apostle, and whose doctrinal beliefs are the same as the Bishop of Rome.

This error should have been rejected when it first appeared, but instead it was nurtured and grew into a huge monster. If a believer in Christ does not accept this principle of apostolic succession tracing back to the catholic church at Rome, he was by reason of this doctrine considered outside of Christ and thus a pagan. Salvation was impossible for such a person.

He who does not keep this unity does not keep the law of God, nor the faith of the Father and the Son- nor life and salvation. (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church, 6)

The true doctrine of forgiveness based on the merits of Christ alone is now nowhere to be found, and would not be found until the church drifts still further away.

Augustine- Christ plus baptism and the Lord's Supper (c. 400)

Augustine was not immune from the works based salvation teachings of his day. He was infected by them as well. Augustine may have placed more emphasis on one's sins being forgiven based solely on the merits of Christ, but he still does not look to that event alone as the basis for one's justification. Consider the following which he wrote during his conflicts with Pelagius, which occurred near the end of his life, and thus his most mature thoughts.

To the man who believes in Him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is imputed for righteousness. (Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book 1, Ch. 18)

One could point to this statement and conclude that Augustine believed the only basis for one's sins being forgiven is faith in the atoning work of Christ. However, when Augustine's statement is taken in its proper context, one finds something quite different. While Augustine does place a major emphasis on the atonement of Christ, faith in that work alone says Augustine is not sufficient to save. To the atoning work of Christ, the works of baptism and partaking of the Lord's Supper must be added. This Augustine states just a few chapters after this grand statement on justification by faith.

The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than "salvation," and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than "life..." For wherein does their opinion, who designate baptism by the term salvation, differ from what is written: "He saved us by the washing of regeneration?" or from Peter's statement: "The like figure where-unto even baptism doth also now save us?"... If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord's body and blood... (Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book 1, Ch. 34)

Still further in this writing one finds Augustine's teachings on sins after baptism, the same as those who preceded him. That is, the merits of man are necessary to atone for sins committed after baptism. Consider the following quote from a chapter later in this same book with the heading "Works of Mercy- Means of Wiping Out Sins".

The Lord, ... was pleased to provide and endow with efficacious virtue certain healthful remedies against the guilt and bonds even of sins committed after baptism, for instance, the works of mercy, as when he says: "Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; give, and it shall be given unto you." (Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book 2, Ch. 3)

What Augustine has done with his teachings is make baptism and other works of man ingredients into being forgiven of sins, instead of faith in the atoning work of Christ. This teaching would be formally accepted at a church council in 529 A.D. It teaches that the justification of man is based on a work of man, namely baptism. This makes baptism part of the justification process. Consider what was concluded by the council concerning this teaching.

Canon 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36). (Council of Orange, [529 A.D.])

Although Augustine was mired in the works based salvation system of his day still, he stood against the majority view that man with his free will is able to desire the things of God. Augustine said that man's free will is capable of many things, but it was ruined by sin and now incapable of leading to man's justification unless it is first liberated by grace. That is, man's mind is not only incapable to leading him to justification, it will not even desire justification unless God changes it. This thought would be a key element of Martin Luther's thinking on the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Thus Augustine does not turn the theological thinking of his peers to the merits of the atonement of Christ, but rather supports the continual drift towards salvation based on the merits of man. The drift continues, and with the next generation it will include assent to creeds for one's justification.

Christ plus Propositions (c. 500)

The works based salvational system so clearly presented by Cyprian is still having a major influence hundreds of years later. This can be illustrated by an early church writing called the Athanasian Creed (not believed to be written by Athanasius). It states in clear terms that some believed correct doctrine resulted in one's salvation. From the council of Nicea (325 A.D.), to the council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), orthodox statements concerning the Trinity had been established. Heretics were still challenging these statements, and as a result, some came up with a new document stating that those who did not affirm the decisions of these early councils were not considered true Christians. The church is trying to protect what it considers precious, but deals with the issue wrongly. These innocent intentions keep leading the church further and further away from the truth. Consider this short portion of the Athanasian Creed.

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance... Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It took the church about 400 years to define its doctrine of the Trinity. Within that 400 years, the church really only placed boundaries around this Biblical doctrine. It did not explain the mystery of the Trinity, it only placed bounds around what was considered orthodox. Therefore, the church wrestled with this doctrine for over 400 years, yet in near the year 500 A.D. the church now teaches one must affirm it to be save. The goal of protecting the faith from heretics was noble, but their approach has no scriptural support. This continues the slide further into doctrinal error.

The church for the most part was stagnate for the next 500 years, a period of time known as the middle ages. No major theological contributions would arise during this time. At the end of this period however, an important contribution to the justification by faith alone doctrine would be made. Anselm shows that salvation based on any merits of man is a contradiction.

Man cannot pay the debt owed for his sins (c. 1050)

Until Anselm of Canterbury it was rare for anyone to speak as if he understood that man has nothing to offer God in exchange for the forgiveness of sins. The dominant thought was being baptized, or performing some act of charity was sufficient to cancel sins committed. Anselm is his writing "Why God became Man," explains why this is not possible. Anselm shows man has no capability to make satisfaction to God for even the smallest of his sins.

Anselm starts by explaining what it means to sin, and how to make satisfaction for it. He notes all the thoughts and labors of a man ought to be subject to the will of God. This is the debt that all men owe to God, and it is sin to not give Him that. No one who pays this debt sins, and anyone who does not pay it sins. Should one sin against God, it is not enough to simply return what was taken. To make satisfaction one must return more than was taken. It is not enough for someone who has injured another to restore his original condition without giving some compensation for the pain and injury suffered. (Anselm, Why God became Man, Book 1, Ch. XI)

When man sinned in the garden, and surrendered his will to the devil, he took from God whatever God planned for humanity. Therefore, according to strict justice in order to make satisfaction with God, man would need to conquer the devil to regain what was lost. Since man was conquered by the devil and stole what belonged to God, and God lost it, so by the fact of man conquering the devil, the devil loses and God regains it. In addition, man would also need to justify as many men as God had planned for the Heavenly City that was lost due to the fall. However, sinful man is incapable of this, because a sinner cannot justify another sinner. Therefore man has no capacity to merit any justice from God for the things he does. Anything man may consider offering to God is only giving to God what is already owed. (Anselm, Why God became Man, Book 1, Ch. XXIII)

It would not be until 500 years later and Martin Luther, that many would understand the full weight of Anselm arguments. In the light of such convincing arguments, it makes previous church council matters on reinstating lapsed Christians and the like seem rather petty. Man has no ability to do penance for any of his sins, so it seems rather foolish to construct systems whereby satisfaction is made to God based on man's so-called merits. If the church considered this bigger problem initially, they may not have invented so many things for one to do to obtain forgiveness of sins. They did not before Anselm, nor after him. As a result the church continues to develop its merits based salvational system, until the weight of this system brings about its own collapse.

Man's merit based salvational system spins out of control (c. 1200 - 1500)

When the early bishops of the church first linked baptism and salvation together, it was a rather innocent mistake. The church was in the midst of a transition from the old covenant to the new covenant. Many were being killed, scattered, and persecuted. The scriptures were not easily accessible by the common people, and the New Testament canon was in the process of being established. This period can better be described as one of survival, rather than theological reflection. It is therefore understandable that they did not develop a solid understanding of the relationship between baptism and salvation. However, this innocent error became the fountainhead of many more errors. By the 13th century, these previous errors were gaining a structure, and would soon be firmly in place. For example, during this period a church council declared that sins committed after baptism would now need to be confessed to a priest. The priest would give the prescribed actions for the confessing sinner to carry out so his sins could be atoned for. It was mandated that this be observed at least once a year.

All the faithful of either sex, after they have reached the age of discernment, should individually confess all their sins in a faithful manner to their own priest at least once a year, and let them take care to do what they can to perform the penance imposed on them. [Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 21, [1215])

This foolish practice would give birth to more errors yet. With the structure in place of the priest prescribing atoning acts for one's personal sins, the confessing sinner became easy to manipulate. The church used this process for financial gain, and various other forms of persuasion. This grew into a system known as indulgences. Through the indulgence system, services could be performed on behalf of the church, or money given to support a church project, in exchange for laxer forms of penance to be performed. For example, when the church was involved with a crusade to gain back control of the holy land, the following degree was given.

It is our ardent desire to liberate the holy Land from infidel hands. We therefore declare, with the approval of this sacred council and on the advice of prudent men who are fully aware of the circumstances of time and place, that crusaders are to make themselves ready... We therefore, trusting in the mercy of almighty God and in the authority of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, do grant, by the power of binding and loosing that God has conferred upon us, albeit unworthy, unto all those who undertake this work in person and at their own expense, full pardon for their sins about which they are heartily contrite and have spoken in confession, and we promise them an increase of eternal life at the recompensing of the just; also to those who do not go there in person but send suitable men at their own expense, according to their means and status, and likewise to those who go in person but at others' expense, we grant full pardon for their sins. [Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 71, [1215])

By the 1500's, the system of indulgences became a means of raising money for church projects. Pope Leo X in 1516 granted indulgences to those who contributed to the building of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Commissioners, more commonly know as an indulgence preachers were appointed to collect money for this project.

Martin Luther came into contact with one such indulgence preacher that moved him to action. The thought of one buying satisfaction from God, in connection with his studying of the scriptures, caused Martin Luther much anguish. Luther concluded as Anselm did hundreds of years earlier. Man is unable to perform meritorious works for sins to be forgiven. In opposition to the popular Indulgence teachings of his time, in 1517 he wrote a list of 95 theses against indulgences, and nailed them to the door of the church in Wittenberg, and the Reformation was born.

A new beginning for justification by faith alone (1517)

The church journeyed for 1500 years trying to find the answer to that most important question, by what means can sins be forgiven. The church initially did not think the atonement of Christ alone of sufficient for the cancelling of sin. Then after struggling for years and years in 1517 the answer was clearly articulated. Not only was the atonement of Christ sufficient for the cancelling of sins, but no human works could be added to it to cancel sins. All that left of man was to accept by faith that a full payment was made for all sins past, present, and future.

When Martin Luther said "the just shall live by faith", he was really saying the old system of performing works in an attempt to satisfy God was all wrong. Our only hope of satisfying God is by having the merits of Christ imputed to us through faith. Man cannot contribute towards his own salvation. This is completely different than being forgiven of sin in baptism and atoning for personal sins after that on a regular basis. As James Buchanan correctly notes, the one is founded on the finished work of Christ, while the other depends on the imperfect works of sinful men. Man has no resources whereby to atone for any sins. All that he might do in an attempt to atone for sin would only be his duty.

To add any of man's merits, of which he has none, to the atonement of Christ to be forgiven of sins, is to confess to God that the atonement of Christ was incomplete. It is to say that man in some way deserves to be praised, and receive honor from God for completing the saving of his soul. For without such help, God alone could not bring such a one to heaven. Man can thank Christ for his contribution to his salvation, but he cannot thank Christ for it unconditionally, for Christ did not secure the forgiveness for past, present,and future sins according to this false system. Such are the logical consequences of man attempting to add to the atoning work of Christ.

God used Martin Luther to expose the corruptions during his day, and as a result a new movement was started. This movement is known as the Protestant Reformation. The name Protestant is a good one, because it was a collection of people protesting to the unscriptural practices that were being done in the name of Christ. As Luther protested to the practices during his day, the need for protest still exists, since those practices Luther listed as unscriptural are still occurring today. The system of man atoning for his sins, and gaining indulgences are still being taught. While the abuses are not as great, the basic system is still in place. Consider the following proclamation by one of the leaders of this system.

With regard to the required conditions, the faithful can gain the Jubilee indulgence:

1) In Rome, if they make a pious pilgrimage to one of the Patriarchal Basilicas, namely, the Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican, ... or some pious exercise (e.g., the Stations of the Cross, the Rosary, the recitation of the Akathistos Hymn in honour of the Mother of God)...

The plenary indulgence of the Jubilee can also be gained through actions which express in a practical and generous way the penitential spirit which is, as it were, the heart of the Jubilee. This would include abstaining for at least one whole day from unnecessary consumption (e.g., from smoking or alcohol, or fasting or practising abstinence according to the general rules of the Church and the norms laid down by the Bishops' Conferences) and donating a proportionate sum of money to the poor; supporting by a significant contribution works of a religious or social nature (especially for the benefit of abandoned children, young people in trouble, the elderly in need, foreigners in various countries seeking better living conditions). (Incarnationis Mysterium, Bull of Indiction of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000, [November 29, 1998])

In conclusion then, the history of justification by faith alone is the development of two ways for one to be forgiven of sin. One way says the merits of man's works plus Christ are need for forgiveness. The other way says the merits of Christ alone received through faith are all that is needed. It is the opinion of this writer that the first way seriously degrades the work of Christ, for it implies the sinner is worthy of some praise for his salvation, but the scriptures teach that Christ is worthy of this praise.