Friday, June 25, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Friday, June 4, 2010
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.
by
Thomas R. Thompson
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)
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 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.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Jesus Christ is Not Politically Correct by John MacArthur
Let's be brutally honest: most of Jesus' teaching is completely out of sync with the mores that dominate our culture.
I'm talking, of course, about the Jesus we encounter in Scripture, not the always-gentle, never-stern, super-lenient coloring-book character who exists only in the popular imagination. The real Jesus was no domesticated clergyman with a starched collar and genteel manners; he was a bold, uncompromising Prophet who regularly challenged the canons of political correctness.
Consider the account of Jesus' public ministry given in the New Testament. The first word of his first sermon was "Repent!"--a theme that was no more welcome and no less strident-sounding than it is today. The first act of his public ministry touched off a small riot. He made a whip of cords and chased money-changers and animal merchants off the Temple grounds. That initiated a three-year-long conflict with society's most distinguished religious leaders. They ultimately handed him over to Roman authorities for crucifixion while crowds of lay people cheered them on.
Jesus was pointedly, deliberately, and dogmatically counter-cultural in almost every way. No wonder the religious and academic aristocracy of his generation were so hostile to him.
Would Jesus receive a warmer welcome from world religious leaders, the media elite, or the political gentry today? Anyone who has seriously considered the New Testament knows very well that he would not. Our culture is devoted to pluralism and tolerance; contemptuous of all absolute or exclusive truth-claims; convinced that self-love is the greatest love of all; satisfied that most people are fundamentally good; and desperately wanting to believe that each of us is endowed with a spark of divinity.
Against such a culture Jesus' message strikes every discordant note.
Check the biblical record. Jesus' words were full of hard demands and stern warnings. He said, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and is himself destroyed or lost?" (Luke 9:23-25). "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26).
At one point an unthinkable Roman atrocity took the lives of many Galilean pilgrims who had come to worship in Jerusalem. Pilate, the Roman governor, ordered his men to murder some worshipers and then mingled their blood with the sacrifices they were offering. While the city was still reeling from that awful disaster, a tower fell in the nearby district of Siloam and instantly snuffed out eighteen more lives.
Asked about these back-to-back tragedies, Jesus said, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:2-5).
Ignoring the normal rules of taste, tact, and diplomacy, Jesus in effect declared that all his listeners were sinners in need of redemption. Then, as now, that message was virtually guaranteed to offend many--perhaps most--of Jesus' audience.
Those with no sense of personal guilt--including the vast majority of religious leaders--were of course immediately offended. They were convinced they were good enough to merit God's favor. Who was this man to summon them to repentance? They turned away in angry unbelief.
The only ones not offended were those who already sensed their guilt and were crushed under the weight of its burden. Unhindered by indignation or self-righteousness, they could hear the hope implicit in Jesus' words. For them, the repeated phrase "unless you repent" pointed the way to redemption.
Elsewhere, Jesus made the promise of life and forgiveness explicit: "He who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life" (John 5:24). "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand" (John 10:27-28).
Proud people, including lots of religious people who call themselves Christians, don't really believe Christ's message at all. He said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance" (Mark 2:17).
So what would Jesus say to a pluralistic, tolerant, self-indulgent society like ours? I'm convinced his approach today would be the very same strategy we see in the New Testament. To smug, self-satisfied, arrogant sinners (including multitudes on church rolls) his words would sound harsh, shocking, provocative. But to "the poor in spirit" (Matthew 5:3)--those who are exhausted and spent by the ravages of sin; desperate for forgiveness and without any hope of atoning for their own sin--Jesus' call to repentant faith remains the very gateway to eternal life.
This is a particularly hard message in cultures like ours that elevate self-love, self-esteem, or self-righteousness, but Jesus was absolutely clear, and these words do still speak to us: "Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 18:14).
Dr. John MacArthur, pastor of 7,000-member Grace Community Church in Southern California, is a best-selling author of more than 200 books and study guides. His new book is "The Jesus You Can't Ignore: What You Must Learn from the Bold Confrontations of Christ."
Monday, May 24, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
For Pete's sake save Pete the Moose
Help Us to Save Pete the Moose!
Welcome to the Official Site of Pete the Moose in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom! The story of Pete and his human friend, David, is a unique tale. Pete was attacked by dogs and mauled when he was about 5 days old. Vermont Fish and Wildlife told the people who found Pete to let him die. They couldn't bear to just leave him there. So, they took him to a kind man named David Lawrence, and he nursed Pete back to health.
In saving his life & caring for him over 14 months, Pete & David forged a special friendship. But as a result of this same closeness, Pete LOVES people, and so he does not have the normal fear of Man that he should. It would have been VERY dangerous for him to be released back into the wild. So David found an enclosed, 600-acre ranch in the area that is fenced in. The Game Reserve is owned by another nice man named Doug, and he generously provided Pete a place where he (ironically)could live a wild life safe from hunters. Pete lives there along with about 120 other deer and moose that have also gotten thru the "State Designed and Approved" fence.
Enter the Bureaucrats... Now the Vermont Department of Fish & Wildlife wants to destroy Pete & the other animals there. Part of Pete's diet comes from from animal feed. Because of this, Vermont State Officials claim animals there could contract something called "Chronic Wasting Disease", a brain ailment that affects deer-like animals, and which can be spread animal-to-animal or via feed. And so the Dept of F&W would like to "remove" the deer and moose that now inhabit this property. And by "remove", they mean "kill". They have known about us all along, but they didn't care to try and help out a long time ago. Instead, they sat back and did nothing until now...
WE NEED YOUR HELP TO SAVE PETE! We DO NOT want Pete destroyed! We DO NOT want Pete in a zoo! And we want the Governor to put whatever promises he makes about what will happen to Pete to be put in writing! Read on below to learn the ways that YOU can help us to Save Pete the Moose!
Please go to savepetethemoose.org to sign the ePetition!
Monday, May 17, 2010
Head Coverings for Women by George Mattern
Head Coverings are not required for all Christian women
It is evident that the question of head coverings is, indeed, a cultural issue confined to the Corinthian church--and not a requirement for all Christian women of all ages--for the following reasons:
If head coverings for women were a universal requirement, why are they mentioned only in the epistle to the Corinthians? Remember that the Christians of the first century did not have complete Bibles like we do today. Different epistles to different churches dealt with various issues that needed to be addressed and clarified for those specific churches. Universal principles are restated and reaffirmed by different epistles in a variety of contexts and applications. So, why does Paul not mention the requirement of women wearing head coverings when he writes to Timothy about church authority and function? Rread 1 Tim. 2:9-15, in which Paul specifically delineates the principles of female conduct in the church--you will find NO MENTION of a head covering requirement, although the universal principle of female submission is asserted clearly. Paul even talks about how women are to dress (vs. 9)--and he mentions hair in that verse--but he says nothing about a head covering. Would that not be the obvious place to find such a requirement, if it were intended to be universal...?
The UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE of women in submission to their husbands was and is the real issue. That's why Paul writes, "Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:3). He then goes on to explain that the wearing of head coverings "while praying" was a particular way that the Christian women in Corinth could demonstrate that principle in a manner that would be readily recognizable to the people in the surrounding culture.
The wearing of head coverings, then, is the concession made by Corinthian women to the accepted norms of their society, the violation of which would imply that women in the church were NOT in submission to their husbands. Unbelievers not being familiar with their attitudes and practices, the only effective way for Christians to exemplify their fidelity to this genuine principle of God's economy would be to cooperate with the cultural practices that signify such accord.
Here's another example (among many) of how believers made concessions on behalf of those around them. Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 7:19--"Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God." He insisted to the Judaizers in the church who wanted to impose circumcision as a condition of salvation: "If you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you" (Gal. 5:2). But, in Acts 16:3, Luke reports that Paul took Timothy "and circumcised him"--Why would he do that? Luke continues--"because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek." Paul knew that circumcision and head coverings mean nothing in themselves--but he commanded both IN THE SPECIFIC SITUATIONS AND SETTINGS where those actions were the only way to externally demonstrate the much more important internal principle of SUBMISSION TO GOD. The Jews believed circumcision was still the physical proof that a man was in obedience to God, and without such evidence a Jewish Christian would have no opportunity to even begin to witness to his people about what constitutes true obedience to God. And how could the Corinthian church call its contemporaries to obedience of God's commands if, in their eyes, the church woman were in flagrant disobedience of Him...?
Practical Considerations
The practice of men removing their hats when praying (or entering a building, for that matter) is also a cultural concession by which we “respect what is right in the sight of all men” (Rom. 12:17). It is considered disrespectful to have a hat on at the dinner table (at least the way my dad taught me), or in various other situations, including public prayer.
As for prayer, it is likely that the conventions of modern society in this regard were heavily influenced by the Scriptures, particularly 1 Cor. 11. But, if Paul was giving a universal, inviolable moral principle when insisting that, “Every man who has something on his head while praying...disgraces his head” (1 Cor. 11:4), does that mean that a firefighter entering a burning building with his bunker gear--including a protective helmet “on his head”--should refrain from praying? I don’t know about you, but I’d rather “disgrace” my head than “lose” it...
Also, I have witnessed first hand how certain religious groups have taken the requirement for women to wear head coverings and pressed it to such a legalistic extreme that it would be laughable, if not for the pain and anguish such foolishness causes. As usual with human traditions, the fastidious Pharisees end up “straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel” because it is so easy to focus on things like wearing head coverings and tithing garden seeds while “neglecting the weightier provisions of the Law, like justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Mat. 23:23-24). Mennonite women are required to wear a head covering all the time—bud didn’t Paul specify that the covering was to be worn “while praying”? (1 Cor. 11:5). “Well,” retorts the fastidious Pharisee, searching desperately for a Biblical justification of his tradition—“Doesn’t the Scripture say, ‘Pray without ceasing’?” (1 Thes. 5:17). And so, armed with that doctrinal bludgeon, the leaders of such groups mercilessly beat upon the heads of women who do not conform to that tradition. And sadly, as Mark explained in his gospel, “there are many other things which they have received in order to observe” (Mk. 7:4).
And so, let any sincere Christians take heed to himself or herself--“beware and be on your guard against every form of greed” (Lk. 12:15)—in this case, “greed” for the personal merit, recognition, and approval arising from conformity to an outward tradition. In this and every other case, “greed...amounts to idolatry” (Col. 3:5), and self-idolatry is the most insidious and dangerous form of all. Many who would never think of bowing and worshipping before a golden image are all too eager to do just that in front of a mirror...
A Further Question
If head coverings are to be normative for all Christian woman on the basis of Paul's appeal to the purpose of God in creation (according to one interpretation of 1 Cor. 11:8-9), this inspires a crucial question:
Immediately after the Fall and God's pronouncement of the Curse, Genesis 3:21 says, "The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them." Since this was the beginning of humans wearing clothing, why did God not make a head covering for Eve, and command her and all of her daughters to wear such a covering as the universal "symbol of authority" (1 Cor. 11:10)...?
The answer to this question--and the reason why no woman was ever commanded to wear a "symbol of authority" on her head until the writing of 1 Corinthians--must be that such an accoutrement was specific to the culture and society of the city of Corinth. In appealing to the order and purposes of God in creation, Paul was validating the UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE of wives being in submission to their husbands--the demonstration of which was the wearing of a head covering by women IN CORINTH in that particular historical and cultural context.
To take this practice out of that historical context and make it a normative requirement for all Christian women is tantamount to manufacturing an unnecessary external ritualistic observance--which is another way to say that it is rendered meaningless because external ritualism has a tendency to obscure or marginalize the internal realities that the outward act is supposedly designed to signify.
This is certainly true of the multiplied man-made rituals that have defaced the pure skin of genuine religion with the ugly tattoo of human invention--but, it can also be an adverse effect associated with the gneuine ordinances givne to the Church by God. A prime example of this is baptism, which was originally intended to signify the positional "immersion" of a new believer into the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:3-7). But, when man tampers with God's valid "ordinance" and turns it into a "sacrament", it is divorced from its original intent and perverted into being a religious ritual performed by a person in order to gain merit or approval from God. This is the fertile seed-bed of the heresy of "Baptismal Regeneration" and many other abominations in the realm of human religious presumptuousness.
Another example of taking a physical act out of its historical context and improperly imposing it upon the entire church is foot washing. The washing of feet was a common necessity in ancient times, and a courtesy extended to visitors when they entered a home. In this age of modern footwear, however, it is unnecessary, but some have turned it into yet another religious ritual on the basis of Jesus' exhortation that "You also ought to wash one another's feet" (Jn. 13:14). It is painfully obvious that the Lord was not instituting a ritual for the whole church to observe, but rather using His act of washing the Disciple's feet as an EXAMPLE--in that historical context--of the UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE of selfless service rendered to others! To turn it into a relitious ritual, as usual, misses the whole point!!!
George Mattern 1/21/2010 1:24:06 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)