In response to my post of Dr. Rosenbladt’s refreshing presentation, The Gospel for Those Broken by the Church, both Charisse and Jason weighed-in on the topic of sanctification. I greatly appreciate thoughtful comments like theirs, and I read them all with care and interest. I respond here with some initial thoughts.

I have been observing some of the wider debate on sanctification that has recently been occurring.

I say ‘debate’, but some of what I have been seeing has been, regrettably, outright and uncharitable hostility towards those of us who would argue that sanctification is God’s work in the life of the believer, rooted in the Gospel, and causing us to produce fruit. Careless (and certainly, as far as I can see, unwarranted) accusations of antinomianism have been thrown around by some, though there have been many other, more honourable, voices also engaged in the discussion. I wish all were as measured in their comments as are Jason and Charisse.

I have been forcing myself to read some blog posts that I find intensely frustrating, as I want to be sure that I am properly grasping the nuances of the opposition’s position and understand their arguments. I am inclined to suspect that much of the heat is the result of various misunderstandings of what other people are actually intending to say, and perhaps a fair degree of people talking past each other by using identical terminology to mean different things. Which is not to say that there are not also important differences of substance at play here – there most certainly are.

In her comment, Charisse seemed to think that Dr. Rosenbladt was perhaps blurring the line between justifcation and sanctification. My memory of the detail of what Dr. Rosenbladt said is fading fast, though I don’t personally recall thinking anything amiss with his doctrine of sanctification in his lecture. As a Professor of Theology at Concordia University, Irvine, and LCMS minister, I’d be very surprised if Dr. Rosenbladt were anything other than in complete conformance with the doctrine taught by the Book of Concord (the Lutheran Confessions). Of course, not everyone would agree with the Confessional Lutheran view.

I wondered whether Jason had read Francis Pieper (a Confessional Lutheran theologian) on the subject of sanctification. Pieper writes about this in volume 3 of his Christian Dogmatics. (I have the Logos edition.) I found Pieper very helpful when I was looking into this topic early last year. I think I should benefit if I were to read him again soon.

From my preliminary reading thus far of Francis Pieper and the Lutheran Confessions, I would say that they both seem to be in accord with what I had understood about sanctification from my prior reading of Scripture. (I say this as a non-Lutheran.)

I have endeavoured to summarize below some of the main points of what Pieper says on sanctification. What he teaches conforms to the Lutheran Confessions. I trust that, in my desire for brevity here, I shall not inadvertently misrepresent the Confessional Lutheran position too badly. (I welcome correction if I do.) The following is in no way an exhaustive treatment of the subject.

What is sanctification?

There are two senses of sanctification: the wide and the narrow. Pieper quotes Quenstedt (another Lutheran theologian, and nephew of Johann Gerhard):

‘Sanctification’ is at times used in a wide sense, including justification, as in Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:10; at other times, however, it is used in a narrow sense and, so understood, is identical with renewal in the strict sense, as in Rom. 6:19, 22; 1 Thess. 4:3–4, 7.” (II, p. 914.)

Pieper goes on:

In its narrow sense, sanctification designates the internal spiritual transformation of the believer or the holiness of life which follows upon justification. It is so used in Rom. 6:22: “Now being made free from sin and become servants to God [namely, by justification], ye have your fruit unto holiness.” Vv. 18–19: “Being then made free from sin [namely, by faith in the Gospel, v. 17, or by justification], ye became the servants of righteousness … even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.” In the narrower sense of sanctification the Formula of Concord states: “In the same manner the order also between faith and good works must abide and be maintained, and likewise between justification and renewal, or sanctification. For good works do not precede faith, neither does sanctification precede justification. But first faith is kindled in us in conversion by the Holy Ghost from the hearing of the Gospel. This lays hold of God’s grace in Christ, by which the person is justified. Then, when the person is justified, he is also renewed and sanctified by the Holy Ghost, from which renewal and sanctification the fruits of good works must then follow.” (Trigl. 929, Sol. Decl., III, 40 f.)

The essential difference between justification and sanctification

Justification takes place outside of man – justification is God’s declaration that we (who have no righteousness of our own) are accounted righteous for the sake of Christ.

Conversely, sanctification (in the narrow sense) takes place within us. Pieper: ‘God changes the unrighteous into a righteous man’, and, ‘the sanctification which flows from faith consists in an inward moral transformation’. This work, of course, is never complete in this life – we are simul iustus et peccator.

The relation of justification to sanctification

Although they are distinct, justification and sanctification, faith and works, are inseparably connected. On the relation of justification to ‘renewal’ (that is, sanctification in the narrow sense), the Formula of Concord states:

This should not be understood as though justification and renewal were sundered from one another in such a manner that a genuine faith sometimes could exist and continue for a time together with a wicked intention, but hereby only the order (of cause and effects, of antecedents and consequents) is indicated, how one precedes or succeeds the other. For what Luther has correctly said remains true nevertheless: Faith and good works well agree and fit together (are inseparably connected); but it is faith alone, without works, which lays hold of the blessing; and yet it is never and at no time alone. (Trigl. 929, Sol. Decl., II, 41.) [My emphasis.]

Whose work is sanctification?

Pieper and the Lutheran Confessions affirm that it is God who works sanctification in us. However, they both also affirm that we cooperate with this work. Yet, certainly we do not participate in our sanctification as an equal or even junior partner. Rather, God works in us to cause us to cooperate with Him in His work of sanctification within us. In other words, the entire work of sanctification, including our cooperative part in it, is utterly and entirely dependent upon God and His work. Here is Pieper, again:

However—and let this be dearly understood—the working of God and the working of the new man are not co-ordinate, “as when two horses draw a wagon,” but the activity of the new man is always and fully subordinated to God’s activity; it always takes place dependenter a Deo [dependent upon God]. In other words: it is the Holy Ghost who produces the activity of the new man; the new man remains the organ of the Holy Ghost.

All these points are set forth in the Formula of Concord: “From this, then, it follows that as soon as the Holy Ghost, through the Word and holy Sacraments, has begun in us His work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain that through the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should co-operate, although still in great weakness. But this (that we co-operate) does not occur from our carnal, natural powers, but from the new powers and gifts which the Holy Ghost has begun in us in conversion, as St. Paul expressly and earnestly exhorts that as workers together with Him we receive not the grace of God in vain (2 Cor. 6:1). But this is to be understood in no other way than that the converted man does good to such an extent and so long as God by His Holy Spirit rules, guides, and leads him, and that as soon as God would withdraw HIS gracious hand from him, he could not for a moment persevere in obedience to God. But if this were understood thus, that the converted man co-operates with the Holy Ghost in the manner as when two horses draw a wagon, this could in no way be conceded without prejudice to the divine truth.” (Trigl. 907, Sol. Decl., II, 65 f.)

This is, of course, exactly what Paul teaches the Philippians when he exhorts them to outwork in their lives the consequences of the Gospel that he has just presented to them:

…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. (Phil. 2:12b–13).

Thus, in a certain very limited sense, the word ‘synergism’ (= ‘working together’) could be applied correctly to the work of sanctification. But, to do so would, I think, immediately risk conveying to anyone without a firm grasp of the correct doctrine of sanctification the gravely erroneous impression that somehow we were contributing to our sanctification in the same kind of way as is God. Yet, the truth is that we only work ‘to such an extent and so long as God by His Holy Spirit rules, guides and leads’. Were it not for God’s active working in us, we could contribute nothing whatsoever to our sanctification – no obedience, no good works, no good intentions, no cooperation at all.

In view of the danger of being misunderstood, I think it wiser to avoid entirely the term ‘synergism’ when describing sanctification. Sanctification is God’s work in us by the Holy Spirit through His Word applying to us the merits of Christ, thereby causing us to produce fruit.

Incidentally, the Westminster Confession of Faith ch. XVI seems to me to be in agreement with the Lutherans concerning the origin of our sanctification and good works:

Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. (John 15:4–6, Ezek. 36:26–27) And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit to work in them to will, and to do, of His good pleasure: (Phil. 2:13, Phil. 4:13, 2 Cor. 3:5) yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them. (Phil. 2:12, Heb. 6:11–12, 2 Pet. 1:3, 5, 10–11, Isa. 64:7, 2 Tim. 1:6, Acts 26:6–7, Jude 20–21)

Through what means does God work sanctification in us?

God works sanctification in us through His word (John 17:17), and more specifically, through the Gospel – though the Law is also a servant to the Gospel in this endeavour. Pieper writes:

Strictly speaking, only that Word which mortifies the old man and supplies strength to the new man is the means of sanctification, namely, the Gospel (the means of grace), not the Law. It is only the Gospel which dethrones sin; the Law can only multiply sin (Rom. 6:14; 7:5–6; Jer. 31:31 ff.). However, the Law has its place in the work of sanctification; it serves the Gospel. Over against the inexact statements of some Lutheran theologians Carpzov shows that only the Gospel (solum evangelium) is the means (organum) of renewal and sanctification, but that “the work of the Law is needed to accomplish a certain purpose.”

How does the Law assist in the work of sanctification? The Law continually prepares the way for the Gospel. Since the Christian, having the old evil flesh clinging to him, is ever inclined to make light of the sin which still adheres to him, it is necessary that the Law continually show him his sinfulness and damnableness. Where the knowledge of sin ceases, there also faith in the remission of sins, faith in the Gospel, has come to an end (cf. Luther against the Antinomians, St. L. XX: 1646), and thus the Gospel, the only source of sanctification, is choked off. Again, according to his flesh the Christian is always inclined to follow his own ideas as to what constitutes a saintly, God-pleasing life, and he will look upon certain sins as virtues and upon certain virtues as sins. And in view of this fact that by nature he is but dimly conscious of the holy will of God, he is in constant need of the revealed Law as a “rule” to show him at all times the true nature of the God-pleasing life and truly good works.

Here, Pieper shows us how both the second and the third uses of the Law serve the Gospel in the work of sanctification. In its second use, the Law continually shows us our sin and thus forces us to take refuge in the Gospel, which delivers to us the remission of sins in Christ and His righteousness put to our account. In its third use, the Law shows the standard of perfect holy living that God has willed for our lives, thus keeping us from accepting any measure of godliness that is lesser or other than God’s own.

Pieper immediately goes on to reiterate his critical point that, even though the Law serves the Gospel in these ways in our sanctification, it is only the Gospel – and not the Law – that has power to put to death the old nature and vivify the new. He writes:

But we must bear in mind that the strength to do good works and to abstain from evil works is supplied solely by the Gospel. Paul admonishes the Christians “by the mercies of God” (Rom. 12:1) to present their bodies a sacrifice unto God. The only thing that will create the love of God and of the brethren in us is “because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19, 11). In every case the Gospel must write the Law of God into our hearts. Luther reminds us that those preachers who use the Law instead of the Gospel to effect sanctification are to blame for the paucity of sanctification and good works. [My emphasis.]

Parting thoughts

Well, there’s much more that could be be said, but perhaps the above might be somewhat helpful to one or two readers. I also recommend hunting through the New Testament for all references to sanctification, asking of each, ‘Who here is doing the work of sanctification?’

Peace and grace.

Patton makes a good argument: that Lewis set out to defend orthodoxy and the person and work of Jesus Christ, whereas Bell seems to delight in challenging them. And, no doubt, this provides a substantive part of the answer to Patton’s question. Much of what Lewis writes is helpful, and the broad appeal of his apologetic work undeniable. But I am not sure that Patton has quite explained the entirety of Lewis’ attraction.

Now, I am far from an expert on Lewis. I read the Narnia series as a child, along with The Screwtape Letters, and then some of his other works in my early twenties. Much more recently, I read and enjoyed his fictional Cosmic Trilogy. I very much appreciated Lewis’ essay, On the Reading of Old Books, which he wrote as the introduction to a translation of Athanasius’ work On the Incarnation. Everyone should read that essay. Nevertheless, there is very much of Lewis’ work that I have (yet) to assimilate, though his general theological perspective is apparent in what I have read.

Lewis was certainly not orthodox in a great deal of his theology, as Patton observes. Even in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, for example, it is decidedly odd that Aslan pays a ransom to the Snow Queen. Lewis’ view of Scripture was rather lower than many of us would think proper. He believed in a form of purgatory. And he had inclusivist tendencies – the belief that a person could ‘belong to Christ without knowing it’ (Mere Christianity). Lewis’ views on evolution, though – particularly in later life – are perhaps not as straightforward as Patton seems to suggest.

Why, then, given his questionable-at-points doctrine, is Lewis as popular as he his among those who would – notionally, at least – subscribe to sounder doctrine?

Patton makes his case well, though I suspect a further factor is that Lewis was possessed both of an extraordinarily fine mind and the literary prowess to be able to communicate his thoughts clearly and engagingly to a wide audience. Whether or not one agrees with him, Lewis makes us think. And this, for the discerning reader, is a great benefit. However, the problems inherent in Lewis’ theology are a potential trap for the unwary. I am not therefore quite as ready to endorse Lewis’ ministry as is Patton. The danger of false doctrine is not lessened by an accomplished and affable presentation, nor by the attending presence of a great deal of truth. Quite the contrary.

And therein perhaps lies another small piece of the puzzle with regard to Lewis’ popularity. I wonder whether too many of us are insufficiently discerning, too attracted by the superficial lure of a cool well on scorching summer’s day to be concerned by reports that it is tainted by a mortal threat. For Lewis’ doctrinal foibles are not excused by his undoubted greatness, but magnified. As the writer of Ecclesiastes observes:

Dead flies putrefy the perfumer’s ointment,
And cause it to give off a foul odour;
So does a little folly to one respected for wisdom and honor.
Ecc. 10:1

Thus, if we are to read Lewis, let us exercise diligent discernment – as indeed we should do with even the most excellent of teachers (cf. Acts 17:10–11).

Like us, Lewis was imperfect, a fallen sinner prone to err. Thanks be to God, then, that we have in Jesus Christ a perfect Saviour who has paid the punishment for all our sins, whether those of doctrinal imperfection or of insufficient discernment. Believing this, we stand before God declared righteous in Christ.

Further resources

The Christian Research Institute has a brief, balanced and helpful assessment of Lewis’ theology (PDF).

A year or two ago, I started to listen to a lecture series (available for free on iTunesU) on C.S. Lewis by Dr. Knox Chamblin at Reformed Theological Seminary. Regrettably, I became sidetracked before I learnt very much. I have recently started to listen to it again, and I am thus far very much enjoying Dr. Chamblin’s manifest enthusiasm for his subject.

What a wonderful opportunity to share Law and Gospel! What a perfect occasion to explain the significance of the birth of Christ!

First, the leaflet would say something of the Bad News: that we all have broken the commands given to us by our Creator God – that we have all failed to love Him and one another as we ought. That we have thereby rightfully earned the fierce wrath of a terrifyingly holy, pure and just God. And that we shall all surely one day stand before His throne of judgment, with no hope of reprieve from the eternal fires of hell – no hope, that is, if we are trusting in our own works, experiences or knowledge for our right standing before God.

And then, the glorious Good News: that the holy and just creator God is also a God of love. That He so loved the world that He gave even His only begotten Son – sending Him into the world in human flesh. That this God-Man was in all points tempted as we are, but lived a blameless life, perfectly obedient and pleasing to God. That this Son of God then died in the place of sinners like us, pouring out His blood and bearing in Himself the punishment of all who trust in Him, thereby appeasing the wrath of God toward them. That whoever is trusting in this Christ is declared righteous on His account, and therefore has no need to fear the coming day of judgment. That these shall not perish on that day, but instead live forever!

And, perhaps, room might even be found to mention the fact that forsaking hope in our own merits and instead trusting in Jesus Christ alone is the only means of salvation – for it is only the blood of Christ that is able to wash away our sin and make us clean in the sight of a holy and just God. Christ alone is the Way, the Truth, the Life.

The leaflet wouldn’t have to use these exact words, of course. Wouldn’t even have to go into that much detail. But, surely, the essence of Law and Gospel would be present? – The reason for the birth of this particular Baby.

And, of course, you’d expect there to be a warm and fullsome invitation, extended to everyone to come to the Christmas services and hear more about this Son of God born into the world to save sinners like us.

And it might even be that, at such a service, visitors would hear something not a million miles removed from the content of this short message:

• Christmas Homily: The Birth of Christ as the Fulfilment of Prophecy

You’d be right to expect such things.

But what came through our door was this:

And so I ask this: if the so-called church is so utterly ashamed of the Christ and His Gospel that it has forgotten what the Good News actually is – what it is that we are saved from, who it is that saves us, and how He did so – is it any wonder that the visible church is in full-blown retreat before an advancing culture hostile to Christ?

And yet, I do not despair. For it is Christ who builds His church, and He is able to save to the utmost even we who perpetrate such acts of foolishness as this leaflet. Let us therefore repent, and turn joyfully to our Saviour, come into the world to save even such as us!

Having previously laid the foundations for a correct understanding of Christian discernment, I turn now to the question of orthodoxy.

Over the course of several recent episodes of his Fighting for the Faith programme, Chris Rosebrough has fiercely defended his friend, Dan Kimball. Chris has not merely declared Dan to be ‘a brother in Christ’, and not a heretic, but has repeatedly asserted that Dan ‘preaches, teaches, and confesses, historic orthodoxy’. This has been the source of no minor controversy.

In this article, I first define several terms that are necessary for us to enter meaningfully into the debate, and I endeavour to give them a Biblical basis. I then give voice to several questions that have occurred to me (and I know also to others) as I have heard the debate rage, and particularly as I heard Chris interview Dan.

In asking these questions, I am not so much concerned with Dan Kimball per se, but with the implications that the answers have for how we are to understand what it means to be orthodox. Simply, then, I embrace an opportunity to think aloud about orthodoxy.

The audio of Chris interviewing Dan is available, as is a transcript produced by Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries:

• Audio: Chris Rosebrough interviews Dan Kimball on Fighting for the Faith
• Transcript: Dan Kimball on the Record

Let me be very clear that my aim is not to inflame the controversy, but rather to tame it: first by preparing the ground for us to understand one another, and then by giving both Dan and Chris an opportunity to elucidate their positions clearly, succinctly and publicly. I hope that they will consider serving the church by responding in this way, although they are certainly under no obligation even to listen to anything I have to say, let alone to address it.

‘Today, we have naming of parts’

If we are to understand one another and avoid talking at cross purposes, it is necessary to define our terminology. Unless we do this, we risk erroneously assuming that we have understood what someone else means when they use a particular term.

I shall therefore provide several definitions that I believe are in line with generally accepted usage. In any case, you will at least know with precision what I intend when I use a word:

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’

‘The question is, said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’

(Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll)

Orthodoxy

The Oxford English Dictionary defines orthodox as meaning ‘right in opinion’. A person therefore adheres to orthodoxy if he maintains right opinion. The word derives from two Greek words: orthos, meaning ‘straight or right’, and doxa, meaning opinion or glory. (The English word ‘doxology’ also derives from the latter; it means ‘the speaking of praise or glory’.)

In his book, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church, Harold O.J. Brown writes (p. 1):

“Orthodoxy” is derived from two Greek words meaning “right” and “honor.” Orthodox faith and orthodox doctrines are those that honor God rightly, something that ought to be desirable and good.

I like Brown’s statement because he gets to the heart of the rightness of orthodoxy: something is right (and therefore orthodox) if it honours God and brings Him glory (or ‘honour’, as Brown puts it).

As our almighty, everlasting and holy God is perfect in all His attributes and ways, any statement made of Him is honouring only if it portrays Him and His work accurately. To portray God other than as He is is de facto to dishonour Him by detracting from His perfection. Since the Scriptures are the sole source we have of authoritative self-revelation from God – that is, they are the only place where we can presently discover with certainty what He is really like – it follows that we honour God by our belief, teaching and confession only if they accord with the Scriptures.

My definition of Christian orthodoxy, then, is this: belief, teaching and confession that is in full accordance with the Scriptures.

In my previous post, I asked the question, What is the activity we call discernment really all about? I argued there that Christian discernment is built upon the foundation of paying close attention to the Great Salvation that is only to be found in Christ. I said this:

Discernment thus begins and ends with Christ. It is always about Christ, His person, His work.

Discernment abides in Christ. It feasts richly on His Word, for in the Scriptures alone do we find authoritative revelation of the person and work of Christ. All the Scriptures speak of Him, and in them we encounter God in human flesh, crucified for our sin and raised for our being declared righteous.

It therefore follows that orthodoxy is especially concerned with belief, teaching and confession concerning the person and work of Christ.

Heresy

Brown (ibid., p. 3) has this to say about heresy:

The word “heresy,” as we have noted, is the English version of the Greek noun hairesis, originally meaning nothing more insidious than “party.” It is used in this neutral sense in Acts 5:17, 15:5, and 26:5. Early in the history of the first Christians, however, “heresy” came to be used to mean a separation or split resulting from a false faith (1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20). It designated either a doctrine or the party holding the doctrine, a doctrine that was sufficiently intolerable to destroy the unity of the Christian church. In the early church, heresy did not refer to simply any doctrinal disagreement, but to something that seemed to undercut the very basis for Christian existence. Practically speaking, heresy involved the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Christ—later called “special theology” and “Christology”.

Corruptio optimi pessimum est, says the proverb: “the corruption of the best is the worst.” The early Christians felt a measure of tolerance for the pagans, even though they were persecuted by them, for the pagans were ignorant. “This ignorance,” Paul told the Athenians, “God winked at” (Acts 17:30). But Paul did not wink at him who brought “any other Gospel” within the context of the Christian community. “Let him be accursed,” he told the Galatian church (Gal. 1:8).

My definition of heresy is therefore this: belief, teaching or confession contrary to the Scriptures that is sufficiently intolerable as to destroy the unity of the church.

Heresy presupposes orthodoxy. It sets itself up in opposition to the teaching of Scripture and thereby traduces God by painting a false picture of Him and His work. Heresy is divisive, because it comes from within the church and God’s people properly react to it in horror, not wishing to see God’s name defamed and unwilling that anyone should perish through a corruption of the Gospel.

Not withstanding the hazard that heresy poses to the cause of the Gospel, the disunity that it brings is in damnable opposition to the repeated commendation of Christian unity and exhortation towards it found throughout the Scripture (e.g. Ps. 133:1; John 17:21; Acts 1:14; 2:1, 46; 5:12; Rom.15:5; 1 Cor. 11:17–33; Eph. 4:3, 13; Phil. 2:2–4).

Note well that it is the one bringing heresy who is responsible for the division that it causes, not those who oppose him by holding fast to sound doctrine. Thus, Paul instructs Titus that he is to:

‘Reject a divisive [hairetikon (αἱρετικὸν)] man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.’ (Titus 3:10–11)

Paul had previously told Titus that it is a positive responsibility of every elder (pastor) to be ‘holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict’ (Titus 1:9).

Indeed, Paul shows that standing firm in the traditions received from the Apostles is the natural implication for all believers of our having been chosen and called by God for salvation and sanctification:

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (2 Thess. 2:13–15)

Notice how Paul connects the proper giving of thanks to God (that is, expressing the glory and honour due to Him) with our election, calling, salvation and sanctification. Observe that these things are all ‘for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ’. ‘Therefore,’ Paul says, ‘stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle’. The whole process of salvation being worked in us for the glory of Christ has as its inevitable implication our standing fast in the teaching that we have received from the Apostles.

All believers are thus commanded to cling to orthodoxy, and elders are especially called to ‘exhort and convict those who contradict’. The proper response to heresy is therefore to identify it and warn the person advocating it. If the person persists in his divisiveness after two admonitions, he is to be rejected – he condemns himself by refusing to submit to the truth revealed in Scripture and by spurning its call to stand fast in the faith.

Aberrancy

If orthodoxy is that which is in full accord with Scriptures, and heresy is that which is contrary to it in an intolerable way, it is clear that there is a category between the two: doctrine that is not properly orthodox, but which is not such an egregious offence to the faith as to undermine it fatally and be a cause for division. This lesser category of error is called ‘aberrant’, meaning simply that it is ‘straying from the accepted standard’.

Some use the term heterodox (‘other opinion’, not conforming to that which is orthodox) in a similar way, but that term seems to me be to be wider, potentially encompassing even heresy in a way that aberrancy does not.

Thus, aberrant belief, teaching or confession is that which is not in full accord with the Scriptures, but which does not pose an immediate threat to the unity of the church.

That which is aberrant must of course be corrected, not least because we are commanded ‘to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3). But also because such errors tend to multiply, and aberrant doctrine can very quickly descend into full-blown heresy. But, in and of itself, aberrancy is not so serious as to call for separation between those who are in error and those who are holding fast to the full counsel of the Scriptures.

Orthopraxy and heteropraxy

Whereas orthodoxy is ‘right belief’, orthopraxy is ‘right practice’. There are some who have maintained a clear distinction between the two and, in one sense, this distinction is valid: it is conceivable that someone may act through weakness contrary to his own opinion.

Nevertheless, people draw conclusions about our beliefs not only from our words, but also from our deeds. Our practice is therefore an integral component of our confession. Heteropraxy (‘other practice’, not conforming to orthopraxy) is thus inevitably unorthodox, because it is a failure to confess with our deeds that which is in full accordance with the Scriptures, and it thereby does not give God the right honour that is due to Him. Conversely, the public confession of our faith is something we do, and thus most surely a matter to be considered part of our practice.

At its best, heteropraxy might simply be due to a lack of having thought through the implications of one’s beliefs. At worst, fear of controversy, or of being disliked, could result in a public failure to be clear about the message of Law and Gospel: God’s wrath is upon all mankind because of sin, but Christ died for sinners that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

Such scenarios are not hypothetical – prominent leaders in the visible church have equivocated when under the spotlight. Peter denied Christ. And Paul had to rebuke Peter for not being ‘straightforward about the truth of the gospel’:

But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” (Gal. 2:14–16)

Even as we consider these examples, we see that any attempt to make a distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxy is artificial. For a correct understanding of orthodoxy is that which gives right glory and honour to God; it is belief, teaching and confession that is in full accordance with the Scriptures. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are inseparably intertwined.

If we equivocate such that our confession is unclear about the fate of those not trusting in Christ, we diminish both His person and His work, and we are not orthodox, because we thereby fail in our public profession to give God the glory and honour that are His due.

Bob DeWaay firmly linked practice and confession in an excellent 2005 sermon:

• Holding Fast the Good Confession (MP3, 9.5MB)

(Although Bob DeWaay is sadly no longer pastor of Twin City Fellowship, that fact does not undermine his long and notable record of teaching sound doctrine. This particular sermon is well worth hearing, and I am grateful to Paula Coyle for bringing it to my attention.)

The link between orthodoxy and orthopraxy is especially strong for pastors and teachers in the church. Peter perhaps understood this better than most, having suffered public rebuke from Paul for his separation from the Gentiles. This is what Peter had to say, writing some time after:

The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away. (1 Peter 5:1–4)

Orthodoxy – that which is in full accordance with the Scriptures – thus requires elders (pastors) to be examples to the flock. This is an essential element of their role. The failure of an elder to be a suitable example is thus an implicit denial of orthodoxy. It could hardly be otherwise, for how could any teacher ‘Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority’ (Titus 2:15) if he had undermined his own authority by practising contrary to his confession?

Thus, we see that orthodoxy implies orthopraxy, both as a matter of confession and of requirement. This is especially true for pastors and teachers in the church.

Monergism vs. synergism

Scripture teaches monergism, the doctrine that regeneration (our being born again from above) is the work of God alone, and that we contribute nothing to it. Thus, glory is due to God alone for our salvation, as it is in all things: soli Deo gloria.

Monergism is comforting: if our salvation depends solely upon the will of God and His work, then it can never be imperilled by our sin and frailty. Thus, Paul is able to say boldly (my emphasis):

I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine making request for you all with joy, for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:3–6)

Christ has begun a good work in us; He shall surely complete it. He is both ‘the author and finisher of our faith’, as the writer to the Hebrews puts it, ‘who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross’ (Heb. 12:2).

Synergism is the opposite of monergism. Synergism is the counter-Biblical doctrine that the human will cooperates with God in the work of regeneration.

Monergism asserts that God will save whomsoever He wishes; synergism claims that God does not violate man’s free will by saving someone who has not first chosen God. Monergism’s view of salvation is centred upon the will of God; synergism sees salvation as dependent upon the will of the creature.

It is essential to realize that monergism does not teach that God does violence to our wills in the work of regeneration. Rather, it teaches that the Holy Spirit works within us to change our wills, such that we go from a determined opposition to the Gospel, to willing and joyful faith in Christ.

In his sermon, God’s Will and Man’s Will (a sermon whose introduction, incidentally, has more than a passing relevance to the present controversy), C. H. Spurgeon put it like this:

But we do hold and teach that though the will of man is not ignored, and men are not saved against their wills, that the work of the Spirit, which is the effect of the will of God, is to change the human will, and so make men willing in the day of God’s power, working in them to will to do of his own good pleasure.

St. John states plainly that, even though it is those who receive Christ who are saved, the underlying cause of their regeneration is ultimately not the will of man, but that of God:

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12–13)

Jesus Himself testifies similarly:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)

The word translated ‘draws’ there in Greek is helkuse (ἑλκύσῃ). It has the sense of moving ‘an object from one area to another in a pulling motion, draw[ing], with implication that the object being moved is incapable of propelling itself or in the case of persons is unwilling to do so voluntarily, in either case with implication of exertion on the part of the mover’ (BDAG). Thus, Jesus is saying here that no one comes to Him voluntarily, but the Father must instead drag each person to Himself such that he who was initially unwilling to come of his own accord at the last receives Christ gladly.

This is entirely consistent with Paul’s teaching that, until the Holy Spirit regenerates us, we are as a result of the Fall dead in our sin and enslaved to it – utterly unable and unwilling even to seek God. In a meticulously constructed argument showing that everyone is confined under sin and condemned by the Law (Rom. 1:18–3:20), Paul quotes Psalms 14 and 53:

There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.

(Rom. 3:10–12)

Except the Father draw someone by the work of the Holy Spirit, no one is righteous (having a right standing before God), no one understands (believes rightly), no one seeks after God, no one does good. Not even one single person, excepting Christ Himself. This is why Paul says:

For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Cor. 1:22–25)

To the natural, fallen human mind, the Gospel of Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead is either a stumbling block or foolishness. Such a mind unaided by the Holy Spirit is therefore unable either to understand or accept the message. It has no more power to adopt right belief than a person dead at the bottom of well has to make an effort to climb out. Paul writes (my emphasis):

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

(Eph. 2:1–10)

We were dead in our sins and unable to seek God, but now we have been made alive in Christ and receive Him willingly.

Our being ‘saved through faith’ is by grace alone – that is, by the unmerited favour of God towards us on account of Christ. In the Greek, our being ‘saved’ is passive; it is something done to us, not by us. Our salvation by grace through faith is the gift of God, and most certainly not the result of anything that we do – no, not even the act of choosing right belief – because, as Paul makes so clear, we were dead in our sins and thus utterly unable to understand or seek after God. We are therefore ‘His workmanship’, not our own, ‘created in Christ Jesus for good works’.

How then did we come to faith? Again, Paul is clear: ‘faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.’ (Rom. 10:14)

The Holy Spirit works repentance and faith in those He is effectually calling by ‘the hearing of the word of God’. Thus, the selfsame Gospel message that is a stumbling block and foolishness to natural minds becomes the very power of God for salvation to those who are being saved by Him. When we put the earlier quote from 1 Cor. 1 into context, this becomes absolutely clear:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

(1 Cor. 1:18–25)

There we see clearly that we can never by knowledge come to know God: ‘For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God’. God in his wisdom has ordered things such that no one comes to faith through wisdom – or, we might say, through adopting right belief. Rather, ‘it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe’.

R. C. H. Lenski rightly comments on this passage:

The world of men failed completely in regard to the one and supreme thing it needed: it did not know God. The aorist οὑκ ἔγνω [‘not know’] states the whole tragic [situation] as a fact. Ἔγνω [‘know’] does not refer to mere intellectual knowledge but to the genuine realization which grips, holds, and dominates the entire person. Men never attained to this real knowledge of God; they did not know him. When he speaks to them in the gospel even today, they laugh; they do not think that it is God speaking. See John 8:19 regarding the Jews with reference to this point; even though they talked about God and boasted about him they did not know him. (The interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second epistle to the Corinthians, p. 59)

Thus, we are not saved by our choosing to adopt right belief. The fallen mind, dead in sin, has neither the will nor the ability to do that.

Recall Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel 37. The bones had no power in themselves, but the word of God proclaimed to them caused them to be covered with sinews, flesh and skin. As Ezekiel prophesied (37:9) to the Breath (ruach, the same word as for ‘spirit’) to come from the four winds and breathe on the slain that they may live, so it is with our salvation: the Holy Spirit blows wherever He wishes, breathing life into everyone who is born of Him (John 3:5–8).

Life always comes from the breath of God, as it did in the very beginning when ‘the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being’ (Gen. 2:7). It is surely no coincidence that the life-giving Scriptures are themselves described in 2 Tim. 3:16 as having been given by the ‘out-breathing of God’ (theopneustos, θεόπνευστος).

We are saved, then, because the Holy Spirit has so worked in us by the hearing of the word of God as to regenerate us, convict us of our sin, and bring us to repentance and trust in Christ for the forgiveness of our sin and our right standing before the Father.

Right belief and faith in Christ is thus the result of the Holy Spirit’s work of regeneration, not its cause.

Paul puts it to Titus like this (my emphasis):

But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4–7)

Christian brother or sister

What does it mean to call someone a brother (or a sister) in Christ? Does it mean that we believe him to hold fully orthodox doctrine, or at least some subset of orthodox doctrine that is considered essential to the faith?

We have already seen that it is not by anything that we do that we are saved. Rather, God has elected us in Christ, predestined us to be conformed to the image of His Son, called us through the hearing of the Gospel, regenerated us, given us faith and repentance, declared us righteous, sanctified us, and, one day, will even glorify us (Rom. 8:29–30). All this is His work, done for His own glory.

Since it is not by our adopting right belief that we are saved – and, indeed, nothing at all that we do – but rather the work of God alone ‘through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit’, it follows that someone could be regenerate without having a proper grasp of orthodox doctrine. This is simply a question of arranging the cart and the horse in an appropriate order: right belief flows from our having been regenerated; right belief is not the cause of regeneration.

Consider John the Baptist in his mother’s womb:

‘And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.’ (Luke 1:41)

How is it that John in the womb recognized Mary (and most likely, the presence of the baby Jesus within her)? Well, Luke helpfully tells us just a few verses earlier, by recording the angel’s words to Zacharias:

‘But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, ‘to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,’ and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”’ (Luke 1:13–17)

We see then that John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from His mother’s womb, and thus enabled to recognize the presence of the incarnate Christ.

John – filled with the Spirit as he was – was clearly regenerate even before he was born (cf. Acts 10:47) . And yet, his cognitive abilities could hardly then have been so sufficiently developed as for him to have been able to give mental assent to any doctrines at all, let alone the core doctrines of the faith.

This example should encourage us: saving faith is a gift of God, and does not depend upon anything that we do – not even our giving of mental assent to particular doctrines. God may bestow saving faith upon anyone He chooses, from the youngest unborn child to the oldest man. Salvation is God’s work, and His alone.

I labour this point because it would be a grave mistake to equate having orthodox beliefs as being synonymous with salvation. Saving faith can be bestowed upon even those without developed mental facilities. Again, this is good news: as well as the youngest child, even a severely mentally disabled person can be saved – no one is outside God’s saving reach, if He so wills to save. (The corollary shows the full horror of synergism: infants and the severely mentally impaired would all be lost if our salvation were to depend upon our making a first move towards God. Of course, synergists invent schemes to avoid this implication, but they do so without Biblical support.)

Now, of course, in the normal course of events, the good fruit of the good tree that is the saved person will include right belief. But that comes through nurture and good teaching that immerses the disciple in the Scriptures. Good trees, well tended, bear good fruit. Jesus says, ‘My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me’ (John 10:27), and we have Christ’s voice recorded for us throughout the Scriptures. I say again, therefore: the fullness of right belief follows regeneration, not vice versa.

The implication of all of this is that someone might have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, having heard the Gospel, and yet not be sufficiently instructed in the Scriptures so as to believe, teach and confess full orthodoxy.

Indeed, very many people in the visible church today erroneously believe that they made a first step of faith towards God, and that He then responded to this by regenerating them. This back-to-front belief is very far from orthodox, as we have already seen, yet nevertheless some of the people who hold it bear all the signs of a genuine saving faith. Far be it from us to judge their standing before the almighty and everlasting God. Their salvation is His work, and His alone to judge.

Thus, to recognize someone as a brother or sister in the Lord is emphatically not the same as asserting that he or she has right belief, even concerning major doctrines of the faith. (Though that statement should not to be understood as saying anything regarding the salvation of one who expressly rejects core doctrines concerning the person and work of Christ.)

Orthodoxy is narrow

Having defined our terms, we may now make a further observation: historic Christian orthodoxy is narrow. It has been from the very beginning, it has been throughout Church history, and it shall continue to be.

As an example, consider a passage that contains what is perhaps the most famous verse in the New Testament. Jesus explains the Gospel to Nicodemus:

¹⁰Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? ¹¹Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. ¹²If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? ¹³No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. ¹⁴And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, ¹⁵that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁶For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. ¹⁷For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

¹⁸“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. ¹⁹And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. ²⁰For everyone practising evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. ²¹But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

(John 3:10–21)

In v. 16, we have an affirmation that whoever believes (has trust in) Christ shall not perish but have everlasting life. Christ was not born into the world to condemn it, but that through Him it might be saved.

This is wonderful news.

And yet, if we were to proclaim only that message, we would be doing violence to the whole counsel of God and to the Gospel. We would be leaving people ignorant of their certain need for Christ, and thereby risking their eternal destiny.

How so?

Because asserting that faith in Christ saves does not in itself proclaim the exclusivity of Christ. Even a Hindu might be willing to accept that Christ saves – after all, what would accepting one more god among many be to him? Ask him, however, to forsake all his other gods for Christ alone, and you will soon discover the narrowness of orthodoxy.

No, such a truncated Gospel neglects to warn people that, unless they believe in Christ, they shall perish. Thus, if our proclamation contains only the message that Jesus saves, the Gospel is emasculated – robbed of its urgency and made impotent. We must also tell people that without Christ they will surely perish in the face of the fierce wrath of God for their sin – recall Eph. 2:3, where we saw that even we ourselves were ‘by nature children of wrath’.

To be orthodox, we have therefore to proclaim the whole counsel of Scripture. We have to believe, teach and confess not only John 3:16–18a, but also v. 18b: ‘but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.’

Orthodoxy and basic kindness constrain us to warn people of the coming day of judgment for their sin, for we love them enough to tell them the truth, earnestly hoping that they might turn in repentance and receive the forgiveness of sins. This is exactly what Paul did for the Athenians at the Areopagus:

“Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30–31)

The mix of reactions Paul encountered to his proclamation of Law and Gospel is typical. Some mock, others wish to hear more, and some come to faith:

And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter.” So Paul departed from among them. However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them. (Acts 17:32–34)

Orthodoxy is exclusive. Orthodoxy is narrow. Orthodoxy lovingly warns of the exclusion from salvation of those who have not been regenerated and granted a saving faith in the person and work of Christ. The is why Jesus says:

Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matt. 7:13–14)

He even couples this exhortation with a warning against those who would speak falsely in God’s name things that He has not said:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Matt. 7:15–20)

It is orthodoxy’s insistence on exclusivity and narrowness – its rejection of any other way to God except faith in Christ – that is anathema to our postmodern culture. That culture would grant us Christ as a way to salvation, but not the way.

A failure to profess boldly and clearly to our own generation the narrowness of orthodoxy and the exclusivity of Christ as the only Way, Truth and Life is thus a dismal failure to love people by sharing with them the whole counsel of God, such that they might come to repentance and receive forgiveness in Christ.

Questions of orthodoxy

I have been listening to every episode of Chris Rosebrough’s Fighting for the Faith programme since the premier back in July 2007. From everything I have heard, I have no doubt that Chris is driven by a desire to be faithful to the Scriptures and to reach out to the lost with the true Gospel of Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead.

Until two weeks ago, I knew relatively little of Dan Kimball. I owned only one of his books, The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations. I was unhappy with some of its content, and in particular with some of its endorsements, but Dan was not sufficiently on my radar for me to have taken steps to contact him and ask him about it.

I was therefore pleased to hear Chris tell us all that, having spent some time with Dan, he regarded Dan as a brother in Christ who was genuinely seeking to be faithful to the Scriptures. It is immensely encouraging whenever anyone professes this desire, and the prospect of a fruitful engagement with a such a person is enticing.

Yet, given Dan’s apparent track record with the books that he has published, I maintained reservations. Having heard Chris interview Dan, I have to say that he seemed pleasant and likeable, and I have no reason to doubt his willingness to discuss what he believes. However, I was both puzzled and more than a little perturbed by Chris’ apparent ringing endorsement of Dan’s orthodoxy, given what Dan said – and didn’t say – in the interview.

The most direct way to clear up my puzzlement would seem to be by asking a few questions of Chris and Dan. Since I know I am not alone in desiring clarity on the issues I raise, I ask these questions in public. Chris and Dan both thereby have an opportunity, if they wish, to respond clearly, succinctly and publicly, via whatever channels they see fit.

A. On monergism

Semi-pelagianism is the belief that man and God cooperate in the work of salvation: man makes a beginning of his faith through a free act of will, and God then reciprocates by increasing and guarding that faith, completing the work of salvation. Semi-pelagianism is thus synergistic; it stands as a rejection of monergism.

The majority of evangelicalism undoubtedly holds to semi-pelagianism, believing that we have first to take a step of faith toward God (‘make a decision for Christ’), and that God will then respond by saving us.

Chris Rosebrough is firmly on record as defining historic Christian orthodoxy as expressly rejecting semi-pelagianism. Chris believes, and it will be clear from what I have written above that I agree, that semi-pelagianism is emphatically not orthodox. It is not what the Scriptures teach about our salvation, and it is not what the early Church believed.

Indeed, not only was semi-pelagianism regarded as non-orthodox, it was actually pronounced to be heresy by the Second Council of Orange in 529. I know that Chris agrees with this Council, because he wrote on this very subject back in June this year:

• Semipelagianism Was Declared a Heresy in 529 A.D.

Why do I raise semi-pelagianism? Because I heard Dan say this during the interview:

‘There is [sic] those that God has elected, and that’s what the Scriptures teach. And it seems like there’s also Scriptures that teach there is human choice as well. And I loved the book that Norman Geisler wrote…’

Believing that God elects but that humans also have choice in matters of salvation is, surely, the very essence of semi-pelagianism, and this is exactly what Chris said in his article on the Second Council of Orange:

The church in the United States has been ooozing with the heresy known as Semipelagianism since the time of Finney and the frontier revivalists. What few in the church understand is that Semipelagianism is a heresy that misdiagnoses man’s sinful condition and incorrectly puts the responsibility of man’s conversion upon himself. This is not what the scriptures teach at all and what is at stake is the Gospel itself and the salvation of those who have been wrongly taught that they are saved by their decision to follow Christ.

Although Dan couldn’t remember the name of Norman L. Geisler’s book in his interview, the one he was referring to was Chosen but Free. That book is a full-blown assault on monergism (specifically Calvinism – although certainly not all monergists are Calvinists, as is shown by Confessional Lutheranism). Geisler launches a blistering attack on the traditional understanding of total depravity (original sin), unconditional election (some being chosen by God for salvation according to His own good pleasure, not upon the basis of foreseen faith), and the triumph of God’s grace in the elect – all foundational to monergism. Apologist James White even went to the trouble of writing a book, The Potter’s Freedom, to refute Geisler. This is what White’s website says about The Potter’s Freedom:

Geisler’s Chosen but Free sparked a firestorm of controversy when he labeled Calvinism “theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.” White steps into the breach with his cogent response. His systematic refutation of Geisler’s argument will help you understand what the Reformed faith really teaches about divine election and how Reformed thought conforms to the Gospel.

With regard to the third edition of Chosen But Free, White said in August that it teaches that ‘evangelical synergism is now the “balanced view”’.

Perhaps White has misunderstood Geisler? But no, here is Michael Horton, Professor of Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary, writing on Sola Gratia: Our Only Method (my emphasis):

On the eve of the Reformation a number of church leaders, including bishops and archbishops, had been complaining of creeping Pelagianism (a heresy that denies original sin and the absolute need for grace). Nevertheless, that heresy was never tolerated in its full expression. However, today it is tolerated and even promoted in liberal Protestantism generally, and even in many evangelical circles.

In Pelagianism, Adam’s sin is not imputed to us, nor is Christ’s righteousness. Adam is a bad example, not the representative in whom we stand guilty. Similarly, Christ is a good example, not the representative in whom we stand righteous. How much of our preaching centers on following Christ–as important as that is–rather than on his person and work? How often do we hear about his work in us compared to his work for us?

Charles Finney, the revivalist of the last century, is a patron saint for most evangelicals. And yet, he denied original sin, the substitutionary atonement, justification, and the need for regeneration by the Holy Spirit. In short, Finney was a Pelagian. This belief in human nature, so prominent in the Enlightenment, wrecked the evangelical doctrine of grace among the older evangelical Protestant denominations (now called “mainline”), and we see where that has taken them. And yet, conservative evangelicals are heading down the same path and have had this human-centered, works-centered emphasis for some time.

The statistics bear us out here, unfortunately, and again the leaders help substantiate the error. Norman Geisler writes, “God would save all men if he could. He will save the greatest number actually achievable without violating their free will.”

Geisler’s statement quoted there is nothing other than an explicit rejection of monergism.

We thus seem to have a plain declaration from Dan that he embraces the idea that ‘humans have a choice’ in matters of salvation – a view that Chris has himself previously labelled heresy – along with an enthusiastic declaration of love for a book that outright rejects the historic Reformation understanding of unconditional election and total depravity, and which instead advocates an evangelical synergism dressed-up in the clothes of Reformation theology.

Now, I am not painting Dan’s position on election as being any worse than that of mainstream evangelicalism, for I can discern no difference between the two. But Chris does not consider evangelical synergism to be remotely orthodox, and has in fact agreed with the Church’s having called that belief heresy in 529. Thus, there appears to be a disconnect between Chris’ view on synergism on the one hand, and his vigorous affirmation of Dan’s orthodoxy on the other.

My concern here is that, if we point to what Dan has said on the show and say that it is orthodox, we concede monergism, and with it, the very foundation of Reformation theology – which, of course, is nothing less than the theology of the historic orthodox universal Church. As Chris rightly said in his article on the Second Council of Orange, ‘what is at stake is the Gospel itself and the salvation of those who have been wrongly taught that they are saved by their decision to follow Christ.’ I wholeheartedly agree with what Chris wrote there.

I therefore ask the following questions:

A1. Chris, given what Dan stated during your interview, do you acknowledge the apparent inconsistency between your affirmation that the universal Church declared semi-pelagianism to be heresy, and your affirmation that Dan ‘preaches, teaches, and confesses, historic orthodoxy’?

A2. If so, are you willing to clarify or nuance what you mean when you say that Dan ‘preaches, teaches, and confesses, historic orthodoxy’?

A3. Dan, given that you appeared desirous to agree with Chris’ affirmation of your orthodoxy, and given that you have now seen that the universal Church expressly rejected semi-pelagianism in 529, will you affirm in accordance with Scripture and historic orthodoxy that salvation is the work of God alone, and that this fact gives us great confidence and comfort as to the security of our salvation?

B. On the doctrine of hell

Dan declared clearly in the interview that he believed in hell. He started well:

Yeah. Um, we—I mean—this is another thing. I-it’s so funny to read things. We preach on Hell, a sermon about every single year in our church. I was just down at the Outreach convention in San Diego. My whole topic was teaching emerging generations about Hell. Last night in our own church, I’s reading the horrific, uh, sounding verses, y’ know, about judgment, in, uh, 2 Thessalonians with—y’know, about being “shut out” from the presence of, of, y’know—tha-He will punish those that do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus and they’ll punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His might. Y’know, an’ I was pleading with our church last night. I’m like, “These are difficult things to hear and say, but we have t”—I-um-I am, I’m passionate to talk about it.

Had he stopped there, I’d not have thought further on this. But Dan continued:

But then I’d deconstruct—an’ this is important because someone will say, “What Hell are you talking about?” Y’know, um, I believe we need to deconstruct, you know, Dante’s Inferno and the images of Hell that have come up through artistic poetry and not based out of Scripture.

Or that we ha—because most Americans today, when they say, “Hell,” they’re thinkin’ of a cartoon sort of Devil with horns, and that, y’know, he runs Hell. Ah, and so I think what our job is, is to also deconstruct what Hell is culturally; an’ y’know, Satan is not ruling Hell, he would be in Hell. Hell was created for, for Satan and his angels. So I think we have ta teach correctly what it would be, but then deconstruct what the average American may think of it. And so, I’m passionate about that because I am so grateful that I am saved from Hell; and that compels me to wanna share that with other people.

I don’t use Hell as my driving force of evangelism, you don’t see th—I don’t think—the-there’s judgment talked about in Scripture a lot; y’know, but I, ah, we speak about it, we teach about it, an’ I—we have to teach about it; so.

I agree with Dan entirely that cartoon images and other unbiblical views of hell are unhelpful – he makes an excellent point. But I wasn’t sure from all this whether he personally believed that hell was a place of eternal torment. Nothing he said in the interview clarified that for me, and Chris regrettably did not press him on the topic.

I therefore searched for anything Dan might have said online concerning hell, and came across this article (which Chris also mentioned at the end of the interview):

• Teaching the Truth About Hell

As I read, I agreed with much of what Dan had to say there. And then I hit this:

I try to approach this topic humbly and with mystery but also teach it is a reality. I specifically state that only God knows someone’s eternal destiny. We walk through various Scriptures explaining that it is appointed for people to die and that everyone will face judgment (Heb. 9:27). We also look at the differences in judgment between a Christian and non-Christian. I share that much of what hell will be like is a mystery, but that we can know it is eternal, a place of regret, etc. I do share that there are varying views about hell among Christians, including annihilation (when people cease to exist and don’t experience eternal suffering).

I am pleased that Dan approaches this topic humbly and teachably – he sets us a good example. However, I am left unclear as to what Dan believes. Yes, I can see that he teaches various views on hell – including, presumably, the view that is a fiery place of eternal punishment and torment where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. But he also teaches the annihilationist view, and nowhere either in his interview or in that article did I hear or see Dan actually state which view he holds. It is also not at all clear from what he writes whether he takes a firm position in his teaching on which view of hell is correct.

I was also astonished to see Dan write that hell is ‘eternal, a place of regret, etc.’ While true, ‘a place of regret’ is irrefutably an astonishingly soft way of describing the hell depicted in the Bible.

Having failed to ascertain Dan’s actual belief about hell either from Dan’s interview or his article on that topic, I turned to the Lausanne Covenant, which is the statement of faith that Dan has adopted.

This too was of little help in clarifying Dan’s view of hell, because it does not actually mention the word. The closest it comes to the concept is this:

All men and women are perishing because of sin, but God loves everyone, not wishing that any should perish but that all should repent. Yet those who reject Christ repudiate the joy of salvation and condemn themselves to eternal separation from God.

This statement is extremely problematic. Can it be orthodox to declare only that those who (perhaps actively) reject Christ are condemned, as opposed to all those who are not trusting in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins and their right standing before God, as we hear from the very mouth of Jesus is the true position? And is it orthodox to define the unsaved’s eternal state weakly as ‘eternal separation from God’ (a prospect that I suspect many would welcome), rather than as punishment in the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels?

I wonder whether such statements as these show love for the lost by revealing to them the full horror of the fate of those who do not trust in Christ, that they might repent and receive the forgiveness of their sins through the Gospel?

God’s kindness leads us to repentance – and part of the outworking of that kindness is a revelation of the terrible destiny of those who, on the final day of judgment, are not clothed with the righteousness of Christ.

I therefore have the following questions, all for Dan except the first:

B1. Chris, do you believe the Lausanne Covenant falls short of orthodoxy in its failure to show love for the lost by declaring clearly the true severity of hell?

B2. Dan, which view of hell, if any, do you believe, teach and confess as being correct? Do you teach that the others are incorrect and contrary to Scripture?

B3. In view of the fact that God has kindly revealed to us as a warning the severity of hell as a place of eternal punishment, such that we might flee from the wrath to come into the arms of a loving Saviour, and given that the eternal punishment of the lost features so prominently in Jesus’ teaching in the gospels, will you reconsider your non-use of hell as a driving force for evangelization?

B4. Do you affirm that all those without a saving faith in Christ will be punished eternally in hell, not merely those who expressly reject the Good News of Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead?

B5. For clarity, will you confirm that you believe, teach and confess that, at the least, 1 Cor. 6:9–11 teaches: (i) no one will inherit the kingdom of God if he is affirming in open rebellion to Scripture that his sin is a gift from God, and is therefore unrepentantly living a lifestyle of sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, homosexual practice, thievery, covetousness, drunkenness, abusiveness or extortion; (ii) that the Body of Christ contains many who have been saved out of such sin, having rejected it in obedience to Christ, being washed, sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Holy Spirit?

B6. As a church leader, do you lovingly warn those who look to you who are engaging unrepentantly in a lifestyle of such sin that they are in danger of receiving God’s eternal condemnation in hell (thus using God’s Law for its proper purpose of convicting us of our sin), pleading urgently with them that they might repent and turn to Christ for the forgiveness of all their sin?

C. On the dangers of mysticism

In the interview, Dan clearly distanced himself from mysticism and mystical practices. He explained (a little indignantly) that, although he used terms such as lectio divina in his books, his own understanding of those practices when he wrote his books did not in any way involve mysticism or altered states of consciousness.

In Dan’s 2003 book, The Emerging Church (which is still for sale), a copy of which I have open in front of me as I write, Dan cites prominent teachers of mysticism Dallas Willard (from at least three of Willard’s books, on pp. 203, 216, 223, 258), Gary Thomas (p. 221), and Henri Nouwen (pp. 233, 257). Of Willard’s The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God, Dan writes (p. 258):

Without a doubt, the books that have had the most influence on my thinking on discipleship and spiritual formation for the emerging church are this one and [Renovation of the Heart: Putting on the Character of Christ] by Dallas Willard.

Anyone reading Dan’s book would also see an un-nuanced endorsement of lectio divina (p. 223), ‘practicing silence’ (p. 223), ‘practicing the presence through prayer’ (p. 216), and ‘ancient disciplines’ (pp. 215, 223, 258). No definitions of these terms are given to steer the reader away from mystical practices.

Now, to be fair, Dan also makes sound, Biblical statements, such as this one (p. 216):

‘The Holy Spirit is the one who changes, grows, and sanctifies us (Rom. 6–8)

But his apparent endorsement of extra-Biblical spiritual disciplines as some of the means by which the Holy Spirit works (p. 216) remains troubling. And it doesn’t help that, despite his intentions to the contrary, he sounds like so many other advocates of spiritual formation through spiritual disciplines (p. 217):

So how can we create systems for discipleship that do not smack of modern business or academic structures and don’t feel programmed but rather embrace the mystery, awe, and wonder of God’s transforming work? One thing we can do is simply rename the classes to emphasize the spiritual aspect and to reflect values of emerging culture. Mosaic church in Los Angeles uses names like River to describe a spiritual formation retreat that “is an immersion of your sense, emotions, body and intellect as we quest to explore our connection to God.” They have another retreat called Snow, which is a “quest for forgiveness.” Cedar Ridge Community Church in Maryland has spiritual formation classes named Soul Findings, Journey, and Kindle.

Titles which sound more spiritual as well as classes which encompass depth with an organic approach fit much better in the fluidity of the emerging culture. But titles are only the packaging; we need to think through how to encourage spiritual formation through a holistic approach of mind, heart, senses and bodies. We can’t just change the name and then just keep dispersing information. We need to change how we approach spiritual formation.

The question there that Dan begins by asking is a good one. But his answer could have been written by any proponent of mysticism, and section titles such as ‘Restoring the ancient disciplines to create vintage Christians’ (p. 223) don’t help to counter the impression this gives. If people read Dan’s books and come away with the idea that he is an advocate of extra-Biblical mystical practices, I therefore wonder whether that is really anyone’s fault but his own.

Apprising Ministries similarly reports that Dan’s 2004 book Emerging Worship (co-authored with David Crowder and Sally Morgenthaler, and also still for sale) recommends (under the heading of ‘Helpful books’) Tony Jones’ Soul Shaper: Exploring Spirituality and Contemplative Practices in Youth Ministry. Ken Silva comments:

In Soul Shaper Tony Jones advocates some sixteen “ancient-future” spiritual tools such as The Jesus Prayer, Lectio Divina, Silence and Solitude, Stations of the Cross, Centering Prayer, and the Labyrinth. Here Jones begins defining his postmodern approach to youth ministry by combining aspects of what he sees as common spirituality in Evangelicalism, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions along with eastern religious practices gleaned from Buddhism and Hinduism. These soul shaping “disciplines” will later become even more developed in his next book The Sacred Way.

My (rather obvious) questions for Dan are therefore:

C1. Would you accept that, even though you did not ever intend to commend mysticism by your named endorsement of certain practices, someone reading your books might likely seek to discover more about those practices and thereby become involved with mysticism?

C2. Would you accept that writers such as Dallas Willard, Gary Thomas, Henri Nouwen and Tony Jones – all of whom you have favourably cited or recommended in your books, do teach mysticism – and that your implied or explicit endorsement of them might lead someone reading your books also to read their works, and thereby to become involved in mystical practices?

C3. Will you acknowledge the dangers of the extra-Biblical spiritual disciplines advocated by these writers?

C4. Do you accept that, as a prominent Christian leader, your endorsement carries weight and that you therefore have a God-given responsibility to be sure of what and whom you endorse before you promote them?

C5. Will you therefore agree that your unwitting endorsement of these practices and the writers who advocate them poses a clear and serious spiritual danger to your readers?

C6. If so, would you also agree that it follows that you now have an urgent duty to: (i) until such time as they can be revised, withdraw from sale any books of yours that might be understood to imply endorsement of any mystical practices, or of authors advocating such practices; (ii) publish a clear statement on your website naming those teachers and writers whom you can no longer endorse because they promote potentially dangerous extra-biblical spiritual practices, in that statement also identifying those practices and warning against them?

Final thoughts

There are many other questions that could be raised, but these were those that seemed most pressing to me – and also most useful in helping us to think about the outworking of what it means to be truly orthodox. I pray that, if the discussion continues, it will do so in a spirit of kindness and gentleness, as we bear with one another in love. For we who trust in Christ are all sinners, saved by grace.

May we all ‘come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ’ (Eph. 4:13). And as we endeavour to speak the truth to one another in love, may all our words resound to the glory of God through the Gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Further reading

• Reformation Essentials – Five Pillars of the Reformation by Michael Horton
• Dan Kimball Gives A Statement
• The Power of the Gospel

[Minor edits made 7:10 pm GMT on 26 November 2010 in the light of Jason’s comments.]

Even as I mention that word, a multitude of Bible passages leaps into our minds: Ezekiel the watchman (Ezek. 3; 33); Jesus warning of the ‘false christs and false prophets’ that will arise (Matt. 24); the Jews at Berea who ‘searched the Scriptures daily’ to find out whether Paul was teaching them the truth (Acts 17); Paul telling the Thessalonians to ‘test all things; hold fast what is good’ (1 Thess. 5) and instructing Titus to ‘reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition’ (Titus 3); Peter warning about false teachers ‘who will secretly bring in destructive heresies’ (2 Peter 2). And many, many more – all helpful to us in various ways.

Paul tells the Philippians that he prays this for them:

…that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. (Phil. 1:9–11)

The immediate context there gives us a very good idea of what Paul means by ‘discernment’. Notice that he couples discernment with knowledge. The two are clearly related in some way.

Paul prays that the Philippians will abound ever increasingly in both these things, with the result that they ‘may approve the things that are excellent’ and ‘be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God’.

How we need this kind of knowledge and discernment! May the Lord grant it also to us in abundance, that we might too be found sincere and without offense until He comes again, being filled with the fruits of righteousness by Christ.

But we still haven’t answered our question: what is discernment?

Let us reach for a passage that is perhaps not always forefront in our minds when we think about discernment and what it means to be discerning. You know it well:

‘God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.’ (Hebrews 1:1–4)

I wish to juxtapose that with a few verses from a little further on in the same text. The ‘Therefore’ with which this next passage starts follows directly on from the premise stated in the verses above:

‘Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?’ (Hebrews 2:1–4)

God has spoken to us by the prophets and, in these last days, by His glorious Son. The same Son who has purged our sins and who now sits at the right hand of the Majesty on high. ‘Therefore, we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard’, as the ESV puts it.

Why?

Lest we drift away, because we shall not escape if we neglect so great a salvation. A salvation that ‘at the first began to be spoken by the Lord’ and was confirmed by those who heard Him, with God Himself bearing witness with signs, wonders, miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Is not true discernment this very activity of paying close attention to what we have heard about a Great Salvation?

A salvation proclaimed by Christ, undertaken for Christ, accomplished by Christ on the cross. A salvation we hear spoken of in the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit through the prophets and Apostles – and, yes, even Christ Himself.

If not by paying close attention to what we have heard about this Great Salvation, what other method is there by which we may discern, or truly be called discerning?

It now becomes clear why knowledge is an essential prerequisite for discernment: we have to know about the Great Salvation that is to be found only in Christ if we are to pay close attention to it.

Having received that Great Salvation, the love of Christ poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit now compels us to study it, proclaim it – even to contend for it. We do this in the hope that the Spirit may yet work in others faith and repentance by their hearing the Word of Christ, even granting to them the same joy that Grace has purchased at great price and freely bestowed upon us.

Discernment thus begins and ends with Christ. It is always about Christ, His person, His work.

Discernment abides in Christ. It feasts richly on His Word, for in the Scriptures alone do we find authoritative revelation of the person and work of Christ. All the Scriptures speak of Him, and in them we encounter God in human flesh, crucified for our sin and raised for our being declared righteous.

Discernment that is not centred upon Christ and His Gospel is thus utterly devoid of worth. It is fit for nothing but the dung heap.

Discernment thus rallies every believer with this cry: ‘Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead! To the Scriptures, which speak of Him! Contend for this faith once delivered! Shine forth this Good News – the power and wisdom of God to those who are called!’

If we were always about that business, if our every engagement were to further the cause of that Gospel? Truly, then would we be discerning discerners.

Frail as we are, may our heavenly Father, the almighty and everlasting God, grant for the sake of His Son by His Spirit that we cling to our great God and Saviour with simple childlike trust, confident of all He has promised. May He give us wisdom and true discernment through His Word, keeping us from every sin and danger, governing all our doings that they may be righteous in His sight. May He cause us to hold fast to the author and finisher of our faith, even Jesus Christ, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross.

The author, Steven R. J. Parks, contrasts the Biblical view of sanctification with that presented by the Purpose Driven Life. He writes:

Thus, man cooperates in his sanctification, but only insofar as he is involved in it. God begins, continues, and completes His work in the redeemed. We do not take the initiative, nor are we even equal partners in the endeavor. Instead, our cooperation is passive, inasmuch as “it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

For Warren, however, man-initiated obedience is the key to fellowship with our Lord: “However, Jesus made it clear that obedience is a condition of intimacy with God.” It is important, according to Warren, “Because it proves you really love him.” So the biblical saints, such as Mary, act as examples for us: “God chose Mary to be the mother of Jesus, not because she was talented or wealthy or beautiful, but because she was totally surrendered to him.” Thus, we are told, if we want God’s blessing on our lives, we must likewise be obediently surrendered, manifesting the beatitudes: “If you want God’s blessing on your life and you want to be known as a child of God, you must learn to be a peacemaker.” Failure to do so may result in judgment: “I lose fellowship with God…I set myself up to be judged by God.”

Steven Parks goes on with a devastating (and carefully footnoted) indictment of the guidance given in the Purpose Driven Life to would-be godly Christians:

So Warren presents readers with the following “simple” instructions: discovering the three insights into your purpose, ascertaining the five reasons to live a purpose-driven life, applying the three metaphors of God’s view of life, learning God’s five purposes for your life, living God’s five plans for your life, enacting the five acts of worship that make God smile, uncovering six secrets of friendship with God, developing the four characteristics of the kind of worship that pleases God, performing the three important truths of fruitful fellowship, six reasons for being committed and active in a local fellowship, discovering the four principles of real fellowship, learning the four steps to cultivating community, creating a covenant using the nine characteristics of biblical fellowship, following the seven steps to restoring broken fellowship, promoting six ways to ensure unity, following the three steps to conflict resolution, uncovering the three responsibilities in becoming like Christ, practicing the three activities necessary to abide in God’s Word, carefully following the three specific steps in overcoming temptation, learning the four keys to defeating temptation, avoiding the five impediments to growing in Christ, enacting the four steps to cooperate with God in the process of Christian growth, participating in the six types of experiences God uses in molding us, discerning the three steps to clarifying what God intends you to be and do, finding the six steps to becoming a true servant, developing the five attitudes of a true servant, taking the four steps to allowing God to work through your weaknesses, establishing the six steps to discovering the importance of your mission, discerning the four parts of your life message, discovering your seven life lessons, implementing the four principles for thinking like a world-class Christian, participating in the four important activities for purpose-driven living, learning the five vital signs of worship, realizing the five steps to discovering your purpose statement, and remembering life’s five greatest questions. By following these one hundred and sixty-four simple steps, readers may initiate their own sanctification and live purpose-driven lives.

Phew! I’m so glad that Pastor Warren has simplified and distilled the Law for us in this way so that we may now keep it.

But there’s just one little nagging doubt: didn’t St. Paul have something to say to the Galatians about this sort of thing?

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? (Gal. 3:1–4, NKJV)

Indeed, Steven Parks makes precisely this point. He goes on:

The law, of course, has no power to sanctify, whether it be Warren’s home-spun practical wisdom, or even God’s commandments themselves. In fact, the law primarily serves to reveal sin, always convicting its hearers of their shortcoming (lex semper accusat—Rom. 7:7). Thus, Warren’s one hundred and sixty-four simple steps to living a purpose-driven life, if taken seriously, will only aggravate sin and make matters worse: “But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead” (Rom. 7:8). For this reason, the Formula of Concord testifies: “For the Law says indeed that it is God’s will and command that we should walk in a new life, but it does not give the power and ability to begin and do it.” Indeed, this power is given by the Holy Spirit only through the gospel, precious little of which is found in The Purpose Driven Life.

Go ahead and read the whole review – I suspect you’ll find it thought provoking and Gospel-focused, even if you are not quite of one accord with one or two of its Lutheran emphases. (And if you are, you’ll love it.)

A debate has been ranging over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, part of a community centre development proposed for 51 Park Place, New York. That’s just two blocks away from where the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre once stood.

Tempers are fraying and emotions are at fever pitch.

Now, as an Englishman living on the Isle of Man – a small (but very pretty) rock in the middle of the Irish Sea – you’ll perhaps understand if this controversy has not exactly been front page news for me. I had not therefore been following it at all closely, especially as I have been very busy with work.

But my friend Paula Coyle, who has been active in the online debate, put it on my radar. Then, last week, Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio posted his Fighting for the Faith podcast discussing the issue. And yesterday, Jason Coyle (married to Paula) wrote a well considered article taking issue with some of what Chris said.

Having tried to come somewhat up to speed, and having listened to what Chris had to say and read Jason’s response, I have some preliminary thoughts and questions of my own. I might be entirely off base in some of what I say here – perhaps even in everything – but certain aspects of the debate thus far puzzle me.

I am also not sure that I don’t detect some questionable and counter-factual thinking with respect to the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

I shall therefore take this opportunity to air my musings in public, with the hope that someone will set me straight and help me better understand the issues.

Before I continue, I should say that this post is something of a departure for me on this blog. I do not usually deal with political issues here. But this debate centres around the freedoms that my US-based brothers and sisters in Christ currently enjoy to proclaim the Gospel without hinderance from the government. That is most certainly within the remit I apply.

Rather than re-state what others have said elsewhere, I shall assume that you are familiar with the following:

• The Park51 project and its proposed facilities.
• Chris Rosebrough’s Fighting for the Faith podcast on the Ground Zero Mosque.
• Jason Coyle’s summary of Chris Rosebrough’s argument.
• Jason’s response to Chris Rosebrough.

The First Amendment

Even a non-American like me manages to pick up a limited knowledge of the US Constitution. And the protections enshrined by the First Amendment are, I think, one of its better known aspects:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I love this language.

I admire America, her people, and the whole US Constitutional project.

Yet I am frequently puzzled at how often US authorities fail to operate within the seemingly straightforward and easily understood parameters of First Amendment. Case in point: Dearborn, Michigan police repeatedly harassing Christians for peaceably preaching the Gospel. Another: the severe restrictions placed upon prayer in public schools.

Still, I am not a Constitutional lawyer, although I note that with regard to school prayer, that several US Supreme Court justices have dissented from the currently prevailing interpretation of the Constitution. It seems to me that there is hope.

Back to the text of the First Amendment.

It does not grant any rights to citizens. Rather, what it does is to protect them from having the rights that they already possess taken away by Congress.

This is important.

Now is a good time to remind ourselves of what President Obama said in his Ramadan speech:

Pay special attention beginning at the 3:09 mark:

As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes, that includes the right to build a place of worship, and a community centre, on private property in Lower Manhattan in accordance with local laws and ordinances.

This is America.

And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.

Given what the First Amendment says, it clearly follows that it is not permissible for the government to object to the building of a mosque anywhere in the US, at least where such construction would be in accord with the relevant laws.

Thus, as a matter of the Lefthand Kingdom, President Obama was correct in his intent to defend the right of Muslims to exercise their religion freely, absent interference from government. This right is indeed protected (but not granted) by the US Constitution. But note that, unlike the President, I say exercise, and not practise (sic – I use British spelling, which distinguishes the noun from the verb). I shall return to this point, as it is one upon which the Supreme Court has ruled.

Muslim Americans thus have the right to pursue the building of a mosque on private property in Manhattan without fear of government intervention, provided that they adhere to applicable laws.

However, nowhere does the Constitution protect the right actually to build such a mosque, as the President asserts that it does.

The distinction may be a fine one, but it is critical to the debate, and to the argument that Chris Rosebrough is advancing.

The Declaration of Independence famously states this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration does not say that these are the only unalienable rights with which men are endowed, but it does positively assert that among those rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now, without becoming sidetracked as to precisely what the 56 signatories to the Declaration of Independence meant by ‘the pursuit of Happiness’, let us read that broadly and assume that it does include the right for American Muslims to pursue the building of a mosque at Ground Zero. Why should it not?

Is there any credible critic of the Park51 proposals who would deny American Muslims their right to pursue Happiness in any lawful way that they themselves desire?

I suspect not.

Therefore, it would be to construct something of a straw man to predicate an argument upon the assumption that opponents of Park51 somehow wish to deny American Muslims their unalienable rights.

Notice, though, that it is the pursuit of Happiness that is an unalienable right. Whereas Life and Liberty themselves are credited with being unalienable, the language of the Declaration makes an emphatic distinction with regard to Happiness. It is only the pursuit of Happiness that is stated to be a right, not its attainment.

Thus, while hardly anyone would deny that American Muslims have the right to pursue the lawful building of a mosque anywhere they wish, it is a considerable stretch to claim that they have an intrinsic unalienable right actually to accomplish the building of that mosque.

Now, President Obama claims that Muslims do have ‘the right to build a place of worship on private property and a community centre in Lower Manhattan in accordance with local laws and ordinances’. He does not say that they have the right to ‘pursue the building of’ their mosque, but the right actually ‘to build a place of worship’. But that is a mere assertion, and he provides no evidence with which to substantiate his claim.

Perhaps this seems to be a distinction without meaning?

Then consider this.

If Muslims have a Constitutionally protected right to accomplish the building of a mosque in Lower Manhattan, would not the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government be obligated to ensure the fulfilment of that right, and thus take active steps to ensure that the mosque were built? Given the existence of such a right, might not the government even be obliged to fund the construction of the Park51 community centre and mosque if, for example, American Muslims were unable themselves to find the $100m that the project requires?

Is anyone arguing such a thing?

If not, why do Glenn Beck (as he says in a clip played on Chris’ podcast) and Chris Rosebrough meekly seem to accept President Obama’s assertion that Muslims have a right, not only to pursue the building of their mosque, but actually to build it (provided it does not contravene the relevant laws)? For that is what the phrase ‘right to build a mosque’ implies.

I suppose they mean to say that this right is present, provided that the Muslims are able to raise sufficient funds, purchase their building, satisfy any public enquiries, conform to planning controls, and so forth.

But in that case, the ‘right to build’ is not really all that meaningful, is it?

Language matters. Words have meaning (despite the assertions of some to the contrary). Precision in our statements is important. Especially when the President of the most powerful nation on earth is lecturing on the finer points of her Constitution.

Is it not possible that imprecision in our terminology might lead to imprecision in our thinking? Might this not in turn impair our ability to sustain a credible argument? And could such carelessness not perhaps ultimately lead to Christians losing the battle of ideas that is necessary to safeguard the religious freedoms currently enjoyed by Americans?

I am in all likelihood missing something fundamental with respect to the nature and operation of the Constitution. I am, after all, a mere Englishman pondering complex issues from a distant position of extreme ignorance. Please explain to me where I am going wrong.

But even if the right to build a mosque does exist, is it necessarily a right protected by the Constitution? As I read it, the First Amendment says nothing about protecting the right of religious groups to accomplish their desires. Neither does it seek to defend religious groups from lawful opposition to their goals. Rather, it protects citizens from Congress passing laws that seek to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Thus, lawful and peaceable opposition to the building of a mosque on Park Place is not an infringement upon anyone’s First Amendment rights.

Does the Constitution protect the freedom to ‘practise religion’?

The President attempts to support his claim that the Founders intended to protect the practise of religion (1:10–1:22):

Our Founders understood that the best way to honor the place of faith in the lives of our people was to protect their freedom to practise religion.

In the Virginia Act of Establishing Religious Freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote that ‘all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion’.

But notice what the President’s quotation from Thomas Jefferson endorses: not the freedom to practise religion, but merely the right to profess and maintain by argument one’s beliefs.

These really aren’t the same thing. Not at all.

I do not say that no evidence exists to support the President’s position; merely that the he did not present it. His researchers and speechwriters have not served him well.

Do Americans have the right to ‘worship as they choose’?

President Obama makes a further claim that ‘Americans have the right to worship as they choose’ (1:38–2:04 in his speech).

Again, that assertion sounds superficially plausible, but fails upon closer examination.

The Constitution does not protect the right of citizens to worship through performing human sacrifice, for example. And the Supreme Court ruled against polygamy in 1878, interpreting the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause as ‘protecting religious beliefs, not religious practices that run counter to neutrally enforced criminal laws’ (as the University of Missouri-Kansas City School summarizes).

Although this position was subsequently softened by later rulings, more recent developments have returned to a narrow interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause. Thus, the University of Missouri-Kansas City School has this to say:

The big development—shocking to some—in Free Exercise jurisprudence came in Employment Division v Smith in 1990. Reinterpreting and, in some cases, throwing out decades of caselaw, five members of the Supreme Court concluded that a generally applicable criminal law raises no Free Exercise issues at all, ending what had long been the obligation of states to demonstrate at least an important state interest and narrow tailoring when they enforced laws that significantly burdened religious practice.

In other words, the Supreme Court in 1878 interpreted the Free Exercise Clause to mean the same thing as the words of Thomas Jefferson that President Obama quoted, and recent courts have returned to that same narrow understanding.

The Supreme Court understands the First Amendment not as protecting the practise of religion, but rather the right of people to hold, profess and, by public argument, to maintain their beliefs.

Thus, the President is speaking contrary to the opinions of the Supreme Court when he appeals to the First Amendment in support of either a right to ‘practise religion’ or for people to ‘worship as they choose’. He presents no evidence that such rights are Constitutionally protected.

Again, it would seem that the President has been ill-served by his advisors.

If I understand him correctly, Chris Rosebrough is vigorously defending what he believes to be a Constitutionally protected right to the free practise of religion. Yet, given the rulings of the Supreme Court concerning the Free Exercise Clause, I wonder whether that point of Constitutional principle has not in fact already been long conceded, if indeed it ever existed.

Simply, then, I do not currently understand the Constitutional basis upon which Chris is arguing.

We do not have to like the Constitutional situation as interpreted by both past and recent Supreme Courts (although a narrow interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause does not seem to me to be incompatible with the precise wording of the text). Americans are free to disagree with their Supreme Court, and to pursue a change of interpretation. But they are unlikely to act with meaningful effect unless they first understand the relevant facts for what they are.

Now, whatever restrictions may eventually be imposed upon the practise of Christianity by an increasingly secularized society, no Supreme Court has yet denied that the First Amendment protects the freedom to profess and argue for one’s religious opinions. Thus, the Constitution does seem to guarantee the unimpeded proclamation of Law and Gospel, even in the face of opposition from those who find the message of Christ crucified for sinners to be offensive.

For this we should rejoice and thank the Lord. For our desire is not merely to uphold the Lefthand Kingdom rights of Christians, but to pursue the Righthand proclamation of the Gospel to the lost, in the hope that the Lord might thereby graciously save some.

My observations thus far

In summary, then, my (probably wrong-headed) understanding of the First Amendment is that it protects religious freedom by prohibiting Congress from passing laws intended to impede the free exercise of religion. Nevertheless, religious practice may be constrained by neutrally enforced criminal law.

Further, I assert that the prohibiting of Congress from passing laws restricting the free exercise of religion is emphatically not the same thing as granting citizens the right to build a mosque, even on their own private property.

I make these observations because much of the discussion I have seen and heard seems to assume that the First Amendment either grants citizens positive rights, or protects freedoms far more extensive than either its plain text or the prevailing rulings of the Supreme Court would suggest.

My general point is thus that, if we are to discuss the Constitutional issues intelligently and prevail in the marketplace of ideas, we need to be very careful of our facts and not misconstrue the freedoms that the Constitution actually protects.

Let me state once more that I am not a Constitutional lawyer. I am well aware that I will already have erred on many points thus far in my discussion, and that my status as one ignorant of US Constitutional law will be patently obvious to anyone who is trained in such matters. Again, please correct me and set the record straight. I am not seeking to be contentious, but merely to establish and comprehend the facts of the Constitutional situation.

Did President Obama make a principled appeal to the Constitution? And what about the right to freedom of speech?

Although Chris Rosebrough correctly points out that President Obama appeals to the Constitution, given the above observations, I rather suspect that Chris is being overly generous when he credits the President with a Constitutionally defensible stance.

As I currently see things (and I am well prepared to change my view, if and when someone shows me my error), the President apparently asserts that the Constitution protects rights that it does not. And he notably fails to balance the right to be free from government interference in the expression of religion with another right also protected by the First Amendment: freedom of speech.

As much as Chris valiantly defends the rights of those seeking to build the mosque, might he not, like the President, perhaps be tending toward inconsistency when he neglects to defend with equal vigour the Constitutional right of those who oppose the mosque to voice their opinions?

It is not a de facto unconstitutional stance to speak one’s strong opposition to the way that someone else wishes lawfully to exercise their religion.

In fact, the opposite would seem to be true: to maintain the freedom to preach the Gospel, it is precisely the right to speak openly in opposition to other religions (including the religion of secular humanism) that must be protected. And that right must be protected every bit as much as the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom from ‘laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’.

Rights are best maintained by regular use. I do not therefore understand the logic behind the criticisms Chris makes of those who are voicing opposition to the Park51 mosque. They would merely seem to be exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.

Now, if Chris had confined his criticism to those calling for government intervention to prevent the mosque being built, then he would have a point, and I would agree with it entirely.

Any such calls, if they are being made, would be unconstitutional and would represent a real danger to religious freedom in the US.

And I likewise support him in his caution against playing into the hands of those with anti-religious agendas by the use of extreme and intemperate language. Every believer involved in the debate should take his warnings to heart and tone down the rhetoric. Let us be gracious to those with whom we disagree, even if they are unrestrained in their arguments against us.

But I part company with Chris to the extent that he intends to go further than that by criticizing those who simply argue passionately that the mosque should not be built, but who are neither calling for government intervention nor seeking to prevent its construction by anything other than peaceable and lawful means. They have a Constitutionally protected right to voice their opinions, and it is essential to the preservation of religious freedom that they are vigorously supported in exercising that right, whether or not one agrees with every (or indeed any) aspect of their argument.

Understanding the sensitivities over the Park51 proposals

The Park51 website makes plain that a mosque is part of the proposals. This is not a matter of dispute. The website says:

Park51 will grow into a world-class community center, planned to include the following facilities:

• outstanding recreation spaces and fitness facilities (swimming pool, gym, basketball court)
• a 500-seat auditorium
• a restaurant and culinary school
• cultural amenities including exhibitions
• education programs
• a library, reading room and art studios
• childcare services
• a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community
• a September 11th memorial and quiet contemplation space, open to all

Now, the Park51 website also goes out of its way to present its proposals as inclusive, being ‘in the spirit of tolerance and service’ and a ‘gesture of dedication to our city’. For the sake of my following points, I shall assume the veracity of these claims without question.

The President was absolutely right to say that all must ‘recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan’.

Although some might question whether President Obama was correct in stating that the 9/11 terrorist’s cause was ‘not Islam, it’s a gross distortion of Islam’, it is clear that he singularly failed to address meaningfully in his remarks the fact that those terrorists were most certainly at least operating in the name of Islam, and that not a few in the Muslim world saw them as doing so legitimately.

(For the record, let me be absolutely clear that I recognize that there are also many people who would self-identify as Muslim and yet condemn all terrorist acts without reservation. I in no way wish to impugn the motives or behaviour of peaceful law-abiding Muslims, US citizens or otherwise.)

The President rather failed, I think, to show adequately in his Ramadan speech that he understood the legitimate feelings of many New Yorkers and other Americans concerning this issue. On 9/11, America was attacked in the name of Islam. Now here was their President, defending the building of a mosque practically upon the primary place of that attack. Would it not be understandable if many were to feel betrayed by his words, even if the President himself intended no such offence?

Yet President Obama went even further, proclaiming that American Muslims have a right actually to build a mosque in Lower Manhattan. I have already stated my case for questioning whether such a right exists or, if it does, whether it is protected by the Constitution.

Thus, although President Obama asserted that we must ‘recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan’, he gave the impression to many of neglecting to heed his own advice.

It must be blatantly obvious to even the most neophyte politician that not a few New Yorkers would perceive the building of a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero as, if not a victory of sorts for the ideology of the terrorists, then at least something that those sympathetic to the 9/11 attackers would claim as such, and thus use in their continuing propaganda and efforts to raise funds for further terrorist attacks.

Is it not therefore entirely understandable that emotions are running high? How galling it must be for some, not only to have to endure Osama bin Laden’s continuing evasion of justice, but now also apparently to see his professed cause gain ground with their own President’s apparent blessing. And not just any ground, but Ground Zero.

Sentiments are fraught, therefore, not over the proposed building of just any mosque, but over the plans for this particular mosque in a location that has acquired an extreme symbolic importance to the identity of the American people and their stand against terror.

To concede this ground – if not to the enemy, then at least to the religion in whose name an atrocity has so recently been committed upon it – appears to many to be a capitulation to terror. In their view, this would add insult to the terrible injury that the American people have suffered. The very idea is itself a stench in their nostrils, and ample cause for the intensity of the current debate.

One does not have to agree with that view in order to grant that it has a legitimate basis, and that those holding it should be treated gently and with respect.

I do not therefore fault President Obama for not viewing the matter this way himself.

But, by failing to recognize that this is an emotionally sensitive issue of honour, symbolism and principle for many patriotic Americans, and instead treating it as an abstract constitutional matter in his speech, the President is at least guilty of incompetent politics.

Though that is not in itself a crime, I cannot comprehend how President Obama made such a basic error. That said, reviewing again Chris Rosebrough’s analysis, I am not sure that he does not similarly fail to give sufficient weight to the idea that those opposed to the construction of the mosque might have a genuine and potentially legitimate grievance. Perhaps I am missing something.

What the President might have said in his Ramadan speech

I wonder why, in defending the protections afforded by the Constitution, President Obama did not endeavour to unite US citizens together around those very freedoms? Could he not easily have spoken along the following lines, even allowing for the fact he was addressing an iftar dinner:

Our Constitution – which I am bound by oath to preserve, protect and defend – enshrines the freedom of our citizens to exercise their religion without interference from government. That freedom includes the right of Muslims to seek to build places of worship – even in Lower Manhattan.

We treasure these First Amendment freedoms, even as others fear them and seek to take them from us. Unable to win in the arena of peaceful discussion and debate, the enemies of freedom resort to shameful acts of terror. By their deeds, they show the impotence of their ideas, in contradistinction to the preeminence of our liberty.

It is our Constitutional freedoms that define America and make her great. We determinedly hold them fast, whatever trials and tribulations we may endure. The noble ideas upon which this nation is founded can never be defeated by base acts of barbarism.

Nonetheless, the same First Amendment that safeguards our free exercise of religion also protects our freedom of speech. These rights are inseparable. Neither one can stand alone. And so we hold the right to speak freely as dearly as we do our free exercise of religion.

There are many who think it inappropriate that a mosque should be built so close to the place where terrorists committed an atrocity in the name of Islam. They have a right to give voice to their thoughts and feelings. And were a mosque to be built close to Ground Zero, there would no doubt be some among the enemies of freedom who would perceive this to be a sign of our weakness.

They would be wrong.

The building of a mosque close to Ground Zero would be proof not of our vulnerability, but of our steadfast resolve to uphold with eternal vigilance the freedoms of all our citizens, whatever their colour or creed.

Thus, even as we honour the right of Muslim Americans to seek to build a community centre and mosque in Park Place, we also uphold the right of other citizens to speak peaceably in opposition to its construction.

Park51 is therefore a matter for civil discourse, but not for government diktat. This is the American way. And so, even as loyal and patriotic American citizens legitimately disagree over this issue, let us celebrate the Constitutional freedoms that unite us in our noble land of liberty.

I am no speech writer, but could President Obama not at least have acknowledged the First Amendment right of freedom of speech for those who feel so very strongly that the Park51 mosque should not be constructed?

President Obama could have used his speech to prepare the way such that, whether or not the mosque is eventually built, Americans could have stood together, united by their Constitution and proud of their freedoms – the very freedoms that enable the Gospel to be proclaimed without government restriction.

Instead, the President’s words stirred up the controversy and sowed seeds of discord. His Ramadan speech left America more divided, not less.

Conclusion

Am I way off base with anything I have written here? Have I woefully misinterpreted the nature of the Constitution or the First Amendment? Have I misunderstood the motivations of those opposing the Park51 project? Have I been unfair to Chris, or even to President Obama?

If so, I’d appreciate some guidance to bring me back on track, even if it’s just a link to a primer on Constitutional law! And if this whole article is without merit, I am happy simply to withdraw it.

I believe that Chris is probably correct with respect to the hidden agendas held by some engaged in the public debate. It is beyond credible doubt that there are those who are exploiting this situation for their own political or secularist ends.

But it would be overly simplistic to paint everyone involved in the discussion with that particular brush: there are legitimate reasons driving some to oppose Park51, and I believe that Americans would be wise to defend through exercise their First Amendment right to speak freely.

I am therefore unconvinced that opposing the construction of the mosque is in itself to place the religious freedoms of American citizens in jeopardy. I do not see the Constitutional basis for that line of reasoning, although I remain open to persuasion.

That said, any public discourse by Christians should always be conducted in a way that is blameless. It would be all too easy to give ammunition to those with a secularist agenda who wish to excise religion entirely from the public sphere.

Chris is absolutely correct to identify this danger, and to seek to mitigate it.

I thank God for giving the church faithful and insightful men such as he. May the Lord grant that every believer’s conduct be likewise ‘worthy of the gospel of Christ’ (Phil. 1:27). For it is our freedom to proclaim the Gospel of Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead that Chris, Jason and many others seek to defend.

My fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, I commend your efforts to contend both for the Gospel and for your continued freedom to proclaim it. I leave you with these words of counsel and encouragement from Paul to Titus:

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.

Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.

Titus 2:11–15

S.D.G.

The Alpha Course is a widely used evangelistic tool designed to introduce people to the Christian faith. The Alpha website describes it this way:

Alpha is an opportunity for anyone to explore the Christian faith in a relaxed setting over ten thought-provoking weekly sessions, with a day or weekend away.

The same website gives an indication of its popularity:

The Alpha course spread during the 1990s, initially in the UK and then internationally, as more churches and groups found it a helpful way to answer questions about the Christian faith in an informal setting. There are now over 33,500 courses worldwide in 163 countries and it is supported by all the major denominations.

In the introduction to my article, Dangerous pragmatism – why a transformed life is not proof of salvation, I mentioned (mostly incidentally) the Alpha Course and its developer, Nicky Gumbel. I drew attention to the fact that many people found the course’s theology to be deeply problematic. And I quoted from an article documenting Nicky Gumbel’s apparent denial of the core Christian doctrine that Christ was punished in the place of sinners.

In his comments on my article, my father made these observations:

You also know that I tend to be reluctant to criticise others who seek to proclaim the gospel, even though they do not understand it quite as I do. God is able to use even the most misguided of putative followers to bring sinners to Jesus.

You may not feel it is a good example, but Cliff Richard was first led to think of his need of a saviour by Hank Marvin, a Jehovah’s Witness. You would be the first to say that salvation is solely the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing sinners to repentance and Faith in Jesus and God does frequently ‘work in mysterious ways’! I know that I have preached the gospel for the best part of fifty years and I have only been able to pass on what I understood it to be at that time in my walk with Jesus. That knowledge has developed and deepened over the years but my knowledge of God and the gospel is still imperfect and I can still only ask that he use whatever he can from what I say to enlighten others and draw a veil over my mistakes and imperfections. We are all on a pilgrimage and some are further along than others, some take a long time to learn lessons and others make unnecessary detours. I know little of Nicky Gumbel but it does seem that God does use him to communicate what he understands to be the gospel to many people through the Alpha course. If Gumbel gets them started on the road and they read the scriptures for themselves then their faith can grow and mature.

This is a topic worth considering: do we even have the right to critique someone’s teaching if we compare it to Scripture and find it problematic?

I certainly do not believe that we should be swift to criticize. Not one of us has doctrine that is perfect in every respect. And if we do venture to counter someone’s teaching, let us present our case with gentleness and humility. I think my father most definitely exhibits these traits. I still have a greater maturity to attain.

Does Nicky Gumbel have a responsibility to ensure that the materials he produces are sound?

It might seem obvious but, before we can legitimately critique someone, we have first to be sure that he has a responsibility for whatever it is that we perceive to be at fault.

A critical qualification for any elder of the Church is that he be ‘skilful in teaching’ (as a literal rendering of 1 Timothy 3:2 would have it). This enables him to ‘convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching’ (2 Timothy 4:2).

St. James gives this caution: ‘let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment’ (James 3:1).

To take up the office of elder is clearly a solemn thing.

Since elders must be ‘skilful in teaching’, it is a Biblical requirement that each should be able to explain Christian doctrine in a competent and sound way. This is the very nature of their calling.

Sin, repentance and the punishment of Christ upon the cross in our place are matters of the most basic Christian doctrine. They are the fundamentals of the faith. Err in them, and we do not have the historic orthodox Christian faith. May any elder be qualified for his position if he has not mastered such topics?

Nicky Gumbel is vicar of Holy Trinity Brompton Church, an Anglian church in London. He is therefore an elder of the Church and thus has a God-given responsibility to ensure that what he teaches concerning sin, repentance and the work of Christ accords with the historic orthodox Christian faith handed down from the Apostles and set out in Scripture.

Do ordinary believers have the right to judge an elder’s doctrine?

Let’s look at how the Jews of Berea responded to St. Paul’s teaching:

The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. (Acts 17:10–12, ESV)

Here we have a case, not merely of ordinary believers testing the teaching of an elder against Scripture, but of as-yet unbelievers testing the word of the Paul the Apostle! And far from being reprimanded, the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to commend these Jews for being ‘more noble than those in Thessalonica’.

The implication for us is that it commendable to subject teaching given in the name of God to the word of God. No teacher is above such examination, not even St. Paul, and everyone who claims to speak things about God should welcome it. (I do, even if correction sometimes stings for a time.)

Stephen McGarvey, editorial director of the Salem Web Network (which includes christianity.com and crosswalk.com) has a helpful article on this subject that is worth considering.

Doesn’t Jesus tell us not to judge?

It is important that we remember to place Jesus’ injunction into context:

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye?

Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Matthew 7:1–5, NKJV

When we read the entire passage, it becomes clear that Jesus is warning against hypocritical judgement.

His closing instruction on that subject is not that we should quiet down and shut up, but that we should first deal with our own sin so that we will then be able to ‘see clearly to remove the speck from [our] brother’s eye’.

Doesn’t Paul tell us not to judge another’s servant?

My father makes these comments:

…and the teaching of Paul in Romans 14 [is that we] are required to discern between good and evil and Paul does suggest that the even least in the church might act as judges in some matters. (1 Cor 6) Paul was also quite ready to use his apostolic authority to judge sinful behaviour and enforce sound doctrine so it cannot be that we just allow anything to go unchallenged. That said, each individual servant of God is responsible to God so perhaps we have to take on board Romans 14: 4 ‘Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands of falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.’ See also vv 10-13. God is indeed sovereign!

Amen to God’s being sovereign!

Now, let’s place Romans 14:4 into its proper context:

Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him.

Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: “As I live, says the LORD, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God.”

So then each of us shall give account of himself to God.

Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way. I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Romans 14:1–14, NKJV

Paul defines the context at the outset as concerning ‘doubtful things’, or ‘opinions’ as the ESV renders it. Paul is not talking about the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, but about adiaphora, things that are neither morally mandated nor forbidden.

And so, if one person wishes to eat certain foods, or refrain from eating them, he is free to do so and is not to be condemned for his decision. Likewise in whether he esteems one day above another, or treats them all alike.

Paul reminds us that we are responsible to Christ. Therefore, we have freedom in matters like these where Christ has given us no instruction. And we are not to ‘put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way’ (v. 13) by judging others who choose differently from us.

But in matters of fundamental doctrine, we do have clear direction through the Bible from Christ Himself – the very one to whom we are each responsible.

When we compare false teaching to Scripture and observe that what is claimed does not accord with God’s word, it is not therefore those who point out this fact who are judging, but Christ Himself through His written word.

Thus, we are to ‘avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless’ (Titus 3:9). Yet Paul immediately goes on to tell us that we are to ‘reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned’ (Titus 3:10–11).

The word translated ‘divisive’ there refers to those who are causing divisions and factions. It is not those who call out false doctrine who are divisive, but those who teach it. Divisive false teachers stand condemned not by those who reject their doctrine, but by themselves, because they teach contrarily to the clear word of God. They thereby testify against themselves that they are false teachers.

Thus, we are commanded to ‘stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle’ (2 Thessalonians 2:15). We are to ‘Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.’ (2 Timothy 1:13) And we must ‘Test all things; hold fast what is good.’ (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Is the Alpha Course really that bad?

Alpha is not a new phenomenon, and it would be astonishing if Nicky Gumbel were unaware of the criticisms that have been made of it. Yet Alpha apparently continues to perpetuate the same old serious errors, giving a dangerously flawed presentation of sin, repentance and the work of Christ.

Unless Michael J. Penfold is mistaken, it even risks inoculating many unsaved people against the true gospel by giving them a false assurance of salvation, based upon the fact that they’ve prayed a short prayer.

The Bible does not teach that we are saved by ‘saying a short prayer to receive Jesus’, although much of evangelicalism thinks that it does. The visible church is truly in a wretched state, as I have previously discussed.

The question here therefore concerns whether it is even the true Gospel that Alpha is proclaiming. At best, Alpha’s presentation appears to be perilously defective. Given that there are over 33,500 Alpha Courses now being run, the eternal destiny of many people would appear to be at stake.

Perhaps the problem with evangelicals is that we have grown up being told that what we see and hear is the historic orthodox Christian faith. But all too often, what is actually portrayed is at best a corruption of it. Much of the visible church today is outright semi-Pelagian, and Chris Rosebrough has performed a great service by reminding us that Semi-Pelagianism Was Declared a Heresy in 529 A.D. at the Second Council of Orange.

Here is what the IX Marks website says of Alpha in its Evangelism Course Comparison Guide:

A decision is asked for by the end of the third of fifteen sessions, even though neither faith nor repentance is discussed until the fourth. My concern is that the course seems to want to ease people into being a Christian almost before they know what’s happened. Repentance and faith are treated in passing under the heading “How can I be sure of my Faith,” which seems like a strange place to handle those. Even then, repentance gets one sentence, and faith gets about a page. Most of the other courses are much better at explaining clearly and up-front that you must repent and believe to be a Christian.

One sentence on repentance, and that after people have been asked to make a decision for Christ? Man-centered heretical semi-Pelagian decisionalism? A denial of penal substitution? In what way is this the Christianity of the Bible?

Why would an elder of any church choose to use such a course when there are better alternatives available? Because he is unable to discern its problems? Or possibly because he agrees with its theology? Both of those reasons would be deeply troubling. Or perhaps, simply, ‘because it works’? – but I wrote my original post to tackle that argument, and so will not repeat it here.

Penfold’s comments (toward the end of his article) are appropriate here:

It is a fearful and sorrowful fact that multitudes of Alpha attendees have said the sinner’s prayer and are now convinced they are Christians, who haven’t come within a mile of understanding their real condition as bankrupt sinners before a holy God.

Let me roll-out Paul Washer again, as I did in my article What are we to make of our good works?:

Is God not able to use Alpha, even if it imperfect?

Of course! Our God is both sovereign and exceedingly gracious. He will save whomsoever He wishes. As Jesus says:

The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8, NKJV)

It is entirely possible that someone might be exposed to enough Scripture in an Alpha Course and their ensuing contact with Christians to be saved. But the fact that some people are saved despite being exposed to false teaching does not make that false teaching acceptable. And what kind of start is it to a new convert’s life to be confused with erroneous ideas about sin, repentance and the work of Christ on the cross?

The choice is not between evangelism-with-Alpha or no evangelism, but rather between presenting a defective gospel or proclaiming the One True Gospel: Jesus Christ crucified in the place of sinners, bearing their punishment and propitiating the wrath of a holy and just God toward them, and His being raised from the dead for their justification.

If we believe in the sovereignty of God in matters of salvation, we should believe Him when He tells us that ‘faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God’ (Romans 10:17). The implication of this is that we should strive to present God’s word accurately, not substitute our own ideas in its place. As Paul counsels Timothy:

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15, NKJV)

We preach ‘Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God’. It should be unthinkable for us to seek to lessen the offence of this message to make it more palatable to fleshy ears.

If everyone is going to subject preachers and teachers to such scrutiny, who would be willing to teach?

Remember again the words of James inspired by the Holy Spirit: ‘let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment’ (James 3:1).

Might it not be possible that the Church would be much healthier if many of the people currently teaching in her were to stop – at least until they had studied such that they are able rightly to divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)?

My father writes:

I suppose it is partly in recognition of my own inadequacy in proclaiming the gospel that I am unwilling to be too hard on others to attempt the same task. I hope that if someone hears enough of my sermons they will be able fairly assess my teaching but I would hate to be judged on the content of one sermon where I may have skipped quickly over an important doctrine as my intention at that moment was to focus on something else. We all need to be led by the Spirit of God when we discharge the sacred trust of communicating the Good News of Salvation.

I should think that every Bible teacher has the same concerns. I’m just some random blogger, yet every time I post I do so with a non-trivial degree of fear and trembling, lest I inadvertently lead someone astray. (One of the reasons that I value comments is that it gives people an opportunity to correct me if I stray off-course.) How very heavy is the responsibility borne by an elder of the Church.

Nevertheless, the required standard is not perfect doctrine. If it were, then no preacher would ever dare open his mouth. (Of course, only a foolish man would attempt to teach on a matter for which he knew he was ill-equipped!) No, it is to be able to divide the word of truth rightly. (C.F.W. Walther’s book, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, might prove helpful.)

As we saw at the beginning, the qualification for an elder of the Church is that he be ‘skilful in teaching’ (1 Timothy 3:2) and thus able to ‘convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching’ (2 Timothy 4:2).

Perhaps we should therefore ask, ‘How should a generally qualified teacher respond to appropriate Biblical correction when he is shown to have erred?’

The obvious Scriptural pattern is Apollos, and he seems to be exemplary for this.

Apollos was ‘mighty in the Scriptures’ and ‘taught accurately the things of the Lord’, yet his teaching was not quite all that it could be, because he knew only of the baptism of John:

Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. (Acts 18:24–26, NKJV)

We infer that he accepted the explanation that Aquila and Pricilla gave him, and he is mentioned eight times in Paul’s epistles – often in the same breath as Paul himself and Peter. The Acts 18 account itself goes on to tell us the benefit of his subsequent ministry:

And when he desired to cross to Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him; and when he arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace; for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. (Acts 18:27–28 NKJ)

And so we see that a true teacher, called to his ministry by God and suitably equipped by Him so that he is ‘mighty in the Scriptures’, takes upon himself correction when it is offered.

Concluding thoughts: in praise of discernment ministries

It is a noble for any believer to compare to the word of God whatever he or she is taught in the name of God.

There are those (I do not count myself among them) who have devoted themselves to warning the Church against false teachers and their doctrine. These watchmen mostly (I admit that there are some dishonourable exceptions) have done so because, like Pricilla and Aquila, they love the Truth who has set them free, and wish others to hear His Gospel accurately proclaimed.

I especially admire those who are able to correct false teaching and use it as an occasion to preach the Law lawfully (1 Timothy 1:8) and proclaim the true Gospel in all its sweetness. This, too, is a noble calling.

These brothers and sisters receive little honour for their work, but rather much criticism and abuse. I would that their ministry were not needed. But the Church should give thanks for them, for in these dangerous latter times they perform an essential function in the body of Christ. Let us therefore bear them up before the Lord in our prayers, seeking that He might encourage them and open their mouths boldly to make known the mystery of the Gospel (cf. Ephesians 6:19).

In the light of the mercies of Christ, let us therefore be speaking ‘the truth to one another in love, that we may grow up in all things into Him who is the head – Christ – from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.’ (Ephesians 4:15–16, NKJV)

And ‘Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you.’ (Ephesians 4:29-32, NKJ)

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Every Bible teacher and every Christian blogger has proclaimed some error. And every one of us, teacher or not, has some wrong idea about God, has shared that notion with another. Nicky Gumbel is thus no worse than any of us. Let us all repent of our errors as they are uncovered.

And let us hear those wonderful, comforting words from the end of that last passage, proclaimed to all who believe: ‘God in Christ forgave you’ (v. 32).

S.D.G.

Postscript: further reading

• Discernment in an Age of Deception: Defining the Believer’s Biblical Call to Judge, by Pastor Bob DeWaay, is a helpful and comprehensive treatment of the subject.
• The Shack, Revisited, over at the Sola Sisters blog, defends the public refutation of false teaching with particular reference to William P. Young’s book, The Shack.

In my article, Dangerous pragmatism – why a transformed life is not proof of salvation, I argued that we should not point people to their good works for definite assurance of their salvation. I closed that discussion with these remarks:

Point me then, not to my own works, but to the exceedingly precious promises of Christ that are mine through His finished work on the cross. Call me daily to repentance, and tell me of the forgiveness of all my sin that has been accomplished through Christ’s death and the shedding of His blood. Exhort me not to look inward to myself, but outward to the one with whom I was buried through baptism into death, the one who was raised from the dead for my justification and even now causes me to walk in newness of life (cf. Romans 6).

In his comment on my article, my father made several observations on this topic to which I thought it would be helpful to respond.

On professing Christians who seemingly bear no fruit

My father wrote:

From where I sit, the problem is not so much people claiming to be Christians who have not truly trusted in Christ as Saviour yet exhibit lives that have been radically changed for the better, but people claiming to be Christians who continue to indulge in blatant sins and whose lives are indistinguishable from those ‘in the world’.

James tells us that ‘faith without works is dead’ (James 2). If there is no fruit, no sign of repentance, there is most certainly cause for concern.

Perhaps some of these people are famished sheep, starving to be fed properly with God’s word rightly divided. Others might be goats who have been given false assurance that they are sheep.

Paul Washer of the HeartCry Missionary Society is very clear about his diagnosis of the likely problem:

Whether or not the people whom my father describes are saved, they need to hear the Law preached in all its severity, to confront them with their sin and to show them their true state before their holy and just Creator God. They need to be called to repent, and warned of the day of judgement that is surely coming:

Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead. (Acts 17:30–31, NKJV)

And then they need to hear the Gospel, proclaimed in all its sweetness, that they might believe in Jesus Christ and His work on the cross, in His righteousness put to their account.

I am beginning to sound like a broken record – whatever the question, my answer seems to be the proper proclamation of Law and Gospel, rightly divided. But the Church is called to preach only repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Christ. This is what we all need to hear. And so I do not apologize.

The Christian life is one of continual repentance and trusting in Christ for the forgiveness of our sins, in His righteousness put to our account. What sustains us believers in our lives is the ongoing proclamation of Law (keeping us in repentance) and Gospel (building our trust in Christ alone).

Of those whose lives do seem to bear fruit in keeping with repentance

My father made the point that:

…the drunkard who becomes sober and claims that the change is due to his faith in Jesus does at least merit a hearing.

Perhaps. But I should rather hear him because he preaches the true Gospel of Jesus Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead, than because of his changed life. For if a changed life is cause to hear such a person, why should I not then give equal credence to a Mormon who is able to give a similarly dramatic testimony?

And what if I were to trust in Christ because I believed the compelling evidence of the reformed drunkard’s transformed life? What if I were subsequently to discover that he has fallen away and reverted to his drunken ways?

What then would become of my faith?

And if my trust in Christ were affected by such an event, would my trust ever really have been in Christ alone, or would it have been shown to have been placed in the testimony and changed life of a mere fallen sinner?

The pattern we see in the New Testament is instructive. Yes, the Apostles continually talked about what they had seen. But they always directed people to trust in the facts of the Gospel, not in the Apostles’ own experiences. They called people to repent and believe the Gospel, not upon the basis of their own transformed lives, but because that Gospel was true, as proved by the resurrection of Christ from the dead. To quote again from the message Paul preached at the Areopagus:

Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, ‘We will hear you again on this matter.’ (Acts 17:30–32 )

And so we see the great twin dangers of asking someone to believe in Christ on the evidence of a transformed life. Firstly, the objective basis for the claims of the Christian faith is eliminated, leaving a mere subjective appeal to experience – the same as every other religion. Secondly, there is a risk of making false converts who are trusting not in Christ alone, but in transformed lives.

The antidote to these dangers is to preach boldly the facts of Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead. No other religion teaches this gloriously offensive doctrine.

Let me be clear. I affirm that true faith results in good works, and that many lives have been transformed by the gospel being worked out in people’s lives. My caution, however, and the point of my earlier article, is that a transformed life is not ipso facto proof of a true conversion. The absence of good works in a professing Christian’s life is cause for concern; their presence is no reason for complacency.

We rejoice when people are saved, and we are encouraged when we see their lives bearing ‘fruit in keeping with repentance’ (Matthew 3:8). But we should never look to a transformed life for final assurance of someone’s salvation. Rather, we constantly point ourselves and others to Christ, the fact of His life, death and resurrection, and the sure and certain promises that are ours through His finished work.

My father continues:

I have met such people and to me at least their testimony and changed lives speak eloquently of the transforming power of the Gospel. Paul’s encounter with Jesus on the Damascus road is surely such a case?

Do we pay regard to St. Paul because of his transforming life experience on the Road to Damascus? Or rather because his testimony concerning the crucified and risen Lord is true?

I knew a man who had severe drug and alcohol problems. Stuart was apparently saved, and gave his testimony at one of the first few church services we attended after having moved to the Isle of Man, back in 2004.

For a time, his life was turned around, and he visibly transformed over a period of months from a haggard shell of a creature to a man with a healthy countenance (albeit still bearing the marks of a hard life).

A year or two back, I was driving into town with my wife, and Stuart was at the roadside thumbing for a lift. We stopped to pick him up. It transpired that he had fallen back into alcohol dependency (and probably worse). We took him to his destination and parked. We talked to him in the car for over two hours, as he drifted in and out of bouts of lucidity. We prayed with him before he went on his way.

Some time later, we heard that Stuart had died.

Now, I neither cite his transformed life as proof of salvation, nor his falling away as proof of his damnation. I simply do not know his eternal destiny. His salvation (like ours) was neither predicated upon what he did, nor upon what he did not do, but upon whether the Holy Spirit had regenerated him and caused him to trust in the merits of Christ for favour with God and the forgiveness of his sin. I hope that I shall meet him one day in eternity, although I fear I might not.

The point of this is that true faith produces works, yes. But the apparent presence of those works tell us nothing definitive about our eternal state.

And even if I were to exhibit great works today, acclaimed by millions, there might be any number of reasons why I may not be walking in them tomorrow: sickness, war, persecution – and yes, even sin. All could bring an end to my works. And thus, if I had been looking to them for assurance of salvation, my crutch would have been removed the moment those works ceased. Where then would my assurance rest?

The problem is even worse than this.

Jesus tells us if that if we love Him, we shall keep His commandments. But since I sin daily, that leaves me with a problem if I am looking to my works for definitive assurance of salvation. For how can my works soothe me, when even the best of them is stained with sin?

Yet how comforting to know that my salvation depends not upon what I do, but upon what Christ has done for me.

And so I shall finish where I started:

Point me then, not to my own works, but to the exceedingly precious promises of Christ that are mine through His finished work on the cross. Call me daily to repentance, and tell me of the forgiveness of all my sin that has been accomplished through Christ’s death and the shedding of His blood. Exhort me not to look inward to myself, but outward to the one with whom I was buried through baptism into death, the one who was raised from the dead for my justification and even now causes me to walk in newness of life (cf. Romans 6).

I thank God for all my brothers and sisters in Christ. Even (and sometimes especially) when we have differences of perspective. May the Lord grant that we continue to speak ‘the truth to one another in love, that we may grow up in all things into Him who is the head – Christ – from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.’ (Ephesians 4:15–16, NKJV)

Of course, responding meaningfully to comments takes time, and I love it when one commenter responds to another in an insightful way and thereby alleviates the need for me to address a particular point.

Nevertheless, I am a little back-logged at the moment following my last post. It might therefore take a little while for me to make all the responses that I’d like. I ask for your indulgence in the meantime, but please, continue to talk amongst yourselves!

In particular, my father (Alan Neades) raised a number of important questions in his comment on my article, Dangerous pragmatism – why a transformed life is not proof of salvation. He thereby gives me an excuse to clarify my position on a few things, and to explore others in more detail.

Rather than try to squeeze an even longer response than his into the comments section (my first draft weighed-in at over 5,000 words, which I fear might have tried the patience of even the most enthusiastic reader), I have instead decided to respond in a series of three separate articles:

• The Purpose Driven Life: introductory discernment resources
• What are we to make of our good works?
• A closer look at the Alpha Course and whether it is permissible to judge what other Christians teach

All of these articles are now posted, and I shall now direct my attention to the other excellent comments that people have left.

Peace and grace to all of you in our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

I briefly covered this in my article, The mysterious case of the disappearing gospel. But the topic is so important that I return to it here.

St. Paul defines the Gospel very clearly and concisely in his first letter to the Corinthians:

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you – unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

1 Cor. 15:1–8, NKJV

The Gospel, then, is the fact that Christ died for sinners, was buried, and rose from the dead.

Notice that Paul says ‘I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you’.

The Gospel is Good News to be declared. Good news to be preached.

And it is good news to be received. Good news in which we stand. Good news by which we are saved – if we cling fast, as Paul says, to ‘that word which I preached to you’.

There’s that word ‘preached’, again. The Gospel is a message to be delivered.

Paul frequently uses shorthand for this Gospel:

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

1 Cor. 1:21–24, NKJV

Paul here sums up the Gospel message that he preached (and are you noticing a pattern?) in just two words: ‘Christ crucified’.

Of course, this short phrase needs further explanation.

But within those two words is contained the entirety of the glorious truth of the Gospel: the Father graciously regenerating underserving sinners by His Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ our Saviour:

For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Titus 3:3–7, NKJV

Read again the 1 Cor. 1:21–24 passage:

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

How are people saved?

What’s interesting here is that Paul does not say that people are won to Christ by being befriended and having their felt needs met by the Church.

There’s nothing wrong with Christians showing love in such practical ways, of course. In fact, this is a good thing! But this is not the means that God uses to save people.

No, Paul tells us plainly: ‘it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe’.

And which message is it that saves? Which message is it that is a stumbling block and foolishness? Which message is it that is ‘Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God’ to those who are being called?

It is the message of ‘Christ crucified’.

‘Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God’ comes through the preaching of this message.

If you would love your neighbour, bring him ‘Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God’. Tell him of how, without Christ, he is under God’s wrath and will receive the eternal punishment that he has earned by his rebellion and sin. Tell him of the Christ crucified for sinners such as he. Tell him of the Christ who was buried, and who rose again on the third day. Call him to repentance. And give him the offer of forgiveness of sins in Christ to all those who put their trust in Him.

This is what it means to love your neighbour as yourself. This is what it means to proclaim repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Christ.

Then [Jesus] said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.’

Luke 24:46-48, NKJV

Please, use words that your neighbour will understand. Patiently explain anything that he doesn’t grasp. But preach Christ crucified. Proclaim to him repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Christ. Nothing else can save him.

The only means that God has ordained to save the lost is this proclamation, this message of ‘Christ and Him crucified’ (1 Cor. 2:2). If you would show love your neighbour, there is no greater good that you can do for him than to bring him this Good News.

Paul returns to this theme of the preached Gospel over and over. How could he not, as one who had received such boundless grace and love in Christ? How could the love of God poured out in his heart by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5) not overflow in the proclamation of the Gospel that saved him?

But what does it say? ‘The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart’ (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

For the Scripture says, ‘Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For ‘whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.’

Rom. 10:8–13

I weep for the lost. They need to hear the Gospel message, ‘the word of faith which we preach’. And to hear it, they need a preacher. And preachers must be sent:

‘How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!’

Rom. 10:14–15

Not all will receive the message of peace between a holy, righteous God and fallen sinners, for ‘Christ crucified’ is a stumbling block and foolishness to those who are perishing:

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed our report?’ (Rom. 10:16, NKJV)

Nevertheless, our speech and our preaching are not to be with ‘with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power’ (1 Cor. 2:4). O Lord, may our lips resound with the Gospel, ‘Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God’!

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Rom. 10:17, NKJV)

This Gospel that the lost need is the very same Gospel that I need to hear. That you need to hear.

Every day.

For I sin daily. And were it not for the regular reminder of Christ crucified for my sins, I should despair.

But the Gospel message brings hope. It builds faith, for ‘faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ’.

And the true faith in Christ that comes through hearing the Gospel word of Christ shall surely bring forth its fruit.

Pastors, if you would have your flock bear fruit, feed them with the Gospel every week.

If you would fulfil the commission with which Christ has entrusted you, take every opportunity to proclaim repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Christ.

The sheep you oversee need the reminder of this message every week. And you too need to hear this message. For the preached Gospel is Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Cor. 1:17–18, NKJV

O God, have mercy upon the lost and upon all your Church. Raise up and send many preachers, that the dying and all the hungry may hear clearly the bold proclamation of repentance and the remission of sins in Christ. And if in your grace it should please You to use such a weak and lowly vessel, ‘Here am I. Send me.’ Amen.

If you have read my article Spiritual growth? There’s an app for that, you’ll be aware that there is currently a big push within the Church to adopt these dangerous practices. Mike and Bob show you why this is a Bad Thing.

Still here? Quick, go read the article now – but don’t forget to come right back:

• The Dangers of Spiritual Formation and Spiritual Disciplines

For those who don’t know him, Bob DeWaay is pastor at Twin City Fellowship in Minnesota and the founder of Critical Issues Commentary. He is also the author of two superb books, both of which I highly recommend:

• The Emergent Church – Undefining Christianity
• Redefining Christianity: Understanding the Purpose Driven Life Movement

If you don’t have a copy of these books, go buy them now!

‘It drives Pharisees nuts to watch God keep blessing ministries they ridicule & despise.God’s sovereignty is often humorous.’

What’s the Pharisee card? Good question.

In my quest to become Todd Wilken’s number one fan, please allow me to direct you to his incisive article:

• Playing the Pharisee Card

Now, Rick Warren’s proof of the rightness of his position (and that his opponents are wrong) seems to be based on his claim of God’s ‘blessing’. And, as CEO of Saddleback and self-proclaimed disciple of management guru Peter Drucker, he knows how to apply best 21st century management practice to his business. So, it is important for Mr. Warren to be able to quantify this blessing.

How is God’s blessing measured? Well one easy way, in Mr. Warren’s book, is by seeing how much your church grows. A numerically growing church is a blessed church. Saddleback has grown vastly over the last three decades. So, God must be blessing it. And He must approve of their theology and practice. Quod erat demonstrandum.

The only problem with this, and it is just a teensy-weeny one, is that not all growth is good growth.

Measured on the basis of numerical success, Baal-worship was doing pretty well in ancient Israel. (If you are unfamiliar with the story, now would be a good time to read 1 Kings 18.)

All but a remnant of 7,000 people had bowed the knee to Baal. Thus, the 450 prophets of Baal whom Elijah confronted must have been pretty confident of God’s favour. After all, 450–1, that’s pretty good evidence of whose side God is on, right?

At least, it must have seemed that way.

Until Elijah routed the prophets of Baal and had them all executed at Brook Kishon.

It turned out that Elijah was the one who had been listening to (and trusting in) God, after all. He was the real Prophet. The prophets of Baal? They were self-deceived impostors, false prophets with no legitimate place in God’s kingdom.

Which brings us to the question, how does Rick Warren know that God is blessing him and those ministries fashioned after his own?

This might be an appropriate point to remind ourselves of what Christ wrote to the Church of Sardis:

And to the angel of the church in Sardis write, ‘These things says He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: “I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God. Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.”

“You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.”

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”’

—Revelation 3:1–6, NKJV

A name for being alive doesn’t cut it. Your works must be perfect before God.

Not sure that you can manage perfect works?

Good.

You can’t.

But what matters is what Jesus Christ has done for us. And He has lived a perfect life for us, died for us.

But this Gospel message, what Christ has done for us, isn’t what Mr. Warren has been emphasizing. He instead proclaims the need for a New Reformation, this time of ‘Deeds, not Creeds’. (Since this is itself a creed, there is, shall we say, a certain tinge of irony here.)

Rick Warren thus preaches a message of what we must do for Christ. This back-to-front gospel is from the world of Alice Through the Looking Glass.

But, let us consider seriously for one moment this creed of ‘Deeds, not Creeds’. What kind of deeds might God be interested in?

After he fed the five thousand, some of the people came to Jesus and asked exactly this question:

Then they said to Him, ‘What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?’

Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.’

Therefore they said to Him, ‘What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, “He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”’

Then Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’

Then they said to Him, ‘Lord, give us this bread always.’

And Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.’

‘This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.’

—John 6:28–40, NKJV

Jesus’ message sounds remarkably like ‘Creeds, not Deeds’. What you believe about Him is everything. What you do? Well, not so much. (Which isn’t to say that what we do isn’t important. But the good works that we do are a fruit of the gospel, not the gospel itself. Never confuse the two.)

Are you believing and trusting in Christ? Yes? Then you ‘have everlasting life’, and He will raise you up ‘at the last day’.

The work that God would have you do is to believe in His Son. To trust in Him for the forgiveness of your sins. To trust in His perfect, righteous life put to your account. His death in your place for your sins. You give God glory by believing in His glorious Son.

The problem with Mr. Warren’s doctrine of ‘Deeds, not Creeds’ is thus obvious: it directly contradicts what Jesus taught.

This is why many Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs) and have for years been questioning Mr. Warren’s doctrine and practice. And perhaps, just perhaps, they might now be getting a little under his skin.

One of the two tweets Mr. Warren made immediately prior to playing the Pharisee card was:

“Father,thank u for hiding the truth from those who think themselves so wise&clever,&revealing it to the CHILDLIKE”Mt11:25

Doesn’t he sound somewhat defensive? I pray that the Holy Spirit troubles his conscience. May the Lord have mercy upon him and grant him repentance and faith in Christ for the forgiveness of all his sin, including his false gospel.

Finally, here is the other tweet that he made before playing the Pharisee card:

It takes ALL kinds of churches to reach all kinds of people. If Jesus is honored & lives transformed, I like how you do it!

It is encouraging that Mr. Warren appreciates the value of all kinds of churches.

Except, of course, those that call him out on his unsound doctrine and practice. No, they’re simply full of Pharisees. Aren’t they?

Afterword

For over two years, I have refrained from naming names and making negative posts on this blog. This article marks a shift from that policy.

Why the change?

Because Rick Warren and his Leadership Network partners are responsible for immense damage to the Body of Christ.

And now, rather than respond to his critics with a Biblical defence of his position, he has resorted to the playground tactic of name-calling. The gospel is too important for this to go unchallenged. People’s eternal destinies are at stake.

1. We are never permitted to sin.
2. We cannot avoid sinning.

Both of these assertions appear in an excellent article by Todd Wilken (of the Issues, Etc radio programme). Todd writes:

They seem so different. One person lives his life striving for moral perfection. The other person doesn’t try that hard. The first is convinced that he can avoid sinning, if he tries hard enough. The second is equally convinced that he can’t avoid sinning, so why try at all? After all, He says, ‘I like to sin; God likes to forgive; that’s a pretty good deal.’ The first is all about keeping the rules; the second is all about breaking them.

The first is a legalist. The second is licentious. They seem very different, don’t they?

Which are you? A legalist? Or licentious? Either way, you won’t regret reading the full article:

• Legalism and licence

Thank you to my friend Paula Coyle of Purpose Drivel (please visit!) for bringing this article to my attention, and for the opening question to this post.

1. That I seemed to be ‘casting judgment on the speaker and the sermon rather than looking for the Lord to help you pick out those things from Him which are helpful for your sanctification and growth in Grace’.
2. That there are some texts that do not lend themselves to a forthright preaching of Christ. The commandment not to commit adultery, for example. And that, therefore, the steps for diagnosing a sermon that I propagated cannot be justly applied to the preaching of such texts.
3. That a lecture by Dr. Peter Masters (of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London) perhaps did not seem to fit the criteria I recited in my article, and that therefore my yardstick might be invalid.

I found myself writing enough in response to these points to warrant a separate blog post.

What is a sermon for, anyway?

If you haven’t already, please take a look at the detailed article from Todd Wilken (host of the Issues, Etc. radio programme) on this issue. This is a much fuller explanation of why and how sermons should be assessed:

• A Listener’s Guide to the Pulpit

I think that might address many of my friend’s concerns and questions. To quote a small extract from there (although it’s really much better to read the whole thing!):

The difference between a good sermon and a bad sermon is whether or not it rightly divides Law and Gospel. A good sermon must show sinners their sin, and show sinners their Saviour. Again Luther writes:

‘This difference between the Law and the Gospel is the height of knowledge in Christendom. Every person and all persons who assume or glory in the name of Christian should know and be able to state this difference. If this ability is lacking, one cannot tell a Christian from a heathen or a Jew; of such supreme importance is this differentiation. This is why St. Paul so strongly insists on a clean–cut and proper differentiating of these two doctrines.’

So these two, Law and Gospel, must always go together in every sermon. They must be carefully divided in every sermon. The Law must show us our sin, and the Gospel must silence the Law’s accusations against us with the perfect life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

This extract directly address the question of what a sermon is for. I agree with Todd Wilken and Martin Luther here, that a sermon’s purpose is first and foremost to show us our sin, and proclaim Christ for the forgiveness of our sin and as our righteousness. This is, after all, what the whole counsel of Scripture does for us through the two doctrines of Law and Gospel that are taught throughout. The Law shows us our sin, because we do not, cannot keep it. The Gospel offers us Christ, who has both died in our place to bear the punishment for our sin, and also lived a perfect life of righteousness that is put to our account by grace through faith in Him.

Something to bear in mind is that Christ Himself testifies that all the Scriptures speak of Him (I’m quoting with context, but pay attention especially to the parts I have shown in bold, and the occurrences of the word ‘all’):

Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him.

And He said to them, ‘What kind of conversation is this that you have with one another as you walk and are sad?’

Then the one whose name was Cleopas answered and said to Him, ‘Are You the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have You not known the things which happened there in these days?’

And He said to them, ‘What things?’

So they said to Him, ‘The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. When they did not find His body, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said He was alive. And certain of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but Him they did not see.’

Then He said to them, ‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?

And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

—Luke 24:13–27, NKJV

Then He said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.’ And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.’

—Luke 24:44–47, NKJV

But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

—John 5:38–50, NKJV

Thus, for example, a sermon can hardly be said to be a Christian sermon at all if it exhorts us to live a moral life, but fails to preach Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins. The opposite error is to preach only the Gospel, with no Law. But, such a sermon also fails to preach Christ properly, because Christ’s perfect life and death for us only make sense when we understand from the Law that we are by nature children of God’s wrath and therefore in need of a Saviour who can reconcile us with God.

One of the things I loved about Matthew Else, the late elder of the congregation that I attend, was the way that, whatever the topic of the sermon, whatever the passage under consideration, He always pointed us to Christ and His finished work on the cross. Christ, who has lived the perfect life that we cannot. Christ, who takes away our sin. Spurgeon, likewise, used the Law to show us our sinful state and need of a Saviour, careful to bring us the Gospel, showing us Christ as our perfect Saviour. Both men knew the essence of a good sermon. And were they not simply good students of Paul’s example, when he wrote to the Corinthian church (the church, mind, not unbelievers!) that ‘I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.’ (1 Cor. 2:2, NKJV) Even for an established church, Paul understood that everything they needed to be taught centred upon Christ and Him crucified.

Christians and unbelievers alike thus need to hear this Law and Gospel message regularly. The same Holy Spirit might work conviction of sin by the proclamation of Law in one hearer, but faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sin by the proclamation of the Gospel in another. Both through the same sermon! The consequence of preaching is therefore a matter for God, but the preacher is entrusted by Christ with the task of proclaiming both repentance (Law) and the forgiveness of sins in Christ (Gospel) – see Luke 24 again, or any sermon recorded in the New Testament. This is even the very same message that both John the Baptist preached (Mark 1:4).

Who am I to judge?

Now, with that purpose for sermons in mind, is it right for us to evaluate (that is, judge!) the sermons that we hear? Recall that the Bereans were commended for testing everything that even Paul (the Apostle!) said to them:

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11, KJV)

Thus, it is a noble and commendable thing for us to compare everything we are taught in the name of Christ with the word of Christ, which is the Scripture. Note that this is not passing judgement by our own subjective criteria, but the exercise of discernment using the objective standard of the written word of God.

If we fail to judge in this way, how would we know whether we are being taught sound doctrine? (And make no mistake, the failure to preach Christ crucified is an egregious error of doctrine.) And if we fail to exercise discernment like this, we might all too easily find ourselves in a situation where repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Christ is not regularly taught by the elders of our church. Those elders would be in dereliction of their duties, starving their flock of the food that Christ has entrusted them to administer. I would go so far as to say that a church where Law and Gospel is not faithfully proclaimed week by week is barely worthy to be called a Christian church at all. Certainly, she is not fulfilling her commission from Christ, and Rev. 2–3 shows us how seriously He treats such matters.

Now, let me make it plain to those who don’t know me that I hold no office in the church. I have been given no special commission to judge anyone. But I do have the duties that all believers have to be on guard against error, to make sure that I am fully part of a church fellowship that properly proclaims repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Christ, one which rightly administers Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (cf. Acts 2:42, etc.). And I have the duty of a loving husband towards my wife (Eph. 5:22–33), making sure that she too is receiving the spiritual nourishment that she needs. That she is being built-up in the faith by hearing sound teaching, and participating regularly in the Lord’s Supper for (as the 1689 London Baptist Confession tells us):

the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of [Christ] in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other.

And, of course, if I had children, I should also have duties toward them (Eph. 6:4) that would require me to ensure that they were fed a regular diet of sound doctrine. Finally, I also have a general responsibility towards other believers with whom I fellowship (cf. 1 John 5:16), whether or not they are part of my local congregation.

I take all these responsibilities seriously. So it is my Scripture-given duty to be a careful listener and discerner, yes, and even a judge (cf. 1 Cor. 14:29), of all the teaching that I hear.

These are therefore real and serious matters, as we see so clearly from the current, sorry state of the wider Christian church. Oh that more would ask these discerning questions of the sermons they hear! Even better would be if every preacher asked himself when preparing his sermons whether he is rightly dividing Law and Gospel, using the Law lawfully (to show us our sin) and making Christ the central focus, the One in whom we find forgiveness of sins!

All those who preach (and I include myself most of all, as one who has preached in times past) should bear in mind the admonition from James: ‘My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgement.’ (James 3:1, NKJV) This is why Paul urges Timothy to ‘Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.’ (2 Tim. 2:15, KJV). It is a serious thing to have the responsibility of feeding Christ’s flock, and discharging that duty requires great diligence.

And what if we should find ourselves sometimes at a loss for someone qualified to teach? For myself, I should rather hear the pure word of God through the Scriptures being read competently aloud (with a sense for the meaning) for half an hour, than to listen for the same period to someone who makes a confusion between Law and Gospel because he does not understand how rightly to divide the word of truth. The former would be more profitable for the flock, and also far less disagreeable for the preacher on the day of judgement.

Thus, I plead guilty to judging the content of sermons. Every time I hear a sermon, I consciously ask myself whether it has pointed me to Christ, directing me to trust in Him for the forgiveness of my sins, and in His perfect life put to my account.

And when I hear a sermon that does proclaim Christ, I rejoice. I am uplifted and encouraged. My faith is strengthened by the faithful preaching of the gospel. I am stirred up to good works as a fruit of the gospel, having been reminded of the ultimate Good Work that has been done for me by Christ on the cross. As one who has been shown so much love, I now long to make that same love known as widely as I can.

And if I hear a sermon that does not direct me to Christ? Well, then I make up the lack by reminding myself of the gospel, that even though I fail to do what God commands me, that nonetheless He looks with favour upon me for the sake of His Son. I remind myself that, as Luther also taught, God does not need my good works, and they certainly do not earn favour with Him, but nonetheless my neighbour does need them. And so, even though I am conscious of my own sinfulness, because of the love shown to me in Christ I throw myself afresh on Him, trusting in Him alone, the author and the finisher of my faith, for the forgiveness of my sin. Asking that He should strengthen me and cause me to live a life in accordance with His perfect will.

What about the law passages?

Now, to answer my friend’s specific question. What if the topic of a sermon were the verse, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ (Ex. 20:14)?

Well, the text itself is Law – something that we should, or, in this case, should not, do. But any proper treatment of this text will immediately show us that we are all guilty of breaking this commandment for, as Jesus says, ‘whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart’ (Matt. 5:28, NKJV). This is using the law lawfully (1 Tim. 1:8), to convict us of sin.

I dare say a competent preacher would also bring out the positive duties of husbands and wives (1 Peter 3; Eph. 5; Col. 3) that are latent in this commandment: that wives should submit to their husbands in everything. That husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church. And again, we would immediately see that every husband and every wife fails to keep these requirements of God’s law.

And, having condemned and called to repentance just about everyone who is listening as a breaker, not merely of God’s Law in general, but this specific commandment, it would be natural for us then to look at exactly how ‘Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her’ (Eph. 5:25). We would then be reminded that Christ came for those such as us, unworthy sinners. That he laid down His life to die a terrible death in our place, a death that we deserved. And that He rose from the dead on the third day, so that we can have confidence that His sacrifice was acceptable to the Father for the remission of our sins. That Christ lived a life of perfect righteousness, which is put to our account. And so, even though we are lawbreakers, we nonetheless have favour with the Father through the faith in His dear Son that has been given to us.

In summary, then, the preacher would use the Law lawfully to show us our sin (the 2nd use of the law) and call us to repentance, and then direct us to Christ for the forgiveness of that sin and the silencing of the law’s accusations against us. On the way, we would no doubt learn from God’s law how He desires husbands and wives to relate to one another. This is the 3rd use of the law – to show us what a righteous life in Christ looks like. But the main focus, the goal at which the entire sermon is aiming, would be Christ crucified for sinners. Sinners like us.

And what of some person of repute whose preaching seems not to meet these criteria?

With regard to Dr. Masters. I have great respect for him by way of reputation, but the particular example my friend references is the only time I have actually heard him myself. My memory is fading, but given that the topic concerned the emotions which flow from the attributes of the triune God, I should be very surprised if Christ crucified had not been proclaimed. Anyway, given my hazy memory, I don’t want to address that specifically, except to observe that this was less a sermon than a lecture, and there is a useful distinction to be made between the two. This is the difference between homiletics (preaching primarily for spiritual edification) and doctrinal instruction (teaching information concerning sound doctrine).

But even with the latter, if all the Scriptures testify of Christ, if Paul resolved to know nothing among the Corinthian church other than Christ and Him crucified, should not Christ always be the ultimate focus and goal of all our teaching? Thus it is only what the Scriptures teach us to proclaim that should be our concern, not whether someone whom we respect does something in a particular way. A human example is useful only to the extent that it accords with the revealed will of God in Scripture.

Conclusion

The point of the three-step sermon diagnostic, then, is not to prescribe some picky ‘count how many times Christ is mentioned’ rule so that we can be mean and nasty to the preacher whom we consider to fall short.

No, the point of the diagnostic is to make plain to ordinary Christians, those who listen to sermons, that a Christian sermon must be about Christ. And, more than that, it must be about what Christ has done for us through His perfect life, death and resurrection. Anything less than that is a betrayal of Christ’s sheep.

What if…there exists a truth
which is absolute?

What if…it is true that
there is a God?

What if…this God made
the heavens and the earth?

What if…He made humankind
in His own image?

What if…the first man and woman
rebelled against God?

What if…they died spiritually and became
by nature
children of God’s wrath?

What if…you are their descendent?

What if…you too
are a rebel
against God?

What if…you,
a child of spiritually dead parents,
are dead in your sins?

What if…God still loved the world?
So much that He sent
His Son,
Jesus?

What if…Jesus calls everyone
to turn away
from their rebellion
and toward God?

What if…Jesus bore
the punishment
for your hatred of God
by dying
on a Roman execution cross?

What if…He proved that
He is God
by raising Himself from the dead?

What if…He is coming back
to judge the living and the dead?

What if…He offers you forgiveness,
and freedom
from your sin?
And His righteousness
put to your account?

What if…instead of slavery to sin,
you could have a life of service
to the One who gave His life for you?

What if…God caused all of these things
to be written in a book?
So that you could know them?

What if…this is absolute truth:

Christ Jesus.
Crucified for sinners.
Raised from the dead.
According to the Scriptures.

What then?

³¹When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. ³³And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.

³⁴Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: ³⁵for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; ³⁶I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

³⁷Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? ³⁸When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? ³⁹Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’

⁴⁰And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

⁴¹Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: ⁴²for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

⁴⁴Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’

⁴⁵Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’

⁴⁶And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

Matt. 25:31–46, NKJV

Who are the sheep and the goats? Verse 37 tells us that the sheep on the Kings right hand are ‘the righteous’; v. 41 indicates that those on His left hand are the ‘cursed’. In the conclusion (v. 46), we see that the cursed ‘go away to everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life’.

Clearly, everything is at stake. Everlasting punishment, or eternal life? Which is it to be for you?

Put another way, are you righteous? What does it mean be ‘righteous’, anyway?

Excursus – what does it mean to be righteous?

How we answer that question is critical to the proper understanding of this passage. Get the answer wrong and, when this judgment day comes, as it surely will, you’ll find yourself consigned to everlasting punishment in the fires of hell.

The Greek word that is translated ‘righteous’ in v. 46 is dikaioi. This adjective means ‘being in accordance with high standards of rectitude, upright, just, fair’ (BDAG). In this context, it refers to being righteous before God, specifically before Christ on His throne of judgment. To be ‘righteous’ therefore means to be in accord with God’s standards of rectitude. Now, those standards are revealed to us in God’s law, all the commandments that have been given to us in Scripture. Jesus sums up the two greatest of these like this:

‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ ³⁸This is the first and great commandment.

³⁹And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

⁴⁰On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

Matt. 22:37–40, NKJV

The Pharisees thought they were pretty good at keeping God’s commands. They were professional law keepers. They continually studied the law and did their best to do everything it said. They even went further, making up their own rules and regulations to keep themselves from accidentally breaking a commandment. But, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says this about them:

…unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:20, NKJV)

So, to get into heaven, you need to be better than the Pharisees. You have to be more righteous than even these professional law keepers.

That’s a pretty tough, requirement, right?

And just in case you might be thinking that if you try really hard, you might just make it, Jesus went on to say:

Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. (Matt. 5:48, NKJV)

So, it’s simple. If you want to enter heaven, be perfect. Keep all of God’s commands.

Perfectly.

Throughout your entire life.

You must honour your father and mother, not murder, not commit adultery, not steal, not bear false witness, not covet anything your neighbour has. If you ever once break any of these commands, you’ve blown it. (And those are just the commands under the ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ heading.)

Have you ever shouted at your parents? Hated your brother for no reason? Lusted after someone you find attractive? Stolen a paperclip from work? Told a lie? Gossiped? Wanted someone else’s house, car, etc.?

Sorry, no heaven for you.

At least, not if you want to get there this way – by your own righteousness, by your own keeping of God’s law, by your own efforts and good works.

Given up on this approach yet? Good. You’re meant to. The whole purpose of God’s law is to bring you to that point. To the realization that you need a Saviour to rescue you from the fierce punishment of God that is coming your way. Someone who will save you despite what you are, not because of what you do. Apart from Christ, you are not righteous. This is exactly what Paul tells us when he quotes Ps. 53:1:

¹¹‘There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.

¹²They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.

¹³Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit;
The poison of asps is under their lips
¹⁴Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.

¹⁵Their feet are swift to shed blood;
¹⁶Destruction and misery are in their ways;
¹⁷And the way of peace they have not known.
¹⁸There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Rom. 3:11–18, NKJV

That’s you. That’s me. At least, that’s us if we are outside of Christ.

So, what is the point of God’s law then, if it is impossible for us to get into heaven by keeping it to the standard that He requires?

Paul continues and tells us that, rather than being there to make us righteous, the law exists to make us realize that we are guilty before God:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Rom. 3:19, NKJV)

Just in case the message hasn’t sunk in, Paul then tells us plainly that:

Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3:20, NKJV)

The word translated as ‘justified’ here is dikaiothesetai. That’s a bit of a mouthful, but it is a form of the verb dikaioo (‘to justify’). This looks rather like our adjective dikaioi (‘righteous’) from Matt. 25:46, doesn’t it? In fact, the words are closely related and deal with exactly the same idea. We can legitimately translate the word ‘justified’ as ‘declared righteous’, just as the NIV does:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. (Rom. 3:20, NIV)

Now the meaning is clear! Paul is telling us exactly the same thing as Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount. It is impossible to get into heaven by keeping God’s commandments in an effort to become righteous. We are incapable of keeping them, and God’s standard is perfect obedience.

To be righteous by keeping the law, we would have to keep all of it perfectly, all the time. As James the Apostle says:

For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2:10, NKJV)

If we fail even in the most tiny detail, then we are just as guilty as someone who has broken all God’s commands. Seems unfair? Tough (Rom. 9:19). Get over it. God made you, and He made the rules. He is perfectly holy, and perfectly righteous. He hates anything less (cf. Ps. 5:5).

This was the problem with the Pharisees. They thought that the outward things they did somehow made them right with God. But Jesus wasn’t impressed. He said to them:

²⁷Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. ²⁸Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matt. 23:27-28, NKJV)

No matter what they did, even with all of their rules and regulations, the Pharisees were unable to change what they were inside. Even though they looked righteous to other people, their hearts were full of rebellion against God’s law.

But how could Jesus call the Pharisees lawless, when they tried so hard to obey all God’s laws? Simply because they had missed the main point of God’s law, which is to show all people everywhere that they are not righteous and are thus in need a of a Saviour. The Pharisees’ attempt to keep God’s law and thereby earn His favour was itself an affront to the purpose for which the law was given. Paul puts it like this:

³⁰What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; ³¹but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.

³²Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. ³³As it is written:

‘Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offence,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.’

(Rom. 9:30–33, NKJV)

Note how Paul contrasts faith and ‘works of the law’ in v. 32. When it comes to obtaining righteousness, the two are complete opposites. Faith is a simple trust in what God has done for us. Works are our own attempt to achieve for ourselves what only God can do.

Trying to earn God’s favour is therefore itself a faithless act of idolatry and rebellion. Instead of accepting God’s pronouncement on our sinful condition – and His remedy for it – it is to assert that God is wrong and to raise up an idol of our own opinions and capabilities. How foolish and futile! The very act of trying to earn righteousness ‘by the works of the law’ is thus a denial that we are utterly wicked and sinful and therefore in need of a Saviour who will rescue us from the wrath of a holy and righteous God. Worse still, it is a rejection of the only Saviour that God has provided, and of that Saviour’s finished work on the cross on our behalf. No wonder that Paul says that Israel, ‘pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness’ (v. 31).

If we can’t become righteous by keeping the law, if there’s nothing we can do to earn God’s favour, if even the very attempt to make ourselves righteous is offensive to God, then what hope can we possibly have?

In the previous quotation, Paul talks about the ‘righteousness of faith’, and of a ‘stumbling stone and rock of offence’. Paul talks more about this truly wonderful solution to our problem earlier in his letter to the Romans:

²¹But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, ²²even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.

For there is no difference; ²³for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, ²⁵whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, ²⁶ to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

²⁷Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.

²⁸Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Rom. 3:21–29, NKJV

The righteousness we should be seeking is not our own, but the ‘righteousness of God’ (v.21). Again, that’s exactly what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount:

But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. (Matt. 6:33, NKJV)

We can have no righteousness of our own, so we are to seek His righteousness. Where do we find it? In the perfect life and death of Jesus Christ. How do we find it? Through a simple, childlike trust in Him. Or, as Paul puts it, ‘through faith in Jesus Christ’ (Rom. 3:22).

Those who trust in Christ in this way are ‘justified [declared righteous] freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus’ (v. 24). For them, the shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross is a ‘propitiation’ – something that appeases God’s wrath toward us. For them, that shed blood cleanses from sin (1 John 1:7), purifies consciences (Heb. 9:14) and sanctifies (Heb. 13:12).

Christ’s sacrifice demonstrates God’s ‘righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier [one who declares righteous] of the one who has faith in Jesus’ (v. 27). When he declares us righteous, God puts the perfect righteousness of His own Son to our account, and treats us as if we had lived the perfect life that Jesus did. We are therefore given favour by God, as a free gift purchased for us by the blood of Christ, even though we did absolutely nothing to earn it.

So, Paul concludes, ‘a man is justified [declared righteous] by faith apart from the deeds of the law’ (v. 28).

Notice that last phrase: ‘apart from the deeds of the law’. The things that we do contribute precisely nothing to our being declared righteous. Justification comes by faith, not by works.

We cannot therefore earn righteousness by anything that we do. Our only hope is to be declared righteous by God on account of His Son having died for our sin to appease God’s wrath toward us. How do we obtain this? We are simply to be trusting in Christ’s death on the cross for us and in His resurrection from the dead. Those who trust in Christ in this way truly fulfil Christ’s statement that ‘you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect’ (Matt. 5:48), because the righteousness of Christ Himself is put to their account.

Back to the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31–46

We have come to understand that we can never, ever, earn righteousness by anything that we do, but only trust in the righteousness of Christ put to our account. Only with that understanding are we now able to understand properly what Jesus teaches about the judgment of the sheep and the goats.

As our good Confessional Lutheran friends keep reminding us, the separation that Jesus makes is based on the identity of those gathered before Him: are they sheep, or are they goats? The sheep are put on right hand of the King, and the goats on the left.

Be sure to note that the separation is not based upon works. It isn’t based on what the sheep or goats do. We know this because the separation occurs in v. 32, before there is any discussion of works whatsoever. In any case, we have already seen that no one becomes righteous because of what they do. The works are therefore recounted as evidence of identity, thus showing the justice of the separation and subsequent judgment. The judge observes that the sheep were doing sheepy things, and that the goats were not.

It is remarkable that the sheep are unaware of how Christ sees what they had done in Him (cf. John 15:4–5). This ignorance is natural for the sheep who, by definition, are not trusting in their own works, but in the righteousness of Christ put to their account.

The goats are entirely unaware that they hadn’t been doing good works. This is natural for goats who, by definition, are trusting in their own righteousness.

This is exactly what Jesus is getting at in the Sermon on the Mount when He talks there of this same day of judgment:

²¹Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

²²Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’

²³And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Matt. 7:21–23, NKJV

The goats really thought that they were doing what God wanted. They were prophesying, casting out demons, and doing many wonders in the name of Christ. And yet, Christ never knew them. They were not His sheep.

The lessons of the the ‘sheep and the goats’ passage are now clear:

1. There is a day of judgment coming when everyone from all the nations shall be judged by Christ on the basis of whether they are a sheep or a goat. That is, each person shall be judged based upon whether or not they are trusting in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins – those who have been declared righteous and had Christ’s righteousness put to their account as if it were their very own.
2. The consequences of this judgment are deadly serious: eternal life for those who trust in Christ; everlasting punishment for everyone else. Hell is real. But so is eternal life. Make sure you know your eternal destiny.
3. True sheep will be doing good works. Sheep do sheepy things (baa!) by nature. That is, as James says, faith inevitably produces good works (James 2:17). All that sheep require to produce good works is proper care and feeding through the word of God.
4. Although your good works can’t earn favour with God, your neighbour really does need them. Is he hungry, thirsty, naked, sick or in prison? Serve him! And notice that the good works spoken of here were done ‘to the least of these My brethren’. And who are Christ’s brothers and sisters? Your fellow Christians. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t serve non-Christians with our good works – we certainly should. But let us especially serve our bothers and sisters in the Lord (cf. Gal. 6:10).
5. True sheep will largely be unaware of the good works that they are naturally doing. This is, I suggest, both because they are doing these things unconsciously, by instinct, and also because they at the same time are so painfully aware of their own sinful condition before God. If you as a Christian do not think you are doing any good works, but are simply aware of your own sin, that’s not necessarily indicative of a substantial problem. Confess any sins of which you are aware, and believe in the forgiveness that you have received in Christ through the promise of God (1 John 1:9)! And be aware that good works include everything that God has commanded us and prepared for us to do, not least the every day things: husbands loving their wives self-sacrificially, wives being submissive to husbands, fathers bringing up their children in the training and admonition of the Lord, children being obedient to parents, employees working diligently for their employers, serving your neighbour through your work, and so on.

It is therefore a gross error to misapply the passage by using it to berate sheep (or even goats!) in an attempt to make them do good works by which they might earn God’s favour and be saved. To do so is in direct opposition to the Law and Gospel message proclaimed throughout all the Scriptures. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Not by works.

Preaching the law alone in this way is, in any case, futile. Doing so can never result in good works, because we don’t, and can’t, keep it. Preaching only the law produces either Pharisees (those who mistakenly think that they are managing to pull it off), or utter despair (those that know that they can’t). Remember that Paul says:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. (Rom. 3:20, NIV)

Preaching the Law and the Gospel of Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead, however, produces faith. And that faith then inevitably produces good works.

If you want someone to do good works, preach the whole counsel of God to him, Law and Gospel. Then leave it to the Holy Spirit do what He has promised: ‘faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God’ (Rom. 10:17). True faith that comes this way will surely bear its fruit.

The proper application of the passage is therefore to repent and trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of your sins, and to trust in His life of perfect obedience put to your account.

Is it worthwhile for us to spend significant amounts of time studying the Bible, the newest parts of which were written over 1,900 years ago?

Yes! In every way.

Why do I believe this?

1. Having examined the internal and external evidence, using the same criteria that scholars use to establish whether any classical text is trustworthy, I find that the New Testament contains multiple independent reliable testimonies to the life, death and resurrection of a man called Jesus. Testimony from both eyewitnesses and those who knew them.
2. Having found that testimony to be reliable concerning a miraculous event, namely the resurrection of Christ, it seems logical that I should pay attention to what else these witnesses claim about Christ and what He taught.
3. Jesus claimed to be the one true God in human flesh, come into the world to save sinners like me and you through his self-sacrificial death on the cross. He thereby took in His body the punishment that is due to us and thus appeased the wrath of a holy and righteous God toward us.
4. Jesus proved his claim to be God by raising himself from the dead, as attested by eyewitnesses.
5. If Jesus is truly God, the creator of the universe, I should certainly listen to and believe what He says.
6. Jesus quoted and believed the Old Testament scriptures, stating that they were the very word of God. Indeed, therefore, His own word.
7. Furthermore, He promised His disciples that He would send the ‘Spirit of truth’ who would guide them into all the truth. Thus, it is logical that I take seriously the writings of the Apostles and those who knew them.
8. All other religions would have us do something, experience something, or learn something to put us right with God, attain enlightenment, or whatever.
9. The Bible alone teaches that all humankind is desperately wicked by nature and in a state of rebellion against God and His law. It alone tells us that we are dead in our sins – children of God’s wrath – unable to do anything to reconcile ourselves with a righteous and holy God.
10. I find that the Bible’s claims concerning my nature ring true. I am unable to keep God’s law – even if I wanted to, which, though I am a Christian, I far too often do not. As someone not merely weak because of sin, but who was spiritually utterly dead in my sins, I realized that I was therefore unable to do anything myself to earn God’s favour.
11. I therefore need the Saviour Jesus Christ presented in Scripture. A Saviour who will take away my sin and thus rescue me from God’s wrath. A Saviour who reconciles me with the Father through His own life and death of perfect obedience. A Saviour who will save me even though I have nothing to contribute to my salvation apart from my sin. And as someone who still sins every day in thought, word and deed, I continue to need that Saviour’s work of grace and forgiveness.
12. Thus, I find myself believing what the Bible says concerning my sin and my need for salvation, and also what it says regarding the only one, Jesus, who came into the world to save sinners like me. I believe and trust in Christ’s work on the cross to wipe away my sin, and in His righteousness put to my account. This message ‘is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God’. That I believe these things is in itself a miracle, and entirely the working and unmerited gift of God in my life.
13. Scripture tells us that God’s law is given for our benefit. It is therefore directly to my benefit to study it and to seek to apply it appropriately to every area of my life. Furthermore, like the Apostle Paul, I find that ‘I delight in the law of God according to the inward man’. I want to obey God’s commands to me, and hate the fact that I continually fall short in so doing. I can only put this down to the new nature that God says He puts within all those who truly believe in Christ for the forgiveness of their sin.
14. Jesus said that ‘My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me’. The more that I study Scripture, the more convinced I become that it is truly the word of Christ speaking to His flock. I discover such insight and riches there that it is always profitable for me to study it deeply. Many times, I have found areas that seemed beyond reach, apparent contradictions that appeared impossible to reconcile, or things that I thought were too hard to understand. Yet, after much labour, these very points have often become the fertile ground in which a deeper and better understanding of God’s word springs-up. Will I ever understand everything? No. But the journey is most certainly enriching and rewarding.

Now, to answer Bill’s question directly.

I labour over what Paul said nearly 2,000 years ago because I believe in the one about whom Paul speaks, namely Jesus Christ. I believe that this same Jesus by His Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write what He did. This makes Paul’s New Testament writings the true word of God, given to the whole Church for its benefit and protection. I delight in all God’s word, and wish to understand it as well as I am able with the enabling of the Holy Spirit. I wish to strive to put into practice what it teaches.

To hold in my hands the very word of the creator God of the universe, to be able to read it and seek to understand it, that is my joy and privilege. In it, I find the words of Christ, words of eternal life. Why would I not want to use my time studying it diligently?

My message to Bill then, and indeed to all of us, is this: Repent of your sin of unbelief. Trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of all your sins!

Given that opening question and the title of this article, you might be expecting me now to try and convince you that they should.

Nope, that’s not it.

I am going to make the argument that elders should have children. But not because I want to persuade you of this. No, rather because I hope my argument is wrong and I want you to show me why. I can’t see the flaw, but perhaps you can. And if so, please leave a comment and tell me what it is. I’d be very grateful, as I am rather uncomfortable with an interpretation that has been in the minority throughout much of church history. Think of this as a personal doctrinal loose-end that I’d like to tie up.

Why do I raise this now?

The topic came up in the comments on an article posted at www.extremetheology.com. A youngster called Joel (he’s 22) made the comment that he thought he met the Biblical qualifications for elders, except for not having a ‘wife and kids’. That brought a sharp rebuttal from Chris, the original author of the piece being discussed. Now, Chris is one of the genuine good-guys, and I respect his opinions greatly as a seasoned contender for the faith, even if I don’t always agree with absolutely everything he says. Chris questioned Joel’s ability to handle Scripture properly, on the grounds that the Biblical qualifications for eldership did not include marriage per se or, by implication, children.

‘Not so fast’, I thought. I then posted a somewhat lengthy comment, setting forth my own current tentative reading of Scripture on this matter. (I’m pleased to say that harmony has subsequently been restored between Chris and Joel.) It is that comment, somewhat reworked, that forms the basis for the remainder of this post.

I believe both in the reliability and authority of Scripture as the true word of God. I’m hoping you do too. So, whether or not elders have children is a question that should be settled based on what the Bible says. And nothing else. Not on our church constitutions. Not on our church traditions or confessions. And certainly not on our own opinions. This is what we in the Reformation traditions mean when we say that we believe in sola scriptura (‘by Scripture alone’). Scripture alone determines our doctrine, and that Scriptural doctrine should determine our practice. How do we properly interpret Scripture? We pay close attention to the text, its grammar, and its grammatical and historical context.

The topic under discussion at extremetheology.com was the qualifications required of small-group leaders within the church. Chris had quoted some relevant texts from the ESV Bible. I reproduce two of these here.

1 Tim. 3:1–7 (ESV):
¹The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. ²Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ³not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. ⁴He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, ⁵for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? ⁶He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. ⁷Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Titus 1:5–9 (ESV):
…appoint elders in every town as I directed you— ⁶if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. ⁷For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, ⁸but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. ⁹He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

It seemed to me that Joel had been trying hard to be faithful and sensitive to the text in a way that I think is commendable. Was he not merely stating what a plain reading of the ESV English translation quoted about says – that ‘an overseer must be…the husband of one wife’ (1 Tim. 3:2)? And the same idea is repeated in the ESV translation of Titus 1:6.

Now, I suspect that Chris, who has studied Biblical languages, was very aware of the Greek text of these phrases, mias gunaikos andra (lit. ‘one-woman man’), and probably has read at least as many commentaries and scholarly articles on this topic as I have. He was probably therefore understanding this as I do, which is that the intended emphasis here is almost certainly upon the mias (‘one’), rather than on the gunaikos (‘woman’). That is, the intent of this phrase is not primarily that the elder has to be married, but rather that he should have an inherent character of sexual fidelity (i.e. that he should be ‘a one-woman kind of man’).

Thus, Chris’s interpretation of this requirement as being that an elder should be ‘sexually under control’ is probably not a bad dynamic equivalent to the intent of the Greek. Myself, I’d have translated the Greek phrase simply as ‘one-woman man’, which I think would have conveyed the likely meaning rather better than the more interpretive translation of ‘the husband of one wife’ that is used by the ESV and several other translations. But then I like formal equivalence as a translation principle, even at the expense of slightly less readability. Of course, I’m but a novice with NT Greek, so what do I know? <grin>

Thus, with regard to the marriage qualification, I agree with Chris. At least, I would do if mias gunaikos andra were the only phrase under consideration. But it is not. There is also the question of the phrases translated in the ESV as ‘keeping his children submissive’ (1 Tim. 3:4) and ‘his children are believers’ (Titus 1:6).

Take the equivalent phrases in the NKJV, with some additional context (my italics):

‘an elder must be…one who rules his own house well, having children in submission’ (1 Tim. 3:4)

‘if anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children…’ (Titus 1:6)

In the English, each passage is a list of independent qualification clauses, every one of which must be met by the subject of the sentence (i.e. ‘an elder’).

What does the Greek say? Well, tekna echonta en hupotage (‘having children in obedience’) for 1 Tim. 3:4, and tekna echon pista (‘having believing children’) for Titus 1:6. I’d say therefore that the NKJV is spot-on in its translation, and the ESV has chosen to convey the same idea but with different grammar. Both are therefore reliable in this case (although I prefer the more formally equivalent NKJV).

So, whether we are reading the English or the Greek, what is the qualification conveyed by a simple literal reading of the actual text of these phrases? It is that an elder is to have children, and that those children are to be submissively faithful. Now it might be that this is not the final interpretation, but we would have to do rather more work to get there. The immediate simple plain-text meaning is straightforward enough and, perhaps, should not be lightly dismissed.

Now, I have read far and wide on this issue, and it is true that most (but certainly not all) commentators and scholars say that Paul means that if an elder has children, they are to be faithful. However, that is not what the text actually says (or am I mistaken?), and I have yet to find a treatment of the grammar and context of these passages that demonstrates from the text that it is legitimate for us to interpolate an ‘if he has children’ clause into our understanding of the passages. What one nearly always finds in the commentaries is something that is effectively along the lines of ‘Paul says this, but he really means that’, with just a dismissive wave of the hand rather than any attempt at justifying such a conclusion. I don’t like that approach to Bible interpretation. The Holy Spirit could very easily have inspired Paul to write ‘and if an elder has children, they are to be faithful’, but He did not choose to do so. Why was that? It certainly wasn’t because Paul expected all Christian men to get married and to have children, and so was only dealing with the common situation (cf. 1 Cor. 7:8).

Furthermore, it is interesting, I think, that Paul considers the case of ‘an elder’ (singular) in 1 Tim. 3:2-7, but deals with ‘deacons’ (plural) in 1 Tim. 3:8-12. He says that ‘Deacons’, as a class, must ‘be the husbands of one wife, ruling [their] children and their own houses well’ (v. 12, NKJV). [Note: The ESV mangles things a bit in 1 Tim. 3:12 by adding an ‘each’, which obscures the point I am about to make. And don’t get me started on the NIV’s rendering of this verse. Go with the NKJV or the Greek.] Thus, there is certainly room within the strict plain meaning of the text for a particular deacon to be childless. This is because the statement ‘Deacons must be the husbands of one wife, ruling [their] children and their own houses well’ holds true of ‘Deacons’ as a group, even if a particular deacon happens not to have children. But, the deacons as a whole must meet the requirements Paul lists. So, if a deacon happens to have a child, that child must be ruled well. In contrast, Paul says with regard to elders that ‘if anyone [singular] is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children…’ and ‘an elder [singular] must be…one who rules his own house well, having children in submission’. The inference is that, unlike with deacons, each and every elder must meet the stated conditions.

Given that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to use plural language with respect to deacons (treating them as a class) that would easily accommodate an individual deacon being childless, shouldn’t we ask ourselves why the Holy Spirit did not inspire similar syntax for the case of an elder? Why the difference, for what are essentially parallel lists of qualities? And if this grammatical detail is truly insignificant, what do we make of the fact that Paul chooses in Titus 1:5 to introduce his topic with the plural ‘elders’ (presbuterous), but then, quite pointedly, switches to the singular with ‘if anyone’ (ei tis) in Titus 1:6 immediately before making his list of qualities?

Now, it is important that we look at context. I certainly would agree that the general thrust of these passages is to deal with the overall character and qualities that an elder must possess. Thus, it is, I think, legitimate to argue that these lists are not so much an exhaustive check-list of qualifications, but rather an indication of the kinds of characteristics that an elder must possess. But we must be very careful not to use such arguments to dismiss the actual, specific, plain meaning of the text. That’s exactly the kind of thing that those who deny the authority of Scripture like to do.

So, considering the context and overall dynamic of the passages, what do we make of the apparent requirement for children? After some thought, might this not in fact be a very wise precaution for the protection of the church? After all, we know from experience that children, especially younger ones, tend to pick up and imitate the worst character traits of their parents. The children see their parents every day, behind closed doors. They reflect in public the true private character of the would-be elder, regardless of how fine a persona he might wear in public. If the children are turning out to be faithful and obedient, that public witness alone tells you much about the character of their parents in private. Furthermore, is it not excellent training for an elder to have to learn to manage and discipline his children, and to arbitrate sensitively between their competing needs and requests for attention? Elders are to be ‘examples to the flock’ (1 Peter 3:5). What better proof of their fitness for this office than the demonstration that they have been godly examples to their own children? Elders are to be, as 1 Tim. 3:2 tells us, didaktikon – skillful in teaching. What better sign of this capability than the evidence that they have brought up their own children in the ‘training and admonition of the Lord’ (Eph. 6:4)?

I suppose some might object that Paul was unmarried. But Paul held the office of Apostle in the Church, not Elder of a local congregation. Is there any example in the entire New Testament of an Elder who is expressly stated to be unmarried or without children? I haven’t found one, but if there is, I shall concede the entire point immediately. (I am aware that some try to prove that Paul was an elder by connecting 1 Tim. 4:14 and 2 Tim. 1:6, but that is a rather desperate attempt and logically does not in any case prove the intended point.) Another objection might be that Paul commends singleness, because it enables one to devote one’s attention more fully upon the Lord (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 32-35). Yet Paul includes women in his recommendation of singleness there, and so it is most doubtful that he has eldership specifically in mind (cf. 1 Tim. 2:12). Paul knows full well that there are many ways that we can serve our Christian brothers and sisters other than by being an elder. (The Lutheran view of what constitutes a good work is distinctly helpful in demonstrating this.)

One final objection might be that there are many fine overseers/elders/pastors/shepherds who are unmarried or without children. That is undeniable. But the fact that God in His boundless grace might use us despite our sinful conduct should not surprise us at all, for we are all sinners who sin daily, saved by grace through the death of our dear Lord on the cross. His righteous life is put to our account and it is that which has already given us God’s favour – we do not earn it by our own perfect living out of His commands. We should not therefore determine doctrine based upon our experience, but rather upon the written word of God.

In his response to my comment, Chris offered this quotation from the commentator Lenske (actually, I think it might be ‘Lenski’). This gives some helpful historical background, which lends credibility to the interpretation of the ‘husband of but one wife’ that both Chris and I hold:

Four personal qualities are then mentioned: “one wife’s husband—temperate—sober-minded—orderly.” The emphasis is on one wife’s husband, and the sense is that he have nothing to do with any other woman. He must be a man who cannot be taken hold of on the score of sexual promiscuity or laxity. It is plain that Paul does not say that none but married men may enter the ministry, that every pastor must be married. Since the days of Origen the question has been raised as to whether a widowed pastor is here forbidden to remarry. The fact that Origen stoutly affirms this is not strange when we remember that he castrated himself; his exegesis is dominated by his peculiar asceticism. Others conclude that remarriage is here forbidden because they think that “one husband’s wife” which occurs in 5:9 refers to a widow who had never had more than one husband. But the two passages are identical in wording, their sense is entirely the same so that we are able to get nothing out of the one that is not already contained in the other. We need not review the protracted discussion of this item, the non-exegetical arguments, the church legislation, etc.

Paul had a reason for beginning with “one wife’s husband.” In those days mature men were chosen for the eldership, who, as a rule, were married and had families; there were no seminary graduates who were awaiting calls. The bulk of the membership from which the elders had to be chosen had come from paganism. What this means as to sexual vices is written large in the New Testament and in the moral records of the day. Even the early apostolic conference in Jerusalem warns against “fornication” and uses this wide term to cover all the prevalent pagan sexual excesses (Acts 15:29). The epistles fairly din the word into their readers’ ears. There was the regular institution of the hierodouloi, pagan temple prostitutes; the common custom of having hetaerae (“companions,” see Liddell and Scott ἑταῖρος), girls from non-citizen families who were used by unmarried and by-married men; and thus, besides these standard practices, all the rest of the vileness that formed the soil from which these grew. Converts to the gospel did not at once step into perfect sexual purity. Hence this proviso regarding the “overseers”: to begin with, a man who is not strictly faithful to his one wife is debarred.

I most definitely agree with Lenske that Paul does not mean to imply in any way that a remarried widower (or even a widower who has not remarried) would be disqualified from eldership.

Observe however that, in this quotation, Lenske does not address the ‘having children’ requirement at all. It’s possible that Chris simply didn’t include that, so this might not be Lenske’s omission. Nevertheless, Lenske’s summary of the list of qualifications as ‘one wife’s husband—temperate—sober-minded—orderly’ suggests that he might be meaning to include all of the family-related qualifications under his discussion of ‘one wife’s husband’. If so, in the absence of a treatment of the ‘having children’ clauses, Lenske’s claim that ‘Paul does not say that none but married men may enter the ministry’ would be a typical example of my earlier complaint regarding commentators who make assertions without attempting to justifying their conclusions adequately from all the relevant text.

Now, it remains the case that to think that an elder should have children is a minority view (Lenske, I suspect, would not agree with the proposition). And I would be reticent to impose it upon others. I should like it to be in error. Yet it is not without historical precedent in the church. And this whole question is most certainly an interesting exercise in paying close attention to the text of Scripture! The subtlety of grammar matters, and Bible translations that do not seek to preserve the finer points as much as is possible are apt to mislead.

So, have I gone wrong anywhere in my treatment of the texts? It is certainly possible, likely even! Leave a comment and tell me what you think.

‘Most of the preachers were dynamic, engaging, interesting and even entertaining. Most of their sermons were terrible.’

I’ve just come across this magnificent article (courtesy of Chris Rosebrough from Pirate Christian Radio), written by Todd Wilken of the Issues, Etc. radio program. It clearly shows the difference between a good and bad sermon.

• A listener’s guide to the pulpit (PDF)

Everyone who preaches, or listens to preachers, would benefit from reading this. Why not print a few copies and share them with friends?

1. How often is Jesus mentioned? Keep a simple running tally. It’s a problem if He is mentioned only a few times, or tucked in at the beginning or the end. If He is mentioned, even only once, go on to step 2.
2. Is Jesus the subject of the verbs, the one doing the action? If He is, go on to step 3.
3. What are the verbs? What is the preacher telling you what Jesus did, does, and will do for you? Is the Jesus that is presented one of pop therapeutic deism, who helps, inspires and gives examples? Or is He instead the Jesus of Scripture who lives, suffers, dies and rises again, all for you?

I find this to be a very helpful tool for evaluating the sermons that I hear week by week. Perhaps you will too.

* Disclaimer: the Issues, Etc programme has a Confessional Lutheran perspective. I am not a Confessional Lutheran and would differ from the show’s position on a number of important doctrinal points. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the hosts properly distinguish between Law and Gospel, and faithfully proclaim the true Gospel of Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead. I am therefore happy to commend the programme.

Put another way, if God really desires all men to be saved, why does He only choose some of them actually to be saved, while eternally condemning others?

In his article, Are There Two Wills in God? John Piper addresses this apparent problem head-on. He gives a cogent and coherent Bible-based explanation of how divine election and God’s desire for all to be saved are two harmonious and consistent truths.

I’ve only recently come across Paul Washer, but I like what I see of him in this video. It’s well worth 59 minutes of your time to watch. Paul isn’t afraid to preach the whole Gospel, having properly prepared the way by crushing us with the Law. He understands that the message of the cross doesn’t make sense unless our desperate sinful condition is first explained.

The prophet Samuel confronts Saul with his sin, and pronounces God’s judgment with these words:

Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of the LORD?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
He also has rejected you from being king.
1 Samuel 15:22-23 (NKJV)

The timeless truth presented in this passage is that God requires total obedience to His commands. This is the demand of the law. Failure to obey justly brings God’s punishment.

It is immediately apparent that such total adherence to all aspects of God’s law revealed in the Bible is impossible for fallen men and women to achieve. We can’t earn God’s favour, because even our best attempts fail to reach His standards and are as filthy rags in His sight. We don’t even want to obey God — like Saul, we rebel against God’s commands and think we know better. We sin because our nature is inherently sinful. We deserve God’s wrath.

We therefore need a Saviour, someone who is able to fulfil the law by keeping it perfectly on our behalf. Jesus Christ, God’s unique son, is that Saviour. Christ received on the cross the punishment that was due to all those who turn away from their sin and believe and trust in Him for the forgiveness of their sins. More than that, Jesus’ perfect righteousness is put to their account. This salvation — the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness — is not earned, but is a free gift given by God. It is the result of His unmerited favour (Ephesians 2:8).

If we are among those who trust in Christ, those who have been forgiven our sins and declared righteous, does this mean that we don’t have to keep God’s commands? Not at all. Christ sets us free from sin — it would be a nonsense for us to continue to submit ourselves to it. We have instead become slaves of righteousness. God’s Word shows us how He desires us to live, and every one of His commands was given for our own good (Deuteronomy 10:13). Although we know that obedience to God is not a way to earn God’s favour, the new nature that is now within us yearns to do God’s will — it is our joy and privilege to serve Him and our neighbour. Jesus says:

If you love Me, keep My commandments.
John 14:15

and

He who has My commandments and keeps them,
It is he who loves Me.
And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father,
And I will love him and manifest Myself to him.
John 14:21

But, of course, even as we read these words, we realize that we don’t keep His commandments. Not even close. The more we mature as Christians, the more we realize how sinful we are. There’s not one second of a single day that goes by in which I love God with all my heart, mind, soul and strength (Luke 10:27). And I fail miserably to love my neighbour as myself. But our confidence is not in our own law-keeping, but in Christ alone. And so, even as we strive against sin, we daily cast ourselves afresh upon the mercy of Christ, trusting and knowing that even our continuing sinful failure has already been paid for in full by Jesus on the cross — this truly is Good News.

Much (but not all!) of the modern church seems at times to have lost sight of these things. The Gospel is not that Christianity or the Bible offers a better way of living, but that Christ was crucified for sinners and raised from the dead. Paying lip-service to the authority of Scripture is worthless unless we believe and faithfully proclaim its message — Christ crucified for sinners. For fear of giving offence, we too often fail to call people to repentance. For fear of seeming foolish, we neglect to proclaim the forgiveness of sins through Christ crucified on the cross. Yet we are called to be faithful to the Gospel we have received. Let us be doers of the Word, not merely hearers (James 1:22)!

I hope that this blog will be a contribution (if only a very meagre one) to helping us rediscover the riches of ‘the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 1:3) and the joy that is to be found in Christ.