It is the greatest joy to watch an endeavour bear fruit both
praiseworthy and good, something you have taken ownership of and
invested in at high personal cost, and then say "I wish I could take the
credit... but it's all God!" I believe this joy is only available
through the humility of an authentic grasp of the sovereignty of God and
the working of His Spirit in us to "will and to work His good pleasure"
(Php 2:13). Or to put it another way, only Calvinists know that "every
good gift and every perfect gift comes from above, from the Father of
lights..." We are so quick to take the credit, aren't we? The
only thing we do faster is shift the blame! Can you imagine the scene
in Eden if eating the fruit did what Eve thought it would? She would be
vindicated as humanity's first feminist, and she would have herself to
thank for it (with a shout-out on award night to the serpent!). But
instead, Eden is the prototypical horror story about what happens when
we presume to supplement God's wisdom, to esteem our own judgment above
His, and when we just want a little bit of the spotlight, darnit! And
that's exactly what a synergistic view of salvation does: God gets most
of the glory... He sent Jesus and all that, but when it came time to
walk down to the altar and pray the prayer (or insert your own desired
evangelical ritual), that was all me, man! No, it really
wasn't; when God irresistibly calls His elect and they first exercise
the faith and repentance given to them, they really do choose God...
because He chose them first (1 Jn 4:10, 19). So everything of worth in
us, from conversion to glory, has its origin and empowerment from God,
and we just ride shotgun, where we occasionally get to pick the radio
station. Along with this tidbit, I also have a heartbreaking
episode to relate: we were headed home from
"Is the dark side stronger?" "I've got something strong in my diaper..."
church a couple weeks ago,
and we had just finished reviewing my daughter's lesson. I had returned
my full attention to the road (who doesn't multitask?) when I heard
from the back seat: "Dad? Do you sin?" I don't think I had grappled
with my depravity yet that day (ignorance is bliss, right?), so her
question hit me hard: who doesn't want to be the virtuous paragon of
righteousness for their kids? Isn't it "quicker, easier, more
seductive" to set yourself up as their role model; that way, you get
the credit for their successes! But I gave my little darling the only
answer I could: "Yes honey, I sin... that's why I need Jesus. I need
to be forgiven for my sin, so I repent and believe that Jesus died for
me." That's the best we can do for our kids: tell them the truth that
the only answer to the conflagration of God's judgment is the
pressurized, fire-retardant foam of the grace of Jesus Christ. Luther
said to sin boldly, and a big chunk of his main idea was that only sinners
can be forgiven, while the self-righteous openly mock the idea they
need a Saviour (Mark 2:17). The most seasoned, mature saints
must affirm this...precisely the reason why they're mature! So sit
back on the first day of 2014, and relax in the fact that your moral
effort (and subsequent failure) has nothing to do with your standing
before God (Heb 4:10): Christ has done it all and gets all the credit. Photos courtesy of Biblestuff, chaines106
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?
This is a great tidbit from, of all places, the "Read with me Bible"; we also have a slightly more advanced "The Children's Bible", which was mine when a wee lad many years ago, and it has been passed down to my own wee daughter. We were reading this morning the account of Naaman... I assume you have the actual text available, so take a gander at the way this book paraphrases the Scripture:
"But Naaman said, "I thought he would pray to the Lord. I thought he would wave his hand over my skin. Then I would be healed." So he went away burning with anger. Naaman's servants said "What if Elisha had told you to do some great thing? Wouldn't you have done it? But he only said "Wash yourself." You should be even more willing to do that!" So Naaman went to the Jordan. He dipped himself in it seven times. His skin became clean like the skin of a young boy. Naaman went and stood in front of Elisha. He said, "Now I know that there is no God in the whole world except in Israel."
I know there are many dangers in eisegeting ("reading into") theology into O.T. narratives... but some instances are just so clear, you can't help but make the link. Like 1 Sam 5 and how the ark foreshadows Christ, victorious in defeat (at least Jonathan Edwards thought it clear!). So Naaman comes to Israel to find healing (a type of salvation), and expects to be treated as the great man he is; no doubt he was thinking himself worthy of slaying a local dragon, finding the holy grail (which would be difficult before Christ!), or some other impossible task... then his deserved reward would be the medical miracle he desired. But he was quite put out to find Elisha didn't need him to do anything; no military success, strength of arms or any such feat fitting for such a mighty general. Instead, Naaman was told to do something my daughter could do, to just take a dip in the river and slough off his sickness like road dirt.
So not only is this remedy offensive in its ease, but it defies belief: Naaman had no doubt tried any other number of healers, shamans, witch doctors and the like, presumably all outfitted with outlandish folk cures, bizarre and mysterious. It makes perfect sense to many (even today) that a boiled concoction of frog eyes and birch root can heal, but a bath with river water? Wouldn't everyone be healed then if it was just so easy? So what we must read into the story here (not too big of a stretch!) is the distinction between Naaman and every other sick peasant along the banks of the Jordan: a message from God and the heart attitude required for healing; Naaman would only go to the Jordan if he truly believed that obeying the word of the Lord would be effective. Then what seemed laughably ridiculous would become Naaman's salvation.
I hope you've made the N.T. jump already: so many hear the gospel and say "Wait... a murderer on death row, hours from the electric chair, can repent and believe in Christ and then the next day be in heaven? Nonsense!" We want a salvation that we can earn, that is a reward for the deserving and is a testament to our own prowess and virtue. But God wants or needs nothing from us... everything we could offer is putrid in His sight. He simply says ""Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." (Isa 55:1) I guess a good N.T. equivalent to this narrative would be Luke 17:12-14. The lepers were told to go and show themselves to the priests, but their skin was still filthy! Their flesh was still utterly diseased, but we're told that "as they went they were cleansed." Only when we take God at His word, when He grants us the faith to trust His simple word (that often contradicts our best wisdom), then we are saved and healed.
Check out these great, succinct equations for varying views of justification; R.C. Sproul used these in his "Luther and the Reformation" series (I'd give out a link, but Ligonier no longer offers the free download... I don't want to get in trouble!). Remember, justification is the legal declaration of righteousness. So when does that happen?
First the Roman Catholic view:
Faith+ Works = Justification R.C. extensively goes into the Roman view: briefly, a person is given faith at baptism, and the effort that person expends toward holiness accrues merit toward becoming righteous; when a person becomes righteous (and only then!), God acknowledges it by justifying them. Notice works are on the left side of the equation; Rome teaches they are an essential component of justification.
Then the Antinomian (now known as Free Grace) view:
Faith = Justification - Works
This view holds that bare mental assent in the historic facts of the Gospel is all that God requires; obviously, we can hope that a person's lifestyle progresses towards obedience to God's commands, but if they don't, no connection can or should be made to their conversion (or lack thereof). Whether or not a person is justified is completely disassociated from their works.
Lastly, the biblical, Reformation view:
Faith = Justification + Works
So this view acknowledges there is a connection between justification and works, but not a consequential one; works are on the right side of the equation, meaning they are a product of the divine gift of faith. A person believes in Christ, and God justifies them AND begins to radically change their lifestyle, making a new creature. I pray this helps you as much as it did me!
Now that I've gotten politics off my chest, we can proceed to the real reason I want to blog... to discuss the magnificence of God's revelation to us in the Bible.
Everyone thinks of Leviticus (at least, those who do think about Leviticus!) as a monotonous list of obscure rules and oft-ridiculed punishments (like "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."). But I've run across gem after gem of applicable truth, and now I have an outlet to pass them on! I guarantee you'll be surprised at what God revealed (and is still revealing) to those with ears to hear, even in ancient Israel.
The first shock I have for you is the transparent grace in the 3rd book of Moses; I've been studying in Lev. for 6 months, so rather than try to remember that far back, we'll just pick up with what God has shown me this week:
Lev 20:26 You shall be holy to me, for I the LORD am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine.
Lev 21:8 You shall sanctify him, for he offers the bread of your God. He shall be holy to you, for I, the LORD, who sanctify you, am holy.
Do you see it? The twin themes of human responsibility and divine supply? If not, a Hebrew lesson might help (from a guy who knows about 10 Hebrew words!). What we translate "sanctify", "holy", or "separate" all come from one root word (qadash, Strongs' H6942 if you must know). So we're commanded to return the same service to God (or His high priest in context) that He first performs for us. Sound familiar yet? Here's the same concept in chronological order:
"And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God." (Ezk 11:19-20)
So the same distinction that Paul, James, and others make between faith and works, and yet their intertwined relationship (the divine gift of justifying faith produces God-pleasing works) is seen in the earliest parts of the Bible. Isn't that incredible? I've often wondered how "new" the New Covenant really is... the same gospel Christians preach today (enabling grace predicated on intercessory, justifying sacrifice) is what comes through in the word preached by Moses. All praise to Jesus ("God saves")!
