• He Gave Them New Clothes (MP3, 38 MB)

The sermon itself starts at 13 minutes 20 seconds into the recording. It is preceded by two Bible readings – a few verses from Luke 24, and then the main text from Genesis 2:4–3:24.

They were both naked, the man and his wife, and they were not ashamed.

They are in the midst of a garden paradise, recipients of the bountiful goodness of the Lord God. He had created them and placed them there with a blessing: ‘Be fruitful and multiply.’

Near to where they stand is the Tree of Life, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Before the woman had been created, the Lord God had commanded the man concerning that latter tree, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.’

Also in the garden is a serpent. He is more cunning than any beast of the field that the Lord God had made.

The serpent speaks. The woman listens.

‘Has God indeed said, “You shall not eat of every tree of the garden”?’

An ostensibly innocuous question. And the woman has the answer, so she thinks.

She converses with the serpent.

‘We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God has said, “You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.”’

The woman overstates the prohibition.

Perhaps this is her error, or perhaps it was the fault of her husband when he relayed to her the Lord God’s command.

One of them, certainly, had added a hedge to God’s word – one tiny addition. For God had commanded the man not to eat of the tree’s fruit, but He had said nothing about not touching it.

(How easily we add to what God has spoken.)

With that one addition – oh how small and seemingly insignificant! – the woman opens the door to her adversary the Devil.

The serpent, liar and murderous deceiver that he is, assures the woman, ‘You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’

And so the woman entertains temptation and gazes at the tree.

What a beautiful tree! How good it would be for food!

Enticed by her desire to become wise like God, she reaches out and takes its fruit.

(See, she is unharmed! The serpent was right! Surely there is no danger here.)

Having suffered no consequence from touching the fruit, she eats it. In contravention of God’s command, a fatal act.

The woman also gives to her husband, who is with her.

(Why has he not intervened to keep her from harm? Does he not see the danger?)

The man had heard the clear words of God’s voice forbidding him to eat this fruit. He had heard the Lord God’s prescient warning, ‘For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die’.

In wilful, unbelieving rebellion against his Creator, the man raises the fruit to his lips and eats.

❧

Sin enters the world through Adam, and death through sin.

❧ ❧

Having eaten, the eyes of the man and his wife are opened. And what they see is their own nakedness.

By God’s benevolent grace, the very instrument of their Fall is the means by which they recognize their fallen state. Innocent, they ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Guilty, their open eyes now know their own evil and lack of good: they are sinners against the Lord God and breakers of His holy Law.

As are we. For all Adam’s children born of the will of the flesh are born dead as slaves to sin. From pride or desperation, we array ourselves with the filthy rags of our best good works. And thereby we only add to the guilty debt we owe to the holy, clean and righteous God.

❧ ❧ ❧

They were both naked, the man and his wife, and now they are ashamed.

They sew fig leaves together and make themselves coverings.

Yet their forlorn manufacture of leafy clothes cannot cover the shameful guilt of their sin. Nothing they do can scrub away the deadly stain; it runs too deep. And so, hearing the sound of the Lord God walking in the cool of the day, they hide themselves among the trees of the garden.

Their effort is in vain.

The Lord God calls, ‘Where are you?’, and they are found by His voice. Just as the leaves of a tree were insufficient to cover their naked guilt, even so a whole garden of trees cannot hide their shame before the Lord God who uncovers the thought and intent of every heart.

The man answers, ‘I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.’

The Lord enquires as to the source of their knowledge. ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?’

Confronted with their guilt, the pitiful confessions come, such as they are. Not contrition, not repentance, but a frightened attempt to divert their burning shame in the presence of the Lord God’s voice.

‘The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.’

‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate.’

The voice that once spoke blessing now pronounces judgment: upon the serpent who beguiled; upon the woman who was deceived; upon the man who disbelieved and disobeyed.

And in passing sentence, the righteous Judge manifests His boundless mercy and grace. For He promises a Seed: a Messiah who will crush the head of that serpent and destroy all his works.

(Can it really be? Can the stain of our guilt before a holy God be erased? Can our nakedness be covered?)

The serpent brought guilt and shame to the naked man and his wife. The serpent brought fear. The Promised One shall take away their shame and guilt and bring new clothes. His perfect Love shall cast out fear.

And in earnest of His promise, the Lord God kills and makes tunics of skin; the first animal blood is shed to cover sin and shame. Yet the stain remains, for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. And so countless more impotent sacrifices would be offered for Eve’s children, each death a reminder of sins, of nakedness, of shame.

To keep the man from eating of the Tree of Life and living forever, the Lord God drives him out of Paradise, placing cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the way to that tree.

❧ ❧ ❧ ❧

In the fullness of time, the long awaited Seed arrives. Not with kingly pomp, but in the squalor of a stable. The Son of God, the Lord from Heaven, makes Himself of no reputation and takes on human flesh. In the form of a slave, He is born to a virgin named Mary.

God made Man is born under the Law of God to redeem those who were under the Law. That Law – holy, just and good – promised blessing and eternal life in return for obedience. But it condemns and kills everyone, for all Adam’s children have inherited his guilt, and not one of them has been able to fulfil the Law’s demands.

Until now.

An angel of the Lord commands that this Seed be named Jesus, meaning ‘God saves’, ‘for He will save His people from their sins’.

Through 33 years of perfect obedience in fulfilment of the Law, Jesus fashions new clothes for His chosen Bride, the Church. Better than fig leaves, better than animal skins, these are robes of His very own righteousness.

Nearing the completion of His earthly work, the Bridegroom makes a New Covenant with His Beloved. The First Adam took forbidden fruit from His wife and at her bidding ate. This Last Adam breaks blessèd bread and gives it to His Bride, bidding her eat. ‘Take, eat; this is My body broken for you.’ In like manner, He proffers cupped wine, saying, ‘Drink, all of you. For this is My blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.’

And then He lays down His life, obedient even to the death of the cross.

The spotless sacrifice Lamb of God takes His Bride’s place and for her becomes a curse. His body broken – see! – the blood of the New Covenant pours from His head, His hands, His feet. For without the shedding of this blood there can be no remission of sins. The price of her sin must be paid to propitiate the wrath of a thrice holy and righteous God – yes, even this terrible price.

The Lamb takes from His Bride her filthy rags, casting them away as far as the East is from the West. With the wine of His precious holy blood, He who is without blemish washes clean His blemished Bride. And this blood accomplishes what animal blood never could, cleansing her of every sinful stain. ‘See’, He says to her, ‘I have removed your iniquity from you, and I will clothe you with rich robes.’

‘It is finished’, He cries. And bowing His head, He gives up His spirit.

❧ ❧ ❧ ❧ ❧

What of the promised rich robes?

Having stormed the gates of death, this holy Lamb takes up again the life He laid down. Not even all the powers of death can make Him faithless to His word.

The Father, well pleased with His Son, declares acceptable His perfect sacrifice for sin and, in exceedingly great power, raises this Lamb from the dead, seating Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named – not only in this age but also in that to come. Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

At this name of Jesus, every knee shall one day bow – of those in heaven, of those on earth, and of those under the earth. Every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The Bride is now holy and without blemish. She has been clothed with rich robes fit for her marriage to her King. And in her wedding joy she sings:

I will greatly rejoice in the Lord,
My soul shall be joyful in my God;
For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
He has covered me with the robe of righteousness,
As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments,
And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

And thus the death that came into the world through the sin of the First Adam is by the Last Adam conquered. Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?

Having purchased His Pearl of Great Price at the cost of all He had, this risen conquering King casts open for His precious Bride the way to the Tree of Life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God. Once more He bids her eat and drink, that she might forever live:

‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven – not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.’

❧ ❧ ❧ ❧ ❧ ❧

They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Yet the First Adam by disobedience fell, and sin and death came. The Last Adam by obedience triumphed, and sin and death were put to flight.

Now He and His Bride are clothed with His righteousness, and they are not ashamed. In His resurrection life, sin and shame and death are forever vanquished.

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

❧ ❧ ❧ ❧ ❧ ❧ ❧

Scripture references

Gen. 1:28; 2:8–9, 15–17; 2:25–3:24; 6:5; 1 Chr. 28:9; Ps. 40:6–8; 103:8–12; Is. 6:3; 25:8–9; 45:23; 61:10–11; 64:6; Ezek. 16:6–12; Zech. 3:4; Matt. 1:20–25; 13:45–46; 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 2:6–7; 22:19–20; 24:39–40; John 2:19; 6:53–58; 8:34; 10:14–18; 20:24–25; 19:1, 17–30; Acts 4:12; 26:18; Rom. 1:16–3:31; 4:23–25; 5:1–2, 12–20; 6:6, 21–23; 8:1–5; 9:22–24; 10:13; 14:11; 1 Cor. 11:23–26; 15:45–47, 54–56; Gal. 3:1–18, 27; 4:4–5; Eph. 1:15–23; 2:4; 4:24; Phil. 2:5–11; 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:13–14; Heb. 2:17; 4:12; 8:8–13; 9:11–15, 22–23; 10:1–18; 12:24; 1 Pet. 5:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 2:2; 4:10, 18; Rev. 1:5–6; 2:7; 4:8; 12:9; 16:7; 20:2.

We’d like it to be skilfully crafted. And it must be set to a fitting tune – preferably one we can sing.

But I suggest that the primary requirement of a good hymn is that it should clearly articulate biblical truth.

We remember what we sing.

A poor hymn can confuse us, lead us astray. A good hymn strengthens our knowledge of the Christian Faith.

What is that faith?

Christians are not those who have confidence in our own good works. We have failed to honour our parents, we have murdered, we have committed adultery, we have stolen, we have told lies, we have coveted. If not in deed, then certainly in the thoughts of our hearts.

God has commanded that we love Him with all our heart, all our mind, all our soul and all our strength. That we love our neighbours as ourselves. This we have failed to do. This we fail to do.

And so Christians recognize that we have nothing to offer God except our sin. We deserve not His favour, but His wrath.

Unless someone takes the punishment we deserve, unless someone reconciles us with God, unless someone gives us a righteousness that is not our own, we shall receive God’s everlasting punishment.

That Someone is Jesus Christ. God’s only begotten Son, made flesh and sent into the world to seek and to save we who were lost.

Jesus led a sinless life. He died on the cross, bearing in full the punishment for our sins. And, by His resurrection from the dead, His perfect obedience is now counted as ours.

If, that is, we are those who are trusting Him.

This, then, is the Christian Faith: to trust not in what we do, but in what Christ has done for us.

A good hymn speaks of this Faith. This hymn ranks among the best.

Thy works, not mine, O Christ,
speak gladness to this heart;
they tell me all is done,
they bid my fear depart.
To whom save Thee, who canst alone
for sin atone, Lord, shall I flee?

Thy wounds, not mine, O Christ,
can heal my bruisèd soul;
Thy stripes, not mine, contain
the balm that makes me whole.
To whom save Thee, who canst alone
for sin atone, Lord, shall I flee?

Thy cross, not mine, O Christ,
has borne the awful load
of sins that none could bear
but the incarnate God.
To whom save Thee, who canst alone
for sin atone, Lord, shall I flee?

Thy death, not mine, O Christ,
has paid the ransom due;
ten thousand deaths like mine
would have been all too few.
To whom save Thee, who canst alone
for sin atone, Lord, shall I flee?

Thy righteousness, O Christ,
alone can cover me;
no righteousness avails
save that which is of Thee.
To whom save Thee, who canst alone
for sin atone, Lord, shall I flee?

Horatius Bonar, 1808-89

Astute readers may have noticed that my previous three posts have all focused on one very small portion of a sermon preached at Living Hope Community Church, here in the sunny* Isle of Man. Could so many fundamental errors really have arisen in such a short segment? Have I been unfair in claiming that the 44 minutes of this alleged sermon on faith ‘achieved the remarkable feat of avoiding any mention of the proper object of Christian faith: Christ, and His life, death and resurrection for sinners’?

Well, my wife of 19 years and partner in crime suggested to me that this sermon was sufficiently notable that it might even be of interest to Chris Rosebrough of the Fighting for the Faith programme on Pirate Christian Radio. His on-air verdict? Well, you’ll have to listen to find out…

The general idea of Fighting for the Faith is to teach people to compare for themselves what’s going on in their churches with Scripture. Think of the Bereans in Acts 17:10–15, who were commended for searching the Scriptures daily to see whether the things that Paul and Silas taught were so.

Each episode of Fighting for the Faith typically concludes with a sermon review. Some of the sermons are good, and some of them bad. Many of the good ones are truly outstanding. As for the less commendable, I think Rosebrough is at his best when he uses them as a foil for teaching sound doctrine, and especially for proclaiming the Gospel (what Christ has done for us) in contradistinction to the Law (what we ought to do).

During four years of Fighting for the Faith, Rosebrough has reviewed many hundreds of sermons. Obviously, he listens to many more than he reviews, picking only those he thinks are especially illustrative of a point he wishes to highlight. To have someone outside your church review your sermon in this way and give an independent biblical analysis is a tremendous opportunity for any preacher, regardless of whether or not the sermon is considered good. To hear commendation is encouraging; to hear a critique, however uncomfortable it might at first seem, enables one to face up to any doctrinal weaknesses and take the appropriate corrective action.

Now, as I’ve already hinted, Chris was kind enough to listen to the sermon on faith that I have been addressing. That sermon was preached on 23 January 2011 by Euan MacRae, a pastor at Living Hope Community Church. Although Rosebrough has heard many similar messages, he said that ‘what’s unique about this one is its lucidity and succinctness’. I agree – MacRae is undoubtedly a very effective communicator. He holds one’s attention, tells entertaining stories, makes his points clearly, and overall comes across as very likeable. What’s problematic is not his manner, but his message.

Rosebrough listened to some other material from Living Hope in his preparation for reviewing MacRae’s sermon. He also decided to review a sermon on the topic of community given on 16 January 2011 by Living Hope’s ‘Lead Pastor’, Jonathan Stanfield.

I believe that Rosebrough has given all the elders of Living Hope a great opportunity to take a step back and objectively evaluate what they are teaching. I pray that they will each embrace that wholeheartedly. Even if the Living Hope elders find that they disagree with some aspects of Rosebrough’s (or my) analysis, it must surely still be beneficial to know how their teaching is being heard and understood by independent outsiders. Such feedback, if cogent, can be a valuable corrective to one’s own blindspots.

Rosebrough’s characterization of Stanfield’s message as ‘salvation through community’ (or words to that effect) might on first hearing seem extreme. But when listening to sermons like these, one has to place oneself in the shoes of someone who has no meaningful knowledge of sound Christian doctrine (clearly the intended audience) and who is therefore going to take away an understanding solely based on the particular message as it is delivered. It is very easy for us to interpret what we think is being meant when we listen to a sermon, hearing everything filtered through our own understanding of what the Bible teaches. But, of course, that is not how someone new to Christianity or without a knowledge of good doctrine hears a sermon. And, all too often, the intended meaning is not the orthodox interpretation that we think we hear, but exactly what has been stated. We must endeavour not to let our orthodoxy and charitable disposition colour our evaluation of what is being taught.

Naturally, I suggest that readers read my three prior articles before listening to Rosebrough’s review of MacRae’s sermon. (There is intentionally very little overlap between what I have written and that review.) Reading Pastor Todd Wilken’s A Listener’s Guide to the Pulpit would also be helpful preparation for both reviews. (Pastor Wilken is the host of the Issues, Etc. radio programme.)

Rosebrough’s review of MacRae’s sermon can be found here:

• Fighting for the Faith episode with ‘Faith – Spiritual Roots’ sermon review

The review starts at 55 minutes in, but the earlier part of the show establishes a pertinent context and is probably worth your time.

I would suggest listening to the review of MacRae’s sermon before that of Stanfield’s. The latter review assumes much more background and familiarity with Rosebrough’s prior work. In particular, he has been studying the seeker-sensitive movement for many years, and more recently for his PhD. It is Rosebrough’s contention that the philosophical underpinning of that movement is fundamentally fascist – that is, it embraces irrationalism and communitarianism, and is predicated upon the necessity of there being a strong Leader.

‘Fascist’ is obviously (as Rosebrough himself admits) an extremely loaded word – one that absolutely needs explanation so that people do not misunderstand what he is claiming. I therefore very strongly recommend listening to Rosebrough’s lecture on this topic before listening to his review of Stanfield’s sermon. You can find that lecture here:

• ‘Resistance is Futile’ lecture and related resources

The lecture rewards the attentive listener who persists through to the end. The first two-thirds to three-quarters might at first seem a little abstract, but the payoff does then come as Rosebrough draws all the elements together.

Once you have heard that lecture, Rosebrough’s review of Stanfield’s sermon will make much more sense. The Stanfield review is available here:

• Fighting for the Faith episode with ‘Community – Spiritual Roots’ sermon review

If you are short of time, you can start at about an hour into that episode to jump directly to the review.

* For ‘sunny’, read ‘not at all sunny, but raining all the time’.

With the understanding gained from the previous two posts, we now turn to the Genesis 4 account of Cain and Abel. We shall see so clearly there the contrast between faith and works.

First though, here is a longer extract from the Purpose Driven sermon we have been examining, showing the wider context of the errors previously refuted:

The fourth attribute of faith is this: faith is giving when I don’t have it.

Now you’re discovering why the pastors are so uptight.

‘Now by faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith, he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings.’

Both offerings were acceptable. They were the first fruits of the land for Cain. And the first fruits of the flock for Abel. They were good offerings. But what made them acceptable to God was the way in which they were given: one man giving out of a sense of duty; one man giving out of a sense of the love that he had for his God.

[Anecdote about a boy with his hand stuck in a vase because he will not let go of the coin within.]

You see, all too often that is our attitude as well. We cling to the riches of the world. I’m sure that many of you tithe to the church. And that’s great. But when faith is exercised, our attitude shifts from being like the attitude of Cain, who gave out of a sense of duty – give 10%, it’s your tithe, forget it. We want to see faith giving, like Abel, that is generous, that is of the heart, because we want to invest in what God is doing. We want to be like the widow who gave when she had nothing. And sometimes when we hold the riches of the world in our hands, we are just like the little boy [of the previous anecdote]. We’re trapped. But when we let go, we can experience true freedom.

From time-to-time, you probably hear Jonathan [the lead pastor] – most of the time you’ll probably hear Jonathan – harping on about tithing. And that’s a good thing. So he should.

But Abel offered the first fruits. He gave the best of what he had to God. And it was credited to him as righteousness. You see, tithing is not about impressing your friends. It’s not about satisfying some form of guilt. Tithing is about giving the best of what you have to a God who sees that as righteous. As credible.

We can encourage faith giving. Let’s not even call it tithing. Let’s give from our faith. That is what generosity really is.

It is a wonderful thing for Christians to give willingly. ‘God loves a cheerful giver’ (2 Cor. 9:7). ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’ (Acts 20:35). But Christians are under no duty to tithe, let alone to give what they do not have. True Christian giving is voluntary, arising from a pure Gospel motivation: we love much because we have been loved so greatly. Yet there was no Gospel in this sermon. Nothing at all about Christ and His loving work for us.

My intent, though, is not to focus on the burdensome exhortations to giving evidenced here and sadly predominating throughout the last third of the sermon. (The seeker-sensitive mute the Law and veil the Gospel for fear of giving offence, yet they are nevertheless proud to solicit money through the most guileful of means. Those who cite the widow who gave all she had would do well also to recall Jesus’ immediately preceding words concerning those who devour widows’ houses.)

Rather, the purpose of this post is to see what we can learn from the account of Cain and Abel’s offerings. Is it true that Cain gave ‘out of a sense of duty’, whereas Abel ‘out of a sense of the love that he had for his God’? Is giving-out-of-duty versus giving-out-of-love really the distinction taught by Genesis 4?

Let us look at the text and then make a number of observations.

¹ Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.” ² Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. ³ And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. ⁴ Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, ⁵ but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.

⁶ So the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? ⁷ If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

⁸ Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.

Gen. 4:1–8

1.

A few verses prior to our passage, we have the first Gospel recorded in the Bible. The Lord pronounces judgment upon the serpent (my emphasis):

Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.

Gen. 3:14–15

This Seed is mentioned again in God’s promise to Abraham (cf. Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 24:7):

In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice. Gen. 22:18

Who is the Seed? Paul tells the Galatians:

Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. Gal. 3:16

The promised Seed of Gen. 3:15 is Christ. He shall crush the head of the Serpent and destroy his works (1 John 3:8).

We can infer from this first Gospel promise that Cain and Abel would have had some understanding of the Messiah who was to come. Adam and Eve had also experienced the benevolent lovingkindness of God, both before and after the Fall. Their sons would surely have known that God is loving and merciful and, to borrow from Hebrews 11:6, a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him, trusting in His promise.

2.

There is no hint whatsoever in the text of our passage that either Cain or Abel’s offerings were required or commanded by God.

(Some commentators, including Luther and Calvin, believe that God had commanded the offerings. But they reach their conclusion not from the text of Gen. 4, but from inference based on general principles they observe elsewhere in Scripture.)

3.

Notice that in vv. 1–5a, the order of mentions is Cain (first born)–Abel, Abel–Cain, Cain–Abel, Abel–Cain. Not merely a literary device, this chiastic chain of reversals draws our attention to the importance of ordering as we seek to understand the text.

In vv. 3–4, we are first told of Cain’s offering, and only afterwards about Abel’s. Consequently, the text does not lead us to think that Cain saw Abel giving his offering and then felt obliged to do likewise.

4.

Bearing in mind the two previous points, there is no textual basis for asserting that Cain brought his offering out of a sense of duty. Rather, these seem to be free-will offerings from both Cain and Abel.

5.

‘And the Lord respected Abel and his offering’ (v. 4b).

Note that the text carefully states first that God had regard for Abel. Only then are we told that the Lord also had regard for Abel’s offering.

Heb. 11:4 explains that Abel’s offering was acceptable because Abel had faith: that is, a trust in God’s promise and goodwill towards those who diligently seek Him. God declared Abel righteous through his faith. Abel’s offering was subsequently accepted as evidence of that righteousness-through-faith.

6.

The Lord ‘did not respect Cain and his offering’ (v. 5a).

We infer from Heb. 11:4, and from our observation of Cain’s interaction with God, that this was because Cain lacked faith.

Again, notice that the text is careful first to state that the Lord had no regard for Cain himself, and only after that neither did God regard Cain’s offering.

Thus, our preacher’s claim that ‘Both offerings were acceptable. … They were good offerings. But what made them acceptable to God…’ is false, for God did not accept Cain’s offering.

Perhaps the pastor misspoke. Yet he says nothing that indicates he is even aware that neither Cain nor his offering were regarded by God. Rather, he seems to think merely that Abel’s offering was ‘better’ (as Heb. 11:4 states in the NIV translation he quotes). It is therefore entirely conceivable that he did not read the Genesis 4 account itself during his sermon preparation, but only Hebrews 11:4, relying on his memory or imagination to flesh out the details. This would also explain his claims that Cain brought ‘the first fruits of the land’, that Cain ‘gave out of a sense of duty’, and that Cain’s offering was a tithe – none of which is taught by either text.

7.

The passage therefore gives us no reason to believe that there was anything intrinsic to the materials of the sacrifices that made one acceptable and not the other. On the contrary, God looked first upon the persons, and only then did he consider their sacrifices.

Luther states the matter clearly (emphasis mine):

If you look at the work itself, you cannot prefer Abel to Cain. The Jews, in their folly, have a silly idea when they dream that Cain did not offer selected grain but chaff, and that for this reason he was rejected by God. From them this is to be expected, for they act as judges and pay attention only to works.

But the verdict of the Epistle to the Hebrews is different; it declares that because of his faith Abel brought the more excellent offering (Heb. 11:4). And so the fault lay not in the materials which were offered but in the person of him who brought the offering. The faith of the individual was the weight which added value to Abel’s offering, but Cain spoiled his offering. Abel believes that God is good and merciful. For this reason his sacrifice is pleasing to God.

Cain, on the contrary, puts his trust in the prestige of his primogeniture; but he despises his brother as an insignificant and worthless being.

What, then, is God’s decision? He gives to the first-born the position of one born later, and to the one born later He gives the position of the first-born. He looks toward Abel’s offering and shows that the sacrifice of this priest pleases Him, but that Cain does not please Him and is not a true priest.

Luther’s Works, Vol. 1: Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5 (ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan et al.; Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), Gen. 4:4

8.

Cain is angry when God does not accept his offering. Why?

The text does not expressly tell us, but Cain’s reaction of anger strongly suggests that he expected something from God that he did not receive, namely God’s approval and favour. This is shown from God’s words to Cain in v. 7: ‘If you do well, will you not be accepted?’ The clear implication is that Cain is not doing well. There is a fault; not with Cain’s sacrifice, but in his person.

Put another way, Cain willingly gave his offering, but with the expectation of God’s favour in return. He thought that favour and right-standing before God could be purchased, and was angry when the Lord did not deliver what Cain thought he was owed. To give motivated by the expectation of reward is therefore to follow the example of Cain, not Abel. Such giving does not please God. (Word-Faith teachers with their promises of God’s blessing in return for ‘seed offerings’ ought to heed this lesson.)

Someone might object that Cain was angry simply because God had regard for neither him nor his offering – after all, no one likes to be rejected. But this interpretation amounts to very much the same thing. For, if we come to God in humility by faith, acknowledging that we have no merit of our own before Him, we expect nothing from Him on our own account and are subsequently astonished by the grace and mercy shown to us. However, the one who comes with pride in his own person or works, thinking that he thereby deserves God’s favour, is very angry when he does not receive it.

Luther comments: ‘God wants to crush the arrogance and pride which has been implanted, as it were, into man’s heart by sin. But we are so constituted that we can endure nothing less readily than this crushing of our pride.’

Jesus illustrates the humility of true faith with his parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector:

Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Luke 18:9–14

9.

Thus, whereas Abel is the poster child of faith, Cain presents to us the folly of works-righteousness.

10.

God’s response to Cain is the same as to all sinful man’s attempts to earn His favour through works: rejection.

We are sinful, by nature children of God’s wrath. Nothing we do can earn God’s favour, not even giving away all the goods that we have. Our right standing before God can only only ever come through faith – a trust in God’s promise of forgiveness and justification in Christ.

Those who so believe are declared righteous for Christ’s sake, apart from their works. (Though, of course, good works will nevertheless follow in those who are regenerate.) We are acceptable to God only through the faith in us that receives the gift of Christ’s life, death and resurrection for us. If our works were considered at all with respect to our justification, the only possible pronouncement upon us would be ‘unrighteous’.

11.

Even as God rejects Cain and His offering, He is nevertheless merciful, calling Cain to repentance (v. 7). And when Cain subsequently complains at his punishment for murdering Abel, God graciously places a protective mark upon Cain, ‘lest anyone finding him should kill him’ (Gen. 4:15).

Luther translates v. 7 (which commentators agree presents difficulties) like this:

‘If you do well, will there not be forgiveness? But if you do not do well, sin lies at the door.’

He goes on to interpret the passage for us, giving the sense as this:

‘If you did well, or if you were good, that is, if you believed, you would have a gracious God and there would be a true lifting-up, that is, forgiveness of sins. But because I see that God had no regard for you, it assuredly follows that you are not good and are not freed from your sin; but your sin remains.’

This understanding of the text has much to commend it, focusing as it does upon faith and forgiveness, emphasizing the means by which forgiveness comes: ‘if you [had] believed, you would have a gracious God … [and] forgiveness of sins’.

12.

Like Abel’s offering, which materially was no better than Cain’s, our works are acceptable to God only because God has already accepted us in Christ through the faith given us by the Holy Spirit through the hearing of His word.

Moreover, as He was with Abel, God is pleased to accept and reward our good works – not for their own sake, seeing as they are beset with many sinful weaknesses and imperfections, but for the sake of His Son. God’s acceptance of our works and His counting of them as good is thus an act of His kindness and grace toward us in Christ. We must never think that God accepts us on the basis of our works; He accepts us despite them, because of His great grace toward us in Christ.

Both the Lutheran and Reformed confessions are extremely clear on these points. Here is the Confessional Lutheran position, for example:

Nor is there a controversy about how and why the good works of believers are pleasing and acceptable to God (although in this flesh they are impure and incomplete). They are acceptable for the sake of the Lord Christ, through faith, because the person is acceptable to God.

There are works that apply to maintaining of external discipline. These are also done by, and required of, the unbelieving and unconverted. These works are commendable before the world and rewarded by God in this world with temporal blessings. Nevertheless, they do not come from true faith. Therefore, in God’s sight they are sins, that is, stained with sin, and are regarded by God as sins and impure because of the corrupt nature and because the person is not reconciled with God. “A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit” [Matthew 7:18], as it is also written, “for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23). A person must first be accepted by God, for the sake of Christ alone, if that person’s works are to please Him.

Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, IV. Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions (ed. Paul Timothy McCain; St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 547-48

As the Westminster Confession of Faith also says (together with the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which repeats Westminster on this almost verbatim):

We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins, but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: and because, as they are good, they proceed from His Spirit; and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment.

Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreproveable in God’s sight; but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.

Westminster Confession of Faith, XVI

(I wish, however, that the Westminster Divines had instead written ‘that which arises from faith’ there, rather than ‘that which is sincere’.)

Those who are in Christ can thus be cheerful in this confidence: not only are their sins washed away by the blood of Christ, not only do they stand before the Father clothed in the perfect righteousness of Christ put to their account, but even their imperfect works, stained as they are by sin, are nonetheless now pleasing to God for the sake of His son.

13.

How great a salvation we have that, like Abel, both we and our works should be accepted by our loving heavenly Father, who spared not even His own dear Son that we might be reconciled to Him!

14.

We thus find our Genesis 4 pericope to be a wonderful passage from which to teach Law and Gospel, faith and works. We see contrasted the futility of works-righteousness and the glory of God’s grace to those who believe His promise.

Conclusion

The preacher’s assertion concerning the distinction between Cain and Abel might at first have seemed innocuous enough, notwithstanding his other errors. However, having considered the text, we find even that to be deeply problematic. Rather than correctly identifying the difference between Cain and Abel as being between the absence and presence of faith, he distinguished between giving-out-of-duty and giving-out-of-love.

But that is entirely the wrong distinction to make – indeed, hardly a distinction at all – because both duty and love fall under the category of Law. Rom. 13:10: ‘love is the fulfillment of the law’.

In other words, rather than correctly interpreting the Gen. 4 account in terms of works righteousness (what I do) versus faith (trust in God’s promise to me in Christ), the preacher made it about our grudging works versus our loving works. Instead of Law (what we must do) and Gospel (what Christ has done), he gave us Law and Law.

Thus, the point of both Gen. 4 and Heb. 11 was missed. The Gospel languished unproclaimed. Faith and works were utterly confused. Tithing was elevated to a means of justification.

Flee such teaching, save your lives! Run from those who would direct your trust not toward Christ crucified, but to yourself and your own works. Diligently seek out instead those faithful pastors who rightly divide the word of truth – those who preach the Law in all its severity and the Gospel in all its sweetness. Though their congregations may be small, these men feed the sheep in their charge with the true Bread of Life. They show themselves worthy of double honour. Honour them, therefore. Appreciate them. Encourage them. Pray for them.

And pray too for those who teach falsely. Pray that God may open their eyes and grant them repentance and faith in the merits of Christ alone. Pray likewise for those in their charge, that the Lord might rescue them and deliver them into safer hands.

Postscript: Luther on Cain and Abel

It is always wise to check our interpretations of Scripture with the great theologians of the past. Truly, only the wilfully foolish would refuse to listen to their wisdom. Here, then, is Luther on our text:

This is an outstanding passage. Therefore it must be carefully taken note of and methodically studied. It would be sufficient if the New Testament had a statement praising the trust in God’s mercy over against the trust in works as clearly as it is praised here at the beginning of the world. When Moses says: “The Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering,” does he not clearly indicate that God is wont to look at the individual rather than at the work, to see what sort of individual he is? If, then, the individual is good, his work also pleases Him; but if the individual is not good, his work displeases Him.

This observation that God has regard for the individual and only accepts works from those he considers righteous is key to understanding the text. Luther continues:

This is the essence of our teaching. We teach and confess that a person rather than his work is accepted by God and that a person does not become righteous as a result of a righteous work, but that a work becomes righteous and good as a result of a righteous and good person, just as the text here proves. Because God has regard for Abel, He has regard also for his offering; and because He has no regard for Cain, He has no regard for his offering either. The text gives clear support to this conclusion, and this cannot be denied by our opponents. Moreover, there follows from these words the very clear and very valid conclusion that Abel, rather than his work, was righteous and that the work pleases because of the person, not the person because of his work. The latter is what our adversaries maintain when they teach that a man is justified through his works and not by faith alone.

Thus the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has looked at this passage with pure and clear eyes when he says (Heb. 11:4): “By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God bearing witness concerning his gifts.” Cain also brings an offering, and indeed first; but when he brings his offering, he is puffed up by the glory which was his by birth, and he hopes that the sacrifice will please God because it is brought by the first-born. Thus he comes without faith, without any confession of sin, without any supplication for grace, without trust in God’s mercy, without any prayer for the forgiveness of his sins. He comes in the hope that he will please God by nothing else than that he is the first-born. All the work-righteous do the same thing even now. They are concerned only with their own work, and so they hope that they will please God because of it; they do not trust in God’s mercy, and they do not hope that God will pardon their sins because of Christ. Cain, too, was such a person, for he could not have displeased God if he had had faith.

Abel, on the other hand, acknowledges that he is an unworthy and poor sinner. Therefore he takes refuge in God’s mercy and believes that God is gracious and willing to show compassion. And so God, who looks at the heart, judges between the two brothers who are bringing their offerings at the same time. He rejects Cain, not because his sacrifice was inferior (for if he had brought the shell of a nut in faith as a sacrifice, it would have been pleasing to God), but because his person was evil, without faith, and full of pride and conceit. By contrast, He has regard for Abel’s sacrifice because He is pleased with the person. Accordingly, the text distinctly adds that first He had regard for Abel and then for his sacrifice. For when a person pleases, the things he does also please, while, on the contrary, all things are displeasing if you dislike the person who does them.

Therefore this passage is an outstanding and clear proof that God does not have regard for either the size or the quantity or even for the value of the work, but simply for the faith of the individual. Similarly, by contrast, God does not despise the smallness, the lack of value, or the lowly nature of a work, but only a person’s lack of faith.

Luther’s Works, Vol. 1: Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5 ( ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan et al.;Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), Gen. 4:5

To which I simply say, ‘Amen’.

For an independent review of the sermon I have been examining here, see the final post in this series, A Second Opinion on that ‘Justification by Tithing’ Sermon. Chris Rosebrough was kind enough to review this same sermon on his Fighting for the Faith programme. There is very little overlap between my posts and that review, so readers may profit from both.

It is not, I think, entirely unreasonable to be alarmed by a sermon that teaches justification by tithing, no matter how affable the preacher:

But Abel offered the first fruits. He gave the best of what he had to God. And it was credited to him as righteousness. You see, tithing is not about impressing your friends. It’s not about satisfying some form of guilt. Tithing is about giving the best of what you have to a God who sees that as righteous.

The primary claim in this allusion to Hebrews 11:4 is that Abel’s offering of his best to God was credited to him as righteousness. In other words, this is an assertion that Abel was justified (that is, declared righteous) by his works.

My previous post, Justified by Faith, Apart from Works, demonstrated the biblical impossibility of such an interpretation, and emphasized the necessity of distinguishing between faith and works. I plan for my next post to look more closely at the Genesis 4 account of Cain and Abel. First though, we must understand Hebrews 11:4:

By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.

If one squints at this verse in isolation just so, one might possibly understand how the preacher came to believe that Abel’s giving of his best was the grounds for his righteousness. However, putting the verse into its immediate context shows that the elders, including Abel, ‘obtained a good testimony’ by faith, not by works (emphasis mine):

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.

By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.

Heb. 11:1–4

Still, even with the knowledge that Abel was justified by faith, a faulty definition of faith will lead one astray. We saw in the previous post that the preacher in question did indeed possess such a faulty definition – one that included our works. His confusion as to the meaning of Heb. 11:4 thus remains explicable. Truly, preachers need a firm hold on the fundamental doctrines of the Christian Faith (that is, systematic theology) if they are to avoid such errors. Neverthless, a consideration of the wider context might have rescued him in this particular case.

Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as ‘the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’ Immediately, we are compelled by the text to ask: What is it that we are hoping for? What is it that we do not see?

The preceding context is self-evidently Hebrews chapters 1–10, and those chapters answer our questions. They speak to us of Christ the Prophet, Priest and King. They reveal that Christ, our High Priest, intercedes for us with the Father, as one who is able to ‘sympathize with our weaknesses’ and was ‘in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin’ (Heb. 4:14–16). They tell of this sinless Man’s perfect once-for-all-time sacrifice of Himself, which achieved what the blood of bulls and goats could not (Heb. 10:4) – the cleansing of the saints from their sins, and their eternal perfection:

Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

Heb. 10:8–18

The Old Testament ceremonies and sacrifices were the shadow; Christ – the Man who is God – is the substance (Heb. 8:3–6). He has fulfilled the Law. He has paid the punishment for our sins in full. Our sins are thus remitted, no longer held against the account of we who are trusting in Christ. There can be no further offering for sin, because Christ has once and forever accomplished all that he intended, and His perfect sacrifice was deficient not even in the least respect.

We, who have been given the gift of faith in this glorious work of Christ for us, now have boldness to draw near to the Father, with whom we have been reconciled by Christ, for ‘He who promised is faithful’:

Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. Heb. 10:19–23

Although there is great comfort for those who are trusting in Christ, those who reject the Good News and continue willfully in their sin (cf. Rom. 7:14–25) face God’s fierce judgment and punishment:

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The LORD will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Heb. 10:24–31

Though in this life the faithful shall, like the Hebrews, experience persecutions, tribulations and sufferings (Heb. 10:32–36; 2 Tim. 3:12), nevertheless, our confidence is in the sure and perfect work that Christ has accomplished for us. The promise of God is certain, and Christ ‘is able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them’ (Heb. 7:25). Let us therefore not lose heart when faced with troubles, for those who cling to Christ ‘have faith to the saving of the soul’:

Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise:

“For yet a little while,
And He who is coming will come and will not tarry.
Now the just shall live by faith;
But if anyone draws back,
My soul has no pleasure in him.”

But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe [have faith] to the saving of the soul.

Heb. 10:35–39

That is the context of Hebrews 11 – the assurance that we are not of those who draw back to destruction, for the promise of God to us in Christ is certain, and we are of those who have saving faith in Him (if indeed we are so trusting).

Suitably prepared, we may return to the opening verses of Hebrews 11:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.

By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

Heb. 11:1–3

Having understood the context, we now understand faith to be a confidence in Christ to salvation. Such faith receives and lays hold of all that God has promised in Him, though as yet unseen. Those who possess this confident trust are justified, because the One who has promised is faithful. And thus we begin to ‘comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height’ of ‘the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen’, even ‘the love of Christ which passes knowledge’ (Eph. 3:18–19).

As vv. 10:35–39 tell us, Christ is coming again, without delay and in a very, very little while. He brings with Him a reward (Rev. 22:12), for as He was for Abraham (Gen. 15:1), Christ Himself is our ‘shield’ and ‘exceedingly great reward’ (cf. Ps. 16:5–6). Our sure hope is in His life, His death, His resurrection – the merits of Christ for us, applied to us by the Holy Spirit through His word, thereby causing us to produce fruit to His glory. Our sins are washed away, we are justified, we have been – and are being – sanctified.

Faith (trust) must always be placed in something or someone, and the object of our justifying faith is none other than Christ Himself and the promise of God to us for His sake. We are the righteous by faith. And now in Christ we live and have eternal life, for ‘The righteous, as the result of faith shall he live.’, as R.C.H. Lenski translates Heb. 10:38. Jesus is the bread of life who came down from heaven, and He has promised that ‘He who eats this bread will live forever.’ (John 6:54–58)

When we come to Hebrews 11:4 with this understanding, we see that it is not at all Abel’s works that were the grounds for his righteousness. Rather, he was accounted righteous through his trust in the promise of God. He looked forward to the coming Messiah, confident in the promise of the first Gospel recorded in the Bible (Gen. 3:15). Abel’s offering did not make him righteous, but already being righteous by faith, his offering was pleasing and acceptable to God for the sake of Christ. The offering was not the cause, but the evidence of Abel’s righteousness, ‘God testifying of his gifts’.

Lenski renders Heb. 11:4 like this:

By means of faith Abel offered to God a superior sacrifice than Cain, by means of which testimony was given to him that he was righteous, God giving him testimony on the basis of his gifts; and by means of it, though having died, he still continues to speak.

He comments:

The writer starts with Abel and not with Adam because Genesis offers an example of God’s approving testimony in the case of Abel and not in the case of Adam or of Eve. What made Abel’s sacrifice to God πλείων, “more” in the sense of “superior,” than the sacrifice of Cain? Abel’s faith. That is stressed and not the fact that Abel offered a bloody and Cain a vegetable sacrifice, or that Abel offered firstlings and Cain not first fruits, on which some have laid stress by emphasizing these differences. The writer centers everything on Abel’s faith in contrast with Cain’s lack of faith.

Since the emphasis is placed on πίστει [faith], “by means of which” has “faith” and not “sacrifice” as its antecedent. Abel’s faith gained for him the approving testimony of God that is recorded in Gen. 4:4: “And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering” while he had no respect unto Cain and his offering (v. 5). Abel is thus the first of “the ancients” who were given God’s approving testimony in Scripture (v. 2). The matter is emphasized by the repetition of ἐμαρτυρήθη in the participle μαρτυροῦντος: “Abel was given testimony … God testifying.”

…

God never looks only at our “gifts,” he looks at what is back of them in the heart, whether there is faith, the confidence in things hoped for from him and his promises of grace, the conviction in regard to things unseen (v. 1). But when God pronounces his verdicts in public, testifies in public to men about any person who has faith, he stresses that person’s works, in this case Abel’s gifts. Jesus will do the same in the final, public judgment (Matt. 25:34, etc.).

R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James (Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern, 1938), 382-85.

Lenski’s comments are helpful, and he is absolutely right to reference the sheep and the goats discourse from Matt. 25. That bears directly on this whole discussion, and the parallel he draws is apt. (For more on this, see The Point of the ‘Sheep and the Goats’ Passage is Not that We Should Try Harder to Do Good Works.)

Having understood something of the glorious Gospel by examining Hebrews 11:4’s inspired commentary on Abel’s faith and sacrifice, we may now turn to the Genesis 4 account itself. That is the subject of my next post, Cain and Abel, Law and Gospel.

The pastor defined faith by a number of its purported attributes. The fourth was this:

Faith is giving when I don’t have it.

Let’s leave aside the aspect of ‘giving when I don’t have it’, problematic though that is. There is a more fundamental error lurking in this statement.

Notice that the pastor does not say that faith results in my ‘giving when I don’t have it’. Neither does he state that ‘the kind of faith that justifies produces a desire to give’. Rather, he asserts that faith is giving. This is to confuse faith with the fruit of faith, namely the works that faith produces.

Though it might at first seem as if I am splitting hairs, maintaining the distinction between faith and works – especially with respect to justification – is foundational to a proper understanding of biblical Christianity (cf. the epistles to the Romans, Galatians, etc.). This distinction was a lynchpin of the Reformation. Against the Reformers’ emphasis on justification by grace alone (unmerited favour) through faith alone (apart from works), Rome erroneously insisted that justification is ‘not by faith alone, which some incorrectly teach, but faith that works through love’ (see the Pontifical Confutation of the Augsburg Confession).

One might charitably think that this Purpose Driven pastor had merely been careless in his choice of words. However, his subsequent explanation was entirely consistent with his statement in the precise form in which he made it. He meant exactly what he said. His application was that we should not cling to riches but give to God even what we do not have, and that God would then credit that work of giving as righteousness. He even made this egregious statement:

But Abel offered the first fruits. He gave the best of what he had to God. And it was credited to him as righteousness. You see, tithing is not about impressing your friends. It’s not about satisfying some form of guilt. Tithing is about giving the best of what you have to a God who sees that as righteous.

Misinterpreting and misapplying Hebrews 11:4 in that way is, I suggest, absolutely to include our works in the definition of justifying faith.

When we begin like this to define justifying faith as working (rather than trusting), or, with the equally bad variant, as including (rather than producing) good works, we have placed ourselves firmly in opposition to the biblical doctrine of the Reformers and aligned ourselves with the enemies of the Gospel.

Compare the Reformer Philip Melanchthon’s definition of faith, given in his refutation of Rome’s response to the Augsburg Confession’s article on justification (emphasis mine):

The adversaries imagine that faith is only a knowledge of the history of Christ. Therefore, they teach that it can coexist with mortal sin. They say nothing about faith, by which Paul so frequently says that people are justified. For those who are counted as righteous before God do not live in mortal sin. But the faith that justifies is not merely a knowledge of history. It is to believe in God’s promise. In the promise, for Christ’s sake, forgiveness of sins and justification are freely offered. And so that no one may suppose that this is mere knowledge, we will add further: it is to want and to receive the offered promise of forgiveness of sins and of justification.

Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions (ed. Paul Timothy McCain; St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 89.

That is a concise and biblically accurate definition of the faith that justifies.

Melanchthon immediately goes on to contrast this justifying trust in God’s promise (specifically, the promise of forgiveness of sins and justification) with the righteousness of the Law (i.e. a righteousness derived from works):

The difference between this faith and the righteousness of the Law can be easily discerned. Faith is the divine service (latreia) that receives the benefits offered by God. The righteousness of the Law is the divine service (latreia) that offers to God our merits. God wants to be worshiped through faith so that we receive from Him those things He promises and offers.

Faith, then, offers nothing to God. Rather, it receives from Him what He has graciously promised. To worship God in spirit and in truth is to receive from Him, by faith, the benefits of Christ’s finished work.

Our works, our obedience can never be the cause for our justification (right-standing) before God – not least because we can never keep God’s Law perfectly and so all that we do is tainted with sin. Considered on their own merits outside of Christ, even our best works deserve God’s condemnation.

Rather, we are declared to have a right-standing before God by faith in God’s promise to us in Christ. Christ’s perfect righteousness is put to our account by our trusting in Christ’s finished work for us – His life, death and resurrection for us. It is a righteousness from God that He accounts to us by grace through faith, absolutely apart from anything we do. And even the faith that grasps hold of God’s promise is itself a gracious gift to us from God.

These truths are succinctly stated by Paul, writing to the Ephesians (emphasis mine):

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. Eph. 2:9

Consider too these verses from John’s Gospel:

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.”

John 6:28–29

Notice how Jesus confounds and reverses the expectations of his questioners. What counts is not the works (plural) that they do for God, but the work (singular) that God must do in them. And what is that work wrought by God? Nothing other than our belief (having faith) in His Son. As R.C.H. Lenski comments on v. 29:

Faith is here called a “work” in a peculiar sense, differentiating it entirely from “works” as righteous acts of ours. We, indeed, must do the believing, but our believing is the work of God. We trust, but God kindles that trust in us.

Compare v. 37, “All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me”; v. 44, “No man can come to me, except the Father which sent me draw him.” Faith is “of the operation of God,” Col. 2:12.

Hence faith is not “the fundamental virtue” from which the other works flow. Faith is the opposite of all other works. For faith receives from God; the other works make return to God.

All law works (works of unregenerate men) are the very opposition of faith, for by such works men would climb to heaven on their own merit, without a Savior and without faith. All Christian good works do, indeed, spring from faith, like fruit from a good tree, but always and only from a faith which already has Christ, salvation, life eternal, and needs no good works to merit these treasures which never can be merited.

R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 455.

In his wonderful letter to the Romans, Paul carefully distinguishes between faith and works (again, my emphasis):

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom 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, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law

Rom. 3:21–31

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”

Rom. 4:5–8

Faith, biblically speaking, is thus a confident trust (itself given by God) in the promise of God to us – specifically, in the promise of forgiveness of sins and justification for the sake of Christ Jesus.

To have faith in Christ – to trust exclusively in the merits of His work – is the complete opposite of our placing any reliance whatsoever upon our own works. To include the things we do in any definition of justifying faith is therefore utterly to destroy its very essence and saving power.

Although faith most certainly does result in our producing good works, we must be ever watchful against including works of any kind in the definition of faith itself, lest we fall into the heresy that Paul refuted in his Epistle to the Galatians.

So, what of the errant Purpose Driven pastor who has confused faith and works, and thus preached a false gospel that cannot save? The good news for him – and for all of us – is that there is most certainly forgiveness of sins for all those who are trusting in Christ alone – yes, even for those who have erred concerning the central doctrines of the Faith once delivered. May God in His gracious mercy grant that we each repent and believe this Good News: Jesus Christ crucified for sinners and raised for our justification.

Postscript

The unhappy irony of my listening to the sermon in question was that this pastor’s preaching had been specifically commended to me as being solid and gospel-focused. I’d subsequently listened to the sermon with the hope that I could build bridges by finding something positive and encouraging to say about it. I also listened to the only other sermon by the same pastor that was available from the fellowship’s website, but that was equally problematic.

Out of concern, and as a matter of courtesy, I some time ago brought the problems with this sermon to the attention of an elder of the fellowship concerned, Living Hope Community Church, Isle of Man. Living Hope is self-professedly Purpose Driven.

In the following post, Christ, Our Exceedingly Great Reward, I consider the true meaning of Hebrews 11:4. In the post after that, Cain and Abel, Law and Gospel, I take a closer look at the Genesis 4 account of Cain and Abel misused by this Purpose Driven pastor.
Filed under: Apostasy, Articles, Christianity, Purpose Drivenism, Religion, Salvation ]]> http://blog.betterthansacrifice.org/2012/09/05/justified-by-faith-apart-from-works/feed/ 23 BetterThanSacrifice http://blog.betterthansacrifice.org/2012/09/04/forgiveness/ http://blog.betterthansacrifice.org/2012/09/04/forgiveness/#comments Tue, 04 Sep 2012 07:06:47 +0000 BetterThanSacrifice http://blog.betterthansacrifice.org/?p=2685 Continue reading →]]> Sound words on forgiveness from Kevin DeYoung and Chris Brauns. View article →

Better still is the realization that, not only is our having been forgiven a gracious gift from God, but so too is our repentance (cf. Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25).

Our love for one another arises from the Gospel – we have been shown so great a love by God in Christ, and we are now united in Him by the Holy Spirit. It is thus only the proclamation and hearing of the Gospel that will bring about love for one another. We love and forgive because we have been loved greatly and forgiven much.

The four-page statement of opinion from the CTCR staff (PDF) outlines their concern with the use of gender-inclusive language in the NIV 2011. One of the examples discussed is Psalm 8:4–5:

Psalm 8:4-5 in NIV 2011 reads: “What is mankind [collective noun substitution for “man”] that you are mindful of them [plural substitution for “him”], Human beings [plural noun substitution for “son of man”] that you care for them [plural substitution for “him”]? You have made them [plural substitution for “him”] a little lower than the angels and crowned them [plural substitution for “him”] with glory and honor.”

Once again, the rationale for the translation changes seems to be the desire to emphasize a universal truth about all humanity—that humankind has received glory and honor as the crown of creation. The translation decisions, however, obfuscate other things. First, and most importantly, the decision to use plurals here vitiates the Messianic meaning of this psalm, its particular application to Christ. Hebrews 2:5-9 quotes Ps 8:4-5 and notes that these verses testify to our Lord Jesus. He is the Man to whom the Lord gives all glory and honor; the Son of Man to whom all creation is subject. He is the One who exceeds the angels in glory and honor, even though he was made to be lower than them for our salvation.

Second, we should note that the substitution of a generic term like “human being” or “human beings” for “son of man” (a consistent pattern in NIV 2011), impoverishes the understanding of “Son of Man” as the self-designation our Lord uses throughout the Gospels. Jesus uses a term (a particular idiom, “son of man”) from the Old Testament that indicates full humanity and refers it to himself. This is of great importance, especially when it is seen in the light of Daniel 7:13-14. There that same term, “son of man,” is used in a prophecy of our Savior’s incarnation, where “one like a son of man” is “given dominion and glory and a kingdom” in which all nations are included under a rule that shall never be destroyed.

The statement, which is worth reading in its entirety, concludes:

Given the significance of this issue and these examples, we find the NIV’s Committee on Bible Translation decision to substitute plural nouns and pronouns for masculine singular nouns and pronouns to be a serious theological weakness and a misguided attempt to make the truth of God’s Word more easily understood. The use of inclusive language in NIV 2011 creates the potential for minimizing the particularity of biblical revelation and, more seriously, at times undermines the saving revelation of Christ as the promised Savior of humankind. Pastors and congregations of the LCMS should be aware of this serious weakness. In our judgment this makes it inappropriate for NIV 2011 to be used as a lectionary Bible or as a Bible to be generally recommended to the laity of our church. This is not a judgment on the entirety of NIV 2011 as a translation—a task that would require a much more extensive study of NIV 2011—but an opinion as to a specific editorial decision which has serious theological implications.

View episode →

Source: http://nocoever.com/

Over several recent episodes of his webcast, The Dividing Line, Dr. James White, director of Alpha & Omega Ministries and author of The Same Sex Controversy, has responded systematically to Vines’ entire presentation. Now available as a single five-hour long programme, White’s rebuttal is essential listening for anyone wishing to understand the true biblical position on homosexuality. Download it for free from the Alpha & Omega Ministries website.

View article →

What makes the new perspective most harmful to the church is its use of terminology. Advocates of the new perspective use terms such as Scripture, sin, justification, works, faith, and gospel, but have given them entirely different meanings.

The advocates of the new perspective on Paul give us no reason to abandon the old perspective. Their case lacks evidence from primary sources and has fundamental presuppositions that conflict with Scripture itself. Those who drink at the fountain of the new perspective must drink with great discernment because hiding behind orthodox nomenclature lies liberalism, and the heart of liberalism is unbelief. In the end, it looks like Qohelet was right after all—there is nothing new under the sun.

View article →

1. The way to reach skeptics with the gospel is not by watering down the gospel. Many of the liberal theologians thought they could make Christianity more appealing to Enlightenment rationalists if they abandoned the historical authenticity of the text; and if they redefined the gospel as something other than salvation from sin through Christ (thereby making it less offensive to modern minds). But, in so doing, they actually undid the very gospel they thought they were helping to preserve.

View article →

Apologist James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries says that Patton has asked the wrong question. Speaking on his Dividing Line show, White dissects Patton’s post and states that what really matters is whether God’s grace to us in Christ is wholly sufficient to save – are we saved by grace alone? Here, White asserts, Rome commits the same error as the Galatians, adding our works to the grace of God as a requirement for justification. Because the Apostle Paul said that the Galatians who had done likewise were ‘severed from Christ’, the very Gospel itself – and our salvation – hangs on the answer to that question. White concludes, ‘The fundamental issue is the fact that the Roman Catholic Church does not possess – and, in fact, anathematizes – the Gospel of Jesus Christ’. ‘If a Roman Catholic is saved, they are saved in spite of the Roman Catholic Church, not because of it.’

Here is the video of James White responding to Patton’s article (MP3 is also available from the Alpha & Omega Ministries blog):

I do not pray for these [my disciples] alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. John 17:20–23

Notice that immediately prior to these words, Christ prayed:

Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. John 17:17–19

The context of Jesus’ prayer for the unity of those who would believe in Him is the sanctifying truth of God’s word – the very word that the Apostles subsequently delivered to the Church, and through which we now believe in Christ.

Through that word, we are being made ‘perfect in one’ – the word of God itself creates Christian unity. And through that uniting and perfecting word, we know that the Father sent His Son to die in our place, that the Father loves us for the sake of His Son and puts His righteousness to our account. Through God’s word, those who believe it have confidence that:

having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Romans 5:1–2

God’s word, then, is essential to our Christian faith. We hunger for sound doctrine, because sound doctrine is nothing other than that word, faithfully delivered.

The Christian life depends upon sound doctrine. But is it harmful to Christian unity to rebuke false doctrine and separate from those who wilfully assist in its propagation? Some seem to think so. Yet Christians are nowhere in Scripture called to unite around false doctrine or practice, but to reject error and instead speak the truth in love to one another. We are to ‘contend earnestly for the faith which as once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3).

Christian unity originates with the unity of the Spirit that we have in Christ through His word. Paul writes:

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Ephesians 4:1–6

Notice that, even as he exhorts the Ephesians to keep the unity of the Spirit, he roots that unity in ‘one body and one Spirit’, ‘one hope of your calling’, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all’. These are the things of which sound doctrine speaks – ‘the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints’.

It is immediately obvious that false doctrine – that which is contrary to the faith once delivered – is necessarily destructive of Christian unity, for it seeks to lure people away after other bodies, other spirits, other hopes, other lords, other baptisms, other gods.

Paul goes on to tie the ‘unity of faith’ with ‘the knowledge of the Son of God’, explaining how both develop as God’s appointed ministers of the word equip the ‘saints for the work of the ministry’:

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, or the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ Ephesians 4:11–12

We have the word of Christ delivered through the Apostles and prophets of old. That same word, once delivered, is even now proclaimed, explained and applied by evangelists, pastor and teachers. These ministers of the word are charged with equipping the flock by that word until:

we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; Ephesians 4:13

God has charged them with this task so that:

we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, 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 4:14–16

In other words, Christian unity develops as sound teaching overcomes the winds of false doctrine, and Christians mature together into Christ by the speaking of truth (and, contextually, the true doctrine of God’s word) in love.

Sound doctrine gives life. False doctrine, though, is the enemy of true Christian unity, the enemy of the Faith, and the enemy of our souls. Unity of faith cannot arise where false doctrine is tolerated.

A little (bad) leaven leavens the whole lump, making it unfit for consumption (Matt. 16:5–12; 1 Cor. 5.6; Gal 5:9). Likewise, water from even the purest well is rendered deadly by even a tiny amount of poison. So it is with false doctrine. That is why those who understand these things are ‘quick to argue theology’.

Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. 2 Timothy 1:13–14

For 18 years I served as director of development/director of advancement for Frontiers, the ministry which produced this Turkish translation of Matthew. While I believe the workers behind this project have good motivations, I also believe they effectively rendered the text compliant with Islam. While the volume in question thankfully included a properly-translated Greek to Turkish Interlinear, the purpose of the contextualized translation–and the related footnotes–is to cast a specific “Muslim friendly” meaning upon the text itself.

“One example will illustrate the problems with the Turkish translation. At the baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3:17, “Son” is translated as “representative” in the text. In the footnote to this verse, “Son of God” is defined in several ways, such as “God’s representative,” “the king, Messiah,” and “God’s beloved monarch.” The note incorrectly says the term “is synonymous with the title of Messiah.” Jesus is portrayed only in kingly terms, with no recognition of his divinity or actual Sonship. Needless to say, such explanations have the effect of obscuring the full and true meaning of “Son” and “Son of God,” even if the terms are translated correctly in the footnotes.”

In subsequent correspondence with Dr. Veith, Harriman went on to say:

I work with a lot of former Muslims and they are outraged by this approach to translation. What you have, actually, is the spectacle of Western translators (actually, only a couple of highly-committed advocates, but who are acting with the support of senior WBT/SIL leadership) attempting to tell native speakers of Arabic, Turkish, and other languages what their languages actually mean.

An audio “Stories of the Apostles” volume is in fact far worse than this — Son of God is translated “Caliph of God” — Caliph of course referring to religious/political rulers of Islam who defended and promoted Islam by force; “saints” is replaced with “umma”; Islamic honorifics like “upon him be peace” are used after the mention of Christ’s name (an Islamic prayer for the dead). This audio “Bible” produced by WBT/SIL is still online, BTW.

Harriman’s insightful thoughts are well worth reading in their entirety.

Jakes’ position on the Trinity ultimately is not the issue. Rather, the problem is HBF and Pastor MacDonald’s not correcting or rebuking the false teaching presented in ER2. Pastor MacDonald’s doctrinal tolerance and leniency before, during, and after the ER2 is at the heart of our departure from HBF. Pastor MacDonald’s subsequent defenses of the ER2 on his website and on Moody Radio lead us to conclude that this change in direction established is part of the future ministry of HBF. Grievously, doctrinal leniency and disregard for proper theological examination from the pastors present marked the event.

HBC New Lenox joins HBC Prescott and HBC Detroit West, who recently also separated from MacDonald’s Harvest Bible Fellowship. Sovereign Grace Church of Bakersfield similarly left the Acts 29 network founded by ER2 moderator Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church.

The full statement by the elders of HBC New Lenox is available here:

• An Important Message from the Elder Board of Harvest Bible Chapel New Lenox

HBC Prescott’s dissociation echoes that of Harvest Bible Chapel Detroit West in January. Sovereign Grace Church of Bakersfield similarly left the Acts 29 network founded by ER2 moderator Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church.

The full statement by the elders of HBC Prescott is available here:

• A New Season: An update from the Harvest Elders

The Journal of Medical Ethics (JME), which describes itself as ‘an international peer-reviewed journal for health professionals and researchers in medical ethics’, has published an article which takes pro-choice arguments to their logical conclusion and advocates post-birth abortion. The journal is published by the BMJ Group, which is wholly owned by the British Medical Association, itself the professional organization representing the interests of British doctors.

In the article, entitled After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, ethicists Alberto Giubilini of Monash University, Australia, and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne, argue that fetuses and newborn babies share the same ‘moral status’, and that the arguments in favour of abortion therefore apply equally to newborns. They conclude:

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn. After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

The equivalent status of pre and postnatal children has long been a key argument of pro-life advocates. Anthony Ozimic from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children told The Huffington Post:

The paper proves what pro-lifers have long been arguing: that the common arguments for abortion also justify infanticide. There is no difference in moral status between a child one day before birth and a child one day after birth. Birth is merely a change of location, not a change from non-personhood to personhood. Killing Newborn Babies No Different To Abortion, Say Medical Ethicists

Some see the JME paper as potentially helping the pro-life cause by showing the inconsistency of the pro-choice position. Writing for the National Catholic Register, Matthew Archbold gave his reaction to the JME paper:

Here’s the thing – they’re right. If you accept their premises, they’re absolutely right.

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

An ethicist’s job is like a magician’s. The main job of both is to distract you from the obvious. The magician uses sleight of hand to pretend to make people disappear. But when ethicists do it, people disappear for real.

It’s almost a pro-life argument in that it highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument.

Ethicists Argue for Post Birth Abortions

Giubilini and Minerva argue from the premise that unborn children and infants are merely potential persons, and so their intentional killing is permissible. This assumption is based upon the argument that sentience is a requisite attribute of personhood. The authors write:

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

This argument is not new. As Matthew Flannagan wrote in an article published in the Summer 2009 edition of Ethics and Medicine – An International Journal of Bioethics:

Common in the literature on feticide is the argument that killing an organism is not homicide unless the organism’s brain has developed enough for it to acquire sentience, the capacity for consciousness and the ability to perceive pleasure and pain.

Boonin’s Defense of the Sentience Criterion: A Critique Part I

Flannagan goes on to show the problem of using the non-sentience of the unborn child as justification for abortion:

Despite its pervasive appeal, there are some prima facie problems with such an account. In chapter 3 of A Defense of Abortion, Boonin reviews various accounts and notes that they all fail for similar reasons. Boonin notes that those who attempt to ground humanity in the amount of brain development an organism has undergone face a dilemma: “Any appeal to what a brain can do at various stages of development would seem to have to appeal to what the brain can already do. Or to what the brain has the potential to do in the future.”

Either option leads to problems for a defender of the permissibility of feticide who does not also want to endorse infanticide. This is because “by any plausible measure dogs, and cats, cows and pigs, chickens and ducks are more intellectually developed than a new born infant.” Suppose, then, one takes the first horn and appeals to what the brain can already do. However, unless one wishes to affirm that cats, dogs and chickens are human beings, “appeals to what the brain can already do” will “be unable to account for the presumed wrongness of killing toddlers or infants.”

Suppose, then, one takes up the second horn of the dilemma and appeals to “what the brain has the potential to do in the future.” Boonin notes that this will entail that feticide is homicide. “If [such an account] allows appeals to what the brain has the potential to do in the future, then it will have to include fetuses as soon as their brains begin to emerge, during the first few weeks of gestation.”

Boonin’s Defense of the Sentience Criterion: A Critique Part I

In the face of fierce criticism, Julian Savulescu, Editor of the JME, vigorously defended the article’s publication:

As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend its publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.

The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.

Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject.

Of course, many people will argue that on this basis abortion should be recriminalised. Those arguments can be well made and the Journal would publish a paper than made such a case coherently, originally and with application to issues of public or medical concern. The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument. Moreover, it supports freedom of ethical expression. The Journal welcomes reasoned coherent responses to After-Birth Abortion. Or indeed on any topic relevant to medical ethics.

What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.

“Liberals Are Disgusting”: In Defence of the Publication of “After-Birth Abortion”

Writing for the Telegraph newspaper, Will Heaven observes that it is unsurprising that there is reaction when supporting ‘freedom of ethical expression’ includes the provision of a platform for the overt advocacy of infanticide:

Now Julian Savulescu, the Editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, is complaining that the authors – both leading ethicists – have received “personally abusive correspondence”, most of which is anonymous, “threatening their lives and personal safety”.

Which doesn’t surprise me, not that I approve of such harassment. You can’t be unashamedly pro killing babies and not expect controversy.

‘After-birth abortion’ is logically sound: that’s why it will boost the pro-life movement

Kenneth Boyd, Associate Editor of the JME, was as unapologetic as Savulescu:

Coming up to me at a meeting the other day, an ethics colleague waved a paper at me. “Have you seen this ?” she asked, “It’s unbelievable!” The paper was “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” by two philosophers writing from Australia, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

Well yes, I agreed, I had seen it: in fact I had been the editor responsible for deciding that it should be published in the Journal of Medical Ethics; and no, I didn’t think it was unbelievable, since I know that arguing strongly for a position with which many people will disagree and some even find offensive, is something that philosophers are often willing, and may even feel they have a duty, to do, in order that their arguments may be tested in the crucible of debate with other philosophers who are equally willing to argue strongly against them.

Of course for that debate to take place in the Journal of Medical Ethics, many of whose readers, doctors and health care workers as well as philosophers, may well disagree, perhaps strongly, with the paper’s arguments, we needed first to make sure that the paper, like any other submitted to the Journal, was of sufficient academic quality for us to publish; and the normal way in which we determine this is to invite academics in relevant disciplines to review the paper critically for us, so that we can eventually make an informed decision about whether or not to publish it, either in its original or (as in this case) a form revised in the light of the reviewers’ reports.

Handling Editor Defends Decision: After – Birth Abortion

Whereas the authors of the article advocate for infanticide (though not under that name), and the editors of the JME have readily given them a stage from which to do so, Christians who accept the Bible as God’s Word have no doubt as to the ‘moral status’ of the unborn child as the very creation and work of God:

For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.

Psalm 139:13–16, NKJV

Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying:

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”

Jeremiah 1:4–5, NKJV

Though moral outrage is a natural and proper reaction to the unabashed advocacy of child-murder, the same Bible reveals that all of us are guilty of breaking God’s Law, and therefore deserving of everlasting punishment:

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written:

“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.”
“Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Destruction and misery are in their ways;
And the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

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. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:9–20, NKJV

It also presents the remedy – the good news of Jesus Christ crucified in the place of sinners, and His perfect righteousness put to the account of all those who trust in Him and His finished work for them:

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom 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, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 3:21–26, NKJV

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

Acts 2:36–39, NKJV

Dr. Gary E. Gilley, pastor of Southern View Chapel, IL, has produced a helpful introductory overview of the Spiritual Formation Movement. Gilley writes:

In this lead article I intend to offer a definition of spiritual formation, trace its origins, mention a few of its practices, illustrate its recent popularity, and briefly identify its strengths and dangers.

View Article →

(My thanks to Thoughts From My Reformed Self for bringing this article to my attention.)

You can find out more about IV His Son on the Crown Rights Media website.

I am, to be really honest here, very upset by the passé attitudes [towards Jakes] of these brothers (and pastors, I might add). I’m upset for a few reasons, but If I’m being honest, the main reason why I’m so disturbed by this is because the prosperity gospel nearly killed me. Literally. I was so sick I was on the verge of death. I was lying in a hot bath with a temperature of 96 degrees, way beyond dehydrated, and literally dying with mercury poisoning. My mother was crying over my naked body, begging me to go to the hospital for treatment. “NO!” I insisted. How could I put faith in a doctor? “God is my ultimate healer! In him alone will I place my faith!”

I did eventually receive treatment, but I was still being ravished by this heresy. When I married my beautiful wife, Amber, I taught her (with the Bible of course), that there would be no taking of medicine in MY HOUSE! We would be faithful. When we were dead broke I refused to get a job because “God had promised me (through Canton Jones, no less) that I would be a buisness CEO, fortune 500, of course. How could I not have faith in that word of prophesy?

And there were a hundred other things that nearly destroyed my life and marriage. Would you care to guess who my MAIN teacher was? Who I followed as if he himself were Jesus? Who I tithed to regularly? Who’s books I read faithfully? Who’s sermons I purchased? Who’s dress I imitated?

Yes, you guessed it. TD Jakes.

My brother, this man is not merely confused, he is a wolf. God’s gracious staff saved me from him. But don’t get it twisted. Under my fur I still bear many scars that he gave to me with his powerful bite.

Anyabwile comments:

Jakes’ false teaching has long been experienced in predominantly African-American and Hispanic-American communities. His reach extends throughout the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa. Recent events have given T.D. Jakes greater credibility in and access to communities that to this point were largely unaware of him. In my opinion, that can’t be a good thing.

Sean’s devastating experience highlights why it is essential for senior voices in the Church to speak out clearly, boldly and decisively against teachers such as T.D. Jakes and the actions of those who facilitate them. Pastor Anyabwile has done so, as have Pastor Voddie Baucham, Dr. James White, Pastor Dan McGhee, and Pastor Chad Vegas. Others yet remain silent, make their views known only behind closed doors, or else express their criticism in such muted terms that its impact is nullified.

With this in mind, Daniel Chew’s review of Dr. Don Carson and Dr. Tim Keller’s response to The Elephant Room 2 makes somber reading.

Further reading

• Putting a Face on Destruction (Thabiti Anyabwile’s article on Sean)
• Daniel Chew’s Review of Carson’s and Keller’s Response to ER2
• Elephant Room 2: Bryan Crawford Loritts and the emergence of pachydermism
• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon

The insightful discussion centred upon the accusations of racism made by Brian Crawford Loritts and others towards those who have spoken out against T.D. Jakes and his presence at The Elephant Room. Baucham had earlier characterized Jakes as ‘an example of the worst the black church has to offer’.

During the hour-long interview, Baucham identified the position of those trying to silence ER2’s critics as Ethnic Gnosticism, accusing them of engaging in cult-like behaviour. The term Ethnic Gnosticism refers to some hidden or secret knowledge known only to a select ethnic group. Baucham explained:

Here’s one of the things that happens. And this is the great irony: it’s almost cult like. On the one hand you can say to a person, ‘You can’t say that because you don’t understand the black community and the black experience.’

Well, then somebody like myself, or Anthony Carter, or [garbled], or [garbled], or somebody like us, comes out and says, ‘Oh, actually, I agree that there are these problems with T.D. Jakes.’ Then the immediate response is ‘Well, you’re just a sell out. You’re just an Uncle Tom. You’re just trying to curry favour with white people. And the bottom line is that you’re not really black.’

And, so, that’s what the cults do. [They say:] ‘If you can’t answer my question, it’s because you’re ignorant. If you can answer my question, then I’ll find another way around.’ And that’s why I say it’s Ethnic Gnosticism.

Baucham went on to explain how cultural filters prevented some in the black community from calling out gross sin, criminal behaviour, and even heresy. Alluding to the claims of James MacDonald, who said that he did not press Jakes further because ‘the issue was not as essential, or because the relationship was not ready’, Baucham then continued:

And so, open sin being tolerated in the name of Ethnic Gnosticism, it’s got to be dragged out into the light. If people do things that are racist, they need to be called on it, because it’s sin. But if people do things that are, you know, other areas of sin, they need to be called out on that as well.

And we can’t say that because of our fear of being accused of the sin of racism, when that’s not our motivation, that we’ll refuse to call out other things. That’s just wrong. That’s just wrong.

And the idea that our relationship has to be at a certain place before you can call that out, that’s just, that’s just not Bible. And it’s not loving the brother. If you love someone, you have to confront them in their sin. You have to confront them in their error. That’s the height of love.

Both White and Baucham cited Galatians 3:28 as evidence that particular topics should not be off-limits for Christians due to fear of accusations of racism. In context, this verse teaches that the Gospel of Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection for sinners transcends and breaks down all ethnic and cultural barriers:

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

(Gal. 3:26–29)

The entire interview is required listening for anyone wishing to understand how ER2’s defenders are trying to use race to silence their critics. It can be found here:

• James interviews Voddie Baucham on the Elephant Room 2 conference and T.D. Jakes

Update

Apprising Ministries offers a transcript of another section of the interview:

• Voddie Baucham: T.D. Jakes is godfather of word faith and a poisonous influence

Further reading

• Elephant Room 2: playing the race card, again
• Voddie Baucham names the elephant in the room
• Elephant Room 2: Bryan Crawford Loritts and the emergence of pachydermism
• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room
• Elephant Room 2 claims first Acts 29 casualty
• James White on the discernment gap

Erin Benziger of Do Not Be Surprised… gives an excellent overview:

James MacDonald interviews three African-American pastors in an attempt to ascertain their opinions on what transpired at ER2. One of these pastors was Charles Jenkins, pastor of Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church in Chicago. Jenkins is the pastor who was brought in as Voddie Baucham’s replacement at the Harvest Men’s Conference.

But perhaps the most outspoken of the three men in this video was Bryan Loritts, pastor of Fellowship Memphis Church. As you may recall, Loritts has most recently been catapulted into the spotlight for his blog post entitled, My Day With James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and the Elephant Room. In this post, Loritts called for the reformed community to “repent” of their harsh criticism and one-sided attacks on Bishop T.D. Jakes in regard to his beliefs about the Godhead’. In response to this call to repentance, Daniel Neades of Better Than Sacrifice wrote,

Loritts has apparently failed to understand that it is because we love people – including T.D. Jakes himself – that we want to be sure that they are neither inadvertently trusting in a non-Trinitarian god of their own imagination, nor being deceived by a false prosperity gospel, such as the one Jakes preaches. Loritts uncharitably judges the inward thoughts and intents of his opponents. (Online Source)

Precisely. I couldn’t have stated it more accurately myself. Also in his blog post, however, Loritts played the ever-popular, and ever-inappropriate, “race card.” It seemed that this issue had been adequately dealt with throughout the weekend, however, and many of us hoped that it would be laid to rest. Unfortunately, in the video posted on James MacDonald’s blog, the “race card” was played again, and in a most fast and furious…and illegitimate, manner. About four minutes into the original video as it appears on MacDonald’s blog, one will hear the following dialogue between Loritts and MacDonald:

Bryan Loritts: “Some of the strongest reactions were African Americans in the blogosphere….um, I’ll just go ahead and say it, who strike me as wanting so bad to be in the white theological world. And to take a little bit of a tangent here, and I’ll get back, the loudest voices in the conservative evangelical world, in my estimation right now, are your older, white reformed voices. And so that implicitly sends the message that mature Christianity in the conservative evangelical world is ‘older white.’ And you’ve got some African Americans who so idolize that – what some people would call white idolization – that they then feel as if they’ve got to be the voice for black culture to speak against people like T.D. Jakes. So what happens is, you kind of prop them up. When the truth of the matter is, the term ‘black’ is very complex…….We’re different, we’re different. So my concern is, African Americans, a small minority speaking against Jakes, and then leveraging that in the white theological world for some of these older white theologians….”

James MacDonald: “What would they be leveraging it for?”

Bryan Loritts: “To fit into their circles….”

James MacDonald: “Opportunity…?”

Bryan Loritts: “We want to be in their circles. And so we’ll allow ourselves to used as a puppet. That is my perception of some of this backlash.”

As Ken Silva noted earlier today, it indeed seems that James MacDonald is attempting to “sneak modalism in the back door” as “we’re essentially told that if we reject T.D. Jakes as a Christian brother, it’s because we’re racist” (Online Source). Yes, it certainly does seem that way, doesn’t it?

Erin goes on to cover Voddie Baucham’s dignified response to the video. She then reminds us:

Friends, this is not about race. At all. To manipulate this situation into one that is rooted in race is absolutely absurd. It seems to reveal an immature reaction to criticism of any kind and, more importantly, it demonstrates a lack of biblical conviction. This is about biblical truth. The concerns that have been raised regarding the theology of T.D. Jakes are based solely upon the fruit of his very public ministry, one that has taught not only the heresy of modalism, but also that of the Word-Faith prosperity gospel…a false gospel.

So while everyone else is getting fired up over the dangerous dealing of the “race card,” I would ask the reader to remember what is really at stake here: the Word of our God.

Phil Johnson, of the PyroManiacs blog and executive Director of John MacArthur’s Grace to You, provides his similarly forthright assessment:

…this is probably the most blatantly racist presentation I have ever witnessed from an ostensibly “mainstream” evangelical source.

The take-away message is this: If you’re an old white guy with any hint of Reformed theology in your confessional statement and you don’t think T. D. Jakes’s equivocations at Elephant Room 2 were sufficient to erase decades of concern about his Oneness leanings and his relentless proclamation of a false Prosperity Gospel—then you must be a racist. And even if you don’t think you’re a racist, you should shut up anyway. Because in the black community relationships are more important than any doctrine, including the gospel and the Trinity. We all should strive to subjugate doctrine to relationships anyway.

If on the other hand you are a young black man with Reformed convictions—or any black person who just has a keen interest in doctrinal and biblical accuracy—you are a sellout and a reproach to your own community. The only possible explanation is that you are guilty of “White Idolatry.” You secretly wish to earn favor with Whitey. You should not only shut up, you should be ashamed. As far as the importance of relationships is concerned, we don’t really care to have one with you.

End of discussion.

So much for open dialogue and not hiding behind walls of disagreement. The Elephant Room experiment clearly wasn’t really about that in the first place. It wasn’t about real unity or truth, either.

How does 2000 years of Christian consensus on the doctrine of the Godhead get sent to the back of the bus so blithely in the name of unity and racial reconciliation?

Johnson is describing here what I earlier termed pachydermism:

‘The Elephant Room débutantes’ ball has seen the public emergence of pachydermism, the belief that clearly defined and defended sound doctrine is harmful to Christian unity. This lethal disease contrasts sharply with the Biblical doctrine that true unity of faith arises from a shared understanding of the objective truth taught by Scripture (cf. Ephesians 4). Pachydermism is regrettably characterized by its inability to distinguish between improper attacks upon a person, and the legitimate comparison with Scripture of what a person believes, teaches and confesses.’ — The emergence of pachydermism

Johnson concludes with these questions:

And why the deafening silence from so many men and ministries who supposedly are committed to standing for the defense and proclamation of core gospel truths? If you can be intimidated into silence by the race card when a greed-mongering prosperity-gospel Sabellian-sympathizer is being hailed by once-sound evangelicals as someone to be emulated, what doctrine will you defend openly and publicly?

Exactly.

Benziger’s full article is available here:

• The Elephant Room Continues to Stomp On Its Critics

Johnson’s is here:

• James MacDonald Plays the Race Card

Update

Voddie Baucham has spoken further on Facebook about the video and the ensuing reaction to it, expressing his sadness about the division that ER2 has caused:

I see that the racial turn the ER2 discussion has taken has really struck a nerve. Providentially, as our church journeys through the book of Romans, I just addressed the issue of unity/diversity in the Body of Christ a couple of weeks ago. Rather than write anything about the recent video, I’ll leave you with this.

Less than 20% of the people in our church are “non-white.” That’s right, my family and I are in the extreme minority in our congregation. I decided over a decade ago to pursue a ministry that crossed cultural and ethnic divides. This does not make me better than black pastors with predominantly black churches (or any other ethnicity, etc.). However, it is an important piece of the puzzle in this discussion. You need to know that I am not addressing this issue (and did not listen to the video discussion posted yesterday) as one who is without knowledge of the differences between people groups/cultures.

I’ve been labeled “Uncle Tom,” and “Sellout.” I’ve been accused of abandoning the black community, hating my heritage, and trying to curry favor with whites. I’ve also experienced prejudice (both my own and that of others). However, preaching this passage was almost cathartic! I have grown to love THE CHURCH! Not the “black church” or the “white church,” but THE CHURCH! That’s what breaks my heart in all of this. At any rate, enjoy!

Baucham’s sermon is available here:

• An Extraordinary Affection for an Extraordinary Church

Further reading

• Voddie Baucham names the elephant in the room
• Elephant Room 2: Bryan Crawford Loritts and the emergence of pachydermism
• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room
• Elephant Room 2 claims first Acts 29 casualty
• James White on the discernment gap

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 thus 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 (Ph.D. Harvard University, and professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical International University) 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 an earlier 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 right 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 sufficiently egregious so as to undermine the Faith 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. Nevertheless, aberrancy is not in and of itself 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.

Conclusion

Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.

(Heb. 10:19–23)

Further reading

• Thinking about orthodoxy: defining terms and asking questions
• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• James White on the Discernment Gap

Reading the commentary on the Elephant Room 2 events, and in particular, the alleged rehabilitation (repentance?) of TD Jakes has truly been brought me sadness. Sure, I know that very few Evangelicals, even scholars, have much experience with modalists and Oneness advocates, but still, the general ease with which many have been taken in by such a shallow and brief discussion does not speak well of the depth of understanding of many today. It also speaks loudly to the fact that many in Evangelicalism disconnect the honor and glory of God from the truth He has revealed about Himself. That is, they do not see that to worship and honor God demands from us our utmost effort to accurately hear and to follow what He has revealed about Himself, primarily in Jesus Christ, and the holy Scriptures. To take lightly God’s self-revelation is an affront to the divine majesty, and would not be the action of a heart that is consumed with passion for its Lord.

White continues, turning his attention to what Jakes said at the Elephant Room:

Let’s remember some of Jakes’ words from ER2. Keeping in mind his statement of faith, which continues to use the modalistic language of “manifestations,” and keeping in mind that Jakes does not baptize in the Trinitarian formula (he baptizes in Jesus name only—something oddly ignored by the tribunal who seemed to grant to themselves the ability to proclaim Trinitarian orthodoxy at ER2), let’s consider his words. When asked if God manifests Himself in three ways, or exists in three divine Persons, he said that “neither one of them totally get it for me.” Now there is a ringing profession of Trinitarianism if I ever heard it. Please, why are so many quick to pass over this direct statement that the historic profession of faith just doesn’t quite “totally get it” for Bishop Jakes? Does that really sound like someone who has seen the error of their ways and is ready to abjure error for a sound profession of faith in the truth? Or does it sound like someone who really thinks he is in a position to pick and choose what is comfortable for him given his goals and aims?

Ah, but Jakes went on to say, “I’m not crazy about the word ‘person.’” Yes, another ringing word of repentance form his former modalism and a sound profession of his new Trinitarian faith, is it not? Is that why he has not changed his statement of faith for his church, because this new found Trinitarianism is not something he is really all that “crazy about”? Can you imagine talking to someone who had been a Mormon, and professed belief in many gods, and now he is seeking fellowship with you, and when you inquire as to his beliefs, he says, “Oh, I believe mainly like you, but, Trinitarianism just doesn’t fully do it for me, and I’m not really crazy about the term ‘monotheism.’” Will you be inviting that person to fill your pulpit to teach on the nature of God next Sunday, I wonder?

Strident words? White is merely warming up. Read his full piece, here:

• The Discernment Gap: Showing a Lack of Passion for God’s Honor and Glory

Further reading

• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: The emergence of pachydermism
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room
• Voddie Baucham names the elephant in the room
• Elephant Room 2 claims first Acts 29 casualty

I knew Mark was the primary voice for Acts 29 and that I was not comfortable with how some of his comments represented the network. I also knew Mark and many of the other brothers are faithful ministers of the gospel, disagreements aside.

I remember listening in anticipation as Mark rattled off a series of affirmations. I was waiting for that moment right after the affirmations in which he would ask, “So, do you denounce modalism and prosperity teaching? Are you prepared to change your church’s doctrinal statement, disassociate from modalist organizations, and denounce any and all modalist and prosperity teaching you have participated in?” That moment never came. Instead, Mark smiled, shook Jakes’ hand, and said, “awesome.” I was stunned. I know Mark is smart enough to know that heretics will often affirm what you affirm and the real test is in whether they will deny what you deny. I wondered why Mark didn’t go there.

I looked at my assistant pastor at this moment and we both knew that our run in Acts 29 had come to an end. We were no longer talking about secondary issues. We had now crossed into seeing the leader of our network embrace a man who is heretical with regard to the nature of God and the gospel. We were now watching Mark treat a full blown heretic as pastor for other young pastors to learn from. I listened to the buzz in the room, and on twitter, as several young reformed guys rejoiced at finding in TD Jakes a humble pastor to whom they could look. I was deeply saddened. I pulled out of Acts 29 that night.

I want to be very clear. I don’t think Mark Driscoll is a heretic. I don’t think Mark has bad intentions. I think Mark is a faithful, orthodox pastor who is well-intentioned. I know many pastors in Acts 29 who are taking a different approach to this issue than I am. I believe they are faithful, well-intentioned brothers. I didn’t leave Acts 29 because I question the integrity of any of these men.

I do think Mark Driscoll is wrong on this issue. I think his failure to defend the gospel and the nature of God in the Elephant Room, as awkward and unfortunate a setting as it was, was a major failure in his duty as a spokesman for Jesus, the church, and Acts 29. I can not follow a leader who will not act on Titus 1:9 when so many young pastors are looking on. It is for this reason I left Acts 29. I pray Mark will see the grievous error that took place that day. I will still love him, pray for him, and admire him in many ways if he doesn’t.

Vegas’ move echoes that of Dan McGhee, pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel Detroit West, who earlier in January led his church to dissociate from James MacDonald’s Harvest Bible Fellowship over concerns that MacDonald ‘seems insistent in pushing boundaries in the area of associations with men whose ministry philosophy, practice, and even theology we can’t endorse’.

Read Vegas’ full post, here [update: the post is no longer available, see below]:

• Mark Driscoll, The Elephant Room, and Why I Left Acts 29…

Update

Vegas has withdrawn his post from his blog. He explains:

Where did my controversial post go?

After posting on my blog, something I rarely do but hope to begin again, I was slammed with comments, calls, emails, twitter messages etc. I decided to pull the post and restart my lame blogging career with less controversial posts. So, sorry if you missed it folks.

Further reading

• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: The emergence of pachydermism
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room
• Voddie Baucham names the elephant in the room

Buacham offers a thoughtful and intelligent analysis of the problem with T.D. Jakes’ invitation to the Elephant Room, showing how it was a ‘lose-lose for evangelicalism’:

Bishop Jakes is an example of the worst the black church has to offer.

One of the goals of ER2 was to address the issue of “racial” unity. Thus, Bishop Jakes was there (at least in part) as a representative of the “black church.” In light of the aforementioned issues, I was disinclined to participate in such an event. You see, Jakes was an invited guest; an invited ‘black’ guest. If he were mistreated, he had the race card; if he was accepted, he had entree into a new audience. It was a win-win for Jakes, and a lose-lose for evangelicalism. Obviously, he was not going to spout unadulterated modalism. Nor was he going to repudiate his roots (remember, this is his “heritage,” both ethnically and theologically). He had a perfect opportunity to find a middle ground and show “humility” in an environment that would be portrayed as “hostile” even though hostility was forbidden in light of the unwritten rules surrounding his blackness. Thus, his opponents had to choose between outright defeat and pyrrhic victory.

Baucham enumerates the problems with Jakes, and confronts the disgraceful insinuations of racism that have been in play. Finally, Baucham names the real elephant in the room:

I’m not angry with James MacDonald. He’s my brother, and I love him. We disagree. We both understand that. Ironically, that’s what The Elephant Room is supposedly all about. Brothers should be able to disagree with one another and still be brothers. There’s just one problem: Embracing Jakes while rejecting others because we question his history of modalism and Word of Faith teaching…that’s the real “Elephant in the Room”?

Baucham’s piece is well worth reading in full:

• The Elephant in the Room by Voddie Baucham

My thanks to Paula Coyle of purposedrivel.com for alerting me to Baucham’s article.

Further reading

• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room
• Elephant Room 2: The emergence of pachydermism

Until struck by a crisis of conscience in the late 1960s, Marjoe continued to deceive many in the church and relieve them of their money. He then allowed a documentary film crew unlimited access to his final revival tour, giving them backstage interviews where he explained how he and others deceived the flock. The video below is the resulting must-see documentary, with a startling relevance for today’s church. The film won the 1972 Academy Award for best documentary.

Of course, Christians today would never be so gullible. Would they?

Caution: this documentary contains one brief instance of crude language.

For those without the ability to play Flash content, this documentary is also available on YouTube.

My thanks to Apprising Ministries for bringing this to my attention.

Further reading:

• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room
• Elephant Room 2: The emergence of pachydermism

The Post reports:

To the adjunct professor at Crichton College, those “gospel centered” people elevated love for doctrine over love for people. His words for them were this: “Your conduct is out of step with the gospel,” referring to Apostle Paul’s words to Peter in Galatians 2 when he avoided the Gentiles only when he was around the Jews.

Loritts has apparently failed to understand that it is because we love people – including T.D. Jakes himself – that we want to be sure that they are neither inadvertently trusting in a non-Trinitarian god of their own imagination, nor being deceived by a false prosperity gospel, such as the one Jakes preaches. Loritts uncharitably judges the inward thoughts and intents of his opponents.

Revealingly, in his application of Galatians 2, Loritts has cast himself as the Apostle Paul. Some might think that his seeming lack of concern for the integrity of the Gospel better suits him to the role of Peter.

Loritts also advised the “middle aged white Reformed guys” to be extremely careful of the messages they sent, both implicit and explicit.

The age and skin colour of those questioning Jakes’ beliefs and teaching is irrelevant. In fact, those men and women expressing concern represent a broad spectrum of the Church, including Baptists and Confessional Lutherans, as well as the Reformed. Loritts here is merely engaging in an ad hominem attack, mischaracterizing the Elephant Room’s many opponents as originating from a narrow clique. He also sows the utterly unfounded idea that latent racism may be motivating those with whom he disagrees. This disgraceful tactic merely highlights the intellectual and doctrinal poverty of his own diaphanous arguments.

The Post continues:

Though he was not accusing anyone of racism, he found that the “Reformed crowd’s” actions (refusing to come to the Elephant Room event or having an honest dialogue) sent an implicit message to the public – “theological bigotry.”

If Loritts is not accusing anyone of racism, why does he even mention it? Again, he is transparently engaged in the desperate antics of those feeling the quicksand of their own position rapidly dissolve beneath their own feet.

Loritts also seems to have conveniently forgotten that independent apologists endeavoured to attend the Elephant Room but, despite having reserved tickets in advance, were refused entry and, in one case, even threatened with arrest. It is the organizers of the Elephant Room who have proven themselves unwilling to engage in honest dialogue. And, by his baseless personal attacks, Loritts himself demonstrates the very fault that he ascribes to those with whom he disagrees.

Loritts is apparently unmoved by the informed and reasoned assessment of scholars such as Dr. James White, who declared on Twitter:

McDonald [sic], Driscoll, etc., showed such disrespect to the Trinity and Church History that they did not even ask the most basic questions.

White later devoted an hour of his popular Dividing Line webcast to scrutinizing Jakes’ statements at the Elephant Room.

Dr. Carl Trueman, Departmental Chair of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, likewise gave his assessment of what White called the ‘MacDonald/Driscoll disaster’:

This request that we ask hard questions in the right venue, and consider the ER to have signally failed in this regard, will no doubt evince cries of ‘Hey, hater!’ from some quarters. That is apparently the standard reaction now when anyone questions the actions of a successful pastor of a large church. If, however, we take true doctrine seriously, then surely we will see false teaching for what it is: soul destroying. Reflect on a parallel situation for a moment: let us say that, week after week, I see a congregant’s wife with a black eye and an arm covered in cuts and bruises; eventually I ask her husband, ‘Did you do that?’ to which he says ‘No, I abhor violence and despise the sort of people who beat their wives’; in such circumstances, is it unloving, Pharisaical or hateful of me to press the question a little further? I think not. Indeed, failure so to do would be moral delinquency of the highest order. To press the matter is actually responsible pastoring. The same thing applies with those whose public teaching seems to be deviant. It is not hateful to press the hard questions, and to do so with appropriate competence and in a suitable context; rather, it is right and necessary.

(Source)

In a pithy blog post, Tom Chantry, pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church, and Elephant Room attendee, gave his assessment of Jakes’ performance:

Jakes masterfully deconstructs the entire practice of theology. Don’t be fooled by the panel members who insist that he affirmed the Trinity. What he did was say, “I’m Trinitarian so long as I am free to express it in Sabelian terms.” He repeatedly insisted that Oneness folks and Trinitarian folks are all saying the same thing. He dismissed the question as secondary – not worth division among the people of Christ, among whom he clearly counts the Oneness churches. Once he has deconstructed the very idea of systematic theology, he can affirm anything. So yes, he answered “absolutely” or “yeș” to each and every one of Driscoll’s questions, but what does that mean? Not much.

The Elephant Room débutantes’ ball has seen the public emergence of pachydermism, the belief that clearly defined and defended sound doctrine is harmful to Christian unity. This lethal disease contrasts sharply with the Biblical doctrine that true unity of faith arises from a shared understanding of the objective truth taught by Scripture (cf. Ephesians 4).

In fact, there have been very few, if any, attacks upon T.D. Jakes himself – I am aware of none. Rather, it is his belief and teaching that have been subject to intense scrutiny. Pachydermism is regrettably characterized by its inability to distinguish between improper attacks upon a person, and the legitimate comparison with Scripture of what a person believes, teaches and confesses.

In a Facebook discussion of the Christian Post article, Pastor Gervase Charmley, minister at Bethel Evangelical Free Church, Stoke on Trent, UK, and perhaps best known for his ‘good sermons’ featured on the Fighting for the Faith Internet radio programme, gave this assessment:

I would say “Woe unto them who say ‘peace, peace’ where there is no peace.” Because that’s what MacDonald and co. are doing, saying that there is peace where there isn’t any.

Yes, the criticism of Jakes has been substantive and doctrinal, not ad hominem. What has been criticised is what the chap has said and not said, not the colour of his shirt, or even the style of his preaching. It is disgraceful to characterise it as personal attack, though not in the least surprising.

One of the effects of Postmodernism is the loss of the ability to actually engage in meaningful conversation; by saying that all positions are equally true we are left with only one avenue of criticism – the personal attack. And that is where you are left by the compromise of the Elephant Room. You can only accuse of ad hominem, while using ad hominem yourself (the implied accusation of racism, for example).

If anyone asked me what I believe about the Trinity, I would be able to point to multiple sermons addressing the question, and historic credal statements that express my beliefs. When someone can’t, we have a problem. No one in public ministry should leave any doubts about their views on the Trinity. Who God is happens to be extremely important.

Loritts’ call for repentance amounts to asking Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist, Confessional Anglicans, and other Christians, to repent for caring about the doctrine of the Trinity and for objecting to Jakes’ false prosperity gospel. Loritts is asking sincere Christians to repent for loving sufficiently so as to be willing to speak the truth, even when it is unwelcome and contrary to the prevailing spirit of the age.

The critics of the Elephant Room have presented substantive, carefully argued and Biblical critiques of what occurred, rooted in the creeds and confessions of the historic orthodox Christian Faith. The defenders of Elephant Room, like Loritts, are able to respond with nothing other than tawdry personal attacks and unfounded slurs and insinuations. It is Loritts who should repent of his reprehensible accusations, and he who, along with James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll, ought to repent for participating in the Great Doctrinal Downgrade of which pachydermism is the herald.

May the Lord open their eyes and grant them repentance and the forgiveness of sins in His Son, who died that even these sins might be forgiven. May He grant us all the grace to speak the truth in love to one another, 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.’ (Eph. 4:15–16)

Readers may also be interested in my earlier coverage of T.D. Jakes and The Elephant Room 2:

• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room

Postscript

The term pachydermism was inspired by the title of my friend Erin Benziger’s post, This ‘n’ That – Pachyderm Edition.

Update

The Christian Post article was apparently based upon this blog post by Loritts.

As covered by Apprising Ministries, White revealed his initial thoughts in a series of acerbic tweets:

He finished with a direct challenge to Jakes:

Should Jakes respond, I shall be sure to cover the news here.

In a later episode of his Dividing Line webcast, White analysed in detail the statements that Jakes made at the Elephant Room 2 concerning the Trinity. I highly recommend this episode to all those who desire to be informed on this crucial issue:

• A Mega-Friday Dividing Line on TD Jakes and Elephants in the Room

Readers may also be interested in my earlier coverage of T.D. Jakes and The Elephant Room 2:

• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?

Why, then, was MacDonald’s invitation to T.D. Jakes controversial? For two primary reasons:

1. Since he began his ministry, Jakes has been associated with the heresy of modalism, and has hitherto refused to embrace orthodox Trinitarian creeds or formulas.
2. Jakes has consistently preached a false prosperity gospel, promising people that God will bless them materially if they give generously to Jakes’ ministry.

The Heresy of modalism vs. the orthodox view of the Trinity

Before we can examine Jakes’ statements at the Elephant Room, it is necessary to understand both the heresy of modalism and the Church’s historic orthodox confession of the Trinity.

In his excellent book, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church, Harold O.J. Brown (Ph.D. Harvard University, and professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical International University) writes this about modalism (p. 99):

The word “modalism” is unfamiliar to most Christians, yet it is the most common theological error among people who think themselves orthodox. It is the simplest way to explain the Trinity while preserving the oneness of God; unfortunately, it is incorrect. Adoptionism [the heresy that Jesus became God at his baptism] preserved the unity of the godhead by sacrificing the deity of Christ; modalism, by abandoning the personhood of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Modalism frequently reappears as the result of failure to teach the doctrine of the Trinity clearly. An implicit or naive modalism is sometimes found in modern fundamentalistic circles that insist on the deity of Christ but are unwilling to make the theological effort to formulate a clear doctrine of the Trinity.

Modalism upholds the deity of Christ, but does not see him as a distinct Person vis-à-vis the Father. It holds that God reveals himself under different aspects or modes [hence, modalism] in different ages—as the Father in Creation and in the giving of the Law, as the Son in Jesus Christ, and as the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension. Modalism stresses the full deity of Christ and thus does justice to the tremendous impact he made upon his age, and it avoids the suggestion that he is a second God alongside the Father. Unfortunately it abandons the diversity of Persons within the godhead, and thus loses the important concept that Christ is our representative or advocate with the Father.

Notice that the error of modalism is not that it denies God’s working distinctively as Father, Son and Holy Spirit – modalism expressly affirms this – but rather, that it denies the existence of three distinct Persons within the Godhead.

In theological language, modalism affirms an economic trinity (three distinctive ways of God’s working), but denies an ontological Trinity (three distinct Persons subsisting in one Godhead). Thus, modalists are able to affirm their belief in a trinity, but what they are confessing by that term is something other than the essential doctrine of the Trinity taught by the historic orthodox Christian Faith and believed by the Christian Church throughout the ages.

With Brown’s explanation of modalism in mind, read the statement of belief concerning God from the website of Jakes’ own congregation, The Potter’s House:

There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It is immediately clear that this is the language of classic modalism, not that of Trinitarian orthodoxy.

We need also to understand why modalism is a deadly error condemned by the Church.

Here is Brown, again (Heresies, p. 99):

Logically, modalism makes the events of redemptive history a kind of charade. Not being a distinct person, the Son cannot really represent us to the Father. Modalism must necessarily be docetic [believing that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion] and teach that Christ was human in appearance only; the alternative, on the basis of modalistic presuppositions, is that God himself died on the Cross. Since such an idea is considered absurd—except by death-of-God theologians—the normal consequence is the conclusion that while Christ was fully God, he only appeared to be man.

Brown continues his discussion, explaining why some find modalism attractive (Heresies, p. 100):

Like adoptionism, modalism has a basis in Scripture. The adoptionists emphasize the Synoptic Gospels [Matthew, Mark and Luke] and their portrayal of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus at his baptism. The modalists emphasize the Gospel of John with its statements stressing the oneness of Christ with the Father, for example, “I and my Father are one,” and, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 10:30, 14:9). Instead of understanding these verses to mean that Christ is a second Person in perfect communion with the Father, they are taken to mean that he and the Father are a single Person, in other words, that he is the Father.

The word “one” in the Greek text of John 10:30 is the neuter hen, which suggests that the meaning is “one deity, one divine essence,” rather than one Person, but this is a rather sophisticated insight. It makes sense only if one can conceive of God as subsisting in distinct Persons, namely, in the Father and the Son (and of course in the Holy Spirit as well). Anyone who has not yet been able to formulate the concept of the Trinity in this explicit way will of course find it simpler and more plausible to understand Christ as saying, “I and the Father are one Person,” in other words, as presenting himself as a mode of the Father.

If the Son is not a real Person who can stand before the Father and address him, then the later Christian concept of substitutionary satisfaction, which holds that Christ takes our place and pays our debt to the Father, becomes at best a symbol, not a reality. Where modalism prevails, the concept of substitutionary satisfaction, or vicarious atonement, will necessarily be absent, and so modalism is sometimes adopted by those who object to the doctrine of vicarious atonement. More commonly, however, it simply arises as an attempt to reduce the mystery of the Trinity to a more understandable concept, even at the cost of the true humanity of Jesus and the doctrine of substitutionary satisfaction.

Modalism is considered heresy because it necessarily means that either Christ did not really become incarnate, or else that the Son is not a distinct Person from the Father who can take our place and pay a ransom to Him (Matt. 20:28). Either the Word did not really become flesh, and thus Jesus did not die with a real physical body or shed His real blood, or else Christ cannot make satisfaction for us to the Father and be our Advocate with Him. In other words, one way or another, modalism necessarily invalidates the central doctrine of the entire Christian faith: that Jesus died bodily for our sins, rose from the dead, and is even now our Advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1), making intercession for us with Him (Rom. 8:34).

Modalism thus destroys the basis of the Christian Faith.

One can, of course, mistakenly hold modalistic beliefs out of ignorance. But one cannot understand and confess modalism while simultaneously holding on to the historic orthodox Christian faith. The two are simply incompatible.

By the early fourth century, the Arian heresy was raging. Arianism taught that, although divine, Jesus was nevertheless a created being. (Jehovah’s Witnesses are modern day Arians.) The Church responded to the Arian heresy with the Nicene Creed, adopted in its original form by the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325 and subsequently revised:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

(Note that the English word ‘catholic’ is derived from the Greek word meaning ‘universal’. When the Nicene Creed uses the word ‘catholic’, it is simply referring to the fact that the true Christian Church is universal, or worldwide.)

The Nicene Creed enabled the Church to distinguish between those teaching and believing the Arian heresy, and those who were believing, teaching and confessing the historic orthodox Christian Faith delivered by the Apostles and recorded in the Scriptures.

Further heresies arose, including modalism. The Church therefore developed language and confessions to refute those heresies. By the early sixth century, the Church was using the Athanasian Creed. The text of this creed is carefully designed to exclude a number of Trinitarian and Christological heresies. It adopts the earlier language of Augustine’s On the Trinity (415 AD), and the confession concerning the Trinity arising from the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). The Athanasian Creed therefore reflects the historic orthodox Christian Faith as received from the Apostles, recorded in Scripture, and understood by the worldwide Christian Church.

Here is the text of the Athanasian Creed:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic [universal] faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.

The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

We have thus seen that modalism is a dangerous heresy, and was condemned as such by the early Church. Modalism is fundamentally antithetical to the Christian Faith and incompatible with any proper understanding of Christ’s bodily death in our place for our sins.

We have also seen the specific language that the early Church carefully crafted to confess Christian truth, and thereby to distinguish heretics from those who believed, taught and confessed ‘the Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3).

More recent confessions continue to reflect the understanding of the Trinity expressed by Augustine, the Council of Chalcedon, and the Nicene Creed. Here, for example, is the Westminster Confession of Faith’s succinct summary (produced in 1646) of Biblical truth concerning the Trinity (chapter II, article 3):

In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

What does Jakes confess?

Many people are excited by what Jakes said in The Elephant Room 2 (ER2) in his conversation with Mark Driscoll, with James MacDonald moderating. These people believe that, for the first time, Jakes publicly confessed his belief in orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.

Since independent apologists were deliberately excluded from ER2, with one even being threatened with arrest, and because official video and audio of the event has not yet been made available, we have to rely on those who were present to tell us what Jakes said. Trevin Wax, managing Editor of The Gospel Project at LifeWay, is a reliable and credible witness. He has posted a summary of the detailed notes that he took during the event. This is Wax’s record of the conversation with Jakes concerning the Trinity:

MacDonald: Apparently (to Jakes), there has been confusion about what you believe.

Jakes: My situation is not that different from his. My father was Methodist. My mother was Baptist. I was raised in a Baptist church. But I was raised in church without a committed experience with Christ when my father died. My conversion to Christ took place in a Oneness church.

Driscoll: By Oneness meaning?

Jakes: It was not a UPC church. It was similar.

Driscoll: Jesus only, modalism?

Jakes: They believe in Jesus Christ, he died and raised again. But how they explain the Godhead is how Trinitarians describe the gospel. I was in that church and raised in that church a number of years. I started preaching from that pulpit. But I’m also informed by the infiltration from my Baptist experience. I ended up Metho-Bapti-Costal. I’m a mixed breed. It is easy to throw rocks at people who you do not know, but when you see the work of Christ in their lives, you try to build bridges. So even though I moved away from what that church’s teaching, I didn’t want to throw rocks. Much of what we do today is teach people to take sides. But I believe we are called to reconcile wherever possible. My struggle was that in some passages, the doctrine fits and in other places it doesn’t. I don’t want to force my theology to fit my denomination.

(Jakes is going through Jesus’ baptism and the “let us” at creation.) The Bible made me rethink my ideas and I got quiet about it for a while. There are things that you can say about the Father you cannot say about the Son or the Spirit. There are distinctives. I’m very comfortable with that. There is very little difference between what I believe and what you believe. But I don’t think anything that any of us believes fully describes what God is. We in our finite minds cannot fully describe what God is.

Driscoll: We all would agree that in the nature of God there is mystery. But within that, for you, Bishop Jakes, the issue is one God manifesting Himself successively in three ways? Or one God existing eternally in three persons? What is your understanding now? Which one?

Jakes: I believe the latter one is where I stand today. One God – Three Persons. I am not crazy about the word persons though. You describe “manifestations” as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline. For God was manifest in the flesh. Paul is not a modalist, but he doesn’t think it’s robbery to say manifest in the flesh. Maybe it’s semantics, but Paul says this. Now, when we start talking about that sort of thing, I think it’s important to realize there are distinctives between the work of the Father and the work of the Son. I’m with you. I have been with you. There are many people within and outside denominations labeled Oneness that would be okay with this. We are taught in society that when we disagree with someone in a movement, we leave. But I still have associations with people in Onenness movements. We need to humble both sides and say, “We are trying to describe a God we love.” Why should I fall out and hate and throw names at you when it’s through a glass darkly? None of our books on the Godhead will be on sale in heaven.

Now, we all err to a degree in our beliefs. And, when we discover our error, it is right and proper not only that we unreservedly embrace the truth, but also that we repent of our error and renounce it.

In summary, Jakes stated his position to be this:

1. He believes that orthodox Trinitarian doctrine fits some passages of Scripture but not others. (If Oneness doctrine fits some passages of Scripture then, by definition, Trinitarianism does not, as the two are mutually exclusive.)
2. He does not believe that the issue of modalism vs. Trinitarianism is one that should divide what he perceives to be the body of Christ. (This is also exactly what Apprising.org documented in November 2011.) In other words, Jakes’ considers that one’s beliefs concerning the Trinity are not a matter of fundamental import to the Christian Faith.
3. He affirms that he believes in ‘One God – Three Persons’, but is ‘not crazy about the word persons though’, and prefers to use the term ‘manifestations’, based on a single (misapplied) Bible verse. The statement of belief on his own congregation’s website does not use the word ‘three Persons’, but ‘three manifestations’.

Compare each of these three points with the settled historic orthodox Christian position:

1. The doctrine of the Trinity is taught by all the relevant Scriptures and, properly understood, none of them contradicts it. (That is, orthodox Trinitarianism fits all the Scriptures and reflects its whole counsel.)
2. From the time that modalism first arose, the Church has always unreservedly condemned it as a heresy that is fundamentally incompatible with the Gospel and Christian Faith. (Recall the final sentence of the Athanasian Creed: ‘This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.’)
3. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity specifically and definitively affirms three Persons of one substance (or subsistence), power, and eternity. The formulas used to express this doctrine have always been intentionally crafted to exclude the possibility of the Godhead being understood as a tri-unity of three manifestations of one Person.

Based on his actual words, is it the case that Jakes clearly and unequivocally affirmed the historic orthodox understanding of the Trinity? Did Jakes show that he understood the word ‘person’ as being resolutely in opposition to the word ‘manifestation’? Did he demonstrate that he understood the centrality of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity to the Gospel – Christ really and bodily crucified for our sins and raised from the dead, now at the right hand of the Father and interceding there as our Advocate with Him? Did Jakes repent of his former error of modalism, plainly repudiating that heresy as a valid Christian belief?

The answers to all these questions should be self evident.

It should also be abundantly clear that, even if Jakes personally believes in the Trinity, his refusal to condemn modalism as a heresy puts him outside the bounds of orthodoxy and places him at odds with the ecumenical creeds of the Christian Church.

Furthermore, ER2 achieved absolutely nothing with respect to clarifying Jakes’ views on the Trinity, because Jakes said nothing in ER2 that he has not said before.

On the 15 November 2011, Dan Phillips explained his objections to MacDonald’s invitation of Jakes. Phillips clearly linked to a September 2011 article on Here I Blog, documenting Jakes’ refusal in 2010 to reject unambiguously the heresy of modalism. The author of that article provides an extensive transcript of an interview with Jakes, conducted in 2010 by Sheridan Voysey on his show, Open House Interviews. The most pertinent extract is this:

Voysey: But what about your personally? [There is some crosstalk and the host points out that Jakes' church has a doctrinal statement that uses the word "manifestation" which is a term used by Oneness groups.]

Jakes: Yes, but my church is non-denominational. And we embrace people regardless of what denomination they come from. I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe that they are three Persons. I believe that in a way that Persons is a limited word for the Godhead. And even those who adhere to that say that to be true. But I think the issue is that they are distinctive. There are things that can be said about the Father that couldn’t be said about the Son and then the Holy Spirit… I believe that. I’ve grown into that, but I came into a Pentacostal church that happened to be Oneness. They loved me at a time that my father died. I became friends with them and in covenant with them and embraced them. And though I don’t agree with everything, and they don’t agree with everything, they’re evolving as a people.

Jakes here asserted that he believed in ‘three Persons’. He thus said nothing in ER2 that he hadn’t before.

Why did Jakes’ utterance of the phrase ‘three Persons’ not settle the matter? Simply, because the rest of Jakes’ language was ambivalent, and he failed to reject modalism as being incompatible with the Christian Faith.

Indeed, Jakes expressly states that he considers ‘Persons’ to be ‘a limited word for the Godhead’. What, exactly, does that statement mean? Is Jakes saying that the Godhead must subsist in multiple Persons? Or is he saying that, when he uses the word ‘Persons’, he simply means ‘Godhead’, and that his statements – including those he made in ER2 – should be understood accordingly (in which case, he most certainly did not affirm Trinitarian orthodoxy)? Is Jakes affirming orthodoxy, or denying it? The language is ambiguous, and this shows why it is essential that Trinitarian beliefs be tested by whether someone is willing to affirm Trinitarian doctrine using the tried-and-tested language of the historic orthodox Christian creeds and confessions. A first year seminary student knows this – MacDonald and Driscoll can surely not be in ignorance.

The author of the article on Here I Blog explains:

I asked Facebook friend, author and scholar, Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, who has published two books on the Trinity, his thoughts on Jakes’ comments in the above interview. Beisner replied:

Far, far, far too little evidence there to justify reclassifying Jakes as Trinitarian granted all he’s said before and his continuing to consider United Pentecostals his Christian brothers. Nothing quoted there falls outside what any reasonably sly and sophisticated United Pentecostal could say. Let Jakes clearly and explicitly affirm such clear Trinitarian statements as the Nicene Creed, the Symbol of Chalcedon, the Athanasian Creed, or even just Warfield’s summary–There is but one God; the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit each is God; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each is a distinct Person–and then let him also repudiate the anti-Trinitarian statements of United Pentecostalism and other modalist sects, and it’ll be time to declare him converted to the true God. My impression is that Jakes is simply out to gain the trust of larger groups than the Oneness and Pentecostal crowd in which he’s been at home.

As I see it, there is cause for concern over giving Jakes a platform with Evangelical Christians. It would be great if Jakes were loving confronted on his positions with Scripture so he can clearly say what he means. Even if it could be shown that Jakes is now Trinitarian it would seem from the few examples listed above that he is not carrying out the pastoral duties of the role which he claims to fill.

When it comes to T.D. Jakes and Elephant Room it seems there is a lack of discernment when it comes to association.

Dr. Beisner is completely correct. For Jakes to be considered orthodox, let him clearly and explicitly affirm a clear, orthodox Trinitarian creed or formula. And let him ‘repudiate the anti-Trinitarian statements of United Pentecostalism and other modalist sects’. Until he does both of these things, the controversy will remain unresolved, and it is unsafe to regard him as orthodox.

MacDonald was duly warned by Dan Phillips what was required from Jakes for him to be considered orthodox. MacDonald was also pressured by the leaders of The Gospel Coalition. And yet, neither MacDonald nor Driscoll showed any awareness of the need to push Jakes to make an unequivocal affirmation of Trinitarian belief in the language of an accepted orthodox formula. Nor did they suggest to Jakes in their conversation that he needed to repudiate the anti-Trinitarian statements of the modalist sects with which he has associated.

Instead, MacDonald and Driscoll have allowed Jakes once again to give the impression of orthodoxy, without requiring him to have demonstrated its substance. Furthermore, they have been responsible, along with Steven Furtick, of introducing him – and commending him as orthodox – to the huge new audience of mainstream evangelicalism. And finally, they have done a disservice to T.D. Jakes himself, by not driving him to clarify his position in unambiguous terms – either to exonerate his name, or to lay bare his error so that he may be lovingly called to repentance.

MacDonald concluded the ER2 session with these words:

The issue of the Trinity is not a small thing. It is central to Christianity and a pillar of orthodoxy. However, when a man confesses his trinitarianism, and people say, “Is he Trinitarian enough?” That’s when we need to turn down the rhetoric and let a man’s confession and fruitfulness speak for itself.

MacDonald is right in this: the issue of the Trinity is no small thing. But MacDonald knew beforehand what was required from Jakes in this conversation, and MacDonald did not deliver. MacDonald has merely inflamed the controversy and sown the seeds of confusion into the wider church.

Having considered the ‘man’s confession’, let us now turn to Jakes’ ‘fruitfulness’.

What does Jakes teach?

In my comprehensive review of Jakes’ Code Orange Revival Sermon, I compared the content of Jakes’ teaching to the Scriptures. MacDonald’s lavish commendation of that sermon was somewhat in contrast to my own assessment.

Who am I to have been so bold as to review Jakes’ sermon? Well, Paul instructs the Thessalonians to ‘Test all things; hold fast what is good’ (1 Thess. 5:21). Luke, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, commends the Jews of Berea for scrutinizing even the teaching of the Apostle Paul:

Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

(Acts 17:10–11)

No one, therefore – not even St. Paul the Apostle – is beyond Biblical scrutiny. It is the privilege of even the most lowly saint to test everything that he or she hears spoken in God’s name with His written word, to find out whether the things spoken are so.

There is, of course, no intrinsic reason why you should accept my assessment of Jakes’ sermon over MacDonald’s. So go to the Scriptures for yourself, be like the Bereans, and ask this: ‘Who has made their case carefully in accordance with the Scriptures?’

Someone might object that it is unfair to judge Jakes’ doctrine on the basis of a single sermon. A sermon, perhaps. But that one?

Still, let us give Jakes the benefit of the doubt and examine more of what he teaches.

Do MacDonald and Driscoll affirm the promises that Jakes makes on behalf of God in this video, and the basis upon which he makes them? (The context for this clip is provided by the final video below.)

And do they affirm what Jakes believes concerning non-Christians and unrepentant sinners going to heaven?

(The two young men in that video show immeasurably greater Biblical discernment than either MacDonald or Driscoll.)

Do MacDonald and Driscoll find the following to be a faithful exegesis and legitimate application of 2 Kings 6:4–6? (You may safely skip the first three or four minutes.)

Has Jakes repudiated and repented of any of this teaching?

Do these videos – and there are many others readily available showing similar teaching – evidence the sort of ‘fruitfulness’ that MacDonald and Driscoll would commend as demonstrating a pastor’s orthodoxy?

Apparently so, as evidenced by this post-ER2 tweet:

What say you, Pastor James and Pastor Mark? Will you now repudiate the teaching of Jakes that is on display here? Will you, out of love for him and for the flock over which the Lord has made you shepherds, call him to repent?

How very far have we have fallen.

Yet even this, our great sin of apostasy, can be forgiven. May the Lord have mercy on his Church, cause us to repent, and to trust in Him for the remission of all our sins, and in His righteousness put to our account.

But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

(2 Tim. 3:14–4:5)

…Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

(Eph. 5:25–27)

Further reading

• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: The emergence of pachydermism
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room

Update

A full transcript of the session is now available, courtesy of Tom Chantry. There are minor wording differences from that quoted above, but nothing substantive. Tom also has a link to an unofficial video of the session.

Dan Phillips of the Pyromaniacs immediately weighed-in with his article, Even better than The Race Card™. Phillips called out MacDonald for implicitly claiming divine authority, and for MacDonald’s accusing The Gospel Coalition’s leadership of sin for disagreeing with him.

Today, MacDonald has given his critics yet more ammunition, even before his conversation with T.D. Jakes.

Chris Rosebrough writes on his Letter of Marque blog:

Today, I traveled to Rowling Meadows, Illinois to attend James MacDonald’s Elephant Room 2 conversations. Upon entering the event venue I was met by a security guard and Jim Rowan, an elder at Harvest Bible Chapel and was promptly told that my entrance to the Elephant Room had been revoked and that I had to immediately leave the premises or I would be arrested for trespassing.

Erin Benziger recounts a similar story on her Do Not Be Surprised blog:

About 45 minutes ago, a friend and I walked through the doors of Harvest Bible Chapel in Rolling Meadows, IL. Why? To attend The Elephant Room 2, of course! Upon approaching the registration desk, the volunteers noticed that they could not find my name tag. I was ushered to the side, where I was confronted by Harvest Bible Chapel elder Jim Rowan and told that my registration had been revoked and refunded and that I was to leave the premises immediately. Hm, so now what is the elephant in the room?

This is The Elephant Room’s ‘Purpose Statement’:

The Elephant Room is more than an event. It is the outgrowth of an idea. The idea that the best way forward for the followers of Jesus lies not in crouching behind walls of disagreement but in conversation among all kinds of leaders about what the scriptures actually teach. We must insist on the biblical Gospel, right doctrine and practice but not isolate ourselves from relationship even with those who believe much differently.

Why, then, is the Elephant Room turning away at the door and threatening with arrest independent apologists who have pre-registered and travelled to attend? Why do they think fellowship with modalist T.D. Jakes is acceptable, but not that with orthodox Christians contending for the true Gospel and the Faith once delivered?

Chris Rosebrough’s observation is apposite:

Seems to me that the Elephant in the Room is the fact that the ONLY voices that James MacDonald and company are willing to hear are those that agree with them.

The Elephant Room has engaged in absolutely disgraceful, hypocritical and shameful behaviour. Rosebrough and Benziger were not even accorded the basic courtesy of being informed of their disinvitation before they went out of their way to travel to the event.

Why are the organizers of the Elephant Room frightened of independent scrutiny? What are they hiding?

This is one story that isn’t going to go away.

Update

Ken Silva of Apprising.org was speaking to Rosebrough on the phone when Rosebrough was turned away. The details of his account underline the dishonourable conduct of those behind The Elephant Room.

Update 2

Chris Rosebrough has uploaded a podcast discussing this event.

Update 3

Chris Rosebrough’s interview with Pastor Todd Wilken of Issues, Etc. (included in the Fighting For The Faith segment) is also available separately.

T.D. Jakes is the leader of The Potter’s House, a 30,000 member congregation located in southern Dallas, Texas. I had never heard a T.D. Jakes sermon before, though I knew of his reputation. I was curious to see – if only via an Internet video stream – the man that Elevation Church reminded us was named ‘America’s Best Preacher’ by Time Magazine. Would I be able to uncover the secret of his mystique? And would he preach the Biblical Gospel?

After 40 minutes or so of emotionally intense praise and worship, Steven Furtick, founder and lead pastor of Elevation Church, introduces Jakes to the manifestly ecstatic, cheering crowd. Furtick promises that God is about to speak to us, that our lives will never be the same:

God’s gonna honour your faith. He’s going to shake you, and He’s gonna remake you. And He’s gonna do things in your life that will blow your mind. And we’re believing that for you tonight.

We’re in revival. If you’re joining us from all over the world, you need to know that this is night 10 of Code Orange Revival. We’re coming to you live from Elevation Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, reaching over a 100 countries all over the world. And God has made an appointment with you tonight. He’s about to speak something to you. Your life will never be the same. In His presence is fullness of joy.

These things are not being done in a corner.

Furtick is on a roll:

If you’ve never heard T.D. Jakes preach, listen, you have heard Bishop T.D. Jakes preach. Let me explain that. Every preacher who has anything to say rips off Bishop T.D. Jakes. Bishop T.D. Jakes is the preacher, if you attend this church, who feeds your soul every single week. And you didn’t even ever know to write him a thank you note. Most of us quit apologising for how much we ripped-off Bishop T.D. Jakes a long time ago, because we were taking more time in our sermons attributing the credit to him for the way he fed our souls than we were actually preaching. So when Bishop Jakes said that he would be with us at Code Orange Revival, I just made up my mind that we would sing just enough to get you ready, and not show any videos or anything like that, and that I would sit down on my orange chair on the stage, and I would have the best night of my life listening to my favourite preacher in the world.

That’s some build-up. But Furtick has not yet finished:

When someone has touched your soul and been an instrument of God that speaks so deeply to you, and then, he agrees to come and share with your church, and help build your church, that’s gotta be one of the most meaningful moments of your life.

I want you to know, Bishop Jakes, that there’s a whole generation of younger pastors who, because you’ve been a pioneer to stay faithful to God’s word, and to preach with such power, that we’re now charging forward in the name of Jesus. And I want to let you know personally, that I’m gonna do my best to make you proud.

Furtick concludes his panegyric:

I appreciate the fact that you would come and be with us tonight. But, more importantly, I appreciate the fact that you’ve got a bunch of hungry people in here, who are about to lose their minds. Elevation Church, at every location, I want you to stand up on your feet right now, and let’s welcome to the stage the Greatest Preacher of Our Time – Bishop T.D. Jakes. Come on, let’s show him some embarrassing love.

Jakes takes the stage. He acknowledges the crowd’s standing ovation.

His charisma is immediately apparent.

He courts the crowd with some gentle banter. He is approachable. He is humorous. He is the embodiment of the idealized kindly grandfather.

He is your grandfather.

The audience cheer and offer their applause. This is the one whom those camping outside on the streets came to see.

Jakes praises Steven Furtick and Elevation Church. The Elevators love him. And Jakes makes sure that they know their love is reciprocated.

Jakes impresses with his modesty. With a suddenly faltering vulnerability, he declares:

I’m gonna spend most of my time just going right, er, er, to, to the word of God. I’m, er, um, honoured and appreciative of all of His goodness in my life. And, er, [I’m] trying to seek Him, trying to serve Him, trying to learn more of His grace and power. I, I think that I am more fascinated with Him now than I have ever been in my life.

Jakes carefully modulates his speech.

He starts softly, then builds to a minor crescendo, as he demonstrates that he is steeped in the knowledge and language of the Scriptures, the result of 33 years of ministry. With a rhythmic cadence, Jakes proclaims the praises of a majestic God:

It will never grow old. It will never grow weary. You will never reach the end of Him. From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God. His, His riches are unsearchable. His love incomprehensible. His ways past finding out. You will grow old and wither away, and still be searching the newness of God. His mercies are new every morning. Aren’t you glad you’re washed in the blood of the Lamb?

The cheering audience is enraptured. Surely, this is how a man of God must speak.

Little wonder that Furtick is captured by his spell.

Barely a few minutes in and Jakes, the master communicator who overcame his childhood lisp, has already won this crowd.

They trust him.

He is the humble, faithful servant who loves his God.

Abruptly, the tone changes. Everyone relaxes. Jakes turns to Hebrews chapter 4. We’re going to start in the Scriptures, as befits the preaching of the man from God.

Unexpectedly, there’s a problem. Jakes has lost one of his notes.

Temporarily disoriented, he looks around.

Someone hands him the missing note, just in time to prevent the enchantment from being shattered.

Jakes changes tempo – he’s back in control. He has everyone stand for the reading of God’s word. Jakes reads from the King James Version – he is reassuringly and self-deprecatingly old school.

We begin with the eighth chapter of the Gospel of Luke, verse forty-six:

And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.

He elaborates a little on the text, then moves quickly to Hebrews 4:15–16. He wants to ‘play with these two texts and see whether we can get them to cohabitate [sic] together.’

Jakes jokes with the crowd as he waits for them to find the book of Hebrews. They laugh adoringly with him.

Jakes begins to read:

For we have not an high priest which cannot be…

He pauses for a fraction of a second.

He enunciates the next word – ‘touched’ – with explosive emphasis.

He continues his recitation:

…with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come [‘How?’, Jakes interjects] boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Jakes reads with passion and feeling. You could listen to him read Scripture all day and still be eager for more.

He explains that he read all of that to get one word: ‘Touched, touched’.

Touch is the theme of tonight’s sermon.

Jakes changes pace. The crowd needs their release, a moment to reflect upon the word ‘touched’. The background music, which had stopped unnoticed minutes before, now resumes as Jakes prays, beseeching the Holy Spirit for His glory. Jakes’ humility is again on display:

There really is no preacher but You. There is no glory but Yours. There is no word but that word which proceedeth out of Your mouth. And we come before You like sparrows with our mouths open, waiting for, for bread to fall into our mouths. Feed us O God, until we want no more.

As Jakes finishes his prayer, he builds up to another carefully crafted crescendo – higher than the last, but nevertheless merely anticipatory of those yet to come. He truly is lord of the rhetorical arts and master of his own voice, consciously aware of the effect of his intonation’s every nuance.

Jakes begins his sermon proper. He talks at length about the importance and power of human touch. Words are insufficient – some meaning can be conveyed only through touch.

His discussion moves back to the book of Hebrews. He outlines with an infectious enthusiasm his understanding of the book: it is a comparative analysis of the Old and New covenants, ‘so that we might understand that what we have in our contemporary society – through the blood of Jesus Christ – is a better thing.’

This is the evening’s second mention of the blood of Christ. Surely, we must be hearing Gospel?

Jakes holds forth on why the New Covenant is better than the Old:

[God] always takes you to something better, never lesser. God is always in the business of taking you forwards, never backwards. He’s not in the business of diminishing you, he’s in the business of increasing you. He doesn’t want to divide you, he wants to multiply you. He doesn’t want to subtract from you, he wants to add on to you. And wherever God is, He will take you from faith to faith, and from glory to glory.

The crowd laps up the rhetoric. This is what they have yearned to hear. Jakes waits for the applause to quiet.

A niggling doubt begins to surface.

Is this the Gospel? That God is in the business of ‘increasing us’? Is that why the blood of Christ was shed?

What of John the Baptist, who said ‘He must increase, but I must decrease’ (John 3:30)? Has not the Lord ‘made all things for himself’, ‘even the wicked for the day of doom’ (Prov. 16:4)? Are not all things made for His benefit and His glory? Paul said – did he not? – ‘For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.’ (Rom. 11:36)

But perhaps Jakes is speaking of a spiritual increase, whereby, in the language of Luther’s Small Catechism, our old nature is drowned by daily sorrow and repentance, put to death, ‘that the new man should come forth daily and rise up, cleansed and righteous, to live forever in God’s presence’. For twice already Jakes has invoked the blood of Christ – surely he will bring us the Gospel.

Jakes tests his sway over his audience. He tells them, ‘Look at someone and say it’s getting better’.

They obey.

He has them utterly in thrall.

The crowd offers the appropriate liturgical response: ‘It’s getting better.’

Is this the Good News, then? That my life is continually getting better?

Was this the experience and hope of Stephen, calling upon the Lord to receive his spirit as he succumbed to the stones being hurled at him for the sake of the Gospel (Acts 7)? And what of Paul and his chains (Phil. 1)? Or the other apostles – all martyred, save John, as history recounts.

Jakes continues:

You have to know that. And you have to know that by faith, because sometimes, when He takes something or someone out of your life, the enemy will tempt you to think that your life is on a decline. But there is no way your life can be on a decline and you serve the Lord. Because He’s ever increasing brighter and brighter and brighter, to a perfect day. So if He pulled it out, if He took it away, if He moved it, it is only a sign that something is coming that is better than the thing before.

Something surely is coming that is better than what went before: ‘He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ’ (Phil. 1:6). ‘For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.’ (1 Cor. 13:12)

Could that be what Jakes means?

Jakes is right in this: the New Covenant is better than the Old. And this is indeed a major theme of the book of Hebrews.

But, for the writer to the Hebrews, the ‘better’ of the New Covenant is the perfect once-for-all sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, contrasted with the Old Covenant, which:

…having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.

(Heb. 10:1)

According to Hebrews, then, the superiority of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood is the once-for-all washing away of our sins 2,000 years ago at Calvary. The inferiority of the Old Covenant was demonstrated by the need for its continual sacrifices. These were a constant reminder of Israel’s ever present sins. The sacrifices had to be repeated, for it was impossible that sins could ever be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats (Heb. 10:4). Yet, what the sacrifices of the Old Covenant could not do, Christ accomplished once and for all on the cross.

Jakes, however, though he gives the impression of having expounded the book of Hebrews, does not mention sin or the need for propitiatory sacrifice.

Jakes, for the moment, leaves the ‘better’ of the New Covenant unexplained, except that, somehow, God is now in the business of increasing us. The New Covenant is better, because, well, it just is. And thus, for us, Jakes says, ‘It’s getting better’.

The ‘It’ in Jakes’ affirmation is left undefined, leaving us free to substitute whatever happens to appeal to our carnal desires. His message is universal, appealing to fallen human natures everywhere.

Not once does Jakes carefully delineate between the earthly blessings of this life and the spiritual riches that are surely ours in Christ. When Jakes says, ‘It’s getting better’, everyone implicitly understands that he is talking about this life. The spirit of Joel Osteen’s Best Life Now speaks to us.

When Paul asks ‘Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?’, he makes plain the ever present probability in the life of the believer of tribulation, distress, physical want, and yes, even death:

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written:

“For Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”

(Rom. 8:35–36)

Christ’s love does not spare us from these troubles, but rather overcomes them. Christ’s love and grace supply our every need, causing us to endure all things to His glory. Thus, Paul asserts:

Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

(Rom. 8:37–39)

Similarly, James tells us to ‘count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience.’ (James 1:2–3).

Jesus does not promise us freedom from trouble and distress. Rather, he pronounces blessed ‘those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven’. (Matt. 5:10)

‘Blessed’, Jesus says, ‘are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.’ He bids us ‘Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.’ (Matt. 5:11–12)

The Christian’s hope and reward is not in this life. Our hope is Christ; our reward – and what reward! – is to be with Him in heaven forever.

When Jakes talks of ‘It’s getting better’, he leaves us free to understand that he means this life, here and now. He commits the error of all word-faith teachers, claiming for this temporal life the blessings that belong to the eternal glory to come. He omits to mention the present tribulations and persecutions that Jesus indicates are in store for the faithful.

Jakes uses Biblical language. He even speaks of ‘the blood of Christ’. But in this sermon, that phrase can be no more than a magic incantation, for he tells us nothing of why our sin required that blood to be shed.

Christ commissioned His Church to preach ‘repentance and remission of sins’ (Luke 24:44–48), yet Jakes speaks neither of repentance nor of forgiveness.

Jakes returns to his text:

The thing, then, for the book of Hebrews, is the book of better things. And so what he is saying in the text, he says ‘We have not a high priest who cannot be touched’. The implication is almost, is almost a slur to that which is former, compared to that which exists now. Because up under the former administration through the Old Testament and the Old Covenant, there were high priests as well. But they could not be touched. They could not be touched. It almost reminds of a comparative analysis between religion and relationships.

Jakes here quotes only the first few words of Hebrews 4:15: ‘We have not a high priest who cannot be touched’. He builds on these words to make the point that the crucial difference between the Old and New Covenants is that we have a High Priest who can be touched, whereas the laws of the Old Covenant made the high priests untouchable. The Old Covenant was cold and religious. The New Covenant is warm and relational. We can touch our High Priest.

Jakes has played a verbal sleight of hand, a conjuring trick with words. Hebrews 4:15 does not teach that we can reach out and touch our High Priest. This is clear if the whole verse is quoted, even in Jakes’ King James Version:

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

The problem becomes glaring if a modern translation is compared. Here is the same verse from the New King James Version:

For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

This verse teaches not that we can reach out and touch Jesus, but that Christ can sympathize with our weakness – and specifically, our weakness in the face of temptation – because, like us, He was tempted in every way.

The incarnate Christ is fully human. He knows our weakness, and sympathizes with it. Unlike the high priests of the Old Testament, though, and unlike us, He never succumbed to temptation and remains without sin. Our High Priest’s sacrifice of Himself is pleasing to God because He is sinless.

But can Jakes really be intending to preach an entire sermon based upon a basic misreading of Hebrews 4:15?

As we continue to listen, it becomes clear that yes, yes he is.

Jakes introduces us to some more of his innovative theology:

[God] paid the ultimate price, that He might express the value of you by dying on the cross to give you eternal life. Never let any devil in hell make you think that you’re not valuable. Not based on the mistakes you made, or the things you did, or the circumstances of your birth. Not based on your economy, not based on your intellect, your education, or anything like that. Any time you doubt your worth, you tell the enemy ‘I must be valuable because Jesus died for me’. He died for me. I must be somebody, or He wouldn’t have died for me. No matter what I did, no matter what I’ve been through, no matter what mistakes I’ve made, I’ve got to be valuable because He’s shed His blood for me.

Touch your neighbour and say, ‘I am somebody’.

(The cheering audience, now on their feet and well conditioned, obeys.)

I am somebody only because Jesus paid a price to recognize my worth. I will never doubt my worth again.

Did Jesus die for us to recognize our intrinsic worth?

Is that the Gospel?

Or is the grace of God so overwhelming, His love so great that, even though we had no worth, even while we were rebels and at war with God, even though we had nothing whatsoever to offer Him, God nevertheless sent His only begotten Son to die in our place and purchase us as His pearl of great price?

In thesis 28 of his Heidelberg Disputation, Luther explains the Biblical teaching:

The love of God does not find, but creates, that which is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through that which is pleasing to it.

We love the things that we find loveable. In Christ, God’s love takes we who are unloveable and makes us lovely.

Those who are in Christ by faith, those who are trusting in His work for them and not their work for Him, have truly been made into something beautiful and glorifying to God. Christ did not die for us because we were acceptable to God, but rather ‘He made us accepted in the beloved’. (Eph. 1:6) We, having been given the gift of trusting in Christ, are now to the praise of His glory. (Eph. 1:12) We have worth, then, because we are in Christ. We are not in Christ because we have worth.

If we had something to offer God, our salvation would not be by grace. Yet the grace of God bestowed upon us is unmerited favour:

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. 2:8–10)

Jakes’ gospel glorifies us. It ascribes to us an intrinsic worth even outside of Christ. The true Gospel glorifies Christ, proclaiming His love and tender mercy even towards those who were utterly without merit.

Jakes’ gospel has no need to speak of sin, only ‘mistakes’, for his god looks upon sinners and sees their worth. The true Gospel has Jesus crucified in the place of sinners and for their sin, for without Christ’s appeasing sacrifice we should be consumed by the eternal wrath of a perfectly Holy and terrifyingly righteous God.

Jakes’ gospel speaks of the blood of the Lamb, but merely as a token of our intrinsic worth. The true Gospel speaks of the blood of the Lamb as that which cleanses us from sin, that which justifies, that which sanctifies, and that which glorifies. The true Gospel speaks of the perfect sacrifice for sins, once made forever:

By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

(Heb. 10:10–18)

Jakes returns again to his theme of touch:

We have a High Priest who can be touched…He’s accessible. You can reach Him. You don’t need special people in the Church to reach Him. You don’t have to reach me and ask me to reach Him.

The definition of ‘touch’ has shifted. It now means ‘accessible’.

And what Jakes says here is true. But it is still not the meaning of the text he is expounding. He makes a valid point using invalid means. His is not a faithful handling of God’s word.

Jakes continues, demonstrating that he does understand on a certain level what Hebrews 4:15 actually says, that it’s not about us touching Jesus, but Jesus sympathizing with our weaknesses:

You cannot stop me from reaching God. He can be touched by the feeling of our infirmity. And sometimes He is the only one who knows how you feel.

Jakes makes a seamless transition, moving from touch being our reaching out to God, to Christ being touched by the feeling our infirmity, sympathizing with our weakness.

Even here, though, we have a subtle twist. Christ’s sympathy for our plight in the face of temptation is made into a general sympathy for how we feel. This is not what the text says.

Jakes clearly knows what Hebrews 4:15 teaches, but that does not stop him from preaching at length from that text ideas not found within it. This is not how to handle God’s word. This is not according it due respect. This is not a model of preaching to be emulated.

Jakes picks a verse because it contains a word – one word, as he stated – that he wants to use to make his point. He then uses that verse to lend a veneer of Biblical authority to whatever he has already decided to say. This is not the behaviour of a great preacher.

Jakes continues with his cavalier attitude towards the text.

In context, the word ‘infirmities’ in Hebrews 4:15 is speaking of our sin:

Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses [‘infirmities’, KJV], but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

(Heb. 4:14–16, NKJV)

These verses contrast our sin with Christ’s sinlessness. Yet Jakes now takes the word ‘infirmities’ out of its context, and through wordplay almost imperceptibly changes the topic to that of our physical sicknesses. Speaking on behalf of God, he says:

It is the feeling of your infirmity that touches me. Your humility touches me. Your tears touch me. Your needs touch me.

This is shocking truth at the time that it is heralded in the word of God, because the ideology previously is that anybody who had infirmities couldn’t touch God. But now He has been wounded for our transgressions. He has been bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace is upon Him. And with his stripes we are healed.

Hebrews 14:15 does not teach that our humility touches God, nor our tears. It teaches that Christ understands our temptation, because He Himself was tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin.

Jakes’ quoting of Isaiah 53:5 ought to be pure, comforting Gospel. But Jakes has not told us of our sin, and so we do not know our need of the Gospel. Jakes instead uses Isaiah to shift the topic, because he wants to talk about physical healing. And thus he moves to the subject of the Luke 8:46 verse that he read earlier: the woman with the issue of blood.

As he promised, Jakes has indeed played with the texts. He has forced them to cohabit.

There is much that could be discussed concerning Jakes’ extended handling of this text, but the pattern has been established. He handles this verse in a similarly cavalier way to his treatment of Hebrews 4:15. He emphasizes the word ‘touched’ in Luke 8:46. He makes the verse about us, about how we can reach out and touch Christ. Jakes again plays with words:

You must understand this woman has an issue that has engrossed her and overwhelmed her. And sometimes when we’re praying we have an issue, all we talk about is the issue. Oh Lord…do something about my issue, do something about my situation. And after a while…the only thing that’s big to you is your problem.

The woman’s issue of blood becomes our ‘issue’ – our situation, our problem. Jakes builds upon his new textual victim, teaching that we can reach out and touch Jesus, and that, when we do, He will fix our issues, our problems.

But Luke 8:46 is not about us. It is a historical record of one woman’s encounter with Jesus. It is not normative for our faith and practice. It does not teach that we can reach out and touch Jesus, and that He will then fix our problems in this life.

The woman’s issue of blood is not representative of our issues, our problems. Rather, the miracles that Jesus did in fulfilment of prophecy authenticated His ministry, demonstrating that He was the promised Messiah, God made flesh.

This is clear from Luke’s own gospel, in the chapter immediately prior to the one from which Jakes’ takes his text:

Then the disciples of John reported to him concerning all these things. And John, calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to Jesus, saying, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?”

When the men had come to Him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to You, saying, ‘Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?’ ” And that very hour He cured many of infirmities, afflictions, and evil spirits; and to many blind He gave sight.

Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard: that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me.”

(Luke 7:18–23)

In the book of Acts, this same Luke records Peter explaining the purpose of the miracles that Jesus performed:

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

(Acts 2:22–24)

Once again, Jakes mishandles the Holy Scripture, taking a verse out of context and misapplying it to make a point of his own devising. He expertly clothes his error with Biblical language, obfuscating it with generous portions of truth.

Having shifted the ground, Jakes introduces a subtle version of the word-faith heresy, which teaches that the confession of our mouth actualizes reality:

And whenever you start talking more about your problem than you do your promise, you are praising your problem. And whatever you praise will be magnified in your life. Let’s explore this a little bit.

Time passes.

Jakes continues to whip up the crowd into ever increasing crescendos of ecstatic frenzy. They love him. They love his message.

I fear for him.

I fear for those who love his teaching.

Please, pray for him.

Please, pray for them.

Jakes now mocks faithful, humble, Biblical Christians, his voice saturated with scorn:

You’ll never get what you want from God being passive, sitting back and folding your arms and saying, ‘Well, if it’s the Lord’s will’. That woman [the woman with the issue] would have died praying ‘If it’s the Lord’s will’.

The crowd goes wild.

Jakes continues:

It, it wasn’t just about the Lord’s will. It was about her will.

You have a will – that God respects.

He created us with a will, an ability to make choices and make decisions…we have a will. That’s why he asks one man, ‘Wilt thou be made whole. Do you want it bad enough to crawl for it? Do you want it bad enough to go through what you gotta go through to get it? Do you want it bad enough to be laughed at and criticized, not be popular at work, and they call you a Christian and make jokes about you? How bad do you want it?

Contrast this with Jesus’ prayer to the Father:

Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.

Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him. And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

(Luke 22:42–44)

Compare Jakes’ words with how Jesus taught His disciples how to pray:

So He said to them, “When you pray, say:

Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.

(Luke 11:2–3)

Or the teaching of James:

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit”; whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.” But now you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil.

(James 4:13–16)

Or that of John:

Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him

(1 John 5:14–15)

The petition that God hears and grants is the petition made in accordance with His will. The Christian life is one of putting to death our own will, the desires of our flesh, that the express will of God might instead reign in us:

And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Gal. 5:25)

Jakes’ doctrine is arrogant. It is not from God. He magnifies us, and diminishes our Sovereign Creator. Heed the wisdom of Solomon:

Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all.
For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.

(Ecc. 12:13–14)

Jakes continues to glorify our own spirits:

The human spirit – I’m not talking about the Holy Spirit – the human spirit is so strong that doctors will tell you that there have been cancer patients eaten up with cancer. They said ‘You’ll be dead in 30 days.’ And by sheer will, they have lived. I’m talking about the human spirit – I’m not even talking about the Holy Spirit…if the human spirit is that strong, imagine what happens when you add the holy.

The subtle version of the word-faith heresy introduced but moments earlier grows rapidly towards full maturity.

We see now why Jakes dared only to read a single verse from Luke 8. Had he read the story of the woman in context, it would have been plain that it was not the woman’s ‘aggressive’, bold and powerful will that made her well. No, it was her faith – her childlike trust in the ability and compassion of Jesus:

But as He went, the multitudes thronged Him. Now a woman, having a flow of blood for twelve years, who had spent all her livelihood on physicians and could not be healed by any, came from behind and touched the border of His garment. And immediately her flow of blood stopped.

And Jesus said, “Who touched Me?”

When all denied it, Peter and those with him said, “Master, the multitudes throng and press You, and You say, ‘Who touched Me?’”

But Jesus said, “Somebody touched Me, for I perceived power going out from Me. Now when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling; and falling down before Him, she declared to Him in the presence of all the people the reason she had touched Him and how she was healed immediately.

And He said to her, “Daughter, be of good cheer; your faith has made you well. Go in peace.”

(Luke 8:42–48)

Jakes continues his eisegesis, reading into the text with great profundity that which is not there.

The crowd, wild with excitement, does not care. They are utterly enchanted by his spell.

The music reappears, signalling the beginning of the end.

Jakes tells the crowd that God gave Him this message: ‘God told me, when you get to Code Orange, He said, tell my people, “You’re not just having a 12 day revival. You’re having a 12 day resurrection.”’

This self-proclaimed prophet of God launches into a frenzied series of final crescendos. This is the consummation for which he has been labouring, artfully seducing his audience.

The crowd is on its feet, clapping, hands waving, cheering. Dramatic music plays.

There is more revelation directly from God. ‘God says,’ claims Jakes, ‘I’m still touching. Whatever you want. Whatever you need.’

Again, Jakes gives free rein to our wants, our desires.

God is still touching, says Jakes. This message, this sermon, must therefore have been what God wanted Elevation to hear, never mind that it misrepresented and twisted God’s Holy word.

Jakes is still speaking:

Let him touch you.

You might be watching on a screen, you may be watching over the Internet, but allow the power of the Holy of the Spirit touch you right now. You might have a condition or an issue that has persisted in your life for years. But oh my God, the glory of God is here to minister in your life.

A singer sings He Touched Me.

Jakes declaims again, his voice charged with emotion:

I feel the Spirit of God sweeping up and down these aisles. The glory of the Lord is moving from pew to pew. Hallelujah. His presence is in this place right now. You don’t have an issue that he cannot fix. Every situation, every circumstance, every problem is within His grasp. You are to allow the Holy Spirit to do a new thing in your life right now. To heal you, to minister to you, and set you free. The glory of the Lord is here. Touch causes growth. You can’t grow in God if you won’t touch Him and allow Him to touch you.

Here we have another confusion of temporal and eternal promises in Christ. Can God fix my every problem in this life? Certainly. Does He promise in His word that He will? No.

Jakes’ teaching is deadly to those who are enticed by it. They trust in God to fix the problems of this life, to keep them from trial and tribulation. And should He not accede to their arrogant expectation, their faith is shipwrecked, because it was founded not upon the sure and certain promises of God’s word in Christ as recorded in the Scriptures, but upon the false words of a self-proclaimed prophet.

This preaching gives people a transient emotional high. It scratches itching ears, speaking into them what they are eager to hear. It manipulates, it deludes, it defrauds. Afterwards, when tribulation or persecution arises, immediately its victims stumble. They are lost, inoculated to the true Gospel. They have tried Christianity, so they think, and found it full of empty promises – it doesn’t work.

Is T.D. Jakes the Greatest Preacher of Our Time?

Only if the measure of greatness is the ability to play a virtuoso performance on the emotions of a crowd.

But that is not the Biblical measure of great preaching, which rather esteems fidelity to the text, and the ability to make the proper distinction between Law and Gospel. Law, to frighten comfortable sinners, to show us our need for a Saviour, to teach those who trust in Christ the perfect standard of godly living. Gospel, the power of Salvation to all who believe, that sweet comfort of Christ declaring ‘It is finished’, His having reconciled us to God and saved us through His perfect life, death and resurrection.

Jakes is concluding. He commands by divine authority that I allow the Holy Spirit to do a new thing in my life right now.

But does the Holy Spirit require my permission before He works in me? If so, how was I ever saved, when I was once His enemy and dead in my trespasses and sin?

In quiet, tremulous tones, Jakes pleads repeatedly over the music and song for us to ‘Touch Him’.

Even here, Jakes leaves us with a problem. For he has not yet told us how to touch Jesus. Jesus isn’t standing bodily before me, as he was for the woman with the issue of blood. I can’t reach out with my hand and touch the hem of His garment, as did she.

Jakes instructs the now reflective audience to ‘Climb over every obstacle and excuse.’

He changes tone. He feels the pain of every individual in the crowd. He assures them, ‘God wants to stop your issue, and set you free.’

Has God said in His word that He wants to stop your issue? By what authority, then, does Jakes proclaim this?

Jakes is well into his emotive plea for people to be saved:

Now, He won’t make you be saved. And He won’t make the backslider come back to Him. And He won’t make you be a Christian. You have to use an act of your will and say “I want this, I want this.”’

Is this true? Does the Scripture teach that we are saved through an act of our will?

Or does the Scripture instead teach that we ‘were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God’ (John 1:13)? Does it teach that ‘No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him’ (John 6:44)? Does it teach that ‘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’ (Eph. 2:8–9)?

Jakes pleads:

Wherever you are, if you’re here and you want to be a Christian, or if you’ve drifted away and you wanna come back to the Lord, would you raise your hand? Right where you are, and say, ‘I wanna be saved’?

What does Jakes mean, by ‘I wanna be saved’? Saved from what?

He gives his answer:

If the woman with the issue of blood with all of her problems and obstacles can say, ‘I want this’, lift that hand up! Yes! Lift it up! Yes!

For Jakes, salvation is deliverance from the problems and obstacles of this life. This is his beguiling message, for who would not want that? And, having heard his sermon, the fervent crowd has believed the lie that this is what God is offering them.

A few more words, and Jakes is done.

Furtick steps forward. ‘The Bible says that the angels in heaven rejoice when one sinner turns from their sins’.

The crowd cheers and claps.

Wait, what was that? – ‘when one sinner turns from their sins’?

But we have heard nothing at all about our sins from Jakes, only about our ‘issues’.

For Jakes, our problem is not that we have grievously offended an infinitely Holy and righteous God with our sin, and that He is therefore justly angry with us. For Jakes, our problem is not that we are deservedly facing an eternity in hell. No, for him, our problem is that we have issues in this life.

With his misdiagnosis of the human condition, Jakes’ gospel is necessarily false. His gospel is not that Christ died to bear the punishment for our sin and rose from the dead, but that Jesus died to show us our worth and to fix our problems.

Furtick, though, is smitten. He tells us that we’ve just received ‘one of the greatest gifts in the body of Christ’ – the treasure of God’s word through Bishop T.D. Jakes.

But we didn’t hear the proclamation of repentance and the forgiveness of sins.

We didn’t hear the Law or the Gospel.

We didn’t, then, hear God’s word.

And never once did Jakes make anything of the second half of Hebrews 4:15 – that the reason Jesus is able to sympathize with our weaknesses is that He was ‘in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.’ And that, therefore, we should ‘come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and grace to help in time of need’.

The writer to the Hebrews speaks not of a ‘Jesus who can fix my problems’, but of the Jesus who lived the sinless life that I could not and can not. It tells us of the Jesus whose righteousness is now put to our account by faith, so that we may come boldly to His throne and receive grace and mercy without fear or condemnation.

And how I need that grace and mercy! For even this very day, I find myself mired in sin and in need of forgiveness. I have not loved the Lord my God with all my heart, mind, soul and strength. I have not loved my neighbour as myself. Not even for a moment. I need, right now, a High Priest who has made a perfect sacrifice for my sins. I need His flawless righteousness put to my account.

Furtick finishes by telling Elevation that they have to ‘expect God to bless you because you’ve been a part of this’.

I am excluded, because I wasn’t part of that. I haven’t been on pilgrimage to the Holy City of Charlotte, North Carolina. I haven’t entered into the great Temple of Elevation Church. I have not worshipped at the feet of Bishop T.D. Jakes.

And, do you know what?

I’m glad.

Because I have something infinitely better.

I have a sinless High Priest who sympathizes with our weaknesses.

A sinless High Priest who took our sin upon Himself on the cross, and now pronounces absolution through His sure word.

A sinless High Priest who bids us come boldly to His throne of grace, that we might obtain mercy and grace to help in this time of need.

Repent, then, and believe this Good News.

Postscript

I have deliberately eschewed writing here about Jakes’ embrace of the heresy of modalism as valid Christian doctrine, notwithstanding modalism’s lethal opposition to the historic orthodox Christian faith, which is necessarily Trinitarian. Yes, the offering of mainstream evangelical platforms to such a man is a cause for profound alarm and ought certainly to have us weeping in fearful repentance before the Holy One who is Truth. But this was not that post.

Update

The official video of the T.D. Jakes’ sermon reviewed here is now available online: Code Orange Revival Night 10 – T.D. Jakes.

Update 2: further reading

Readers may also be interested in:

• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room
• Elephant Room 2: The emergence of pachydermism

SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act) is a bill before the United States House of Representatives; PIPA (the Protect IP Act, where ‘IP’ stands for ‘Intellectual Property’) is its counterpart in the United States Senate. The forces behind these bills are lobbying for draconian rules that will, among other things:

1. Enable copyright holders to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Search engines could then be required to remove links to such sites, and the companies that provide your Internet service could be ordered to block access to them.
2. Make the unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months.
3. Give immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement.
4. Make websites liable for the comments and actions of their visitors.

If passed, legislation such as this would have a chilling effect upon free speech. Marvin Ammori, a leading First Amendment lawyer and Internet policy expert, writes this (emphasis mine):

From a free speech perspective, the problem can be stated simply. The bills are not limited; they’re sledgehammers not scalpels.

They do not, as often advertised by the copyright industry, merely target foreign “rogue” sites like the Pirate Bay. They are not even limited to sites guilty of any copyright infringement, direct or even contributory infringement. Instead, the bills would extend not only to foreign but also to domestic websites that merely “facilitate” or “enable” infringement. Thus, in their language, the bills target considerable protected speech on legitimate sites such as YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. The bills also affect non-infringing speech by search engines, advertisers, and domain name providers.

Coupled with this overbroad scope, the bills authorize remedies that lack the usual procedural safeguards, ensuring that even more protected, non-infringing speech will be restricted. Even though a judicial determination is generally required to remove speech from circulation, the House version empowers copyright-holders to send notices to payment processors and advertisers to shut off funding for non-infringing sites that meet the bill’s broad definitions. The bills also encourage over-enforcement by making companies immune from suit for mistakenly punishing sites outside even the bills’ over-expansive scope.

(Online source)

What’s bad for free speech is bad for sound doctrine. In the battle for ideas, the ability to discuss those ideas freely is critical. And free discussion requires the freedom to reference and quote opposing voices.

Christian websites, blogs and radio programmes depend upon being able to make fair use of copyrighted content for the purposes of comment and criticism. Our ability to stand up for sound doctrine will be severely impaired if we cannot freely quote, embed or link to the copyrighted sermons, articles, books and videos of today’s false teachers.

Imagine, for example, if Chris Rosebrough had to obtain permission from the copyright holder every time he reviewed a sermon on his Fighting for the Faith radio show, to avoid being guilty of ‘the unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content’. Chris would simply not be able to do his work of critiquing error and using it as a foil for teaching Biblical truth.

This is not a theoretical concern. Existing legislation such as the DMCA is already being used to surpress the truth by, for example, having inconvenient material pulled from YouTube:

Your opposition to SOPA and PIPA – and any similar future legislation – is vital. If you live in the US, please contact your Congressional representatives today. Google also has a petition that you can sign.

Further reading

You can learn more about SOPA and PIPA from the following articles:

• Techdirt’s Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
• SOPA is the equivalent of smashing the Gutenberg press
• Wikipedia’s article on the Stop Online Piracy Act
• Wikipedia’s article on the PROTECT IP Act

Matt Chandler’s reward for being faithful to His Lord and Master by proclaiming Law and Gospel was to have his sermon pulled from the rebroadcast of that evening’s Code Orange Revival event. Speculation abounded as to the reason for this, but Geoff Schultz – Motion Graphic Designer at Furtick’s Elevation Church – has posted on Facebook what sounds very much like an official line. Schultz writes:

The team decided to focus the rebroadcast on Jesus, so we reformatted the content a bit – We are trying to stay in the flow of what the Spirit is leading us to do.

Here’s a screenshot (courtesy of Apprising Ministries) of Schultz’ Facebook wall:

Let me translate Schultz’ explanation for you:

Steven Furtick was embarrassed by Matt Chandler’s implied criticism of his teaching. So we pulled reformatted Chandler’s sermon into non-existence, even though this meant that people wouldn’t hear about their fallen condition and be pointed towards Jesus – We are trying to stay in the flow of what a spirit is leading us to do.

For more Code Orange coverage, see Apprising Ministries, Fighting for the Faith and Do Not Be Surprised.

Update

Under pressure, Elevation’s story has apparently shifted. The Christian Post has reported a new explanation for the cut:

Elevation’s spokesperson, Tonia Bendickson, told CP earlier, “We decided to do prayer time live during the first rebroadcast time. We were getting so many requests for prayer.”

According to her Facebook page, Bendickson is Elevation’s ‘Outreach and Communications Director’. Hers is thus as official a statement as one could hope for.

Now, it is possible that Schultz’ and Bendickson’s apparently contradictory explanations can be harmonized. Or perhaps Schultz was simply mistaken in his original post, even though he seemed to have first-hand knowledge of events. One also wonders whether, if Chandler’s good sermon had led to a great many prayer requests, why Elevation wouldn’t want to rebroadcast it immediately, for the benefit of everyone watching. Or perhaps the prayer requests were not the result of the sermon that people had just heard?

As it stands, Bendickson’s statement raises more questions than it answers. The greater story, though, will continue to be the overall content – Matt Chandler’s sermon excepted – of the teaching at the Code Orange Revival.

1. Get hold of a reliable translation of the Bible, such as the NKJV or the ESV. (Sorry, no, The Message doesn’t work for this spiritual discipline.)
2. Open it.
3. Read.

Those, like Wright, who advocate the New Perspectives, posit that the Reformers were wrong in seeing first century Judaism as a religion of legalistic works-righteousness. As Dr. Cornelis P. Venema (President of Mid-America Reformed Seminary, where he is also Professor of Doctrinal Studies) writes in his very helpful little book addresing the the New Perspectives, Getting the Gospel Right:

The problem with the Judaizers’ appeal to the ‘works of the law’ was not its legalism, Wright insists, but its perverted nationalism. (p. 37, original emphasis)

Venema continues in his description of Wright’s views:

One of the unfortunate features of the Reformation and of much evangelical thinking, according to Wright, is that they reduce the gospel to ‘a message about “how one gets saved”, in an individual and ahistorical sense’.

In this way of thinking, the focus of attention, so far as the gospel is concerned, is upon ‘something that in older theology would be called an ordo salutis, an order of salvation’. Because of its inappropriate focus upon the salvation of individual sinners, the older Reformation tradition was bound to exaggerate the importance of the doctrine of justification.

Whereas the Reformation perspective understands the gospel in terms of the salvation of individual sinners, Wright maintains that Paul’s gospel has a different focus. According to Wright, the basic message of Paul’s gospel focuses upon the lordship of Jesus Christ.

(pp. 39–40, bold emphasis mine)

So, according to Venema, Wright thinks that the Reformers inappropriately focused on the salvation of individual sinners and exaggerated the importance of the doctrine of justification (how we obtain a right standing before God).

Venema summarizes (p. 41, Getting the Gospel Right) Wright’s understanding of the gospel like this (citing p. 61 of Wright’s book, What Saint Paul Really Said):

The great theme of the gospel is this message of Jesus’ lordship and its life- and world-transforming significance. Rather than the salvation of individual sinners, the theme of Christ’s lordship is the primary focus of Paul’s teaching.

Now, while it is true that the gospel does have life-changing consequences, these are not the Gospel itself, but its fruits.

And yes, Christ is most certainly Lord – Lord of all. But the Lordship of Christ is no comfort to a sinner standing before God clothed in his own filthy righteousness, but a terror. The lordship of Christ is a glorious truth, but it is not the Gospel. The Gospel is Christ’s life, death and resurrection for sinners.

Now, Venema’s summary of Wright’s gospel seems fair. This is, verbatim, how Wright defines his gospel in my copy of What St Paul Really Said (1997, Lion, p. 60):

[The gospel] is a fourfold announcement about Jesus:

1. In Jesus of Nazareth, specifically in his cross, the decisive victory has been won over all the powers of evil, including sin and death themselves.

2. In Jesus’ resurrection the New Age has dawned, inaugurating the long-awaited time when the prophecies would be fulfilled, when Israel’s exile would be over, and the whole world would be addressed by the one creator God.

3. The crucified and risen Jesus was, all along, Israel’s Messiah, her representative king.

4. Jesus was therefore also the Lord, the true king of the world, the one at whose name every knee would bow.

It is, moreover, a double and dramatic announcement about God:

1. The God of Israel is the one true God, and the pagan deities are mere idols.

2. The God of Israel is now made known in and through Jesus himself.

There’s much that is true there. Yet, somehow, Wright manages to have Jesus and the cross without ever affirming that Jesus died there for sinners. Instead, the cross is presented merely as a ‘decisive victory’ (which it is), without it also being the place where Jesus bore the punishment for our sin, being the propitiating sacrifice that reconciles us with an infinitely holy and righteous God. Wright’s version of the gospel sounds like the Biblical Gospel, but it is subtly different in critical ways. The problem lies not so much in what Wright includes, but in what he leaves out.

Contrast the Apostle Paul’s definition of the Gospel:

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)

If Wright is correct, Paul is wrong, and the Gospel is not primarily about Christ’s death in the place of sinners and for their sins. If Paul is correct, then Wright is mistaken, and the Gospel is something other than the world-changing proclamation of the victory and kingship of Christ.

Wright’s views take him further, leading him even to reject the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers. Venema, again (p. 45, Getting the Gospel Right):

Though Wright affirms the forensic nature of this language in a way that is reminiscent of the Reformation view of justification, he maintains that the Reformation’s idea of the imputing or imparting of God’s righteousness to believers makes no sense.

If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteous is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. (What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 99)

According to Wright, the ‘righteousness of God’, which refers to God’s faithfulness to the promises he made to Israel, cannot be granted or imputed to believers. Nothing like an act of imputation need occur in order for God to declare in favour of his people.

Wright seems mistakenly to view the Reformer’s understanding of the Biblical language of the law court through the lens of late 20th century jurisprudence. And in an attempt to bolster his position, Wright sets up a straw man, for not one of Reformers ever suggested that righteousness is ‘an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom’. (Wright’s words here are curious, because the idea of righteousness as an object imparted to the believer seems reminiscent of the Roman Catholic view of infused righteousness, something entirely antithetical to the doctrine of imputation.)

Compare Wright’s view with the words of St. Paul to the Romans:

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified [declared righteous] freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom 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, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

(Romans 3:21–28)

What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”

(Rom. 4:1–8)

And to the Philippians:

But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

(Phil. 3:7–11)

Paul speaks plainly of a righteousness from God that is accounted – imputed – to us through faith in Christ. One would have to work very hard to make those texts say something else.

By denying the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers, Wright has shifted the focus of the Gospel entirely away from justification by grace alone through faith alone in the merits of Christ alone. Instead, he offers a new locus of attention, the world-changing announcement of the kingship of Christ. Be in no doubt that Wright has radically redefined the Gospel.

How important is the doctrine of imputation, the doctrine of justification by faith alone? Martin Luther called it the ‘main doctrine of Christianity’ (Luther’s Works, vol. 26, commenting on Gal. 2:5).

In discussing the active righteousness that comes from keeping the Law, and the passive righteousness that we have through faith in Christ (that is, Christ’s own righteousness put to our account, though we did nothing to merit it), Luther makes clear the centrality of the doctrine of justification by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us:

The flesh is accused, exercised, saddened, and crushed by the active righteousness of the Law. But the spirit rules, rejoices, and is saved by passive righteousness, because it knows that it has a Lord sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Father, who has abolished the Law, sin, and death, and has trodden all evils underfoot, has led them captive and triumphed over them in Himself (Col. 2:15). In this epistle [Paul’s letter to the Galatians], therefore, Paul is concerned to instruct, comfort, and sustain us diligently in a perfect knowledge of this most excellent and Christian righteousness. For if the doctrine of justification is lost, the whole of Christian doctrine is lost.

(The Argument of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, Luther’s Works, vol. 26, Concordia Publishing House, 1999)

Like Wright, Luther makes much of the victory of Christ. Unlike Wright, Luther sees the comfort, joy, and power of this victory as originating in the perfect righteousness that Christ has won being accounted to us by faith.

Though there is much that is true and helpful in what Wright has written, his New Perspective is nothing less than an audacious challenge to what Dr. Walter Martin called ‘the historic orthodox Christian faith.’

Venema concludes Getting the Gospel Right with these fitting words (pp. 91–92):

According to the Reformation perspective, the most basic problem that any human being faces is the problem of his or her guilt before God. No human achievement or moral act can make amends before God for human sin and disobedience, No one can find favour with God on the basis of his or her own obedience to the requirements of God’s holy law. Only the perfect obedience and sacrificial death of Christ upon the cross can satisfy the demands of God’s justice and secure the believer’s right standing before him.

…

Thought it may be admitted that the new perspective has illumined some significant aspects of Paul’s understanding of the gospel, its claims to offer a more satisfying interpretation of Paul’s gospel than that of the Reformation seem at best overstated, and at worst clearly wrong. In a biblically and theologically satisfying manner, the Reformation perspective continues to capture one of the great themes of the Christian gospel: the amazing grace of God, who justifies, not the righteous, but the ungodly, for the sake of Christ.

Amen to that.

I highly recommend Venema’s gem of a book, which also gives an overview and critique of E.P. Sanders’ and J.D.G. Dunn’s views, in addition to those of Wright. Getting the Gospel Right is only 92 small pages long, so you can read it in a couple of hours.

• Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul

Resources for further study

In 2009, Dr. Albert Mohler (president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) chaired a panel on N.T. Wright and the Doctrine of Justification. I found the discussion to be a helpful introduction to the topic.

• Panel Discussion – N.T. Wright and the Doctrine of Justification (Video) (Audio)

(My thanks to Pastor Paul T. McCain for linking to this discussion in his article, Why Wright is Wrong: Refuting the “New Perspective on Paul” Movement.)

For a more detailed treatment rebutting the claims of the New Perspectives on Paul, the following books are widely regarded (they’re waiting on my bookshelf in my reading queue):

• The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ: An Assessment of the Reformation and ‘New Perspectives’ on Paul (also by Cornelis P. Venema).
• Justification and Variegated Nomism (Volume 1): The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (Edited by D.A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid & Peter T. O’Brien)
• Justification and Variegated Nomism (Volume 2): The Paradoxes of Paul (Edited by D.A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid & Peter T. O’Brien)

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.