Solid Ground

It is tragic when I read the words of friends and family who take verses and rip them out of context to suit their ends.  This is the reason that I am in seminary: to add the weight of respect of letters among men to the explanation of the Word so that some men might actually hear.  Today’s passage is from John 14, the first part.

            “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

            Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

            “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.” (John 14:1-14 ESV)

I saw today, tragically, from some whom I love, the typical “name it, claim it” abuse of verses 12-14.  Let us look at this 14^th chapter of John with some perspective and see if we can shed some light on the various parts.

First, and most importantly, Jesus is talking to his disciples, men who are following him and yet do not understand at this point of the story why it is that Jesus has come, nor what he is doing.  Jesus has just told Peter that Peter will deny Jesus.  We have the benefit of hindsight, but we should not lose touch with the context.  This chapter is so incredibly dense, that I will have to keep focus on the verse in question, but always in the context of this first statement: Jesus is talking to his remaining eleven disciples.

Starting with the first verse, we run into our first question on translation.  Is the phrase Believe in God or You believe in God?  So, if Jesus has just informed Peter and the other apostles of Peter’s denial, then when he says to Believe in God, there is a context of denial.  This is an imperative, yes; but it is in the context of speaking to a group who clearly do believe in God.  So why should Jesus use this imperative? 

This chapter is one of the sentinel Trinitarian passages in the Bible.  In this first section, Jesus lays out His own unity with and yet separate person from God.  In the second section, Jesus will lay out His unity with and yet separate person from the Holy Spirit.  But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.  Let’s continue.

Jesus sets up Thomas by saying “…And you know the way to where I am going.” Realize that Jesus has just described metaphorically heaven and yet Thomas, who is just not seeing the point of all of this says.  “We don’t know where you are going.  How can we know the way?”

This is vitally important point.  Even one of the eleven remaining disciples did not know the way, did not know the goal, did not know the purpose of Jesus and His coming into the world, and the manner of His leaving the world.  Is it any wonder that we today have such a perverted view of Jesus and His life and ministry?  What were the Jews expecting?  What did they get instead?  This dichotomy of expectation and realization is part of the backdrop of Christianity both then and now.  What do we expect and what has actually been realized?

We all know the famous quote of John 14:6.  If you don’t, I’m sorry, but we’ll have to come back to that another day.  Let us look for now at John 14:7: “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” This is a remarkable statement.  He is accusing His disciples of not knowing Him!  Look at His audience here: the eleven remaining disciples!  If you had known me….  Why does he say this?  Remember what we keep saying, context, context, context.  This is about Jesus making the claim, over and over again, until He gets it through their thick skulls, that He is from God, He is of God, He is God.

Now comes the big set up for our quoted passage for today.  Philip requests that Jesus “show us the Father, and it is enough.” Now, look how this follows on the heels of what Jesus has just said!  You have to love the humanity of the Apostles.  They have the Real Deal, Jesus Himself, in flesh and blood, standing (or sitting) with them, and they still have ears filled with wax, minds full of worldly clutter, totally incapable of hearing the message right in front of them.  It is truly remarkable.  Types and shadows, my friends, types and shadows.  To the ears of the nonbeliever, all this is foolishness.  But to the ears of the believer, these are the Words of Salvation.  Look at these words Jesus spoke to the scribes and Pharisees back in John 8:

"But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:45-47 ESV)

Is Jesus comparing His own eleven to the scribes and Pharisees?  In a very real sense, yes, He is.  We are all condemned to death under Adam.  It is not until Jesus arises from the dead, overcoming death and sin, that any one of them gets it!  If the Apostles don’t get it despite seeing with their eyes and hearing with their ears, how are we to do so?  That is the role of the Holy Spirit, and we are coming to that shortly.

So, what is Jesus’ response to Philip? First, His response is almost incredulous. “How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” Really, Philip?  Aren’t you listening?  “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me?” Really Philip?  Now, one more time in small words, Philip, and the rest of you, so that you will all understand me plainly. “The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does His works.  Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.”

One aside, the word works in this contexts means not just signs and wonders, miracles and healing, and all of the great stuff Jesus does, but much more importantly, all of the teaching that He has done, all of the re-examination of scripture that He has done (and notably will do shortly after His resurrection.) The words that I say to you....  The point of this statement is not the works, the point is to believe that Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Jesus.

And now, finally, we are ready for our verses for the day, John 14:12-14.  

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." (John 14:12-14 ESV)

Look, you lot, you are the believers.  It’s all going to be on your back, because I have to leave very soon.  You will have to do works, greater works than what I have done.  Now, here, it is very important to look at that word works again in this context.  Clearly, Jesus doesn’t mean that they will have to duplicate what He Himself is about to in terms of the resurrection.  That much I think we can state as a given.  So, there are limits to the scope of these works.  What is the point of the works?  To demonstrate that the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in the Father.  Does that mean signs and wonders and miracles?  Sure, we know that it does.  What is the purpose of these signs and wonders and miracles and are they all of what the apostles need to be doing?  Works, importantly, specifically and most prominently means to teach, to spread the Word.  How do we know this?  That’s what Jesus will follow through with in the next section.  If the apostles have to do great works, they are going to need a Helper.  And Jesus will define the Work of the Helper.

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (John 14:26 ESV)

Ah, so remembering and repeating the Words of Jesus is a big time Work.  Whatever you, the eleven remaining apostles, ask in My name, this is will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.  Please, please, please, read that highlighted portion again and again.  I know that you will want to highlight the next line, because that is what our fallen minds seek.  We want to name it and claim it.  But it is not about us, it never has been. It’s all about Jesus, and the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

That’s enough for today.  Go to church, one in which the Word of God is preached from the Bible, in an expository manner, explaining the Word in light of the unfolding mystery of redemptive history, in light of the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ our only mediator and advocate.

– Troll –

Hebrews 6

This chapter has two distinct parts.  The first part flows from the last portion of chapter 5, discussing the elementary doctrine as opposed to the mature doctrine.  The second part sets up the explanation of the order of Melchizedek.  Let us look closely at each part and set the stage for chapter 7.

We left the last discussion with a discussion about the Word of Righteousness and the powers of discernment.  And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.  Ephesians 4:11-14.  The mature Christian has to exercise his mind.  Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.  Romans 12:2.  But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.  Hebrews 5:14.  Am I pummeling the equinus rigamortis?  Perhaps, but it is only because I saw him flinch.

Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.  

Repentance from dead works is an interesting phrase, worthy of its own series of posts.  James talks about dead faith, but what is this about dead works?  The answer is clear from all that we have discussed thus far.  Works are not the path to righteousness; works are the path from righteousness.  Why are we to leave behind discussion of what is essentially the Gospel?  Because the writer wants us to understand how all of the Old Testament types and shadows fit together with the revelation of Jesus Christ in the New Covenant.  This is the next level to which he would have us aspire.  Of course, Paul never really thought you could assume the Gospel.  He spends the first part of every letter reiterating basic doctrine, always making sure that the foundation is solid before building upon it.  In our day, this approach is more necessary than ever.

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.

We spend so much time on this concept, worrying about this and that person falling away.  Really, if you have the proper reformed categories, this is a non-issue.  Let me explain.  Let’s assume for a moment that Romans 9-11 and several other places in the both the Old and New Testaments are accurate in discussing the idea of the elect.  I like making this assumption because I believe that it is true.  But for those Arminians who read this, let’s just make the assumption for a moment.  How does that presupposition effect the above passage?  The elect cannot fall away.  Jesus states that He is the Good Sheppard and He will not lose even the least of His flock.  So, to whom, then, is the writer referring that may have fallen away?  They cannot be the elect, because the writer states that it is impossible to restore these to whom he is speaking.  At this point, some might try and apply that phrase from the Synoptics of which this is an example: But he said, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.” Luke 18:27.  Here is the difference.  The writer of Hebrews specifically discusses covenant blessings through the Holy Spirit.  Then, he talks about crucifying Jesus once again.  The point is this.  Not all who are part of the visible church are actually part of the invisible church.  Was Judas a circumcised Jew?  During life, did he receive the blessings of being within that covenant community?  Is he a part of the True Church?  In the same way, Baptism brings us into the covenant community.  But not all who are Baptized are part of the True Church.   

When those who do not have true faith participate in the Sacraments, particularly in Communion, they are doing exactly the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  By partaking in Communion without the faith that goes with it, they are, in a very real sense, crucifying Jesus again.  The believer goes beyond the crucifixion to the resurrection.  The reprobate only goes to the cross, but never to Easter.  Therefore, they may appear to drift in and out of covenant community during their lives, without ever truly being believers.   

This is not to suggest that we are fruit inspectors.  All sheep will certainly stray for a time.  But their path back is not blocked, for they return for true repentance, because they understand the source of their righteousness before God.  So, like the rain that falls on all ground, all those that receive the Sacraments may not produce good fruit, because that ground was not fertile.  They were not among the elect.  That ground was only going to product thorns and thistles.  Therefore, all of this drifting away was inevitable.

Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation. For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do. And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

OK, my friends.  What exactly is going on in this paragraph?  Let’s start with the phrase things that belong to salvation.  Salvation is about judgment.  We cannot lose track of that point.  The door to salvation is faith in the redeeming work of Christ on the cross, in His propitiating sacrifice.  Now, let’s examine God’s justice.  For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do.  Does this sentence undo every other line of scripture concerning justification?  And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.  How does one have the full assurance of hope until the end?  You have that assurance by knowing that our justification is independent of these works.  Remember how this section began, talking about repentance from dead works.  God will not overlook your good works any more than He will overlook your sin, if you want to base your righteousness on your own works.  The point is that, outside of Christ, there are no good works in terms of God’s righteousness, only the righteousness of man, which Paul told us was rubbish.  Jesus Christ sanctifies our  works as well as the rest of us.  After we are justified by faith, we are sanctified by faith so that even our works now are sanctified and truly good works, not those dead works of above.  The only way to be imitators of those who inherit the promise is to be one of those who inherit the promises.  And since you are one of those, act like it.

For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, “Surely I will bless you and multiply you.” And thus Abraham, having patiently waited, obtained the promise. For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

In Bible study, we referred to the Covenant ritual of God with Abraham.  Here is that passage from Genesis 15:17.  When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.  In these rituals, there were always TWO things passing through the pieces.  The first thing is the Great High King.  The second thing is the vassal king, and the blood of the animals was sprinkled upon the second king to remind him of the curses.  The conditions, the blessings and the curses, all fell upon the second king.  Notice the Covenant ritual of God with Moses from Exodus in chapter 24 and of the Aaron in chapter 29.  The blood was cast upon Moses, the Israelites, the altar, the Law, Aaron.  In the first example, God, the father, and God, the Son, pass through the pieces. They are clearly of the same substance.  All of the Covenant responsibility falls upon God, not on Abraham.  All of the Covenant responsibility at Sinai falls upon Israel, not God.  These are two totally different types of Covenants.  Finally, Jesus had gone behind the curtain, into the Holy of Holies, on our behalf.  He is the firstborn from the dead.  He tears open the veil and allows us to end boldly, in confidence, in His name.

He is the eternal Great High Priest of the order of Melchizedek.  In the next post, we will finally come to Melchizedek.

--Troll--

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--

James vs Paul, again

Today’s topic is a difficult area, but one in which there are fine lines all over the place.  We are going to discuss the classic Paul vs. James false dichotomy. 

The starting point for this discussion is a conversation in which there is a hypothetical person whose normal temperament is bitter, angry and hostile.  The question is whether this behavior is evidence, in of itself, that the person who displays this unfortunate behavior habitually is lacking in the fruit of the spirit in accordance with both Paul and James.  My response in person lacked the depth necessary to tackle such a difficult issue.  The issue is the classic Liberal Hymn that we all know from our youth, “…they will know we are Christians by our Love.” Is that a fair statement? 

I like to begin this discussion with Luke 23:39-43.  In this example from Luke’s Gospel, we have a man who has clearly NOT demonstrated the fruits of the Spirit.  While we can argue that the Holy Spirit has not yet come into the world, there is another line of argument as well.  We can clearly state, based on the fact that he fully admits that he has earned his crucifixion by his less that wonderful works, that his righteousness before God is NOT based upon his works.  His righteousness is completely based upon his faith, a faith that he articulates at his death.  How do we make sense of this episode in light of James?  James seems to say that since a faith without works is dead, then this guy should have been damned.  But he is proclaimed righteous by none other than Jesus Himself.  All that he has demonstrable in his favor is his faith.

Paul and James have a history together.  Remember the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.  The question before the apostles concerns the gentiles.  Do you have to be Jewish first to be Christian?  Notice first what Peter says in verses 7-11.  This clearly becomes the interpretation of the whole group.  Now, notice what James says in verses 12-21, quoting Amos 9:11-12.  What we MUST assume at this point is that James passes off on the notion of justification my faith alone.

Now, in their epistles, it is very important to keep in mind to whom each apostle is writing, when, and why.  Paul is usually writing to fledgling churches who are struggling with various issues, after the Jerusalem Council.  Paul never assumes the Gospel.  He always repeats the Gospel, restates the Gospel, teaches the Gospel, refers back to the Gospel, over and over again.  James, on the other hand, is believed to have written his letter prior to the Jerusalem Council.  What is amazing, therefore, is that reformed scholars do not believe that James is either disagreeing with Paul in his letters or with himself in Acts 15.  Here is why.

James argues that faith without works is dead.  But James is assuming that these Jewish Christians to whom he is writing already know the Gospel.  The question here is about antinomianism.  Neither Paul nor James believes that antinomianism is possible, but they go about discussing it from opposite sides of the argument.  Paul in Romans 6 argues that since we are dead to sin, should we go on sinning so that Grace may abound?  By no means, he says.  If you follow his argument through to the end of chapter 8, you will see that Paul does not believe that true faith will yield a person who lacks obedience.  But at the same time, because our bodies remain IN ADAM, we continue to sin despite our desire to be obedient.  And this forces us back to Christ in repentance.  This is Christian living according to Paul.  James argues in his second chapter that faith without works is dead.  But look carefully at the grammar of that passage.

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

The proposition is that someone says he has faith.  James is questioning, not Paul’s definition of faith that justifies, but rather the supposition that the someone in question had true saving faith in the first place.  James says that there is no such thing as an antinomian because that sort of faith is dead; in other words, it does not lead to life.  Remember that when these guys are talking about life, they are talking about eternal life, and therefore justification.  So, James is in agreement with Paul on the subject of people who do not express the fruits of the spirit.

Now, two questions remain.  First, what are the fruits of the Spirit?  Second, how do recognize the fruits of the spirit in others and in ourselves?  The first question we often forget to ask, and yet it is the important precursor to the second question.  What does the Holy Spirit do?  The Holy Spirit testifies to the truth of the Gospel and brings true and saving faith to believers as a free gift.  Therefore, it follows that the fruit of the spirit is true and saving faith in Jesus Christ and His work for His followers on the Cross.

The second question is then about recognition.  Before we talk about others, let’s consider ourselves.  Do we believe that we are fallen and sinful creatures, completely without hope for salvation?  Do we believe that we need to obtain some sort of righteousness before God or else we are going to hell, and we have no avenue to do this on our own?  Do we humbly repent and come before God as broken and defeated creatures?  Do we believe that God in His mercy sent Jesus to be our only mediator and advocate, to live the life that we could not live, to die the death that God requires on our behalf, to impute His righteousness to us, His elect, to give to us, a free gift of Grace, this belief in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His work for us on the Cross?  Then, yes, we have true and saving faith.  Now, relax for a second.  How does that make you feel?  Grateful?  Humbled?  In awe of His mercy and Grace?  Desperate to please Him?  Good.  Now, follow the commandments.  When you mess up, and you will, repent, turn back to Him and receive His Grace and do it again.

What about your neighbor?  How do know that he has true and saving faith?  If works have nothing to do with it, how can you tell?  The truth is that you can’t tell.  That is the point.  We are not given the job of fruit inspector.  Jesus is the fruit inspector general, not us.  We might suspect one way or another, but let me give you two examples.  The Dali Lama is a rather pious sort.  He is generally regarded as righteous before man.  But he has no righteousness before God, unless he believes in the redeeming work of Jesus on the Cross.  Some would claim that he is a better Christian than most of us because of his civic righteousness.  Now look again at the thief in Luke 23.  He had so little civic righteousness that the Romans killed him for his works.  This is the danger of fruit inspection.  We just do not know.

Therefore, keep your own efforts in front of you.  Be obedient to the Lord in Gratitude and Obedience.  Love God and Love your neighbor.  Do these things because you are one of the elect, you understand the Gospel, and now you want to spread the good News about what Jesus Christ has done for you.  What did he do for you?  For me, He lived the perfect life that I couldn’t.  He died the death that I deserved.  He has declared me righteous before God on the Last Day.  He did all of this to save me from the Wrath of God in His infinite mercy and Grace.  Through the Blood of Christ, I live.  They will know we are Christians because we declare the Gospel of Christ, not because we actually lived in a way different from them.

--Troll--

Heidelberg Catechism: The Second Part--Righteousness

While this may not look like much, this section is the meat of Christianity.  The passages in this section are extremely dense.  While you may not have followed all of the links in the past, and the whole Catechism should be read with an open Bible as the verses are given as a part of the catechism, this is a section that is all the more vital in that regard.  Justification is the declaration that we are righteous before God through Jesus Christ by virtue of our faith in Him, alone and apart from works.  The catechism gives you the doctrine, but the verses demonstrate beyond any doubt that the text yields the doctrine.  We are not imposing our own thought on the text, but rather, we are attempting to summarize and organize what is already there. 

21. Lord's Day

Question 54. What do you believe concerning the "holy catholic church" of Christ?

Answer: That the Son of God (Ephesians 5:26; John 10:11; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 4:11-13) from the beginning to the end of the world, (Psalms 71:17-18; Isaiah 59:21; 1 Corinthians 11:26) gathers, defends, and preserves (Matthew 16:18; John 10:28-30; Psalms 129:1-5) to himself by his Spirit and word, (Isaiah 59:21; Romans 1:16,10:14-17; Ephesians 5:26) out of the whole human race, (Genesis 26:4; Revelation 5:9) a church chosen to everlasting life, (Romans 8:29-30; Ephesians 1:10-13) agreeing in true faith; (Acts 2:46, Ephesians 4:3-5) and that I am and forever shall remain, (Psalms 23:6; 1 Corinthians 1:8-9; John 10:28; 1 John 2:19; 1 Peter 1:5) a living member thereof. (1 John 3:14,19-21; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Romans 8:10)

Question 55. What do you understand by "the communion of saints"?

Answer: First, that all and every one, who believes, being members of Christ, are in common, partakers of him, and of all his riches and gifts; (1 John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 1:9; Romans 8:32; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, 6:17) secondly, that everyone must know it to be his duty, readily and cheerfully to employ his gifts, for the advantage and salvation of other members. (1 Corinthians 12:21, 13:1, 5; Philippians 2:4-8)

Question 56. What do you believe concerning "the forgiveness of sins"?

Answer: That God, for the sake of Christ's satisfaction, will no more remember my sins, neither my corrupt nature, against which I have to struggle all my life long; (1 John 2:2, 1:7; 2 Corinthians 5:19, 21) but will graciously impute to me the righteousness of Christ, (Jeremiah 31:34; Psalms 103:3-4, 10, 12; Micah 7:19; Romans 7:23-25) that I may never be condemned before the tribunal of God. (Romans 8:1-4; John 3:18, 5:24)

We could spend a long time discussing the implication of being of one body with Christ and the substance of the body that is implied with that statement.  The idea of substance concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist is of similar type.  The covenant context, however, is sufficient for understanding of the Body of Christ in this place.

22. Lord's Day

Question 57. What comfort does the "resurrection of the body" afford thee?

Answer: That not only my soul after this life shall be immediately taken up to Christ its head; (Luke 16:22, 23:43; Philippians 1:21, 23) but also, that this my body, being raised by the power of Christ, shall be reunited with my soul, and made like unto the glorious body of Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:53-54; Job 19:25-26; 1 John 3:2; Philippians 3:21)

Question 58. What comfort do you take from the article of "life everlasting"?

Answer: That since I now feel in my heart the beginning of eternal joy, (2 Corinthians 5:2-3) after this life, I shall inherit perfect salvation, which "eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man" to conceive, and that to praise God therein forever. (1 Corinthians 2:9; John 17:3)

A lot of interesting issues come from this section.  You  might be surprised to hear that there are vast numbers of professing Christians who have the very Greek idea of the soul going to heaven and the body never being reunited with the soul on the Last Day.  It is interesting how this part of the faith seems to be glossed over without much of a discussion.  The old German Lutherans understand this to the nth degree, but have little faith in God's ability to mend resurrected bodies to the perfection that we were intended in the same way that He justifies us to perfection in terms of righteousness.  

23. Lord's Day

Question 59. But what does it profit you now that you believe all this?

Answer: That I am righteous in Christ, before God, and an heir of eternal life. (Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17; John 3:36)

Question 60. How are thou righteous before God?

Answer: Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; (Romans 3:21-25, 28, 5:1-2; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9) so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, (Romans 3:9) and am still inclined to all evil; (Romans 7:23) notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, (Titus 3:5; Deuteronomy 9:6; Ezekiel 36:22) but only of mere grace, (Romans 3:24; Ephesians 2:8) grants and imputes to me, (Romans 4:4-5; 2 Corinthians 5:19) the perfect satisfaction, (1 John 2:2) righteousness and holiness of Christ; (1 John 2:1) even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; (2 Corinthians 5:21) inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart. (Romans 3:22; John 3:18)

Question 61. Why do you say, that you are righteous by faith only?

Answer: Not that I am acceptable to God, on account of the worthiness of my faith; but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, is my righteousness before God; (1 Corinthians 1:30, 2:2) and that I cannot receive and apply the same to myself any other way than by faith only. (1 John 5:10)

Vegan warning:  questions #59-64 are the meat!  Notice the density of the references in Question #60.  This is heavy on Romans, but really, a lot of Paul is used here.  It is interesting where the Prophets are woven into the catechism.  If you have doubts that the Old Testament testifies to Christ, these sections should put an end to that stuff.

24. Lord's Day

Question 62. But why cannot our good works be the whole, or part of our righteousness before God?

Answer: Because, that the righteousness, which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, (Galatians 3:10; Deuteronomy 27:26) and in all respects conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin. (Isaiah 64:6)

Question 63. What! do not our good works merit, which yet God will reward in this and in a future life?

Answer: This reward is not of merit, but of grace. (Luke 17:10)

Question 64. But does not this doctrine make men careless and profane?

Answer: By no means: for it is impossible that those, who are implanted into Christ by a true faith, should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness. (Matthew 7:18; John 15:5)

Truly fantastic stuff.  This is outline of Romans 3-8 without mentioning Romans 3-8.  This may be a relatively brief section, but it is theologically dense.

We have seen in this section the basis of our righteousness before a Just and Holy God.  The next section is on the Sacraments.  I'll post on the definition of sacrament and Baptism in the next post, and then we'll tackle the Lord's Supper afterwards.

--Troll--

The ThirtyNine Articles: 9-14, Original Sin and Justification

From the prior post, we left with the idea that works righteousness may be a part of the belief set due to the last 3 lines of the Athanasian Creed.  In these next six articles of the 39, we will be dealing with the meat of the faith.  Starting with original sin and free will, we will then look at justification and finally works.  This section is what being a Protestant is all about.  Let’s see how the 39 Articles handle the topics.

IX. Of original or birth sin. 

Original sin stands not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusts always contrary to the spirit, and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserves God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature does remain, yea in them that are re­generated; whereby the lust of the flesh called in Greek fronema sarkos (which some do expound, the wisdom, some sensuality, some the desire of the flesh) is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle does confess that con­cupiscence and lust has of itself the nature of sin.

This is classic Original sin.  Not only that, but Article 9 goes on to describe the Romans 6-8 situation of Paul simultaneously regenerated and sinful.  This is great stuff and full of all the classic Reformation categories.  Pelagius is even called out parenthetically.  The logical follow through on the next two points will be very satisfying.

X.  Of free Will.

The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God: 

Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and accept­able to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

Here we have it.  Free will is corrupted as well by the fall.  There is no room even for Arminians here.  One suddenly wonders how the Anglican clergy can be characterized by the Puritans as being Arminian after reading Articles 9 and 10.

XI. Of the justification of man.

We are accepted righteous before God, only for the merits of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of justification.

Obviously, the Homily of justification will need to be inspected.  Still, the words here come down squarely on the side of the imputed righteousness of Jesus rather than a works based righteousness.  It remains to be learned how this will be reconciled with those points 41-42 of the Athanasian Creed.

XII. Of good works.

Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of Gods judgment:  yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and holy faith, in so much that by them, a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree discerned by the fruit.

Once again, a truly classically reformed view of works after justification being consistent with the good fruits of the Spirit. 

XIII. Of works before justification.

Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the scholar authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather for that they are not done as GOD has willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

More reformed doctrine is revealed here as works done without the person being regenerated in Christ remain tainted by original sin and therefore completely unsatisfactory in satisfying the just wrath of God.  Great stuff, but no clarity is offered yet on the points of the Creed.

XIV. Of works of supererogation.

Voluntary works besides, over and above Gods commandments, which they call works of supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogance and impiety. For by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake then of bounden duty is required: Whereas Christ says plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We be unprofitable servants.

On this topic finally, I have hit a wall.  This concept is foreign to my reading.  So, let’s develop the two areas that raised questions.

The Homily of Justification seems to be the Homily on Salvation.  This is from the first Book of Homilies, Homily number 3.  This is hard reading in Old English, but what it represents is a very classically Reformed discussion of Justification.  There is absolutely no room for justification based upon works.  The works done after regeneration are done because we are bound and by our duty.  Anglicans will be familiar with the term bounden duty.  This concept leaves no room for antinomians, who are called here acting in carnal liberty.  This is completely different from the notion of Christian Liberty that is freedom from the rabbinical law.  Finally, there is a discussion of true faith.  Anglicans view the moment of regeneration to be Baptism, but understand that there needs to be true faith that justifies.  This true faith is said to be a gift of God.  In the Trinitarian view of these articles, this would be meant to say that the Holy Spirit as a true and vital part of that Trinity does accomplish the giving of this justifying faith.  We will return to this website later for the second book of Homilies, which are listed here.

Supererogation is action above and beyond what is expected.  This is a part of the Roman Catholic system of works righteousness, and is bound up with the system of indulgences.  Since Anglicans are talking about a faith alone system of salvation, it would stand to reason that the 39 Articles would call out Supererogation and therefore also indulgences as anathema.  These systems of works righteousness were well hated by Europeans of the sixteenth century.  The Reformers regarded this as fraud, and since it was fraud under the guise of Christianity, perpetrated by the Church, this was a most heinous system.  As recently as 2002, Pope John-Paul declared a year of indulgences.  To the Protestant ear, this rings foreign since we are so removed from it.  But if you turn on TBN and hear the televangelist talk about money in terms of seed faith, you will have a good notion of how indulgences work.  I don’t want to dwell on this as it is not a part of the Anglican system.  What is important is that Article 14 specifically denies its validity.

In summary, it would seem that the justification of the Anglican 39 Articles is based on faith alone, a faith that is a gift from God.  There is absolutely no room for a works based righteousness; in fact, the Roman Catholic system is specifically denounced.  In a very indirect way, this also denounces the modern theology of glory or prosperity gospel that so infects our Evangelical churches.  We still have to sort out some minor Creed irregularities, but the doctrines are very clearly set forth.

In the next section, Articles 15-18, we will be going through some more heavy reformed doctrines: sin, election and salvation.

--Troll--

The Country Club

A lot of fun for me writing this blog happens through my correspondance by email.  One of these days, one of my dialogues will move to the meta, but for now, email is fine.  This next piece heavily references one such email, the details of which have been sanitized to hide the author's identity, and the editing has been significant.  I think it still has the essense of the original.

I cannot tell you how much I "hate" country clubs.  It is not so much that I hate the facilities or the people who go there.  It's as if some unseen hand described who belongs and who doesn't, and all of us "play the game."  We all can visit, be nice, even interact elsewhere according to open, socially-accepted behavior, or not, but those who belong somehow know it, and I can't stand it.  We know they are clubbers by their smug. 

That was a great paragraph and it is mostly unchanged from the original email.  Let's look at this from the church perspective.  The community church is the Biblical and accepted place to hear the Gospel and receive the sacraments.  That statement is not controversial.  Without picking on any denomination or particular church, I'm sure all of us have experienced being the one who doesn't belong at a particular church.  There are families who have been in the same church for generations.  There are the uber-volunteers.  There are the various staff members and ministry workers.  There are the elders and vestry.  There are many ways to make a clique in a church.  If you are new, you may try as you wish, but you may never fit into a new church.  I attended one church for seven years and never felt as if I belonged.

Some Evangelical and Pentecostal churches have an institutionalized way of doing this.  There are levels of Sanctification taught.  The whole nonsense about jewels in your crown and carnal Christians are examples of this stratification.  There is some experience that must occur to legitimize your faith.  Faith is no longer an intellectual understanding of the truth of the Gospel as described in the Bible, but some endorphin driven experience said to be of the Holy Spirit.  This stratification alienates believers, and yet it is not only pervasive but institutionally condoned.

Without discussing these overt displays, the situation can be encapsulated in a much less obvious, but equally subversive mechanism by examining the coffee hour.  Your church might just have standing around talking without coffee.  That's fine.  The argument here is not against fellowship or against coffee; the argument is against closing your circles and showing your backs to newcomers.  Even those newcomers who have been in church for a decade or more can feel alienated.  This is very much like the country club mentality.  Old money knows new money without effort.  New money recognizes the disdain towards them.  The categories at church may be different, but the same dynamics exist.

Why do we go to church?  To whom are we to minister, and in what priority?  We go to church to hear the Word preached, to receive the sacraments, and to be accountable to other Christians.  We should minister first within the church and secondarily outside the church.  One very important and largly overlooked ministry in most churches is the ministry we owe each other as fellow Christians.  The boundaries we bring into church never really come down.  Paul describes a much different church in the first century, at least he envisions a different church.  He may not actually have witnessed that other church.

Here is my challenge.  Next service, when you meet the people around you, instead of seeing that you have talked to your friends, shaken hands with the most people, shaken the hands of the four people immediately around you, or whatever your routine might be, do this instead.  Slow down.  Make eye contact.  LEARN THE NAME of just ONE other person.  Repeat their name back to them.  Commit to finding this person after church at coffee and actually talking to them.  Don't just go through the motions.  All of the parts of the liturgy exist for a reason.  They deserve more than just our lip service.

Which way do you finish the song?

And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love....
or
And they'll know we are clubbers by our smug, by our smug....

--Ogre--

The Heretics: Pelagius

The details of the Pelagian heresy are very involved, but I will try to walk through his arguments first. Afterwards, I will present the Augustinian rebuttal. Finally, we will look at the differences between Full Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, and the presence of both in the modern church. Pelagius was a fifth century monk. He had many detractors, but history records the debate between Pelagius and Augustine of Hippo. The main issues are original sin, free will and salvation.

Let me begin by saying that any argument that is not from scripture will be categorically dismissed by Troll. In order to understand reformed doctrine, the five solas must be considered. To refute any doctrinal position, it is most effective to do so within the hermeneutic of the system that holds the position in question. Does the doctrine stand up to its own internal hermeneutic? The corollary to this statement is that any argument that begins with the supposition that Paul’s writings do not belong in the canon as a defense of Pelagius have been categorically discarded. If the integrity of scripture is your argument against Christian doctrine, then you cannot consider yourself Christian. At least have the honesty to admit this basic assumption: to be Christian has to be based upon something, and we hold the integrity of scripture to be that something.

Original Sin. Pelagius viewed Adam in a much different light than Augustine. Pelagius contended that Adam would have died whether or not he sinned. The argument is that the natural characteristic of man is to die. Genesis does not specifically state that Adam was created immortal. Therefore, death was not the result of original sin, but a natural part of creation.

Pelagius also believed that Adam’s sin convicted only him, not all of mankind. Pelagius denied the federal headship of Adam. The argument is that the OT is full of examples of sin being unique to an individual with no inheritance of sin in any direction of the family. It is said that Jesus never mentions Adam specifically, or speaks of the fall. Therefore, the federal relationship between Adam and mankind is not specifically Biblical in Pelagius’ mind. He goes so far to say that infants are born untarnished by sin, in the same condition as Adam at creation. Therefore, mankind is essentially good, not evil. Adam becomes nothing more than a bad example.

Grace. The role of Grace in Pelagius mind was different than that of Augustine. There is a Roman Catholic term that owes its origin to this debate. This concept is called prevenient grace. The point is that man has a fallen will until God intervenes with Grace that truly frees the will of man allowing him the ability to choose to follow Jesus. This prevenient grace was bestowed on all of mankind by Jesus. This was the action of Jesus on the cross, to make man able to exercise free will in a way to follow Christ.

Free Will. Logically, then, free will begins uncorrupted by Adam. Jesus buys for mankind the ability to have uncorrupted free will once again. Therefore, all people are born with uncorrupted free will and may choose to follow Christ as they will.

Salvation. Following through to his logical conclusion, Pelagius argues that salvation is based upon the meritorious efforts of the individual. Morality and the following of the Law is the key to salvation. After bestowing prevenient grace on the free will of mankind, the role of Jesus is the example of perfection to which man is to aspire. The Law is the pathway to salvation.

Augustine and the Reformers. Going point by point through these arguments again, let’s look at the doctrine as spelled out by Augustine, and later, the reformers.

Original Sin. Pelagius’ argument from silence concerning the term original sin in Genesis is a paper tiger. As always, one needs to be careful when arguing from silence. To say that Genesis failing to specify man’s condition concerning death prior to Adam’s sin necessarily proves that man was created with a shelf life ignores the obvious. Genesis also fails to point out a shelf life for man existing prior to Adam’s sin. An argument from silence only works if the same argument cannot be used against your argument. What Genesis does say is that Adam sinned. The doctrine of original sin is spelled out through many OT and NT passages and is given the label original sin. The word Christian appears nowhere in the Bible either, and yet we accept that the Bible describes what it is to follow Christ. This is a hollow argument that ignores vast amounts of scripture (for instance Psalms 14 and 53, Isaiah 28, 53 and 59, Jeremiah 6, and Exodus 6,) which I will develop in detail in a Building Blocks post in the near future.

The federal headship of Adam is an argument heavily steeped in covenant theology. It is interesting that all groups that hold to the doctrine of original sin will accept this federal relationship of Adam to mankind, but then many will fail to follow through with the covenantal relationship of the rest of the OT to redemptive history. Nonetheless, concerning original sin and Adam’s representation of mankind, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Paul in Romans 3 are the key starting points. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but rather this is a starting point for reading about the condition of man and in particular the inner qualities of the heart of a fallen mankind.

Grace. The role of Grace in Salvation is a look at the five solas of the Reformation as well as the five points of Calvinism. The work of Jesus on the Cross has to accomplish something for mankind, or else God is a cruel and unjust God. The question is for whom did Christ die, and for whom has He risen. Once we establish this, we can discuss who gets the Grace and what does it do. The concept of Jesus’ remnant or elect runs all through the OT and NT. There is clearly an indication that not all people will be saved. So, did Christ die to give us a choice? Is Grace resistable? Or instead, is God sovereign, the Almighty, who decides who will be His. If you accept the idea of Original Sin, then all men are already dead in their sin. Therefore, God in His mercy selects a vast number, too numerous to count, to be His people. Grace is then God through the Holy Spirit opening the minds and hearts of His elect so that they will hear His call. If you are called, it is the demonstration of the Grace of God. In this perspective, Grace cannot be resisted, nor is Grace revocable. Both of those possibilities would damage the sovereignty of God. Therefore, the Resurrection was for all of Christ’s people, but not for all people.

Free Will. Free will is another term that does not appear in the Bible except in the OT context of freewill offerings. There is a large difference between that concept and the idea of free will enabling man to participate in his own salvation. Everyone recognizes that we make decisions every day. If you consider the world in which we live in a horizontal plane, and the Kingdom of God a higher horizontal plane, and interactions with God in a vertical line between them, then it is clear that we exercise free will within the horizontal plane of this world, but vertical interactions between these two planes are the issue. The tower of Babel is a good example of our vertical efforts: futile. Our attempts to fulfill the Law: futile. Our efforts at works: futile. Jesus provides the vertical connection between the planes. He condescends to our plane and He is the ladder between the planes. But only through Him can we ascend. As it turns out, Jesus has better technology in the New Covenant than Jacob. It isn’t a ladder, it is actually an escalator. We don’t even step onto the escalator. The Holy Spirit places us on the escalator. That is how effective our free will is without Grace.

Salvation. Pelagius would have man building the ladder, climbing the ladder and reaching the top, using the blue print of Moses and the example of Christ. We know the futility of building towers and ladders to God from the OT. We need Christ to provide the means, the motive, the Grace, the power, the whole enchilada. Salvation is by Faith alone, in Christ alone, by Grace alone to the Glory of God alone as testified to us in Scripture alone, the five solas of the Reformation.

Semi-Pelagianism vs Full Pelagianism.

The Semi-Pelagian viewpoint is neither Pelagian nor Augustinian on the issue of original sin.  People are born neither good nor bad, but neutral.  Adam damaged the condition of mankind, but did not corrupt it, as Augustine would argue.  The Semi-Pelagian viewpoint of salvation is different in that the resurrection provides the possibility for salvation for all of mankind. It is not an irresistible Grace as in Augustinian or Calvinist thought. There is still a synergism or cooperation between God and man, rather than the monergism of Augustine or Calvin. If man takes one step or half the steps, it is still synergism. Free will is intact in this system. Faith, rather than being a gift, actually becomes a work of man in the exercise of free will. Election, then, becomes a matter of God knowing in advance how each person is going to respond with their free will to the offer of Salvation from Christ. There are similarities between Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism, the contribution of man being a matter of degree.

Modern Protestant Liberalism and Evangelicalism

If you have ever attended these types of churches, there is a lot of the following language. There are altar calls in which people are asked to make a decision for Christ. Ask God into your life. Make Jesus your Lord and Savior. All of these notions are Pelagian in nature, whether semi or full Pelagian depends upon the means of sanctification. It is striking just how Roman Catholic these so called Protestant denominations have become. When the addition of spirituality and mysticism is added to the brew, you have moralistic churches with leaders who invent scripture on the fly without even the scholarship and theology of the Roman Catholic church. There is no one in the church to point out the obvious to the Emperor. This is the logical outcome of this unbiblical theology. Paul, who wrote about half of the New Testament, is either discredited, disregarded or twisted. Law passages get plucked out of context without the indicatives that ground the imperatives. This is the state of the American church.

Summary. It is easy to say that Pelagius lost the battle, but won the war. Augustine, Luther and Calvin would not recognize most of our American churches today, but would consider the vast majority to be either pagan or heretical. The American culture is so rooted in individual rights, freedom and the “can do” attitude, that the Gospel is completely scandalous and offensive. Romans 3 and 9 are so completely foreign to us that we end up shouting that God is unfair. We actually believe that somewhere deep down inside of every person, there is a good and righteous person, and that God will see that goodness and the sincerity of that person’s belief. Belief is no longer in something specific, you just have to belief in something, and that’s good enough. Pelagius was a better Christian theologian than most of the modern liberal thinkers, but he still got it wrong. Pelagianism is the scourge of the American church today.

--Ogre--