Does God Love the Sinner, but hate the Sin?

Usually, Troll doesn’t just plow into a topic that falls into the area of Ogre, but today will be different.  Two of my dear friends, in the same week, used the old saw “God loves the sinner, but hates the sin.” In both instances, I stated that I did not agree, but in neither case was the circumstance appropriate to elaborate.  Since this perspective is so pervasive in the US, I thought it needed a good discussion.

The statement above implies a couple of things.  First, it implies that deep down inside, man is basically good.  Secondly, it implies that even if the sin of Adam was federally imputed to all of mankind, the role of the Atonement becomes a clearing of the slate.  This further implies that the standard of God can be less than perfection, because Jesus gives the gift that keeps on giving, unless you are Roman Catholic, in which case you’ve got some work to do in Purgatory.  Both of these examples are works theologies, and typical of the liberal perspective.  Let us look at this statement from a theology of Grace instead of a theology of Works.

Is man basically good?  I’ve addressed this issue many times in the past, but here are just a few passages that speak to the issue.  Jeremiah 17:9, Psalms 5:9, 14:1-3, Isaiah 6:5, 59:7-8, Ecclesiastes7:20, and of course Romans 3:9-12.  We have a problem of sin.  Notice how Paul describes the condition of sin in Romans 5:12-21.  He is contrasting the imputation of sin by Adam on the whole human race to the imputation of perfect righteousness by Christ to the elect through the gift of faith from the Holy Spirit.  The problem here is that we are born sinners and we will die sinners.  We require an alien righteousness, a righteousness that is outside of ourselves, a righteousness that we can obtain from someone else, to satisfy the Justice and Glory of God.  And here is the rub: without this alien righteousness, our own deeds, our own works, condemn us to hell. 

Therefore, can we truly say that God loves the sinner?  Perhaps, if we argue that while we were still enemies of God, He provides us with this perfect righteousness, then we can say that God loves us anyway.  But here is the problem with that line of reasoning.  God doesn’t save everyone.  There is an elect remnant, Romans 9, that God has held back for Himself from before time.  For these, He loves us and gives us the free gift through Grace of faith in the meritorious work of Christ on the Cross.  So, does God love us due to any particular virtue of our own?  Of course not.  He loves us because of the imputed righteousness of Christ that is added to our account.  Without this imputed righteousness, He truly does not love us, but instead, we suffer His Just Wrath.

What if we come to the problem from an Arminian, Semi-Pelagian or Roman Catholic perspective of the Atonement?  What does this mean?  The work of Christ on the Cross was sufficient for all people to wipe our slates clean, in these systems.  Our free will, being thus cleansed of sin, is now capable of following the commandments.  Our salvation is based upon our efforts and works during this life.  If we make an effort, God will forgive the rest in the first two cases, or give us a time in Purgatory in the third case.  Now, I’d like for a moment to discuss how this violates the Holiness of God.  We are saying here that God will accept sinful people into heaven.  Check out Matthew 5:48.  The standard is perfection.  No joke.  Perfection.  Dwell on that bad news for a minute.  Do we really expect that God’s love implies that He will simply overlook our sin?

God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all who believe in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.  John 3:16.  We all know this verse, but we seem to turn off our brains when reading it and add some stuff that just isn’t there to the equation.  God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all who believed in Him and followed the commandments and took one step towards Him and prayed the prayer at the altar call and voted Republican would not perish, but have everlasting life.  Hmmm.  All that stuff is not actually in there, (except the bit about voting Republican.  It’s in the Grand Old Pachyderm Revised Standard Version (GOPRSV).)  As C.S.Lewis put it in the Screwtape Letters, just get them to add something to the Gospel, add anything to the Gospel, and then it’s no longer the gospel.  What this verse does say is that the work of Jesus on the Cross is 100% efficacious for all believers.  This means that salvation is based upon faith alone.  Certainly, I could have selected many other passages, particularly in the Pauline epistles, that are more explicit on this subject, but this is from John, and it is very well known.

Finally, God hates sin.  God abhors sin.  Any who sin, or are born in the condition of sin in Adam, in other words everyone, is condemned to hell.  God went about a rescue mission for an elect remnant of native vines and wild vines (Jews and Gentiles) in which He not only provides a perfect sacrifice that turns away God’s wrath, but also reconciles us to God through Christ Jesus’ blood.  Our sin, the sin of all believers, before we were born, was imputed to Christ.  His righteousness was imputed to all believers, and this righteousness is credited to our account on the Last Day.  Therefore, He lived the Life we could not live.  He died the death we could not die as a perfect sacrifice.  He arose from death and ascended into Heaven, becoming the firstborn from the dead.  On the Last Day, He will raise all of us and clothe His elect in His own righteousness, so that we may walk boldly in Judgment, confident in a perfect righteousness that isn’t our own.  God gets to see us through this perfect righteousness and His Holiness and Justice remains intact.  God, in this way, is not diminished by our sin.  We are accepted immediately and completely, full inheritors of His Kingdom.

Why did God go through all of this for us?  I’m sure He’ll tell us all someday.  Until that Day, the Last Day, we must trust in the scripture and believe.  Our reaction to this gift of faith and mercy is obedience and humility.  We will sin again and again as long as our bodies are IN Adam (until we die), and though it drives us nuts and upsets us that we cannot be the perfect man that Christ was, we persevere in the certain hope that our Salvation is secured in Christ.

That, my friends is why I do not agree with the opening proposition.  The theology of works is not my claim to salvation.  I’ll take grace, thank you.  Don’t give me what I deserve.  I’ll simply accept that free gift that the Holy Spirit has given me.  As bad is the bad news really is, the Good News is much better than you can possibly imagine.

--Troll--

St. Patrick's Day thoughts

Not for the first time, our Tuesday homily was about a saint, this time about the patron saint of Ireland, St. Patrick.  We learned some very interesting facts about Patrick.  To begin, Patrick wasn't Irish.  It seems that he was abducted from England by Irish raiders while a young teen and help captive in Ireland for six years until making his escape at the age of about 20.  But I do not wish to focus on Patrick.  His parents are far more interesting.


The history of the church in the British Isles is germaine to all Anglicans, Episcopalians and Presbyterians, as we trace our roots back to those islands.  Patrick was Roman.  His parents were Romans sent to England to deal with the Pelagian heresy by the church in Rome.  This is all taking place in the fifth century.  The great debate between Augustine and Pelagius and its aftermath subsequent to Pelagius' death was burning strongly in Rome.  The fact that Patrick's parents were sent to England for this reason speaks to just how widespread this problem had become for the church.  This heresy that infests the protestant churches of our time was the reason for Patrick's presence in Ireland in the first place.  It is shameful that we have come to the point that history has erased the most important legacy of Patrick's family, that of putting down the Pelagian heresy.


Happy St. Patrick's Day.  Isn't it nice to know that God chose you?

--Ogre--

The Heretics: Rome at Trent

In 1517, the Reformation began with a German monk named Martin Luther.  The 95 thesis of Luther were the beginning of a movement that would define the sixteenth century.  Luther wanted an ecumenical council to discuss several key doctrinal issues.  The church in Rome convened these conferences, but the outcome was not exactly what Luther had anticipated.  The Council of Trent was a series of 25 sessions during the mid 16^th century in which each of the issues of the Reformation was addressed.  The sixth session dealt with the doctrine of justification.  This is the central doctrine of reformation theology and the key to understanding the break from Rome.  We will explore the reformation definition of justification, in terms of the five solas.  We will carefully spell out the key canons on justification from the sixth session of the Council of Trent.  We will contrast the two points of view.  Finally, we will discuss whether there is any room for a concordat between Rome and any reformed denomination.

According to the Reformers, justification is a forensic or legal declaration that is made concerning the individual’s right standing with God.  Justification is based upon substitutionary atonement and propitiation of the sinner with God.  The means of this transfer of righteousness from Jesus to the sinner, and the transfer of sin to Jesus, and the reconciliation of the sinner to God is the work of Jesus on the cross, by His death, resurrection and ascension.  The Holy Spirit provides the elect with faith, through the preaching of the Word, the Gospel, and the receiving of the sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, so that the elect will believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Therefore, justification is by faith alone, in the work of Christ on the cross alone, by the Grace of God through the work of the Holy Spirit alone, to the Glory of God alone as per the recorded testimony of scripture alone.  While this looks like quite a lot of information, you have probably seen it all before.  We will examine each item as we walk through the Canons of Trent on justification.

This link will show the full canons of the sixth session of Trent.

Canons I-III are the refuting of the Pelagian heresy.  In this, both Rome and Luther are in agreement.  I have recently written on this topic.  While many might at first say that they thought that Rome did believe in works righteousness, what is important to understand is that we will be dealing with some semantic issues.  Justification in the mind of Rome is a two part process that the reformed break into justification and sanctification.  Rome views justification part one as being according to faith, and part two is according to works.  Both justification and sanctification for the reformed are external acts of Grace accomplished by Jesus and given to us as a gift of the Holy Spirit.  There is the potential for confusion due to the categories used by Rome relative to the categories used by the Reformers.

In Canon III, a new term is introduced: prevenient inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  The idea here is that man cannot be justified without the intervention of Grace through the Holy Spirit.  While this sounds like the reformation position at first glance, remember that justification to Rome has two parts.  Prevenient Grace is referring specifically to part one of justification in their theological system.

Canon IV is where the fun really starts.  

CANON IV. If any one shall affirm, that man’s freewill, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification; if moreover, anyone shall say, that the human will cannot refuse complying, if it pleases, but that it is inactive, and merely passive; let such an one be accursed"!   

This canon is a direct rebuttal of what is now known as Calvin’s Irresistible Grace.  The Calvinist believes that the elect must be caused to believe by the Holy Spirit and that this movement of an individual by the Holy Spirit is 100% effective.  Canon IV flatly affirms a synergistic position and pronounces anyone who holds to the doctrine of monergism as accursed.  Things are starting to get nasty.

Canon V is difficult to understand, as it seems to be a contradiction.  Again, remember that Rome has a two part justification and that they believe in synergism.   

CANON V.- If anyone shall affirm, that since the fall of Adam, man’s freewill is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church; let such an one be accursed"!  

After affirming the doctrine of original sin, Rome turns around and says that sin is not a condition of man to the degree that free will still exists sufficiently uncorrupted to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in justification.  This canon to some degree misrepresents the reformed position of free will as I discussed in the escalator metaphor (second free will section of this post,) but there can be no mistake that the reformed are now accursed on two counts.

Canon IX is the next interesting canon.  

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.  

Here we have the denial of the sola fide, faith alone, doctrine of the Reformation.  While this seems to contradict all of the canons that precede IX, remember that the usage of the word justification by Rome is different that the reformation usage.  This will help sort out the supposed incongruences.

Canon XI is the last canon I’ll discuss for now.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.  

Just how many times does a person have to be declared anathema or accursed to lose their salvation?  This is a pretty good description of penal substitionary atonement, and by it, Rome makes us anathema.

As a whole, it is clear that the Council of Trent was drafted as a direct refutation of the 95 thesis of Luther and the arguments of Calvin.  There is no room for doubt as to the position of Rome on these issues.  Rome has not changed its position on Trent in 500 years.  What is interesting about the concordats that are proposed between Lutheran and other protestant denominations with the Roman Catholic Church is that these protestant denominations truly believe that Rome has moved closer to their position.  Actually, the liberal move of Protestantism has resulted in our more closely resembling Rome.  Rome isn’t going to move at all.  The sooner we all realize this, the more quickly we will realize that we are selling the farm, and the blood of the reformation martyrs for a cheap ecumenical statement that affirms nothing helpful to the dialogue and compromises severely the reformed doctrine of justification.

And so while Rome considers the reformed to be anathema, the reformed sadly acknowledge that Rome ceased to be a church at the Council of Trent.  Undoubtedly there are saved persons within the Church of Rome, but institutionally, they have ceased to be a Christian church, based upon their frank denial of NT scripture as demonstrated by the Council of Trent.  There is no avenue back to one holy Catholic and Apostolic church as long as Trent is upheld.

--Troll--