Dialoguing, part 3

As this seems destined to become quite a series, I think that your last post, Susan, raises too many issues to answer in one post.  In addition, not all of my direct questions were answered, meaning that I am still at a loss understanding the position for which you debate. 

To start, I am going to review my questions and make sure that I have a grip on your responses.  What is the problem?  Incredibly, we identify the problem in similar terms, but we seem to have a different understanding of the history of the American church.  I will spend some time in this area.  The question concerning phonemes and pictographs deserves a linguistic response, and that I will give.  The question that might have been the second most important asked regarding continuing revelation was unanswered.  If your experience differs from mine, how do we know whose revelation is correct?  And then that favorite buzzword comes up, “relationship.” You have stated yourself that people do not know God.  How then can they have a relationship with One Whom they do not know?  Finally, it seems that exegesis will be a necessary part of the discussion.  My position has been articulated in the many, many posts linked to the right.  But rather than just pointing and saying read this, let’s try a couple of passages out for size and see what happens.  I’m willing to go in that direction for now.

The problem.  Historically, what was the main issue behind the Protestant Reformation?  The issue can be boiled down to one of authority.  If there can be more than one pope at a time, (there were actually three at one time in the 15^th century,) and the pope is infallible, then how do we believe this situation as mere humans?  The answer was the Wycliffe run to the authority of scripture.  Scripture is fixed.  It is an immutable authority.  While interpretation may vary, interpretation is a product of man.  Scripture is the inspired Word of God, perhaps better termed the expired or breathed Word of God.  The reason that Reformed get so bent out of shape about continuing revelation is that it smacks of popery, and we have already had enough martyrs for that cause.

You raise the question that if the Pentecostal Movement is the culprit, then why haven’t the mainline denominations given into the Pentecostal reformative process of the last century?  OK, here’s your answer: of course they have.  Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the theology of the mainline denominations has been there, and in fact, they were there before the Evangelicals got there.  The mainline denominations are to some small degree coming back towards some semblance of orthodoxy.  They have seen the logical end point of that path in horror and are warning the Evangelicals against their current course.  Let’s look at this in terms of the US historical experience before we tackle the theology.  Leaving the philosophical effects of the First and Second Great Awakenings aside for a moment, let’s look at two of the main movers and shakers of the modern American church: John Wesley and Charles Finney. 

John Wesley was an Anglican who had his Moravian boating experience and then rejected Calvinism.  Simplistic, yes, I know.  But bear with me.  He became enamored of the Arminian theology that was infecting the Church of England.  His application of this theology in a society that was individualistic and self reliant to a fault, 18^th century America, led to a practice that fit more with the Arminian theology than the liturgy of the Church of England.  Then, along comes Charles Finney, a thorough going Pelagian, who talks of excitements and a bench of expectation or some such nonsense.  It was the forerunner of the altar call. Here is one of several articles I can provide on the irony of Charles Finney as a Christian leader.  The problem when you take all of the teeth out of the Law and all of the Grace out of the Gospel is that what you have left is a religion of individualism. God helps those who help themselves, and a nation that actually believes that statement is Biblical.  When we all can have our own private revelation that is different from scripture, outside of scripture, where is the authority?  We have moved from a flawed pope to a total lack of authority.  Failure to see the Evangelical movement, the Pentecostal movement, the Wesleyan movement as effected by Finney is naïve.  Regarding the protestant liberals, those mainline denominations we were talking about, those are the very churches to whom Dorothy Sayers was referring.  They are not following the Pentecostal movement.  They were there first.  We can talk about Mechan next, if you like.  That link is actually posted to the right.

Linguistics.  One of the languages that I have studied is Sanskrit.  It is perhaps second in line of all Indo-European languages going back in its roots 5000 years.  While the Asian languages developed in a decidedly pictographic direction, the Indo-Iranian languages, e.g. Persian, evolved differently.  Sanskrit, still, is typologically unique in its absolutely phonetic alphabet.  The symbols all represent discrete sounds that have been unchanged in over 4000 years.  The reason is that the words represent ideas.  Sanskrit was involved in the holy writings of the Hindu and therefore the hope was to pass these writings down untainted through time.  By holding the phonetic quality tightly unchanged, the meanings of the words were similarly unchanged.  This extreme is not represented across the rest of the Indo-European languages, but it does serve to point out that language developed more phonetically in the West.  This is not to divorce all pictographic aspects from Western language, but it is to call into question any over reliance in that sort of system in Western language. Take the Egyptians as an example.  We assumed for decades that the “pictographs” on the temples and pyramids were of the Eastern language type.  The Rosetta Stone made clear that even the pictures of the Egyptians were used phonetically.  While there will be some overlap in our study of languages, it should not be assumed that any significant meaning can be gleaned from a pictographic interpretation of Hebrew, Aramaic, Persian, Greek or Latin.

Experience.  This is the most troubling of all the issues that we raised.  If my experience is different than all ten people in the room, who am I to say that my experience is the authentic experience?  There is no remaining authority upon which to make that judgment.  This is the logical extension of continuing revelation in the way in which it is practiced today.  No adequate discussion of that topic is ever forthcoming.  The authority of scripture is diminished by this practice.  As I said before, Luther’s writings are not a part of the Canon, not even for Lutherans.  Until there is a clear understanding of the Holiness of God and the authority of scripture, this conversation will continue to be apples and prairie dogs.

Relationship.  You ask if I testify to an active relationship with Christ?  No, I don’t.  My experience with Christ is not relevant to anyone else.  The problem is that people do not know who God is.  The Holiness of God and His absolute Holiness is not understood.  The complete sinfulness of all sin is meaningless.  The depth of our despair is unknown.  We are a vast sea of death before the feet of God.  Christ accomplished changing that situation.  As he says in John’s gospel, “It is finished.” This is news, good news, in fact.  My relationship with Him is not relevant to that news.  I proclaim the Good News of Christ Crucified (meaning that as a shorthand for Christ’s incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension.)  The Holy Spirit is responsible for the individual responses of people.  My telling of my response has little more than passing fancy to that rare interested person.  The news is the thing.  The news is the Word that saves.  It’s all about the News.  So, no, I don’t spend 2 seconds on my relationship with Christ in a discussion with others.  I just want to talk about Christ.

Exegesis.  Since you mentioned Psalms, I wanted to do one of those first, but I’m short on time this week.  So, with some indulgence, perhaps we can consider Isaiah 59.  We can try Psalm 36  or 140 or something else perhaps in the future.  And we can do Acts 2 if you like.  You mentioned Peter’s Pentecost sermon in your first post.  We’ll do that passage as well.  That will be more than plenty for a couple of posts each.  I’ll work on those for you soon.

– Ogre –

With Troll watching closely….

Election from Dr. Riddlebarger

Sometimes the best posts are links to another's work. 

Dr. Riddlebarger has been running a series similar to my own.  Even though we are going a bit out of order with this, I thought I'd post it.

Election

Troll

Justification

Returning to our building blocks series on vocabulary, today we are going to tackle one of the most important terms in all of Christian theology.  Raise your hand if you have ever heard this term in a sermon at church.  Really?

Justification.  From Webster, justification is the act of proving or showing one to be just, right, or reasonable.  Let’s not spend any time considering the obvious breakdown in terms of man, but instead, let’s think of these ideas from the perspective of God.  On the Last Day, we will quite literally face a trial.  There will be a judge.  The charge is sin and the penalty is eternal damnation.  What is just?  God’s view of justice, we have seen is perfect obedience to His will.  What is right or righteous?  What can we say about the righteousness of God?  This perfect righteousness has been attained by one Man only.  Is this reasonable?  When the writer of the rulebook says that these are the rules, I’d say it is perfectly reasonable as well.  Justification is the means by which people may obtain perfect righteousness before God on Judgment Day.  Let’s break it down again by groups.

Pelagian.  Remember that this groups starts from the denial of original sin.  Therefore, Adam is a bad example and Jesus is a good example.  That is why the question “What would Jesus do?” is appropriate in this context.  There is no imputation of Christ’s righteousness.  All of our efforts in our life time become the grounds for our justification.  We will be judged based upon our own actions, thoughts and omissions.  Our lives will be on display and we will be judged.  This is clearly fair.  No one will deny that this is the most fair system.  I have two questions: is it the most Biblical system, and do you really want fair?

Semipelagian.  This group starts with original sin that is subsequently cleansed for all of mankind by the work of Jesus Christ on the Cross.  Our righteousness is still based upon our own efforts in thought, word and deed, by what we have done and what we have left undone.  At Judgment, we will be able to say that we got a good start with a clean slate.  But the righteousness of Jesus is not imputed to us beyond the moment of our birth.  From then on, we are back to “What would Jesus Do?” as our road map to Salvation.  Once again, this is fair to us, though not so much to Jesus who had to die to give us that fresh start.  Therefore, God designed a system that was fair to the creature, but not to Himself.  Really?  That’s what we want to believe?

Arminianism.  We are entering the realm of prevenient grace, yet again.  At the moment we receive prevenient grace, and cooperate with God by believing and having faith, we are justified.  The trouble is in the issue of maintaining that justification.  The rest of our lives involves our vocabulary word for the next post, sanctification.  Even though there is a prevenient grace that precedes our response, this is still a synergistic system of justification.  Justification is by grace through faith, but not by grace alone through faith alone.

Roman Catholicism.  In order to understand the Roman Catholic view of justification, we need to start with something very similar to the Arminian view of justification, and then add the Arminian view of sanctification, to get a combined justification and sanctification that is the full Roman Catholic definition of justification.  In other words, Rome has no use for sanctification; to Rome, it is all part of the same thing.  This is not an altogether unhelpful concept as it is at least honest.  But because the first part is as a result as the input of prevenient grace, the second part which we view as sanctification is pure works, albeit within the context of the infusion of regular dosed inputs of grace.  There is no way to be clear on this topic in one paragraph, so if this seems confusing, it is because the terms are not the same in this system.

Reformed and Calvinism.  We are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone to the glory of God alone as testified in scripture alone.  Every part of that sentence has historical references and is worthy of conversation.  We will be going through each of the five solas in the near future.  The bottom line is that this is a system of monergism; God does it all.  Our justification before God on the Last Day is based solely upon the imputed righteousness of Christ to us, with absolutely no contribution of our own merits.  Our faith that brings this righteousness to us is solely a gift from God through the power of the Holy Spirit, having no input of cooperation from us whatever.  We don’t think about any aspect of the Law as capable of contributing to justification, only as defining the terms required for justification.  We do not presume to elevate ourselves to a position capable of contributing anything worthwhile to the efforts of Jesus on the cross; it is all to the Glory of God alone, not to us.

This was intended as a brief overview of the basic positions, a reference point.  In one sermon this past week, I heard a basically Arminian definition of justification articulated, without ever using the Biblical term justification, followed by thirty minutes of rambling explanation that sounded semipelagian or Pelagian in the amount of effort required for justification.  This illustrates two important points.  The reason that we don’t have the vocabulary any longer is that even when discuss the topics, we don’t hear the Biblical words used.  This leads to imprecision and a muddying of waters that I believe is intentional.  Second, the exegesis that passes for scholarly and Biblical most often fails to view these definitions in light of the redemptive historical narrative.  There is a metanarrative that has been lost as well as the vocabulary of the faith.  The two are intertwined and essential to mutual understanding.

In our next vocabulary post, we will attempt to unravel the key distinctives of sanctification.

– Troll –

Defending Doctrine

With the timeliness that suggests providence, the New Reformation Press reprinted a fabulous quote from the English writer of the early 20^th century, Dorothy Sayers, that is a great starting point for tonight’s rebuttal.  Here is the link:

            The New Reformation Press: More Than a Feeling

I have already linked to the comments to which I will refer tonight at the end of the prior post.  The text is well written and on the whole more cordial than I have been.  Let us address then, with the decorum and grace of Christians, our differences, and see if I too can suggest a reading list that matches at the very least the distinguished names we encountered there. (There is almost no possibility that I will achieve what I am seeking to do with this post in terms of decorum, so I will apologize now so that I don’t miss my chance later.) Let’s begin.

While I would agree with Ogre that we may be worlds apart in theology and doctrine I do believe that we share a common goal in understanding that the Church needs reformation.

This sentence should take primacy in our discussion.  The importance of this next point is vital in our discussion.  If we both think the Church needs reformation, what do you believe is the problem?  If I am at all convicted that we might view the same problems, I am certain we have different solutions.  Our reformations would look nothing alike.  From my perspective, your reformation took place in the mid-19^th century, and you have already won the day.  Your reformation is the reason for the modern church we have today.  What more, pray tell, would you have us do to the church that we haven’t already done in the last 150 years?  We have revivals, altar calls, modern music, an abandonment of the word and sacrament means of grace, and a disdain for doctrine that would truly embarrass and disappoint Screwtape all the more.  Where else can you go to destroy the last vestiges of the Reformed tradition?

Perhaps we can find the answer to this question as we explore the next section of the post. 

I am here to testify to the power of Christ crucified and alive in me. I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God written with man’s hand and that the full meanings of Scripture are still being unlocked for us today as God reveals new truth about Himself through His Word. I believe that there are layers of meaning in Scripture when taken in the original Hebrew from both a pictographic and phonic context and that what is stated in the Bible is pertinent for today as Jesus is a fulfillment of the law as set forth in the Old Testament.

I have read this several times, and I must confess that I have no idea what it means.  As a seminary student who will soon embark upon the study of Greek and Hebrew, and as a person who has already formally studied to a limited degree four languages other than English (mastering none of them,) I have a great idea of the importance of phonemes, conjugation, inflection and grammar.  I have no idea of the pictographic or phonic context of any of those languages.  Maybe I’m just being stubborn and your meaning is the same as mine.  But there exists in this passage the insistence upon continuing revelation based upon the Word rather than as specifically and carefully recorded in the Word.  The idea of divine inspiration is being applied to the modern eye and ear receiving the Word rather than to the humans who recorded the Word.  I am here to testify to the power of Christ crucified and alive in me. This creates a situation in which there is continuing revelation.  The implication is that the revelation of redemptive history as laid out across time and as recorded in the Bible is insufficient to its stated purpose: the salvation of man.  This is a troubling perspective to me and one to which I will return in a bit.  You see, I am here to testify to Christ incarnate, crucified and arisen.  Do you see the difference?  I am not a part of the predicate of my declaration.

Not for one second do I want to challenge the experience of any person who claims the title of Christian.  I avoided that in my first post, and I shall do that now.  But I will leave this question out there on the subject: if experience is the key to conversion and ongoing revelation, and my experience is different than yours, how is the revelation the same?  How can we all call ourselves by the same label, when each has his own experience of God?  Let’s move onto the next statement I would like to discuss.

The Apostolic Reformation is not about doctrine, rules or a denomination but rather about relationships and ‘fathering’ the next generation. It is our desire to model Christ-likeness through the power of the Holy Spirit and His grace to the people around us on an intergenerational level….

My favorite line on this subject comes from Mike Horton, and he’s so well read, who knows where he found it: How can you have a relationship with someone you know little or nothing about?  Here is the problem.  If you want to go around proof texting, you are going to have to dirty your hands with some doctrine.  The two are not separable.  The Bible was not created to give us a sort of Barlett’s quotations of useful phrases to fit any occasion.  There is a story that unfolds from Genesis to Revelation, the story of the greatest rescue mission of all time.  Doctrine is the plotline of that story.  Doctrine is the story. (Paraphrasing Dorothy Sayers.) 

Rather than discussing an exegesis of Acts 2 and the Joel passage that it quotes, which I have done several times before, I want to avoid the exegesis issue with you for a while longer.  How can one at the same time as claiming not to be a theologian, nonetheless use passages towards a specific purpose or goal, the very functionality of being a theologian of one stripe or another?  We cannot debate theology when one side does not acknowledge that we are doing just that.  We are all theologians, every one of us, including the Muslims, the Buddhists and the atheists.

As a brief aside, the comparison of Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin and John Wycliffe to Pierce, Wagner and those others as like individuals is troubling.  Martin Luther, John Knox and John Calvin followed the example of Wycliffe who was perhaps first in articulating sola scriptura before we came to know that view of authority as such.  The others you mentioned absolutely do not hold to anything remotely resembling sola scriptura.  In my effort to keep my tone civil, I need to let this go.  The simplest thing to say so that I can move on is that Martin Luther’s writings are not a part of the Canon, not even for Lutherans.

On the topics of dominion and theocracy, we can agree that your first statement about not speaking for NAR is certainly true.  Your definition of dominion is completely different than that given by Wagner and has no significant eschatological import as his certainly does.  So we can safely avoid that discussion as I was remarking on Wagner’s position, not on your experience, which I have stated that I consider out of bounds. 

In your last paragraph, you returned to proof texting and using a verse out of context.  Again, I think it would be wonderful to do exegesis of some of these passages that you quoted, but it would require a commitment by you to stay the course.  What will you do when your understanding of a passage runs afoul of other passages?  Will you follow the thread of reason and discernment to a different path, or will you accept contradiction within the Word of God? 

If you want to be challenged, keep coming back.  I have only two rules that I will keep for myself on this thread.  First, I will not discuss your experience or mine for that matter.  Neither is contained within the Bible.  Second, although I linked to your website in the prior post, I do not use names on this blog.  I have been blessed with far too little humility and far too little knowledge, and I do have my own experience with the Holy Spirit.  Be that as it may, I believe that there is such a thing as saving faith and that faith has a specific object.  We can call each other brothers in Christ when that definition is at least preserved.  Please do return as this debate might be helpful to many others who read here.

And finally, as for that once promised reading list, and I’m sure I’ll be getting some suggestions from some of my brothers tomorrow, here are some that you yourself recommended in your post, indirectly of course, plus a couple of others.

The Institutes of Religion by John Calvin. 

The Small Catechism by Martin Luther.

Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis.

Putting Amazing Back into Grace by Mike Horton

Try the Building Blocks posts on this blog from this year.

And I leave you with Dorothy Sayers once again.

The brutal fact is that in this Christian country not one person in a hundred has the faintest notion what the Church teaches about God or man or society or the person of Jesus Christ.

…Theologically this country is at present is in a state of utter chaos established in the name of religious toleration and rapidly degenerating into flight from reason and the death of hope. 

– Ogre –

The New Apostolic Reformation

Earlier today, in suggesting one of the links on the lower right column of this blog, a website was recommended to me suggesting similarities between the two organizations.  The organization that I named was the magazine Modern Reformation. This magazine is the doctrinal hard copy of the White Horse Inn radio show.  The organization compared to these is the New Apostolic Reformation on a site that is called Global Spheres.  Here are the links:

Modern Reformation           WhiteHorse Inn                   Global Spheres

If you are familiar with WHI and MR, I apologize in advance.  The stated goals of these two organizations is:

We believe that each generation must rediscover and apply the gospel to their own time. We long to see a second reformation – a modern Reformation take hold of our churches and return them to the God-honoring, Christ-centered, Spirit-wrought places of worship they should be….  So, we’re putting our time and resources to work toward one, helping Christians “know what they believe and why they believe it.”

It is important to understand that their discussion is all about doctrine, all about the Gospel.  The theme is that you do not even attempt to answer questions about the world until we have the Gospel straight.  We’ll see how this works in a bit.

The stated goal of GS and the NAR is:

NAR has no official statements of theology or ecclesiology, although a large number of us do happen to agree upon many somewhat radical conclusions. Most of us have long track records of service within traditional Christianity, and we have needed to go through paradigm shifts to get where we are now. Keep in mind that one of the affects of every paradigm shift is that some people get pulled out of their comfort zones. One of the reasons for opposition to some of the more radical ideas of NAR is that certain people have decided not to change and they are upset with those who have chosen to change.

So, while one group seeks to return to Christ-centered, Bible-centered, confessional (or creedal) historic Christianity, the other group is seeking to leave this mold.  Let’s look at some specific planks of the NAR and evaluate them in terms of the historic Reformed traditions that are represented by WHI and MR. 

Apostolic governance.  This conversation is in terms of modern alignment of prophets with apostles.  The first thing for the Reformed mind to grasp is that these terms are not restricted in Pentecostal minds to the Biblical period.  Even when we will accept that prophecy in terms of using prophetic voice in teaching and instructing is a modern exercise, we would never presume to use the term “Apostle” outside of its Biblical context or timeframe.  This whole concept is a non-category to the Reformed mind.  While most Pentecostals will assume incorrectly that the reformed are all cessationists, believing that all gifts of the spirit ceased at the death of the last apostle, our understanding of the gifts of the spirit are still very much “confined” by scripture.  The understanding of the gifts of the spirit in the Reformed mind is that they are rooted in the John 14 and 16 passages as exemplified by the sermons in Acts.  In other words, the Holy Spirit was sent to testify to the truth of the Scriptures concerning Jesus Christ.  No more and no less.  The Pentecostal mind, for reasons that I personally do not understand, does not feel that this is sufficient understanding of these gifts.  This position is further fleshed out in the next few concepts. 

The office of prophet.  The Reformed will note quickly that it is always Old Testament scripture that refer to the office of prophet.  (Yes, there are 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, but that is really not the scope of this post.)  We will go on to state in a matter of fact manner that the purpose of those OT prophets was to testify to the coming messiah.  We will point to Matthew 3 and say that John the Baptist was the last of the OT prophets; because we had no need of prophets in that sense once Jesus began His earthly ministry.  But the Pentecostal will point to those same OT promises out of redemptive historical context and say look at these verses!  Here are the examples quoted by Dr. Wagner:

Surely God does nothing unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7)  Believe in the Lord your God and you shall be established; believe His prophets and you shall prosper. (2 Chronicles 20:20)

Note for ESV users, the word prosper is translated succeed for us, thus you can see immediately where that difference leads.  Yes, this is the style of Biblical interpretation that leads to the prosperity “gospel.” On another day, we can do proper Biblical exegesis of these two passages, but that is not the purpose of this post.

Dominionism.  Here we have another non-category for Reformed believers.  This word is best translated into our categories as a sort of theology of Glory.  As most of us are amillennial in our eschatology, we need to keep touch with the premillennial dispensationalism that remains the mainstay of Pentecostal theology.  This term is a gradual conversion of the world to Christianity, or the granting of dominion over the earth as it is in heaven.  This is a far cry from our understanding of the Great Commission that we hold completely satisfies the requirements prior to the second coming of Christ.  By dominionism, these Pentecostals hold that conversion of at least a majority of the earth to Christianity is necessary to induce the Second Coming, or create the necessary conditions for the Second Coming.  We will not be discussing raptures or raptors or rafters in this post.

A theocracy.  This is putting the cards on the table.  Here is where we finally can look at tangible differences that both sides understand.  The Reformed position is that the only Biblical theocracy on the planet past, present and future was First Temple Israel.  The Pentecostal, dispensational system insists that a vital part of dominionism is a Christian theocracy.  That we Reformed not only see this as unnecessary, but disagree on its Biblical foundation, is to see into the heart of the gulf between the groups.  The two kingdom motif is a category distinction that does not exist in the Pentecostal world.  It would take a careful exegesis of several parables to teach the doctrine of two kingdoms, again beyond the scope of this post, so I will defer to past and future posts on this topic.

Extra-biblical revelation.  While both groups hold that the Holy Spirit is very active in the world today, because the Pentecostals overlook the normal “relatively mundane” gifts of the Holy Spirit, they assume incorrectly that the Reformed do not have a robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit.  Instead, the work of the Holy Spirit becomes one of extra-biblical revelation.  This is not seen as directly affronting John 14 and 16.  This is seen through an interpretation of those passages that hangs upon this part of one verse.

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John 16:13 ESV)

From this half of one verse out of context, we get all of this extra-biblical revelation.  Read Dr. Wagner’s defense of this topic.  The violence that he does to the authority of scripture is the typical liberal working over.  The irony that a group that holds to the supposedly more enlightened view of the Holy Spirit has such a narrow view of inspiration when it comes to the Canon.  Arguing over the inclusion of the Apocrypha when it doesn’t support any of their arguments seems remarkable!

Supernatural signs and wonders.   Rather than spend any more energy on this topic, I’ll give it the same of course treatment that Dr. Wagner does.  Once we get to this part of the discussion, our world views, our Biblical views, our eschatology, our theology are so far apart, that I agree with him that this is an of course moment.  For the record, most Reformed to not doubt supernatural signs and wonders in the least.  They occurred all through the Bible.  They always occurred in reference with bringing Glory to God and bringing light to the story of redemptive history at that point in revelation. Our current point in the redemptive historical timeline we call the interadvental period.  Therefore, supernatural signs and wonders, when they begin to occur, should warn us that the Second Coming is truly at hand.

The last segment of Dr. Wagner’s perspective is called Relational Structures.  This is such a noncategory for the Reformed, I will defer any explanation for now.  I would like, instead to turn to the Reformed Confessions.

 The Reformed Confessions and Historical Documents

Here is the last link I will supply for this post.  It also exists at the bottom of the right column.  At this website, all of the historic Protestant confessions and catechisms can be found.  This is a valuable resource.  My Pentecostal friends, in order to understand this Reformed group with whom you so often disagree, it might be helpful to study your own history.  Eventually, you will run into one of these documents.  On this blog, I have a completed review of the 39 Articles and about ¾ of a review of the Heidelberg Catechism.  In order to have a discussion with someone who differs from your opinion, it is first important to understand their opinion.  Ignorance of these documents and their importance in the development of Protestant churches in the last 500 years is really inexcusable.  These documents are in the background of any conversation that you have with a Reformed Protestant on doctrine.

The WHI and MR have these confessions in mind when they give their mission statement that I quoted at the outset.  When you read them, you will begin to understand what we mean by the authority of scripture.

– Ogre –

The Vocabulary of the Faith: Imputation

I have tried doing posts on particular topics in the past and I have discovered that the language of the faith seems to bog down the conversation.  It was not that many years ago when I was a Biblical illiterate as well.  Biblical literacy is not just memorizing Bible verses.  Biblical literacy is having a working knowledge of the story, the major themes, the main characters.  When you studied Moby Dick in high school, your English literature teacher would not have accepted a synopsis of the novel that basically said that a whale ate Ahab’s leg, so he went on a revenge hunt.  While it is true, it does not even begin to touch on the complexity of the story.  If Ahab is an interesting character, the main character of the Bible is absolutely riveting.  Still, we have to acknowledge that the vernacular of the Bible is largely unknown or lost in this day.  My goal in the next few posts is first to introduce a few terms, then walk them through the various systems that we defined in the last few posts.  Do not worry if you do not understand them initially.  There will be a moment when it all clicks together.  Remember, this used to be standard fair for catechism of young children.  We can handle it.

Imputation.  We have already seen this word in action.  This word is a legal or accounting term in its usage.  Webster says that imputation is the attribution or ascription of a quality to a person or an object.  Webster goes on to give the word negative connotation with definitions such as accusation or insinuation, but this negative additional connotation is the result of the usage of imputation possible by a fallen creature than a quality of the term itself.  Still, we can see that we are attaching a quality to the object of the verb impute.  In its Biblical usage, imputation is a larger concept than this.  There is a specific quality of one party that we are going to not only attribute or ascribe to another, but we are going to transfer this quality to the other.  This is the legal or accounting aspect of this word.  In Les Miserables, Jean Valjean steals candlesticks from the Bishop of Digne.  When he is caught and brought back to face the Bishop, the Bishop imputes innocence to Jean Valjean, despite his clear knowledge to the contrary, in order that Jean Valjean is righteous in front of the magistrate.  Now, let’s take this into the Bible and see where and how this imputation works.

Original sin.  To understand this particular example of imputation, let’s consider a topic that is more familiar to us: inheritance.  Most of us are familiar with a document known as the Last Will and Testament.  If we are fortunate enough to have a wealthy family member who might have a bit of misfortune that results in his death, this document will distribute his worldly possessions to his family.  Now, unfortunately, if he was a horrible manager of money, the family will instead inherit his debts.  In the Biblical sense, this is the blessing and curses principle as it is applied to inheritance.  Regardless of your belief concerning a historic Adam, clearly we can use the language of government to call him the federal head of mankind.  In other words, Adam represents all of mankind in the Garden of Eden.  When Adam commits his sin, the punishment is death.  What is worse, his punishment under the curse principle is inherited by his family for a thousand generations (figuratively a very large number if you prefer.)  The bottom line is that mankind has the guilt of that sin imputed to us for the rest of time.  That’s a heavy inheritance.  The whole Old Testament is trying to teach us about this debt and the fact that we are incapable to restore our account.  The problem is that we have no access to the proper currency.

Jesus Christ on the Cross.  In this example, there are two imputations occurring.  This is sometimes called the Great Exchange.  In the first of these imputations, the sin of Adam is imputed back from all of the true believers to Jesus Christ.  In return, that capital that we so desperately require and have absolute no way to attain, righteousness before God, is simply given to us.  This perfect righteousness before God of Jesus Christ is imputed back to those who believe in the saving work of His work on the cross.  The amazing part of this double imputation is that is has already occurred.  This transaction is past tense.  It occurred 2000 years ago.  Plus, it costs us absolutely nothing.  It is completely free.  By this accounting move, all of our sin is imputed to Jesus Christ, while all of His righteousness is imputed to us.

Therefore, on Judgment Day, we can bring either our own self righteousness before God for judgment, or as Rod Rosenbladt likes to say, we can bet all of the blue chips on this Great Exchange.  We can be judged based upon the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.  Clearly, not all of the systems that we have discussed in prior posts view imputation in this way.  Therefore, let’s go through each of our systems and see what each makes of imputation.

Pelagian.  There is no role for imputation in this system at all.  Consider the first premise of the Pelagian: there is no original sin.  If you start with a denial of the first imputation, what need have you for the other two?  If Adam was a bad example, and Christ was a good example, we can work out our salvation without any of this legal or accounting funny business.  Besides, how is it fair that something that was done by Adam could be imputed to me?  How, in turn, is it fair that Jesus could die for anyone but Himself?  We’ve been here before, but let me restate the obvious, in this system, if Jesus Christ only can die for Himself, why did He have to die at all?  If Jesus Christ lived without sin, He should still be living and breathing and walking on this earth, encouraging all of us to do our best, to work our way to Salvation.  If this system is true, why did Christ have to die?

Semipelagian.  The first imputation is preserved in this system.  Now, let’s look at Jesus Christ on the cross.  Due to the first imputation of Adam’s sin to all of mankind, Jesus is going to rectify the situation by returning all of mankind to the same state as Adam and Himself: perfectly sinless creatures before God.  The idea of cleansing the slate is that all of the sin of all of mankind is imputed back to Jesus at the cross.  However, His perfect righteousness is not imputed back to us.  We have to earn our righteousness. (I want to avoid conversations about eschatology for now, so let’s assume that we are only talking about from 33 A.D. going forward.  Later, we will address the Old Testament times.) So, we now have two very important assumptions made by this system.  First, all of mankind is restored to sinless perfection so that we are conceived and are born in perfection.  Second, we are therefore responsible for our own salvation.  Do you know anyone who is perfect?

Arminian.  In this system, the assumptions of imputation are slightly different.  The first imputation is again preserved.  Now, before we continue, let me say that this section and the Roman Catholic section are a bit confusing.  Remember that we have this little issue of Prevenient Grace.  Do we assume that everyone receives this gift or not?  If everyone receives this gift, then we have reverted back to the Semipelagian view of imputation.  If this gift is only given to those in foreseen knowledge of their faith, then the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is only to those who come to saving faith.  The imputation of our sin to Jesus Christ is still to all of mankind, but we are free to choose whether or not to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in order to receive the perfect righteousness of Christ or instead to continue in sin and lose our Salvation.  If this seems slippery and difficult to pin down, then you have arrived at my position.  I’m not even sure I’m explaining this position properly.  The reason is that there seems to be inherent contradiction in the application of prevenient grace.  If we cannot logically and consistently apply all of these Biblical terms to a system, then perhaps that system is flawed.

Roman Catholic.  This is pretty close to the Arminian view.  Sin is imputed to us.  Our sin is imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteous is imputed to us based upon prevenient grace.  This time, unrepented mortal sins will remove us from the grace equation, while a sin/grace deficit will send us to purgatory to complete our process of making ourselves perfect and righteous before God.  Again, there is this problem that not all will be saved, therefore, for whom did Christ die?  All sin was imputed to Christ, at least up until the moment of our birth.  But who receives the righteousness of Christ?  Perhaps, of these last two categories, it might be better said that while our sin is imputed to Jesus, His righteous is not imputed back to us.  It must be earned, just as in the semipelagian position, but with the assistance of and cooperation with the Holy Spirit.

Calvinist and Reformed.  The Calvinist position has already been explained: the full three imputation position with the Great Exchange as described at the outset.  What is important is the distinction that is drawn concerning who the parties are in the imputations.  The first is from Adam to all of mankind.  The second two involve Jesus on the cross and all true believers from across all of time, but not any of the reprobate.  Jesus accomplishes exactly His intention.  In all of the other systems, the whole of mankind is included in the imputation of sin back to Jesus Christ on the cross.  This distinction usually can be seen most clearly in a discussion of the familiar passage beginning with John 3:16.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” (John 3:16-21 ESV)

Look at the grammar of this passage.  What you do not see are if-then statements.  If-then statements are the structure of Law passages.  This is a gospel passage such as the Matthew 5-7 passages that are so often abused in sermons.  Did God love the world?  Yes, that is a statement. Will those who believe in Jesus have eternal life?  Yes, that is a statement.  Does it say that “if you believe, you will be saved?”  In one sense, yes, it does.  But it does not say that you have the power over that belief and if you will just do the believing, you will be saved.  This is a declaration, not an if-then statement. 

Look at it this way.  I like to put bananas on my cereal in the morning.  In the fruit bowl in our kitchen are apples and bananas.  If you are a banana, you will end up in a bowl of cereal.  This is not suggesting that apples can turn into bananas or that apples have a choice in the matter.  Apples are who they are, and bananas are who they are. Now, look at the passage again.  Do you see the difference?  This is the difference between the Calvinist and Reformed mindset and most of the rest of Christendom.  There is an important distinction between Law and Gospel.  The grammar of the passage is important.

Those are the three Biblical imputations.  I expect that I have at least explained the meaning of the term, even if its application and to whom is still a bit fuzzy.  The extremes are easy.  There is no imputation in the Pelagian system, while there is very specific imputation in the Calvinist system.  We will see how these fuzzy middle grounds truly operate in the next post on our next important term: justification.

– Troll –

The Grace of God

This is such a simple phrase, and yet, it can be spoken in conversation where each person who hears it, understands it to mean something completely different. Using the constructs of the relationship between God, man and sin developed in the last few posts, let us see how Grace would fit into each model.

The first model we labeled Pelagian.  The key identifying feature was the denial of original sin. Since Adam’s sin was not imputed to mankind, man is capable of working his way to salvation. In this model, there is not much need of grace; in fact, I cannot see that there is any need of grace. Grace becomes nothing more than some amorphous idea of blessings. We receive grace when we receive blessings from God.

The next model is at least more interesting. In this semipelagian system, we do start with original sin in principle.  However, after Easter, all the slates of mankind are washed clean.  We are capable of making that first move towards God.  Grace then is everything that God does after we have turned towards Him.  Or maybe Grace is what Jesus did to cleanse the slates of mankind.  Perhaps it is both.  It still depends upon us, though.  All and all, this idea of grace is not all that different from the first one.  God doesn’t really do anything without an invitation.  That’s not very gracious, is it?

As we turn the corner in essentially the same place as the last two posts, we will start to see a more interesting idea of Grace.  Both the Arminians and the Roman Catholics use the term prevenient grace.  Since I am neither, I might not get these two sections right.  Understand their usage to be similar in context, but different in application.  Let’s see what that means.

The Arminian view of the sin problem is that all men are dead in sin from birth.  This is the position of the imputation of original sin to all of mankind.  The Arminian insists that man is not capable of choosing God unless the Holy Spirit gives the gift of prevenient grace to an individual.  This gift of prevenient grace essentially cleanses the free will of man who can now respond to God and cooperate with God’s grace.  There is often some disagreement whether some percentage of cooperation means semipelagian rather than Arminian, but my understanding is that the issue is not quantity but cooperation.  As long as we receive prevenient grace, we are free to cooperate with God for our salvation.

The Roman Catholic view of grace and prevenient grace is significantly more complex.  This is a very elaborate system of quantification and calculation concerning sin and grace.  The best place to start is at the beginning.  Prevenient grace has a similar meaning as in the Arminian system.  Once we have received prevenient grace, we are now ready to cooperate with God.  The Roman Catholics look at sin as having a quantifiable badness, that I’m going to call anti-grace for our purposes.  For each sin, you have to repent and then do penance of a particular value of grace to compensate.  Both sin and grace have quantifiable effects on your righteousness.  It’s sort of like a bank account.  When you are overdrawn at the time you die, you go to purgatory to work out your debt so that you can enter heaven.

Now, with the Roman Catholics, we need to introduce a new concept: the means of grace.  To some, this concept is going to sound off the wall, but it is actually very Biblical.  We receive Grace through specific means as outlined in scripture.  Now, the Roman Catholics extend the means of grace to other means as given through tradition.  Let’s look at specific examples.

The Bible discusses Word and Sacrament.  The Roman Catholics have seven sacraments, all of which have some value in dispensing grace.  Word means prayer in this context.  So, once prevenient grace has started the process, we can receive infusions of packets of grace through any of the sacraments, particular Holy Communion, and by saying prayers.  In the Middle Ages, Rome introduced monetary opportunities as well.  By gifting to a specific papal cause or project, you can receive an indulgence that is a quantifiable packet of grace.  There are also things called plenary indulgences that sort of wipe the slate clean again.  These are given for particularly large services to the church.  Pilgrimages to specific locations are often tied to indulgences as well.  Saying prayers also earns grace.  Say 5 Hail Mary’s and 7 Our Father’s, and that will be penance for that little sin you just confessed.

This was not intended to be an exhaustive discussion of the Roman Catholic system of grace, merely an introduction.  Let’s move on to the last system, one that looks at grace as the gas that makes us go.

The last system in which we have a monergistic salvation, where God does all the work, we need a lot of Grace.  By Grace, we are given the gift of faith.  By Grace, we are now able to do good works that actually glorify God.  By Grace, we are sanctified.  By Grace, we receive absolution for our repented sin.  Everything good we accomplish is by Grace alone, to the Glory of God alone.

So, it’s clear that we need a lot of Grace in this system.  How do we get it, and is it quantified in the same way as in Roman Catholicism?  The means of grace are identified by scripture alone: Word and Sacrament.  In this case, Word means the preached Word as per Paul in Romans 10.

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?

And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (Romans 10:14; Romans 10:15-17 ESV)

There are only two sacraments in the Protestant world, Baptism and Holy Communion or the Lord’s Supper.  Therefore, we receive Grace when we go to church, say the confessional prayer (and mean it), receive absolution, listen to the Word read and then listen to the Word preached (correctly, we hope) and then receive Holy Communion.  That earns us a full recharging of Grace so that we can run around loving our neighbor to the glory of God until the next time we receive Grace through these means.  No, this is not a similar quantified system.  God and His Grace are infinite.  We always get a full tank of Grace through any means of Grace.  The Grace can last as long as it needs to last, but we run better with frequent replenishments.  Weekly or more hearing of the Word read and preached and weekly or more Communion are the optimal situations. 

Now, we have been beating around the bush for a couple of posts.  In the next post, we are going to start looking at some key definitions.  We are going to learn the language of Christianity.

– Troll –

Summarizing God and Sin

When we speak of original sin, we often do so in the context of our humanity.  Perhaps, instead, for just a moment, we might consider addressing this issue from the context of the Holiness of God.

What does it mean to be Holy?  Webster defines Holy as exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness.  This is actually an excellent definition, and one that has Biblical roots from which we can work.  Let’s start from the second half of the sentence: one perfect in goodness and righteousness.

The perfection of God is an essential Christian theme.  God is perfect in every aspect.  We will address this point again soon.  Perfect in goodness means that God is the ultimate boundless Goodness.  We have discussed the problem of evil already, and how God allows evil but manipulates all things to His perfect intension.  God, Himself, does not create evil; God is perfectly Good.

The perfect righteousness of God is the problem that burned inside of Martin Luther.  We owe the match light of the Protestant Reformation to the concept of God’s perfect righteousness.  Once again, we will come back to this point shortly.

One other key Biblical distinctive about God is justice.  God is perfectly just.  This perfect justice is the problem that we will discover in scripture.  One of the key historical points concerning doctrine is that into the late Middle Ages, the work of Jesus on the cross was considered to be a ransom paid to the devil for the sinful world.  Anselm of Canterbury in the eleventh century put forth the understanding of scripture that the ransom paid by the blood of Jesus was actually to God.  The key to understanding this logic is to understand the perfect justice and righteousness of God.

Now, let’s introduce sin into the picture.  Remember, we are examining this question from the perspective of God, not man.  When man commits the original sin, man has done a number of things that are hugely problematic.  There are Old Testament Biblical passages that discuss the inheritance of curses for a thousand generations. (We will leave eschatological calculations out of the mix for now.  It’s a long time!) If we assume the progenitor status and federal headship of Adam, by either standard, mankind is now in a whole world of hurt due to the original sin.  Why was this such a big deal?  The problem is that God created Adam perfectly capable of fulfilling the Law, the law written on his heart as the creation covenant of obedience.  If Adam had kept the Law, we might all be perfectly righteous and without death.  It is, of course, difficult to speculate on the what ifs of theology.  But Adam did sin, and now Adam was no longer perfect.  Perfection is the standard of our most Holy, righteous, good and just God.  Perfection.  You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48 ESV) Now what?

This is the problem of sin.  God has an expectation of perfect goodness and righteousness.  He isn’t going to look away from sin, because He is perfectly just as well.  Justice must be satisfied.  Also, now that mankind has sinned, God is just a little bit put out and ticked off with mankind.  Sin is offensive to God.  Offensive.  We have offended God.  Not only does He expect perfect righteousness, but we offended Him as well.  Are you feeling comfortable with the situation still?

So, here is the situation from the context of a perfect, Holy, righteous, good and just God.  We have through sin, failed in perfection, are no longer Holy or righteous or good, and God’s perfect justice demands punishment for us.  Oh, yes, and God’s wrath is heading our way.

Here is an easy question: what are the wages of sin?  Death!  Of course.  Everyone can come up with that one.  So, let’s put things into some perspective here.  Adam took a bite of fruit from the wrong tree.  For that transgression, all of mankind for at least a thousand generations is condemned to die and remain in hell forever.  If you have any argument about mortal versus venial sins that you want to discuss, do so now in this context.  How much worse can we be punished?  There is, of course, more to that discussion; but it behooves us to have laid that foundation for later discussion.

That, my friends, is not fire and brimstone.  That is plain and simple Biblical truth.  All of the churches from Eastern Orthodox to Roman Catholic to Reformed, Confessional Protestants hold this to be the truth.  It is only from this position of sheer, utter devastation, that we can begin to understand our next topic: Grace.

– Troll –

The Problem of Sin

Our question for today is very straight forward: are most people, deep down inside, basically good?  Your answer to this question will set the stage for the rest of our conversations.  We will look at each answer and the consequences to each answer.  Finally, we will see where scripture leads us citing both Old and New Testament passages. 

Let us begin with the affirmative answer to our question.  In this paradigm, we have some significant theological consequences.  The first and most obvious is that this answer means that somehow all of humanity is free of Adam’s sin.  There are only two possible ways that this can be true.  First, we can assume that Adam’s sin is not imputed to all of mankind, that Adam was not a federal representative of all of us and did not sin for all of us (denial of original sin.)  Second, we can assume that Adam did impute sin to all of us, but that sin has been cleansed in some manner.

The first assumption was put forward by the British monk Pelagius in the fifth century.  The primary source of the church’s opinion regarding this position in that time was written by Augustine.  This position that denies original sin and the imputed sin of Adam to all of humanity is known as Pelagianism.  It has been condemned by every church counsel since the fifth century.  This point of view is held by many Americans and is clearly heretical.

There are other consequences of this assumption.  In order to attain salvation, man must seek God, an activity that he must be able to undertake in this system.  Because man has free will, he is able to choose to follow Jesus’ good example instead of Adam’s bad example.  The purpose of Jesus’ life was to provide a good example for man to follow in order to attain righteousness before God.  The question that is left unanswered in this system, though, is why then did Jesus have to die?

The second assumption has a couple of permutations.  It starts from the point that original sin is affirmed.  However, the purpose of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection is to provide victory over sin and death and give mankind a clean slate.  This allows man’s free will to again be able to choose to follow God.  There are subtle nuances here about whether we take the first step or whether God takes the first step.  When we take the first step, this is called semipelagianism.  This is the default position of most Americans.  It has also been condemned by church counsels.  If we take a step towards God, He’ll do all the rest.  Does that sound familiar?  If you pray this prayer and walk this walk, God will come down and do the rest.  If you just turn around and just face God, He is standing right there.  These are semipelagian positions that have become the mainstay of American religion due the revivalism movement of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  This theology also assumes that if you can turn towards God, you can also later turn away from God and lose your salvation.  So, now that you have prayed this prayer, walking this walk is vital to maintaining your salvation.  Let me tell you the five rules for walking the walk in this area, and the seven rules for walking the walk in this area, and the fifteen principles of “Christian” living.  Deeds, not creeds.  All of this mess is under this theological umbrella, and it is all considered heretical.  Altar calls belong to this general heading, although they can also be seen with Pelagian and even Arminian theology.

Here is a historical aside.  On everything that is above this point, there is complete Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and historical Reformation Protestant agreement.  This is the horrible irony of the state of the church.  Over 1500 years of church history gets undone by our insistence on the efficacy of our free will and our American egalitarianism.  This combination may look great in our Constitution, but the historic church has condemned this position.  Therefore, the majority of what we Americans call Christianity and Church is actually neither.

The next position to consider is the reverse of this position.  What if God takes the first step, but we need to cooperate with God and make a decision to turn toward Him.  God enables us through an infusion of grace, prevenient grace, to be able to make a proper decision for God.  After God makes this first move, we have to cooperate with God and choose to follow God.  We have to choose to believe.  This is the position of a sixteenth century Dutch theologian named Arminius.  Original sin is intact in this system.  God offers the potential for salvation to all humanity and makes the first move.  It is up to us to respond.  This system is still synergistic; it requires action by both God and man, but God has to take the first step.  We are not capable of choosing God without this infusion of grace.  We can also choose not to follow God, and many people make this other choice.  Salvation, therefore, can be lost.  Arminianism is not considered heresy, but rather a doctrinal error by more orthodox branches of the Protestant traditions.  The Canons of Dordt are the Dutch Reformed response to Arminius and contain the enunciation of the five points of Calvinism, which refute the five points of Arminius’ Remonstration. 

The Roman Catholic position is more complicated and falls somewhere in here for our discussion.  The Roman Catholics have some notion of the perseverance of the saints, in other words, you cannot lose your salvation except by the unrepented commission of a mortal sin.  Their theology still insists on perfection for admittance into heaven.  There is a complicated system of sin, repentance and penance that is required to return to a right standing before God.  After we die, whatever deficit that we have from perfection has to be worked out in purgatory prior to acceptance into heaven.  At Baptism, we receive a similar prevenient grace that enables us to perform good works through the power of the Holy Spirit, and through the other sacraments (seven total in Roman Catholicism,) we receive infusions of grace throughout our lives that quantitatively accumulate to balance against our sin.  I want to make no effort to defend this position at this time.  Most Americans identify Roman Catholicism as heretical by definition, without ever bothering to understand what they believe.  The Roman Catholic system of justification is actually closer to the Reformed position than most Americans, who are either full blown Pelagians or semipelagians. 

Now, let us answer our original question in the negative.  Are most people, deep down inside, basically good?  No.  Let’s go to scripture to see why everyone except for the Pelagians who deny original sin would affirm this position.  We have done this exercise on this blog in the past, so for many, this will be familiar.  Here are some examples, by all means, not an inclusive list.  1 Kings 19:9-18, Isaiah 59:1-13, Jeremiah 21, Psalm 5, 14, 53, 140, Romans 3:1-20. 

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

 (Romans 5: 6-8, 12 ESV)

These are heavy words and they condemn all of us.  If you hold to this position, then not only do you need God to clean the slate, you are horribly incapable of even cooperating with God.  This is known as monergism, where God does all of the work.  God recognizes the problem and arranges the solution.  Jesus enters the world, lives the perfect life and overcomes death, thereby ushering in the interadvental time of this present evil age (between His life, death, resurrection and ascension and the Age to come, which begins at the second coming, Judgment Day. the Last Day.)  He then imputes righteousness to His elect and reconciles His elect to Himself.  As each elect saint enters the world, the Holy Spirit arranges for their conversion and belief.  The Good Shepherd does not lose even one.  God does not fail in His purpose even the slightest.  He accomplishes exactly that which He intends.

Americans will yell, “That’s not fair!” Our egalitarian sensibilities insist that this is arbitrary and capricious.  But from God’s perspective, when He looks out upon the world from all eternity, all he sees is sin and death, a vast graveyard of humanity.  In His infinite Mercy, He decides to save a vast number of humanity, more than can be counted.  Do not ask for fair, because fairly we are all condemned.  Rest assured, instead, in the certain hope of His mercy for you, His elect.

That is our biggest problem.  We are all condemned to die and enter into hell forever.  Only the absolute perfection of God can satisfy the righteousness of God on the Last Day.  Without the imputed righteousness of the One who did what we cannot do, and the reconciliation He offers by the imputation of our sin to Him, where He has already paid the price for that sin, we will get what we deserve.  Death, hell and eternal damnation.

– Troll –