"I can't imagine that God...!"

     Anytime I hear that opening, I cringe;  rather than humbly looking to our Creator to define the

God does what???

good for us, the speaker (usually unconsciously) is basing what God should and shouldn't do on his/her personal morality, which is cultural and highly subjective. A coworker hit me with it recently, and this is my response:

     I want to capture your original thought, and my best recollection of your exact words is:  

 "I can't imagine that the people who faithfully follow other religions, doing good, that they'll get to heaven and Jesus will tell them 'Get out!' "       

     Is that close? So if you'll bear with me, I'd like to show you God's reaction to other religions in the Old Testament and then in the words of Jesus Himself. One of the first, side-by-side contrasts between the distinct faith of Israel and other religious practice was the attempt of what's called syncretism, the combination of elements of 2 faiths. Nadab and Abihu, Aaron the High Priest's sons, must have thought similarly to you, that there was a basic commonality between religions, and that the worship of Israel could be built upon and supplemented by other traditions. So they brought "strange fire" to the altar of the Lord in Leviticus 10:1 "which He commanded them not." Some scholars think this practice was Egyptian or Canaanite, but definitely outside the practice specifically given to them at Mount Sinai... how does God respond?

"And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD." (Lev 10:2)

      Hmmm... well, that was pretty early in the Bible; maybe God hadn't got the memo on acceptance yet. Here's another one: Elijah, a prophet of Israel's God, arranges an "interfaith conference" with the prophets of Baal, a Canaanite storm deity, atop Mount Moriah. But his intent isn't to discuss worship methods, or exchange notes on prayer techniques... he wants to prove to the people, once and for all, which God is the one, true God, the sovereign king that commands their allegiance. Elijah gives his 450 "colleagues" a head start and ample opportunity for their god to demonstrate his power, but nothing happens! Then Elijah prays to his God and fire shoots down from the sky, visible to all and proving that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob alone is genuine. So in a spirit of brotherhood and unity, after the dust settles, Elijah gives all those prophets of Baal a pat on the back and wishes them better luck next time, right?

"And Elijah said to them, "Seize the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape." And they seized them. And Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon and slaughtered them there. " (2 Kings 18:40 

There's plenty of other evidence in the Old Testament of God's utter hatred of all religion save His own (Deut 13:1-18, 18:20, Josh 24:20, 2 Kings 17:7-23, etc.); but surely Jesus, who loves everybody, takes a different approach?  Not so much... operating from the basis already laid down and accepted (that all other gods/idols were false and God hates them), Jesus clearly delineates the only path to acceptance with God, the only way that God will tell people at the pearly gates "Come in!":   Himself.

“All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” Matthew 11:28

“Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. “ John 14:6

      Jesus's followers affirm Him completely and also agree precisely with each other on this vital point...

“And there is salvation in no one else [besides Jesus], for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12

“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” 1 Timothy 2:5

      So if you're using the Bible as your authority, as your source of truth, you have to answer the question "Can a person get to God/heaven through Muhammed/Buddha/whoever?" with a resounding "No! Only through Jesus!" My fear for you is that the Bible is not your authority; perhaps you have come to believe that there are genuinely good people in all religions (refuted in Romans 3:10), or that our sins really aren't that bad (not according to Gen 6:5), or as one woman told me “It's God's job to forgive!” (proven wrong in Exo 20:5). I'll leave you with one more verse that defeats universalism all by itself:

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)   

Photo courtesy of quinn.anya

Sola Fide

    I fear I have plunged into waters over my head... in brushing up on the marked differences between Christianity and Roman Catholicism on the role of faith in justification, I was again astounded by the complexity and sheer volume of material on the subject by men far more qualified than I.  Thankfully, the further back you go historically, the more concessions we find for ignorant simpletons such as myself:  the doctrinal teachings of the Roman Council of Trent around 1563 are followed by black-and-white, cut-and-dry statements ("canons") so that the common man can know exactly where they stand.  And even better, there are several large passages in the New Testament that are the basis for the Christian position (protesting against Rome, hence the label "Protestant").
     As I admitted last time, much of what Rome teaches sounds good and orthodox;  she stresses the importance of faith and that "...And this translation, since the promulgation of the the Gospel, can not be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written: unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God."  But that's not all the Scriptures say about faith, about how precisely we are justified and made right with God.  So our questions from last post are "what is faith? or where does it come from?" and "is faith alone enough to save us?" So by the numbers...
 

"You gotta have faith.... BABY!!!!"

  The term faith is not foreign to our ears;  we regularly speak of believing in something or someone.  But you'd have a pretty hard time convincing me that George Michael was trying to communicate the centrality of faith for our forgiveness with God... you can obviously use the word "faith" to have different shades of meaning and different objects.  So what does Roman Catholicism mean when they talk about it?  Here's one of the paragraphs I marvel over...

"For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of his body. For which reason it is most truly said, that faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumens beg of the Church—agreeably to a tradition of the apostles—previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith can not bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life eternal." (The Council of Trent, 1563, Chapter VII)

     Got it?  You see why my head twirls about like a top while I try to "test the spirits" (1 Jn 4:1) and measure this teaching with Scripture.  Let's narrow it down a bit:  as best I can tell, in the Roman  point of view, all mankind is given a measure of grace, specifically "prevenient grace".  This allows people to respond positively to the gospel;  you could call it free will.  Assuming one receives the gospel according to Rome, a person receives faith by being baptized (or is "baptistically regenerated") and must now exercise that faith by doing good works, partaking of the Mass, acts of charity, etc.  To become justified and acceptable in God's sight, one must earn a certain amount of merit, that is then added to the merit of Christ, and when one achieves true righteousness, God then acknowledges them as just, ushering them through the Pearly Gates.  So it's evident why being baptized early is so desirable:  one can't begin accruing merit without it.  The problem with this rosy picture is sin, specifically continuing sin in the believer.  The lesser sins are called "venial":  crimes of omission or sins committed with intent or knowledge.  The official Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of personal penance to remedy this:  prayers, alms and fasting.   But there is another category of transgression that is so serious, it is considered terminal or "mortal";  these crimes are considered "soul-killing" and "destroy charity in the soul", abolishing the regeneration granted by baptism. This must be atoned for in an earthly sense ("temporally"), requiring confession to an apostolic representative, a priest who usually assigns so many prayers and acts of penitence, depending on the Padre's mood that day.  The range of mortal sins are interesting:  in addition to the 7 biggies, the Catechism lists blasphemy, divorce, masturbation, having an abortion, and until recently, skipping Mass.  The defining characteristics of this category are the severity of the sin (as determined by Rome), knowledge of it as sin, and a personal, deliberate decision to sin.
     So, Rome would define faith not only as "fiducial" (a word you'll never hear on TBN... they mean that one trusts in Christ and His work for them), but also confessional (you must believe and accept everything the Roman Church teaches) and the means by which we become righteous; a lifelong process that's painfully slow, under our own steam in a one-step-forward-two-steps-back kind of way.  And I hope I've made one thing clear:  according to Rome, faith is most definitely not enough...

"If any one saith that by faith alone the impious is justified, in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will, let him be anathema."  (The Council of Trent, 1563, Canon IX)

     And the Protestant position based on the authority of Scripture?  I can let God speak for Himself:

"For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them."  Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith."  But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them."  Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree" (Gal 3:10-13)

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.  It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.  Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.  For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." (Rom 3:23-28)

Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?"  Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." (John 6:28-29)

     There are many other texts that outline the impossibility of a sinful man being made righteous in any way by his own efforts (Isa 64:4-6, Eph 2:8-9, Tit 3:5).  In contrast, the only text I know of that can be construed to support Rome is James 2:14-26:  if you cherrypick certain phrases, and ignore his reference to Gen 15:6, and neglect to notice the context, you could detect an emphasis on works-righteousness.  But to take such an approach causes Scripture (and thus the Holy Spirit) to contradict itself.
     Ultimately, the question is who do you trust?  Catholics trust their church, embodied by a "humble pope".  Christians trust the Bible, which is another Sola for another time.  Who do you believe?

For more info, check out these excellent resources

Photo courtesy of D Services

Christian Distinctives #1

    I've had several ideas floating around my skull, and this one won the race to get out first;  I thought it would be profitable to start an intermittent series on the doctrines that make Christianity unique, what is absolutely essential and nonnegotiable, the truths that must be defended and, if necessary, that we must be martyred for.

Rick Warren's biggest fan?!?

     When God first changed my heart and gave me an appetite for His truth, this general field was probably the one that I explored the most;  I read books like "Mere Christianity" by Lewis and "The Almost Christian Discovered" by Meade, and "The Religious Affections" by Edwards.  I even tried repeatedly to get through Calvin's Institutes (I eventually made it to the middle of Book 4).  As I grew and learned and was exposed to more and more variety/disagreement on different doctrines, I saw both how important it was to have a firm grasp to what was truly central to following Christ, and how common it was to see that slip through the fingers of whatever public figure or authority on Christianity was in the spotlight at the time.
     So it's with that air of recurrent disappointment that we introduce our first distinctive with this awful confusion of Christ's Church with its most formidable counterfeit by the best known spokesman for Christianity of our day:

"Join me today in fasting and prayer for the 115 Cardinals seeking God's Will in a new leader. http://instagr.am/p/WvyDIWI0yI/"  Rick Warren on Twitter

"What is thy bidding, my master?"

     Mr. Warren was speaking of the recent conclave of bishops in Rome to select a new leader for that religion.  They have since picked one, a man I've heard described with the words "holy", "godly" and most regrettably, "a man of the gospel".  I don't want to dwell Mr. Warren, and why he should know better, but inherent in his plea for prayer is the assumption that these men in Rome can recognize God's will and desire to do it when revealed to them.  If however, Roman Catholicism is deficient in one of these distinctives, these essentials of Christianity, these men who embody all that Rome is are still slaves of sin and bound to do its bidding (John 8:34-36).  So for this reason, I want to clearly express the first, most basic reason that Christianity and Roman Catholicism can not and must not be confused, a doctrine which is the most well-known distinctive of true Christianity but at the same time, the most misunderstood:

SOLA FIDE

     It's slightly funny that 2 simple words could be so important;  the second means "faith" and the first "only/alone" in Latin.  Now, the Bible is positively littered with references to faith:  in the O.T., the synonym "trust" is most often used, and the N.T. has whole chapters dedicated to faith.  So anyone with even a surface exposure to Scripture has to at least give lip service to this doctrine;  and that's exactly what we see groups like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses doing.  And to give them credit, Rome goes even further, saying in so many words that faith is absolutely critical to justification, that no one can get to heaven without it.
     But Rome goes astray in 2 clear, distinguishable areas, and thankfully, has documented their position better than most.  They are:  the definition/origin of faith (or "what is faith, and where do we get it from?") and the potency of faith (or "is faith enough?").  We'll explore these next post, but I want to ask something of you in the meantime...  In the generic, "check-the-box on the survey" sense, Roman Catholicism is classified as a Christian denomination, one of many.  But Jesus isn't coming to your door with a clipboard... He's returning with blood-stained robes and a glistening sword (Rev 19).  He will separate the sheep, His true followers, from all those who might be associated with His name, but in reality, are not His.  So the only sense for the term "Christian" that matters is His, and He's given us ample testimony in His Word.  So let's check our baggage at the desk, and see what He says.

Photos courtesy of whiffer, anneheathen