You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2011.
Happy St David’s Day to my Welsh readers!
At left is a detail of a Streetmap (click for a view of the surrounding area) showing the only church dedicated to the bishop who baptised the patron saint of Wales, St Elvis. Rory Sutherland of The Spectator tells us that his name in Welsh is Aelfyw (Quote Unquote adds that it is Ailbe of Emly in Gaelic and Albeus in Latin). He came from Munster, in the southwest of Ireland.
St David was born into the royal house of Ceredigion. He devoted his life to God as a teacher and ascetic. As an abbot, he founded a monastery in the west of Wales at the Vale of Roses (Glyn Rhosin). The monastery was the most important Christian site of its day for both religious and intellectual reasons, and David’s reputation was known throughout the Celtic world.
Today’s visitors to the site will find St David’s Cathedral, consecrated in 1131. The town itself is named after him — St David’s, or in Welsh, Tyddewi. Dewi is Welsh for David.
Records indicate that St David died on March 1, although the year is less clear — possibly 588 AD. His final words to the sorrowful monks around his deathbed were as follows:
Brothers be ye constant. The yoke which with single mind ye have taken, bear ye to the end; and whatsoever ye have seen with me and heard, keep and fulfil.
After his death, a cult of sainthood developed, reaching as far as Rome, where Pope Callixtus declared in 1123:
Two pilgrimages to St David’s is equal to one to Rome, and three pilgrimages to one to Jerusalem!
This is how the eponymous cathedral came to be built.
Whilst March 1 in Wales is a national festival, it is not yet an official public holiday, despite strong public support and a petition to then Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2007. However, festivals take place throughout the country, and it is not unusual for children to have time off from school.
When I first moved here, the Welsh still used the leek — St David’s personal emblem — in their celebrations. Sometime in the mid-1990s, this evolved into the daffodil, which is in season around Britain at that time. The names for both are rooted in the Welsh word cenhinen (‘leek’), with cenhinen Pedr (‘Peter’s leek’) denoting ‘daffodil’.
Sixty-one years ago, President Harry S Truman (1945-1953) gave a speech to the Attorney General’s Conference on Law Enforcement Problems concerning organised crime. H/T to I Took the Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix).
The speech is dated February 15, 1950, and the President delivered it in the Department of Justice Auditorium in Washington, DC. Although he discussed the prevalence of organised crime, you can make it relevant to the present day by thinking of the message in terms of ‘gangs’ and ‘drug dealers’.
President Truman was known for his ‘plain speaking’. He told it like it is, which is the way I like my politics, too. It should be noted that he didn’t wear his Christian faith on his sleeve, which makes the following remarks all the more distinctive. You might also find the historical aspects worthwhile.
Below are excerpts from the address, helpfully provided in full by the Truman Library. Emphases are mine. This concerned America’s youth and law enforcement officers at the time — the message still holds true today.
There has been a substantial postwar increase in crime in this country, particularly in crimes of violence. This is disturbing, but it is one of the inevitable results of war, and the dislocations that spring from war. It is one of the many reasons why we must work with other nations for a permanent peace.
I might remind you that after every war this country has ever been engaged in, we have had exactly the same problems to face. After the Revolutionary War we had almost exactly the same problems with which we are faced now, out of which came the Alien and Sedition laws, which we finally had to repeal because they did not agree with the Bill of Rights. Then, after the War Between the States, or the Civil War, we had all sorts of banditry. My State [Missouri] was famous for some of the great bandits of that time, if you recall. We had the same situation after World War I. We had a terrible time then with the increase in crimes of violence. We managed to handle the situation, and I am just as sure as I stand here that we will do it again …
It is important, therefore, that we work together in combating organized crime in all its forms. We must use our courts and our law enforcement agencies, and the moral forces of our people, to put down organized crime wherever it appears.
At the same time, we must aid and encourage gentler forces to do their work of prevention and cure. These forces include education, religion, and home training, family and child guidance, and wholesome recreation.
The most important business in this Nation–or any other nation, for that matter–is raising and training children. If those children have the proper environment at home, and educationally, very, very few of them ever turn out wrong. I don’t think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child’s mind the moral code under which we live.
The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.
If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state…
I think every child in the Nation, regardless of his race, creed, or color, should have the right to a proper education. And when he has finished that education, he ought to have the right in industry to fair treatment in employment. If he is able and willing to do the job, he ought to be given a chance to do that job, no matter what his religious connections are, or what his color is.
I am particularly anxious that we should do everything within our power to protect the minds and hearts of our children from the moral corruption that accompanies organized crime. Our children are our greatest resource, and our greatest asset–the hope of our future, and the future of the world. We must not permit the existence of conditions which cause our children to believe that crime is inevitable and normal. We must teach idealism–honor, ethics, decency, the moral law. We must teach that we should do right because it is right, and not in the hope of any material reward. That is what our moral code is based on: do to the other fellow as you would have him do to you. If we would continue that all through our lives, we wouldn’t have organized crime–if everybody would do that…
As law enforcement officers you have great powers. At the same time you must never forget that hand in hand with those powers go great responsibilities. You must make certain that these powers are not used for personal gain, or from any personal motive. Too often organized crime is made possible by corruption of law enforcement officials.
But, far more than that, we must always remember that you are officers of the law in a great democratic nation which owes its birth to the indignation of its citizens against the encroachment of police and governmental powers against their individual freedoms.
Now there isn’t any difference, so far as I can see, in the manner in which totalitarian states treat individuals than there is in the racketeers’ handling of these lawless rackets with which we are sometimes faced. And the reason that our Government is strong, and the greatest democracy in the world, is because we have a Bill of Rights.
You should be vigilant to enforce the laws which protect our citizens from violence or intimidation in the exercise of their constitutional and legal rights. The strength of our institutions depends in large measure upon the vigorous efforts to prevent mob violence, and other forms of interference with basic rights–the right to a fair trial, the right to vote, and the right to exercise freedom of speech, assembly, and petition.
It is just as much your duty to protect the innocent as it is to prosecute the guilty. The friendless, the weak, the victims of prejudice and public excitement are entitled to the same quality of justice and fair play that the rich, the powerful, the well-connected, and the fellow with pull thinks he can get.
Moreover, the guilty as well as the innocent are entitled to due process of law. They are entitled to a fair trial. They are entitled to counsel. They are entitled to fair treatment from the police. The law enforcement officer has the same duty as the citizen-indeed, he has a higher duty–to abide by the letter and spirit of our Constitution and laws…
I believe that as President it is necessary for me to be more careful in obeying the laws than for any other person to be careful…
And every one of you has that same responsibility. You yourselves … must be intellectually honest in the enforcement of the Constitution and the laws of the United States. And if you are not, you are not a good public official.
I know that it would be easier to catch and jail criminals if we did not have a Bill of Rights in our Federal and State constitutions. But I thank God every day that it is there, that that Bill of Rights is a fundamental law. That is what distinguishes us from the totalitarian powers…
Let us pray that it may remain so. Recent elections, family breakdown and the lack of proper history teaching in schools puts the Great Republic — the United States — in grave danger.
We face the same challenge in other Western countries, where public indifference and corrupt ambition have overtaken the personal morality and public fairness which once characterised our free societies.
As we have seen, it only takes a few years for a foundation to crumble and the cracks appear in the edifice of liberty which our ancestors painstakingly built with their blood and sweat.
Proper instruction begins in the home and should continue at school. As President Truman said, a solid moral foundation and a good education turns out upstanding citizens nearly every time.
POSTSCRIPT: It’s worth noting that in 1958 crime writer James Ellroy‘s mother was brutally murdered when Ellroy was only 10 years old. A divorcée, Jean (Geneva) was thought to have had some dubious connections in her love life. Unfortunately, the case was never solved. You can find out more about it in Ellroy’s My Dark Places (1996), which I read one long weekend shortly after it was published. It is a powerful memoir of his childhood and a gripping exploration of his mother’s case. At that time, divorced women — outside of film stars and socialites — carried a social stigma. Although many had masculine street smarts, they often lived on the margins of society with low-paying jobs and little practical support. Many had children to raise, and money was hard to come by. My Dark Places recounts his early family life, state education, corrupt police and organised crime. It seems that Harry Truman might have had this type of scenario in mind when he delivered this speech.
We continue our study of the Book of Revelation with Revelation 20, which is excluded from the three-year Lectionary.
As such, it is part of the ongoing Forbidden Bible Verses, also essential for our understanding of Scripture and God’s plan for His people.
Today’s reading is taken from the King James Version. Exegetical sources are given at the end of the post.
1And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
10And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
————————————————————–
If you have been following this series, you will have noticed that I have relied on a Lutheran pastor’s writings for much of my exegesis of Revelation.
The Revd Thomas C Messer, of Peace Lutheran Church in Alma, Michigan, has studied the Book of Revelation closely, written about it and given a course on it to his congregation. For today’s post, I shall be using not only his notes on the whole of Revelation 20 but also a lengthy paper which examines verses 1 – 6 in greater detail. Pastor Messer has one of the best examinations of amillenialism online — in fact, it might be the only one in a sea of dispensationalist interpretations of this great and final book of the canon.
Those who believe in a literal translation say that Revelation 20 is a chronological follow-on from Revelation 19. However, Pr Messer and other mainline Protestant and Catholic scholars posit that Revelation 20 is an overall view of Satan between Jesus’s life on Earth and His Second Coming. Pr Messer explains (emphases mine throughout):
Chapter 20 is not a continuation of 19, but rather shows another depiction of Satan’s doom (the two beasts were manifestations of Satan and thus, when they’re thrown into the lake of fire, it is Satan who is thrown in). Thus, when we get to 20:1, we are beginning with the casting out of Satan from heaven (Rev. 12), which is depicted as being bound and thrown into the Abyss. Then, we get a look at the entire NT era, in which the saints rule with Christ for “1000 years.” Then, we see Satan’s release (short season) just before the Parousia and, finally, his ultimate judgment (thrown into lake of fire). Thus, what we see in Chapter 20 is a picture from the crucifixion to the Second Coming.
The angel in verse 1 is Christ Jesus, recalling Revelation 5:5, wherein only He had the authority to open the scroll with the seven seals. Pr Messer writes:
First, this Angel has the key to the Abyss, which is the same thing as having the key to death and hades (1:18), which Christ says of Himself. Also, Christ has the power and authority to bind Satan. He speaks of binding Satan in Matt. 12:25-29, where He binds the “strong man.” Confer also, John 12:31, where Christ speaks of the “ruler of this world” being cast out as a result of His ministry and crucifixion.
The binding of Satan in verse 2 began with Jesus’s ministry on Earth and achieved completion at His death and resurrection. This binding does not mean that Satan’s powers are null and void but that he no longer can confer directly with God to cast aspersions on people as he does in the Book of Job. Recall that Revelation 12 describes St Michael the Archangel throwing Satan and his angels out of Heaven. Here, among saints and sinners alike, Satan does his work against his foe Christ Jesus and His bride, the Church. Satan cannot prevent the spread of the Gospel. Pr Messer describes him like this:
He is like a chained dog, who will bite you if you come into his sphere, but cannot harm you as long as you stay out of reach. Since Christ’s crucifixion, “one little word can fell” Satan. He is judged and cannot harm us, unless we fall under his sphere of influence by entering his world of evil. We have a beautiful and comforting picture of the extent to which Christ’s work has bound Satan in this passage.
Before Christ comes again, Satan must be ‘loosed a little season’, for reasons best known only to God. During this time, he will be able to prevent the spread of the Gospel, which will result in great apostasy. He will manifest his power through the End Time Antichrist for a final assault on the Church. It is, therefore, unsurprising that many believers think we might be in the last throes of the world right now. How many of our churches preach and teach Holy Scripture? How many Christians are true to Christ?
The ‘thousand years’ in verse 3 pose a problem for many. Are they literal or in line with the traditions of Messianic literature, therefore, meant to be interpreted as symbolic of completion? As we saw in Revelation 7, numbers in this tradition signify perfection and/or completion. Therefore, these thousand years should be interpreted in the same manner and not taken literally.
In verse 4, St John is given a divine vision of the saints in Heaven, those who suffered in Christ’s name and did not bear the spiritual mark of the beast. The thousand-year reign also refers to the whole of the New Testament era, regardless of its length.
So, how do we understand verse 5, which speaks of a later time and the first resurrection? Pr Messer tells us:
First resurrection = conversion (not a reference to a physical resurrection) (cf. John 5); Second resurrection = bodily resurrection of all people on the Last Day.
and further to this in verse 6, which mentions a second death with no power:
First death = original sin (according to some) or physical death (according to most); Second death = eternal death. Everyone is born spiritually dead, but those who are brought to faith through the Gospel by the Holy Spirit, are born again from above and made alive in Christ. For these, the “second death” has no power over them. The second death is total separation from God and includes everlasting punishment. It is much, much worse than the first death, for people live under God’s providential care while on this earth. But, if they die in unbelief, they will experience complete death. They will be raised on the Last Day and see what true life is, but they will not be permitted to experience it. They will be cast into Hell bodily forever.
We see reference to the second death again in verse 14, confirming the everlasting judgment of the ‘lake of fire’ for unbelievers.
I realise that this is alarming for some passers-by to read. This is why it is essential to ensure we have our souls in order at all times. We do not know when Christ will return. It could be soon or it could be long after our deaths. This makes the prospect of our own death an even more urgent matter. Would we be ready to pass from this mortal coil today and face our Saviour? Have we done a personal housecleaning and taken an inventory of the state of our own hearts and souls? Something to think about!
Verse 7 reiterates verse 3 regarding Satan’s ‘little season’, which will be infinitesmal by comparison with the New Testament era, yet will be long enough to cause real suffering to believers around the world as he is unleashed to ‘deceive the nations’ one final time.
Again, this will be a battle of persecution and belief. True Christians will suffer physically or psychologically during this terrible time. However, although Gog and Magog are mentioned in verse 8, this will not be an actual warlike battle. Pr Messer writes:
“Gog and Magog” are not literal nations! They represent all the pagan nations of the earth that Satan will raise up in opposition against the Church (cf. Ezek. 38 and 39, where “Gog and Magog” represent the archenemies of Israel). What we have depicted here is another picture of the battle of Armageddon (cf. Rev. 16:16), in which Satan gathers his army for the final assault on Christ’s Church.
And (see PDF pages 38 – 40) of verses 8 – 10:
Satan’s “little season” will not be a literal, physical battle between the forces of evil and the church of Christ. Revelation makes it very clear throughout that Satan has already been completely defeated by the Lamb who was slain. Christ and His saints need not engage in physical warfare with the devil, for Christ has already won total victory through His
physical death on the cross …
What Daniel prophe[s]ies about here is the Antichrist, the End-Time opponent of Christ, who will appear for a “little season” (“time, times, and half a time”) shortly before the Second Coming of Christ. That this is related to Satan’s “little season” is made even more clear in Dan. 8:23-27 …
We also have further OT evidence that helps us to understand Satan’s “little season.” Ezekiel 38-39, especially 38:18-23, describes “Gog” coming against “the land of Israel.” The context of those chapters shows that this “Gog” refers to the End-Time opponent of Christ, who makes war on the church for a “little season” during the “last days.” This is the very language that John uses in Rev. 20:8, showing the continuity between the accounts …
2 Thessalonians 2 provides the clearest picture of the nature of this End-Time opponent … Like Dan. 8 above, his power is not his own, but he comes “by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders” (v. 9) … This passage ends with perhaps the greatest indication as to why God must allow Satan’s “little season,” for it is to send them (unbelievers) “a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (vv. 11-12). This is all that God reveals to us as to why this is necessary and to speculate any further is futile, as stated above. That the activity of this “man of lawlessness” is synonymous with Satan’s “little season” is made clear by the text when it notes that when the “lawless one will be revealed, the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming” (v. 8 ). In sum, this “man of lawlessness” is the Antichrist, the End-Time opponent of Christ, through whom the activity of Satan is manifest in order to deceive the nations for a “little season.”
So, in verse 10 — Satan (the Devil, the dragon of Revelation 12) along with his blasphemous manifestations in the beast (the false Christ) and the false prophet (the false Holy Spirit) meet their eternal punishment of fire and brimstone.
Verses 11 – 15 show us the Final Judgment. On that fateful Last Day, everyone — believers and unbelievers — will appear before that ‘great white throne’. Agnostics and atheists absolve themselves from this final judgment. To say they will be surprised and shocked to find out otherwise is an understatement.
Many Christians — not just children — have difficulty understanding what happens between our deaths and the Final Judgment. Pr Messer explains this clearly — and this is something you can pass on to the young ones in your family:
All people will appear before Christ on that great and dreadful Day. Those who have died will be resurrected, both unbelievers and believers. Their spirits, which have been residing in either heaven or hell, will be reunited with the bodies they had while living on earth. Those who are living will appear in their bodies before the throne of Christ. Believers have the promise that their resurrected bodies (or “changed” bodies, if they are alive when Christ returns) will be glorified and perfect (cf. 1 Cor. 15 – The Great Resurrection Chapter). Unbelievers will go into eternity in their corruptible bodies.
That ‘there was found no place for them’ means that our universe will have been transformed to reveal Christ to everyone, no matter where they are. That day will be so awe-inspiring and fearsome for unbelievers and indescribably joyful for the faithful. If this isn’t an image with which to conjure over the coming weeks, particularly as we head towards Lent, I don’t know what is.
Verses 12 and 13 describe us all standing before God, the great books in front of Him. He will judge unbelievers by the sins they have committed — their works against Him — all of which will have been documented. ‘Another’ book will contain what we hope are our names inscribed therein — the Book of Life.
Note that verse 14 again mentions ‘the second death’ of verse 6. This second death is everlasting punishment and torment for unbelievers, including a separation from God which has no end. Those who deny God have not truly thought this through. If they have an ounce of interest or curiosity in the Word, may they pray: ‘Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief’ (Mark 9:24).
For some of us, verse 13 may confuse the question of faith versus works. Pr Messer tells us:
It is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, that we are declared righteous (cf. Rom. 3:28). We cannot merit this grace by our works. But, the Final Judgment is based on works. It is not merely arbitrary. There will be no cause for complaint or appeal, for it will be shown to all what each person has done. Believers, since they are clothed in the righteousness of Christ and forgiven of all sins, have no bad works to be put on display. Only the good work that they have done, or rather that Christ has done through them, will be revealed. Unbelievers, on the other hand, have absolutely no good works. Even the most civilly decent among them, those who may have accomplished many wonderful and charitable works while living on earth, have no good works, for all their works are tainted with sin. Thus, they only have bad works put on display on that Day. So, in the end, the Final Judgment is actually based on whether or not people believed in Jesus Christ, since their works are completely dependent upon that.
It is difficult to imagine what this day will be like. Because we cannot fully comprehend the nature of God or His Son, this, too, is equally difficult to understand. For unbelievers (verse 15), it is the beginning of a never-ending death sentence.
However, for those whose names are written in the Book of Life, this will be the beginning of a glorious eternity, where we reign with Him in unending joy and true happiness.
Next week: Revelation 21:8-21
Further reading:
‘Living and Reigning with Christ’ – The Revd Thomas C Messer (LCMS)
This post concludes Chapter 6 – Salvation from John Gresham Machen‘s Christianity and Liberalism, first published in 1923. You can catch up on past entries here.
If you think that deeds over creeds, missional universalism (à la Mother Teresa) and the social Gospel are new concepts, think again! Machen points out the pitfalls of modernist (‘liberal’) Christianity which existed 90 years ago.
He also examines how modern clergy and politicians see churches as tools in resolving socio-political issues. N.B.: He appears to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek with regard to immigration. Large influxes of European immigrants had been arriving in the United States since the 1880s; this became a huge political issue by the turn of the century. More restrictive immigration laws were enacted in the 1920s and relaxed in the mid-1960s, although the next wave of legal immigrants did not become discernible nationwide until the 1970s and 1980s.
The excerpts below are from pages 138 – 146 of Reformed Audio’s PDF of the book. Subheads and emphases are mine for easier navigation.
The ‘programme’ of the modern Church
… heaven has little place, and this world is really all in all. The rejection of the Christian hope is not always definite or conscious; sometimes the liberal preacher tries to maintain a belief in the immortality of the soul. But the real basis of the belief in immortality has been given up by the rejection of the New Testament account of the resurrection of Christ. And, practically, the liberal preacher has very little to say about the other world. This world is really the center of all his thoughts; religion itself, and even God, are made merely a means for the betterment of conditions upon this earth.
Religion viewed as part of the state
… religion has become a mere function of the community or of the state. So it is looked upon by the men of the present day. Even hard-headed business men and politicians have become convinced that religion is needed. But it is thought to be needed merely as a means to an end. We have tried to get along without religion, it is said, but the experiment was a failure, and now religion must be called in to help.
Church as a welcome committee for immigrants
… great populations have found a place in our country; they do not speak our language or know our customs; and we do not know what to do with them. We have attacked them by oppressive legislation or proposals of legislation, but such measures have not been altogether effective. Somehow these people display a perverse attachment to the language that they learned at their mother’s knee. It may be strange that a man should love the language that he learned at his mother’s knee, but these people do love it, and we are perplexed in our efforts to produce a unified American people. So religion is called in to help; we are inclined to proceed against the immigrants now with a Bible in one hand and a club in the other offering them the blessings of liberty. That is what is sometimes meant by “Christian Americanization.”
The Church and industrial relations
Self-interest has here been appealed to; employers and employees have had pointed out to them the plain commercial advantages of conciliation. But all to no purpose. Class clashes still against class in the destructiveness of industrial warfare. And sometimes false doctrine provides a basis for false practice; the danger of Bolshevism is ever in the air. Here again repressive measures have been tried without avail; the freedom of speech and of the press has been radically curtailed. But repressive legislation seems unable to check the march of ideas. Perhaps, therefore, in these matters also, religion must be invoked.
Church as a force for political stability
Still another problem faces the modern world − the problem of international peace. This problem also seemed at one time nearly solved; self-interest seemed likely to be sufficient; there were many who supposed that the bankers would prevent another European war. But all such hopes were cruelly shattered in 1914, and there is not a whit of evidence that they are better founded now than they were then. Here again, therefore, self-interest is insufficient; and religion must be called in to help.
Religion — the cure for civil instability?
… religion is discovered after all to be a useful thing. But the trouble is that in being utilized religion is also being degraded and destroyed. Religion is being regarded more and more as a mere means to a higher end. The change can be detected with especial clearness in the way in which missionaries commend their cause. Fifty years ago, missionaries made their appeal in the light of eternity. “Millions of men,” they were accustomed to say, “are going down to eternal destruction; Jesus is a Savior sufficient for all; send us out therefore with the message of salvation while yet there is time.” Some missionaries, thank God, still speak in that way. But very many missionaries make quite a different appeal. “We are missionaries to India,” they say. “Now India is in ferment; Bolshevism is creeping in; send us out to India that the menace may be checked.” Or else they say: “We are missionaries to Japan; Japan will be dominated by militarism unless the principles of Jesus have sway; send us out therefore to prevent the calamity of war.”
The same great change appears in community life. A new community, let us say, has been formed. It possesses many things that naturally belong to a well-ordered community; it has a drug-store, and a country club, and school. “But there is one thing,” its inhabitants say to themselves, “that is still lacking; we have no church. But a church is a recognized and necessary part of every healthy community. We must therefore have a church.” And so an expert in community church-building is summoned to take the necessary steps. The persons who speak in this way usually have little interest in religion for its own sake; it has never occurred to them to enter into the secret place of communion with the holy God. But religion is thought to be necessary for a healthy community; and therefore for the sake of the community they are willing to have a church.
Christianity should not be a socio-political tool
… it is perfectly plain that the Christian religion cannot be treated in any such way. The moment it is so treated it ceases to be Christian. For if one thing is plain it is that Christianity refuses to be regarded as a mere means to a higher end. Our Lord made that perfectly clear when He said: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother . . . he cannot be my disciple” (Luke xiv. 26). Whatever else those stupendous words may mean, they certainly mean that the relationship to Christ takes precedence of all other relationships, even the holiest of relationships like those that exist between husband and wife and parent and child. Those other relationships exist for the sake of Christianity and not Christianity for the sake of them … if it is accepted in order to accomplish those useful things it is not Christianity. Christianity will combat Bolshevism; but if it is accepted in order to combat Bolshevism, it is not Christianity: Christianity will produce a unified nation, in a slow but satisfactory way; but if it is accepted in order to produce a unified nation, it is not Christianity: Christianity will produce a healthy community; but if it is accepted in order to produce a healthy community, it is not Christianity: Christianity will promote international peace; but if it is accepted in order to promote international peace, it is not Christianity. Our Lord said: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” But if you seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness in order that all those other things may be added unto you, you will miss both those other things and the Kingdom of God as well.
But if Christianity be directed toward another world; if it be a way by which individuals can escape from the present evil age to some better country, what becomes of “the social gospel”? At this point is detected one of the most obvious lines of cleavage between Christianity and the liberal Church. The older evangelism, says the modern liberal preacher, sought to rescue individuals, while the newer evangelism seeks to transform the whole organism of society: the older evangelism was individual; the newer evangelism is social …
True Christianity versus modern Christianity
It is true that historic Christianity is in conflict at many points with the collectivism of the present day; it does emphasize, against the claims of society, the worth of the individual soul. It provides for the individual a refuge from all the fluctuating currents of human opinion, a secret place of meditation where a man can come alone into the presence of God. It does give a man courage to stand, if need be, against the world … In that sense, it is true that Christianity is individualistic and not social.
But though Christianity is individualistic, it is not only individualistic. It provides fully for the social needs of man.
… A man is not isolated when he is in communion with God; he can be regarded as isolated only by one who has forgotten the real existence of the supreme Person. Here again, as at many other places, the line of cleavage between liberalism and Christianity really reduces to a profound difference in the conception of God. Christianity is earnestly theistic; liberalism is at best but half-heartedly so. If a man once comes to believe in a personal God, then the wo[r]ship of Him will not be regarded as selfish isolation, but as the chief end of man … Very different is the prevailing doctrine of modern liberalism. According to Christian belief, man exists for the sake of God; according to the liberal Church, in practice if not in theory, God exists for the sake of man.
Family waning as an institution
But the social element in Christianity is found not only in communion between man and God, but also in communion between man and man. Such communion appears even in institutions which are not specifically Christian.
The most important of such institutions, according to Christian teaching, is the family. And that institution is being pushed more and more into the background. It is being pushed into the background by undue encroachments of the community and of the state. Modern life is tending more and more toward the contraction of the sphere of parental control and parental influence. The choice of schools is being placed under the power of the state; the “community” is seizing hold of recreation and of social activities. It may be a question how far these community activities are responsible for the modern breakdown of the home; very possibly they are only trying to fill a void which even apart from them had already appeared. But the result at any rate is plain − the lives of children are no longer surrounded by the loving atmosphere of the Christian home, but by the utilitarianism of the state. A revival of the Christian religion would unquestionably bring a reversal of the process; the family, as over against all other social institutions, would come to its rights again.
‘Applied Christianity’
The “otherworldliness” of Christianity involves no withdrawal from the battle of this world; our Lord Himself, with His stupendous mission, lived in the midst of life’s throng and press. Plainly, then, the Christian man may not simplify his problem by withdrawing from the business of the world, but must learn to apply the principles of Jesus even to the complex problems of modern industrial life. At this point Christian teaching is in full accord with the modern liberal Church; the evangelical Christian is not true to his profession if he leaves his Christianity behind him on Monday morning. On the contrary, the whole of life, including business and all of social relations, must be made obedient to the law of love. The Christian man certainly should display no lack of interest in “applied Christianity.”
That is where the Christian man differs from the modern liberal. The liberal believes that applied Christianity is all there is of Christianity, Christianity being merely a way of life; the Christian man believes that applied Christianity is the result of an initial act of God. Thus there is an enormous difference between the modern liberal and the Christian man with reference to human institutions like the community and the state, and with reference to human efforts at applying tile Golden Rule in industrial relationships. The modern liberal is optimistic with reference to these institutions; the Christian man is pessimistic unless the institutions be manned by Christian men … This difference is not a mere difference in theory, but makes itself felt everywhere in the practical realm. It is particularly evident on the mission field. The missionary of liberalism seeks to spread the blessings of Christian civilization (whatever that may be), and is not particularly interested in leading individuals to relinquish their pagan beliefs. The Christian missionary, on the other hand, regards satisfaction with a mere influence of Christian civilization as a hindrance rather than a help; his chief business, he believes, is the saving of souls, and souls are saved not by the mere ethical principles of Jesus but by His redemptive work. The Christian missionary, in other words, and the Christian worker at home as well as abroad, unlike the apostle of liberalism, says to all men everywhere: “Human goodness will avail nothing for lost souls; ye must be born again.”
Next week: Final chapter – the Church
Over the past few days, I have seen several searches for my Mariology dossier from November 2010. No one has found all of them, so to make things easier, here are links to the entire set.
Informative and educational, these will no doubt answer a number of questions you might have about how Mary is viewed within Christianity:
A summary of Mariology and the Church – November 17, 2010
John MacArthur on Mariolatry – Part 1 — November 18, 2010
John MacArthur on Mariolatry – Part 2 — November 19, 2010
Emotion, sensation, Mary and ecumenism = One World Religion — November 21, 2010
We continue selected excerpts from John Gresham Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism, first published in 1923.
Today’s post addresses the modern Church’s renewed legalism and cries of antinomianism. In case you missed the latest present-day round of allegations, you might find useful my brief series, ‘Leading Calvinists refute antinomian accusation’ — Parts 1, 2 and 3.
This week’s excerpts are from pages 131 – 138 of Chapter 6 – Salvation, found in Reformed Audio’s PDF of the book. Subheads and emphases are mine for easier navigation.
Not all conversions are alike
At the beginning of every Christian life there stands, not a process, but a definite act of God.
That does not mean that every Christian can tell exactly at what moment he was justified and born again. Some Christians, indeed, are really able to give day and hour of their conversion. It is a grievous sin to ridicule the experience of such men. Sometimes, indeed, they are inclined to ignore the steps in the providence of God which prepared for the great change. But they are right on the main point. They know that when on such and such a day they kneeled in prayer they were still in their sins, and when they rose from their knees they were children of God never to be separated from Him. Such experience is a very holy thing. But on the other hand it is a mistake to demand that it should be universal. There are Christians who can give day and hour of their conversion, but the great majority do not know exactly at what moment they were saved. The effects of the act are plain, but the act itself was done in the quietness of God. Such, very often, is the experience of children brought up by Christian parents. It is not necessary that all should pass through agonies of soul before being saved; there are those to whom faith comes peacefully and easily through the nurture of Christian homes.
But however it be manifested, the beginning of the Christian life is an act of God. It is an act of God and not an act of man.
That does not mean, however, that in the beginning of the Christian life God deals with us as with sticks or stones, unable to understand what is being done. On the contrary He deals with us as with persons; salvation has a place in the conscious life of man; God uses in our salvation a conscious act of the human soul − an act which though it is itself the work of God’s Spirit, is at the same time an act of man. That act of man which God produces and employs in salvation is faith. At the center of Christianity is the doctrine of “justification by faith.”
What is faith?
Faith is being exalted so high today that men are being satisfied with any kind of faith, just so it is faith. It makes no difference what is believed, we are told, just so the blessed attitude of faith is there. The undogmatic faith, it is said, is better than the dogmatic, because it is purer faith − faith less weakened by the alloy of knowledge …
Faith is so very useful, they tell us, that we must not scrutinize its basis in truth. But, the great trouble is, such an avoidance of scrutiny itself involves the destruction of faith. For faith is essentially dogmatic. Despite all you can do, you cannot remove the element of intellectual assent from it. Faith is the opinion that some person will do something for you. If that person really will do that thing for you, then the faith is true. If he will not do it, then the faith is false. In the latter case, not all the benefits in the world will make the faith true. Though it has transformed the world from darkness to light, though it has produced thousands of glorious healthy lives, it remains a pathological phenomenon. It is false, and sooner or later it is sure to be found out.
Such counterfeits should be removed, not out of a love of destruction, but in order to leave room for the pure gold, the existence of which is implied in the presence of the counterfeits. Faith is often based upon error, but there would be no faith at all unless it were sometimes based upon truth. But if Christian faith is based upon truth, then it is not the faith which saves the Christian but the object of the faith. And the object of the faith is Christ. Faith, then, according to the Christian view means simply receiving a gift. To have faith in Christ means to cease trying to win God’s favor by one’s own character; the man who believes in Christ simply accepts the sacrifice which Christ offered on Calvary. The result of such faith is a new life and all good works; but the salvation itself is an absolutely free gift of God.
Very different is the conception of faith which prevails in the liberal Church. According to modern liberalism, faith is essentially the same as “making Christ Master” in one’s life; at least it is by making Christ Master in the life that the welfare of men is sought. But that simply means that salvation is thought to be obtained by our own obedience to the commands of Christ. Such teaching is just a sublimated form of legalism. Not the sacrifice of Christ, on this view, but our own obedience to God’s law, is the ground of hope.
In this way the whole achievement of the Reformation has been given up, and there has been a return to the religion of the Middle Ages. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, God raised up 8 man who began to read the Epistle to the Galatians with his own eyes. The result was the rediscovery of the doctrine of justification by faith. Upon that rediscovery has been based the whole of our evangelical freedom. As expounded by Luther and Calvin the Epistle to the Galatians became the “Magna Charta of Christian liberty.” But modern liberalism has returned to the old interpretation of Galatians which was urged against the Reformers … it has returned to an anti-Reformation exegesis, by which Paul is thought to be attacking in the Epistle only the piecemeal morality of the Pharisees. In reality, of course, the object of Paul’s attack is the thought that in any way man can earn his acceptance with God. What Paul is primarily interested in is not spiritual religion over against ceremonialism, but the free grace of God over against human merit.
The modern Church does not believe in grace
The grace of God is rejected by modern liberalism. And the result is slavery − the slavery of the law, the wretched bondage by which man undertakes the impossible task of establishing his own righteousness as a ground of acceptance with God. It may seem strange at first sight that “liberalism,” of which the very name means freedom, should in reality be wretched slavery. But the phenomenon is not really so strange. Emancipation from the blessed will of God always involves bondage to some worse taskmaster.
Thus it may be said of the modern liberal Church, as of the Jerusalem of Paul’s day, that “she is in bondage with her children.” God grant that she may turn again to the liberty of the gospel of Christ!
The liberty of the gospel depends upon the gift of God by which the Christian life is begun − a gift which involves justification, or the removal of the guilt of sin and the establishment of a right relation between the believer and God, and regeneration or the new birth, which makes of the Christian man a new creature.
But there is one obvious objection to this high doctrine, and the objection leads on to a fuller account of the Christian way of salvation. The obvious objection to the doctrine of the new creation is that it does not seem to be in accord with the observed fact. Are Christians really new creatures? It certainly does not seem so. They are subject to the same old conditions of life to which they were subject before; if you look upon them you cannot notice any very obvious change. They have the same weaknesses, and, unfortunately, they have sometimes the same sins. The new creation, if it be really new, does not seem to be very perfect; God can hardly look upon it and say, as of the first creation, that it is all very good …
“But,” says Paul (and here the objection is answered), “the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith which is in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me.” The Christian life is lived by faith and not by sight; the great change has not yet come to full fruition; sin has not yet been fully conquered; the beginning of the Christian life is a new birth, not an immediate creation of the full grown man. But although the new life has not yet come to full fruition, the Christian knows that the fruition will not fail; he is confident that the God who has begun a good work in him will complete it unto the day of Christ; he knows that the Christ who has loved him and given Himself for him will not fail him now, but through the Holy Spirit will build him up unto the perfect man. That is what Paul means by living the Christian life by faith.
Living the Christian life
Thus the Christian life, though it begins by a momentary act of God, is continued by a process. In other words − to use theological language − justification and regeneration are followed by sanctification. In principle the Christian is already free from the present evil world, but in practice freedom must still be attained. Thus the Christian life is not a life of idleness, but a battle.
That is what Paul means when he speaks of faith working through love (Gal. v. 6). The faith that he makes the means of salvation is not an idle faith, like the faith which is condemned in the Epistle of James, but a faith that works. The work that it performs is love, and what love is Paul explains in the last section of the Epistle to the Galatians. Love, in the Christian sense, is not a mere emotion, but a very practical and a very comprehensive thing. It involves nothing less than the keeping of the whole law of God. “The whole law is fulfilled in one word, I even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Yet the practical results of faith do not mean that faith l itself is a work. It is a significant thing that in that last l “practical” section of Galatians Paul does not say that l faith produces the life of love; he says that the Spirit of I God produces it. The Spirit, then, in that section is represented as doing exactly what in the pregnant words, “faith working through love,” is attributed to faith. The apparent contradiction simply leads to the true conception of faith. True faith does not do anything. When it is said to do something (for example, when we say that it can remove mountains), that is only by a very natural shortness of expression. Faith is the exact opposite of works; faith does not give, it receives. So when Paul says that we do something by faith, that is just another way of saying that of ourselves we do nothing; when it is said that faith works through love that means that through faith the necessary basis of all Christian work has been obtained in the removal of guilt and the birth of the new man, and that the Spirit of God has been received − the Spirit who works with and through the Christian man for holy living. The force which enters the Christian life through faith and works itself out through love is the power of the Spirit of God.
But the Christian life is lived not only by faith; it is also lived in hope. The Christian is in the midst of a sore battle. And as for the condition of the world at large − nothing but the coldest heartlessness could be satisfied with that. It is certainly true that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Even in the Christian life there are things that we should like to see removed; there are fears within as well as fightings without; even within the Christian life there are sad evidences of sin. But according to the hope which Christ has given us, there will be final victory, and the struggle of this world will be followed by the glories of heaven. That hope runs all through the Christian life; Christianity i[s] not engrossed by this transitory world, but measures all things by the thought of eternity.
Why are Christians ‘otherworldly’ and ‘selfish’?
The “otherworldliness” of Christianity is objected to as a form of selfishness. The Christian, it is said, does what is right because of the hope of heaven, hut how much nobler is the man who because of duty walks boldly into the darkness of annihilation!
The objection would have some weight if heaven according to Christian belief were mere enjoyment. But as a matter of fact heaven is communion with God and with His Christ. It can be said reverently that the Christian longs for heaven not only for his own sake, but also for the sake of God. Our present love is so cold, our present service so weak; and we would one day love and serve Him as His love deserves. It is perfectly true that the Christian is dissatisfied with the present world, but it is a holy dissatisfaction; it is that hunger and thirst after righteousness which our Savior blessed. We are separated from the Savior now by the veil of sense and by the effects of sin, and it is not selfish to long to see Him face to face. To relinquish such longing is not unselfishness, but is like the cold heartlessness of a man who could part from father or mother or wife or child without a pang. It is not selfish to long for the One whom not having seen we love.
Such is the Christian life − it is a life of conflict but it is also a life of hope. It views this world under the aspect of eternity; the fashion of this world passeth away, and all must stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Tomorrow: How the modern Church overemphasises the world
Churchmouse Campanologist continues its John Gresham Machen series of excerpts from Christianity and Liberalism with Chapter 6 – Salvation. For past entries, click here.
Dr Machen explains how modern Christianity distorts the true meaning of salvation through Jesus Christ. What he wrote in 1923, when his book was published, still resonates today and explains the lukewarm attitude towards Christ as Saviour.
Today’s excerpts are from pages 120 -131 of Reformed Audio’s PDF of the book. Subheads and emphases are mine for easier navigation.
On personal Christian experience
The modern liberal Church is fond of appealing to experience. But where shall true Christian experience be found if not in the blessed peace which comes from Calvary? That peace comes only when a man recognizes that all his striving to be right with God, all his feverish endeavor to keep the Law before he can be saved, is unnecessary, and that the Lord Jesus has wiped out the handwriting that was against him by dying instead of him on the Cross. Who can measure the depth of the peace and joy that comes from this blessed knowledge? Is it a “theory of the atonement,” a delusion of man’s fancy? Or is it the very truth of God?
Sin and forgiveness
What a degraded view of God it is, the modern liberal exclaims, when God is represented as being “alienated” from man, and as waiting coldly until a price be paid before He grants salvation! In reality, we are told, God is more willing to forgive sin than we are willing to be forgiven; reconciliation, therefore, can have to do only with man; it all depends upon us; God will receive us any time we choose.
The objection depends of course upon the liberal view of sin. If sin is so trifling a matter as the liberal Church supposes, then indeed the curse of God’s law can be taken very lightly, and God can easily let by-gones be by-gones.
This business of letting by-gones be by-gones has a pleasant sound. But in reality it is the most heartless thing in the world. It will not do at all even in the case of sins committed against our fellow-men. To say nothing of sin against God, what shall be done about the harm that we have wrought to our neighbor? Sometimes, no doubt, the harm can be repaired … The more serious wrongs are those that are done, not to the bodies, but to the souls of men. And who can think with complacency of wrongs of that kind which he has committed? …
In the presence of such memories, we are told by the modern preacher simply to repent and to let by-gones be by-gones. But what a heartless thing is such repentance! We escape into some higher, happier, respectable life. But what of those whom we by our example and by our words have helped to drag down to the brink of hell? We forget them and let by-gones be by-gones! …
The truly penitent man longs to wipe out the effects of sin, not merely to forget sin. But who can wipe out the effects of sin? Others are suffering because of our past sins; and we can attain no real peace until we suffer in their stead. We long to go back into the tangle of our life, and make right the things that are wrong − at least to suffer where we have caused others to suffer. And something like that Christ did for us when He died instead of us on the cross; He atoned for all our sins.
The sorrow for sins committed against one’s fellowmen does indeed remain in the Christian’s heart. And he will seek by every means that is within his power to repair the damage that he has done. But atonement at least has been made − made as truly as if the sinner himself had suffered with and for those whom he has wronged. And the sinner himself, by a mystery of grace, becomes right with God. All sin at bottom is a sin against God. “Against thee, thee only have I sinned” is the cry of a true penitent … Yet even for such guilt God has provided a fountain of cleansing in the precious blood of Christ …
Deny the Atonement and deny moral order
… to deny the necessity of atonement is to deny the existence of a real moral order. And it is strange how those who venture upon such denial can regard themselves as disciples of Jesus; for if one thing is clear in the record of Jesus’ life it is that Jesus recognized the justice as distinguished from the love, of God. God is love, according to Jesus, but He is not only love; Jesus spoke, in terrible words, of the sin that shall never be forgiven either in this world or in that which is to come. Clearly Jesus recognized the existence of retributive justice; Jesus was far from accepting the light modern view of sin.
Modern liberal teachers are never tired of ringing the changes upon this objection. They speak with horror of the doctrine of an “alienated” or an “angry” God. In answer, of course … the New Testament clearly speaks of the wrath of God and the wrath of Jesus Himself; and all the teaching of Jesus presupposes a divine indignation against sin. With what possible right, then, can those who reject this vital element in Jesus’ teaching and example regard themselves as true disciples of His? The truth is that the modern rejection of the doctrine of God’s wrath proceeds from a light view of sin which is totally at variance with the teaching of the whole New Testament and of Jesus Himself. If a man has once come under a true conviction of sin, he will have little difficulty with the doctrine of the Cross.
But as a matter of fact the modern objection to the doctrine of the atonement on the ground that that doctrine is contrary to the love of God, is based upon the most abysmal misunderstanding of the doctrine itself. The modern liberal teachers persist in speaking of the sacrifice of Christ as though it were a sacrifice made by some one other than God. They speak of it as though it meant that God waits coldly until a price is paid to Him before He forgives sin. As a matter of fact, it means nothing of the kind; the objection ignores that which is absolutely fundamental in the Christian doctrine of the Cross. The fundamental thing is that God Himself, and not another, makes the sacrifice for sin − God Himself in the person of the Son who assumed our nature and died for us, God Himself in the Person of the Father who spared not His own Son but offered Him up for us all. Salvation is as free for us as the air we breathe; God’s the dreadful cost, ours the gain. “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.” Such love is very different from the complacency found in the God of modern preaching; this love is love that did not count the cost; it is love that is love indeed.
This love and this love alone brings true joy to men. Joy is indeed being sought by the modern liberal Church. But it is being sought in ways that are false. How may communion with God be made joyful? Obviously, we are told, by emphasizing the comforting attributes of God − His long-suffering, His love. Let us, it is urged, regard Him not as a moody Despot, not as a sternly righteous Judge, but simply as a loving Father. Away with the horrors of the old theology! Let us worship a God in whom we can rejoice.
If God loves us, why worry?
How can anyone be unhappy when the ruler of the universe is declared to be the loving Father of all men who will never permanently inflict pain upon His children? Where is the sting of remorse if all sin will necessarily be forgiven? Yet men are strangely ungrateful. After the modern preacher has done his part with all diligence − after everything unpleasant has carefully been eliminated from the conception of God, after His unlimited love has been celebrated with the eloquence that it deserves − the congregation somehow persistently refuses to burst into the old ecstasies of joy. The truth is, the God of modern preaching, though He may perhaps be very good, is rather uninteresting. Nothing is so insipid as indiscriminate good humor. Is that really love that costs so little? If God will necessarily forgive, no matter what we do, why trouble ourselves about Him at all? Such a God may deliver us from the fear of hell. But His heaven, if He has any, is full of sin.
The other objection to the modern encouraging idea of God is that it is not true. How do you know that God is all love and kindness? Surely not through nature, for it is full of horrors. Human suffering may be unpleasant, but it is real, and God must have something to do with it. Just as surely not through the Bible. For it was from the Bible that the old theologians derived that conception of God which you would reject as gloomy. “The Lord thy God,” the Bible says, “is a consuming fire.” Or is Jesus alone your authority? You are no better off. For it was Jesus who spoke of the outer darkness and the everlasting fire, of the sin that shall not be forgiven either in this age or in that which is to come. Or do you appeal, for your comforting idea of God, to a twentieth-century revelation granted immediately to you? It is to be feared that you will convince no one but yourself.
The difficulty with an all-joyful kind of Christianity
Religion cannot be made joyful simply by looking on the bright side of God. For a one-sided God is not a real God, and it is the real God alone who can satisfy the longing of our soul. God is love, but is He only love? God is love, but is love God? Seek joy alone, then, seek joy at any cost, and you will not find it. How then may it be attained?
The search for joy in religion seems to have ended in disaster … There seems to be no hope; God is separate from sinners; there is no room for joy, but only a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation.
Yet such a God has at least one advantage over the comforting God of modern preaching − He is alive, He is sovereign, He is not bound by His creation or by His creatures, He can perform wonders. Could He even save us if He would? He has saved us − in that message the gospel consists … God’s own Son delivered up for us all, freedom from the world, sought by philosophers of all the ages, offered now freely to every simple soul, things hidden from the wise and prudent revealed unto babes, the long striving over, the impossible accomplished, sin conquered by mysterious grace, communion at length with the holy God, our Father which art in heaven!
Surely this and this alone is joy. But it is a joy that is akin to fear. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Were we not safer with a God of our own devising − love and only love, a Father and nothing else, one before whom we could stand in our own merit without fear?
Salvation in today’s world
But how is the redeeming work of Christ applied to the individual Christian man? The answer of the New Testament is plain. According to the New Testament the work of Christ is applied to the individual Christian man by the Holy Spirit. And this work of the Holy Spirit is part of the creative work of God. It is not accomplished by the ordinary use of means; it is not accomplished merely by using the good that is already in man. On the contrary, it is something new. It is not an influence upon the life, but the beginning of a new life; it is not development of what we had already, but a new birth. At the very center of Christianity are the words, “Ye must be born again.”
These words are despised today. They involve supernaturalism, and the modern man is opposed to supernaturalism in the experience of the individual as much as in the realm of history. A cardinal doctrine of modern liberalism is that the world’s evil may be overcome by the world’s good; no help is thought to be needed from outside the world.
This doctrine is propagated in various ways. It runs all through the popular literature of our time. It dominates religious literature, and it appears even upon the stage …
The same thing is taught in more immediately practical ways. For example, there are those who would apply it to the prisoners in our jails. The inmates of jails and penitentiaries constitute no doubt unpromising material. But it is a great mistake, it is said, to tell them that they are bad, to discourage them by insisting upon their sin … the evil that is in man is to be overcome not by a foreign good but by a good which man himself possesses.
Certainly there is a large element of truth in this modern principle. That element of truth is found in the Bible. The Bible does certainly teach that the good that is already in man ought to be fostered in order to check the evil. Whatsoever things are true and pure and of good report − we ought to think on those things. Certainly the principle of overcoming the world’s evil by the good already in the world is a great principle. The old theologians recognized it to the full in their doctrine of “common grace” … Without the use of it, this world could not be lived in for a day. The use of it is certainly a great principle; it will certainly accomplish many useful things.
But there is one thing which it will not accomplish. It will not remove the disease of sin. It will indeed palliate the symptoms of the disease; it will change the form of the disease. Sometimes the disease is hidden, and there are those who think that it is cured. But then it bursts forth in some new way, as in 1914, and startles the world.
In reality, however, the figure of disease is misleading. The only true figure − if indeed it can be called merely a figure − is the one which is used in the Bible. Man is not merely ill, but he is dead, in trespasses and sins, and what is really needed is a new life. That life is given by the Holy Spirit in “regeneration” or the new birth …
Our relationship to Christ
Many are the passages and many are the ways in which the central doctrine of the new birth is taught in the Word of God. One of the most stupendous passages is Gal. ii. 20: “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live but Christ liveth in me” … Undoubtedly if the words of Gal. ii. 20 stood alone they might be taken in a mystical or pantheistic sense; they might be taken to involve the merging of the personality of the Christian in the personality of Christ. But Paul had no reason to fear such a misinterpretation, for he had fortified himself against it by the whole of his teaching. The new relation of the Christian to Christ, according to Paul, involves no loss of the separate personality of the Christian; on the contrary, it is everywhere intensely personal; it is not a merely mystical relationship to the All or the Absolute, but a relationship of love existing between one person and another.
“It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me” − these words involve a tremendous conception of the break that comes in a man’s life when he becomes a Christian. It is almost as though he became a new person − so stupendous is the change. These words were not written by a man who believed that Christianity means merely the entrance of a new motive into the life; Paul believed with all his mind and heart in the doctrine of the new creation or the new birth.
But there is another aspect of the same salvation. Regeneration means a new life; but there is also a new relation in which the believer stands toward God. That new relation is instituted by “justification” − the act of God by which a sinner is pronounced righteous in His sight because of the atoning death of Christ. It is not necessary to ask whether justification comes before regeneration or vice versa; in reality they are two aspects of one salvation. And they both stand at the very beginning of the Christian life. The Christian has not merely the promise of a new life, but he has already a new life. And he has not merely the promise of being pronounced righteous in God’s sight (though the blessed pronouncement will be confirmed on the judgment day), but he is already pronounced righteous here and now. At the beginning of every Christian life there stands, not a process, but a definite act of God.
Tomorrow: More on justification and conversion
Today, our series on John Gresham Machen‘s Christianity and Liberalism, published in 1923, covers the beginning of Chapter 6 – Salvation. For past entries, click here.
Dr Machen explains the reasons for our unfortunate downgrading of Christ’s sufficient sacrifice on the Cross and how our clergy help foster it.
Excerpts from pages 110 – 120 below come from Reformed Audio’s PDF of the book. Subheads and emphases are mine for easier navigation.
Christian versus Modernist (‘liberal’) perspectives on salvation
The difference with regard to the way of salvation concerns, in the first place, the basis of salvation in the redeeming work of Christ. According to Christian belief, Jesus is our Savior, not by virtue of what He said, not even by virtue of what He was, but by what He did. He is our Savior, not because He has inspired us to live the same kind of life that He lived, but because He took upon Himself the dreadful guilt of our sins and bore it instead of us on the cross. Such is the Christian conception of the Cross of Christ. It is ridiculed as being a “subtle theory of the atonement.” In reality, it is the plain teaching of the word of God; we know absolutely nothing about an atonement that is not a vicarious atonement, for that is the only atonement of which the New Testament speaks. And this Bible doctrine is not intricate or subtle … It is not the Bible doctrine of the atonement which is difficult to understand − what are really incomprehensible are the elaborate modern efforts to get rid of the Bible doctrine in the interests of human pride.
Modern liberal preachers do indeed sometimes speak of “the atonement.” But they speak of it just as seldom as they possibly can, and one can see plainly that their hearts are elsewhere than at the foot of the Cross … when the traditional phraseology has been stripped away, the essence of the modern conception of the death of Christ, though that conception appears in many forms, is fairly plain. The essence of it is that the death of Christ had an effect not upon God but only upon man. Sometimes the effect upon man is conceived of in a very simple way, Christ’s death being regarded merely as an example of self-sacrifice for us to emulate. The uniqueness of this particular example, then, can be found only in the fact that Christian sentiment, gathering around it, has made it a convenient symbol for all self-sacrifice; it puts in concrete form what would otherwise have to be expressed in colder general terms. Sometimes, again, the effect of Christ’s death upon us is conceived in subtler ways; the death of Christ, it is said, shows how much God hates sin — since sin brought even the Holy One to the dreadful Cross — and we too, therefore, ought to hate sin, as God hates it, and repent. Sometimes, still again, the death of Christ is thought of as displaying the love of God; it exhibits God’s own Son as given up for us all. These “modern theories of the atonement” are not all to be placed upon the same plane; the last of them, in particular, may be joined with a high view of Jesus’ Person. But they err in that they ignore the dreadful reality of guilt, and make a mere persuasion of the human will all that is needed for salvation. They do indeed all contain an element of truth … But they are swallowed up in a far greater truth − that Christ died instead of us to present us faultless before the throne of God. Without that central truth, all the rest is devoid of real meaning: an example of self-sacrifice is useless to those who are under both the guilt and thralldom of sin; the knowledge of God’s hatred of sin can in itself bring only despair; an exhibition of the love of God is a mere display unless there was some underlying reason for the sacrifice.
Modern clergy’s dislike of the Cross
Upon the Christian doctrine of the Cross, modern liberals are never weary of pouring out the vials of their hatred and their scorn … They speak with disgust of those who believe “that the blood of our Lord, shed in a substitutionary death, placates an alienated Deity and makes possible welcome for the returning sinner.” Against the doctrine of the Cross they use every weapon of caricature and vilification. Thus they pour out their scorn upon a thing so holy and so precious that in the presence of it the Christian heart melts in gratitude too deep for words. It never seems to occur to modern liberals that in deriding the Christian doctrine of the Cross, they are trampling upon human hearts. But the modern liberal attacks upon the Christian doctrine of the Cross may at least serve the purpose of showing what that doctrine is, and from this point of view they may be examined briefly now.
The substitution of mysticism for historicism
… it is sometimes said that as Christians we may attend to what Christ does now for every Christian rather than to what He did long ago in Palestine. But the evasion involves a total abandonment of the Christian faith. If the saving work of Christ were confined to what He does now for every Christian, there would be no such thing as a Christian gospel − an account of an event which put a new face on life. What we should have left would be simply mysticism, and mysticism is quite different from Christianity. It is the connection of the present experience of the believer with an actual historic appearance of Jesus in the world which prevents our religion from being mysticism and causes it to be Christianity.
… our religion must be abandoned altogether unless at a definite point in history Jesus died as a propitiation for the sins of men. Christianity is certainly dependent upon history.
But if so, the objection lies very near. Must we really depend for the welfare of our souls upon what happened long ago? …
With regard to this objection it should be observed that if religion be made independent of history there is no such thing as a gospel. For “gospel” means “good news,” tidings, information about something that has happened. A gospel independent of history is a contradiction in terms. The Christian gospel means, not a presentation of what always has been true, but a report of something new − something that imparts a totally different aspect to the situation of mankind. The situation of mankind was desperate because of sin; but God has changed the situation by the atoning death of Christ − that is no mere reflection upon the old, but an account of something new. We are shut up in this world as in a beleaguered camp. To maintain our courage, the liberal preacher offers us exhortation. Make the best of the situation, he says, look on the bright side of life. But unfortunately, such exhortation cannot change the facts. In particular it cannot remove the dreadful fact of sin. Very different is the message of the Christian evangelist. He offers not reflection on the old but tidings of something new, not exhortation but a gospel.
It is true that the Christian gospel is an account, not of something that happened yesterday, but of something that happened long ago; but the important thing is that it really happened. If it really happened, then it makes little difference when it happened. No matter when it happened, whether yesterday or in the first century, it remains a real gospel, a real piece of news …
Experience does not provide a substitute for the documentary evidence, but it does confirm that evidence. The word of the Cross no longer seems to the Christian to be merely a far-off thing, merely a matter to be disputed about by trained theologians. On the contrary, it is received into the Christian’s inmost soul, and every day and hour of the Christian’s life brings new confirmation of its truth.
Why we see an increase in universalism
… the Christian doctrine of salvation through the death of Christ is criticized on the ground that it is narrow. It binds salvation to the name of Jesus, and there are many men in the world who have never in any effective way heard of the name of Jesus. What is really needed, we are told, is a salvation which will save all men everywhere, whether they have heard of Jesus or not, and whatever may be the type of life to which they have been reared. Not a new creed, it is said, will meet the universal need of the world, but some means of making effective in right living whatever creed men may chance to have.
It is sometimes said that although one way of salvation is by means of acceptance of the gospel there may be other ways. But this method of meeting the objection relinquishes one of the things that are most obviously characteristic of the Christian message − namely, its exclusiveness. What struck the early observers of Christianity most forcibly was not merely that salvation was offered by means of the Christian gospel, but that all other means were resolutely rejected. The early Christian missionaries demanded an absolutely exclusive devotion to Christ. Such exclusiveness ran directly counter to the prevailing syncretism of the Hellenistic age. In that day, many saviors were offered by many religions to the attention of men, but the various pagan religions could live together in perfect harmony; when a man became a devotee of one god, he did not have to give up the others. But Christianity would have nothing to do with these “courtly polygamies of the soul” … Salvation, in other words, was not merely through Christ, but it was only through Christ. In that little word “only” lay all the offence. Without that word there would have been no persecutions; the cultured men of the day would probably have been willing to give Jesus a place, and an honorable place, among the saviors of mankind … So modern liberalism, placing Jesus alongside other benefactors of mankind, is perfectly inoffensive in the modern world. All men speak well of it. It is entirely inoffensive. But it is also entirely futile. The offence of the Cross is done away, but so is the glory and the power.
Christ is bound up with salvation
Thus it must fairly be admitted that Christianity does bind salvation to the name of Christ … it may be said simply that the Christian way of salvation is narrow only so long as the Church chooses to let it remain narrow. The name of Jesus is discovered to be strangely adapted to men of every race and of every kind of previous education. And the Church has ample means, with promise of God’s Spirit, to bring the name of Jesus to all. If, therefore, this way of salvation is not offered to all, it is not the fault of the way of salvation itself, but the fault of those who fail to use the means that God has placed in their hands.
It is certainly true that the Christian way of salvation places a stupendous responsibility upon men. But that responsibility is like the responsibility which, as ordinary observation shows, God does, as a matter of fact, commit to men … It is a terrible responsibility; but it exists, and it is just like the other known dealings of God.
Another modern distortion of the Cross
How can one person, it is asked, suffer for the sins of another? The thing, we are told, is absurd. Guilt, it is said, is personal; if I allow another man to suffer for my fault, my guilt is not thereby one whit diminished …
In the war, for example, many men died freely for the welfare of others. Here, it is said, we have something analogous to the sacrifice of Christ.
It must be confessed, however, that the analogy is very faint; for it does not touch the specific point at issue. The death of a volunteer soldier in the war was like the death of Christ in that it was a supreme example of self-sacrifice. But the thing to be accomplished by the self-sacrifice was entirely different from the thing which was accomplished on Calvary. The death of those who sacrificed themselves in the war brought peace and protection to the loved ones at home, but it could never avail to wipe out the guilt of sin …
Why is it that men are no longer willing to trust for their own salvation and for the hope of the world to one act that was done by one Man of long ago? Why is it that they prefer to trust to millions of acts of self-sacrifice wrought by millions of men all through the centuries and in our own day? The answer is plain. It is because men have lost sight of the majesty of Jesus’ Person. The[y] think of Him as a man like themselves; and if He was a man like themselves, His death becomes simply an example of self-sacrifice. But there have been millions of examples of self-sacrifice. Why then should we pay such exclusive attention to this one Palestinian example of long ago? Men used to say with reference to Jesus, “There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin.” They say so now no longer. On the contrary, every man is now regarded as plenty good enough to pay the price of sin if, whether in peace or in war, he will only go bravely over the top in some noble cause.
Understanding the deity of Christ and salvation
The Christian doctrine of the atonement, therefore, is altogether rooted in the Christian doctrine of the deity of Christ. The reality of an atonement for sin depends altogether upon the New Testament presentation of the Person of Christ. And even the hymn[s] dealing with the Cross which we sing in Church can be placed in an ascending scale according as they are based upon a lower or a higher view of Jesus’ Person …
When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.
There at length are heard the accents of true Christian feeling – “the wondrous cross on which the Prince of glory died.” When we come to see that it was no mere man who suffered on Calvary but the Lord of Glory, then we shall be willing to say that one drop of the precious blood of Jesus is of more value, for our own salvation and for the hope of society, than all the rivers of blood that have flowed upon the battlefields of history …
It is perfectly true that the Christ of modern naturalistic reconstruction never could have suffered for the sins of others; but it is very different in the case of the Lord of Glory.
Tomorrow: Understanding salvation
Yesterday, we read Dr Tullian Tchividjian’s views on recent accusations of antinomianism, a heresy, among Calvinists. Several days ago, we examined Dr Michael Horton’s response.
Today, in my final post on the subject, we look at Dr R Scott Clark’s perspective. Dr Clark is the author of Heidelblog. He is also Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California, has written several books about the Reformed faith and serves as an Associate Pastor at Oceanside United Reformed Church (Carlsbad, CA).
I’ll provide you excerpts from three of his posts which trace the true Reformed thought on Law and Gospel.
First, as background, Dr Clark expresses his disappointment with the Young, Restless and Reformed (YRR) crowd’s reaction to Dr Horton’s latest work, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way:
I hope the YRR world, which professes to admire the old faith and its contemporary relevance, will exert the effort and spend the time to find out what a full-blooded, confessional Reformed theology looks like.
Second, two days later, on January 28, 2011, Dr Clark analysed the difference between the YRR folks and traditional Calvinist theology in ‘We Are Not Wesleyans’. As with my preceding posts on this particular subject, the focus is on Jason Hood’s article for Christianity Today calling for Calvinist clarity on Law and Gospel. Dr Clark observes (emphases mine):
Jason is worried that we are neglecting the doctrine of regeneration but I worry that too many Reformed folk talk like Methodists. The historic Reformed reading of Romans 7 is that Paul is describing the struggle of the Christian man. Under the influence of the Keswick higher-life movement and/or Ridderbos’ redemptive-historical reading of Romans 7 most Reformed folk now seem embarrassed of the older reading. Well, I’m not. None of the readings resolves all the difficulties of that passage but Calvin’s reading still seems to be the strongest.
One of the features of the older Reformed orthodoxy that attracts me to it is its realism about the human condition. Caspar Olevianus (1536-87) taught that we Christians are but partly regenerate. By that he was referring not to regeneration in the sense of “awakening from spiritual death to spiritual life” but in the older sense of “progressive sanctification.” He understood that process is imperfect, halting … It is inaugurated in this life but it is never finished.
Following Calvin, he taught a doctrine of “the double benefit of Christ,” i.e., by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone we are justified and the justified are also being sanctified. Contrary to some more modern views, Calvin and Olevianus did not make progressive sanctification absolutely parallel to justification. The latter is always logically prior to the former, but, in broad terms there is a rough parallelism. Those for whom Christ obeyed and died, for whom he was raised, whom he has brought into union with himself, by the Spirit, through faith, he will sanctify.
Calvin and Olevianus, like Luther and the Westminster Divines were realistic about Christian experience. It is not always (or even often) a series of unalloyed triumphs. It is just as often a series of failures. It is a constant death. Americans don’t deal well with failure or death. We want to see progress. We want to see the job finished. That’s why perfectionism has flourished in this country but here’s a place where the Reformed faith is just downright un-American: we believe that all our faculties are corrupted (depraved) and that sin is not theory but a reality …
I’m still struggling with the very same sins with which I struggled at the very beginning of my Christian life. Should I try harder? Yes, but I fail to meet even that law. Do I need exhortation? Sure, I need the law. It doesn’t produce perfection in me or even godliness, but it does drive me to Christ, who was and remains perfect for me …
Maybe if I was a Methodist I would be more holy? For now I’m just a lowly, struggling, cross-carrying, Calvinistic realist. Maybe Calvinist sins are greater than those of the evangelical Methodists or maybe Reformed folk think of sin, death, and the Christian life differently because we operate with different paradigms? …
In between those two posts, Dr Clark wrote another, which is more theological in nature, ‘Jason Hood, Frank Turk, Dane Ortlund, Mike Horton and Antinomianism (UPDATE 3)’:
There is something Hood and Turk seem to be missing.
There is a great deal of confusion in broad evangelicalism over the proper use of the law. The first and greatest error is to fail to distinguish law and gospel theologically or hermeneutically and to teach that one is justified because he is sanctified. This is the Romanist error rejected rightly by the Reformation churches. The second error is also quite dangerous: to say that the justified are not morally bound to God’s moral law. No one is justified by observing the moral law. Scripture and the Reformed confessions are clear about this. They are also clear, however, that no one who is justified will ignore God’s moral law. We are justified in order that we might be sanctified. The Holy Spirit is power of sanctification and he operates first through the gospel to give life and to create faith, by which we are united to Christ, but he also creates in the justified a desire to be more and more conformed to God’s moral will as revealed in the moral law. Believers, sola gratia come to love God’s law, even as it continues (see below) to drive them back to Christ.
Then, he mentions the Lordship Controversy, which focused on John MacArthur. My regular readers will know that I have cited widely from Dr MacArthur in the past (and may do so going forward). However, the Pyromaniacs bloggers also have the same theology (Phil Johnson is a pastor at Grace To You ministries), which, with regard to Law and Gospel, can prove confusing at times. As the Pyros and Dr MacArthur claim to be Calvinist, one does not expect to see loads of legalism in their theology, yet it is there.
Back to Dr Clark (I have highlhighted Question 20 below in red, for my friends from other denominations who mistakenly believe that Calvinists are universalists):
It is not surprising that there is a backlash from some non-confessional evangelical quarters regarding the use of the law. It’s been this way since at least the start of the so-called “Lordship Controversy” in the late 1980s. One of the features of that controversy was its disconnection from the Reformation. Both sides appealed to the Protestants but both sides ignored the Protestant confessions where all of this is worked out exquisitely and briefly. The Heidelberg Catechism solved the Lordship Controversy before it ever began:
2. How many things are necessary for you to know, that in this comfort you may live and die happily?
Three things: the first, how great my sin and misery is; the second, how I am redeemed from all my sins and misery; the third, how I am to be thankful to God for such redemption.
3. From where do you know your misery?
From the Law of God.
4. What does the Law of God require of us?
Christ teaches us in sum, Matt 22: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
5. Can you keep all this perfectly?
No, for I am prone by nature to hate God and my neighbor.
20. Are all men then saved by Christ as they perished in Adam?
No, only those who by true faith are ingrafted into Him and receive all His benefits.
21. What is true faith?
True faith is not only a certain knowledge whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word; but also a hearty trust, which the Holy Spirit works in me by the Gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.
86. Since then we are redeemed from our misery by grace through Christ, without any merit of ours, why should we do good works?
Because Christ, having redeemed us by His blood, also renews us by His Holy Spirit after His own image, that with our whole life we show ourselves thankful to God for His blessing, and also that He be glorified through us; then also, that we ourselves may be assured of our faith by the fruits thereof; and by our godly walk win also others to Christ.
91. What are good works?
Those only which proceed from true faith, and are done according to the Law of God, unto His glory; and not such as rest on our own opinion or the commandments of men.
14. Can those who are converted to God keep these commandments perfectly?
No, but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; yet so, that with earnest purpose they begin to live not only according to some, but according to all the Commandments of God.
115. Why then does God so strictly enjoin the ten Commandments upon us, since in this life no one can keep them?
First, that as long as we live we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature and so the more earnestly seek forgiveness of sins and righteousness in Christ; secondly, that without ceasing we diligently ask God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we be renewed more and more after the image of God, until we attain the goal of perfection after this life.
This is all perfectly clear and perfectly biblical … why do the evangelicals keep swinging back and forth on the pendulum? Because they are not rooted in the Reformation. They make occasional forays into the Reformation during periods of controversy (e.g., the “Lordship Controversy”) but their theology, piety, and practice is not shaped by the churchly Protestant consensus reflected in the Reformed (or Lutheran) confessions. Because their piety centers on experience … and/or fundamentalism (… see Recovering the Reformed Confession there is no systematic, ecclesiastical catechesis in these basics). Thus, whatever temporary adherence to the Reformation might develop in one generation withers in the noonday sun and the next (or the one after that) …
With apologies to Dr Clark for the lengthy extracts, but he has made essential theological points which I wanted to spell out here. My purpose for the antinomian posts isn’t about what Messrs Hood or Turk think about Calvinism, but what my readers think about it. And a number of them are under the misconception that Calvinists are Unitarians. Others believe their message is hard-hearted and cruel. (Sadly, to compound this, there is a new, erroneous wing encompassing a small number of Reformed churches. This is called Federal Vision, which is highly legalistic, works-based, pseudo-Catholic and theonomic. It is not Calvinist.)
If anything, true Calvinism offers hope to wretched humanity. This is a much better message than continually riding the highs and lows of personal assurance, what someone recently called Daisy Theology: ‘He loves me, He loves me not’, never knowing if we’ve lost our salvation because of ‘something’ we did or didn’t do.
Several days ago, we read Dr Michael Horton’s response to Jason Hood’s article in Christianity Today which intimated that some Calvinists might be encouraging antinomianism, a heresy. Mr Hood had written:
In certain quarters of the evangelical world, being accused of antinomianism is increasingly considered to be a symptom of a healthy ministry. This belief has a long pedigree; no less an authority than Martyn Lloyd-Jones believed there was “no better test” of gospel fidelity than the accusation of antinomianism.
The call comes not only from him but also from Frank Turk at Pyromaniacs for a check on Calvinist teachings in this regard.
One of the theologians responding to Mr Hood was the Revd William Graham Tullian Tchividjian (pronounced cha-vi-jin), pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, a visiting professor of theology at Reformed Theological Seminary and a grandson of Billy and Ruth Graham. In an article for The Gospel Coalition, ‘Two Ways to Realize Radical Obedience: My Indirect Response to Jason Hood’, Dr Tchividjian explains why these accusations of heresy are erroneous. Excerpts follow, emphases mine. I hope you will have time to read his article in full, including the readers’ comments.
… one way to gauge our love for God is obedience to his commands (John 14:15, 1 John 5:3). Where there is a profession of Christ without a practice of Christlikeness, concern is warranted.
The issue is how do we keep God’s commands? What stimulates and sustains a long obedience in the same direction? Where does the power come from to do God’s will and to follow God’s lead?
Our answer to these questions is determined by our understanding of the distinctive role of God’s law and gospel in the life of a Christian. Therefore, it is crucial that we get this right, biblically and theologically.
When John (or Jesus) talks about keeping God’s commands as a way to know whether you love Jesus or not, he’s not using the law as a way to motivate. He’s simply stating a fact. Those who love God will keep on keeping his commands … God wants a sustained obedience from the heart. How is that possible? Long-term, sustained obedience can only come from the grace which flows from what Jesus has already done, not guilt or fear of what we must do …
The fact is, however, that the only way licentious people start to obey is when they get a taste of God’s radical, unconditional acceptance of sinners. As Mike Horton points out here, in Romans 6:1-4 the Apostle Paul answers antinomianism (lawlessness) not with more law but with more gospel! … The irony, in other words, of gospel-based sanctification is that those who end up obeying more are those who increasingly realize that their standing with God is not based on their obedience, but Christ’s …
Now, hear me: The law of God has its rightful place in the life of a Christian. It’s a gift from God. It’s good. It graciously shows Christians what God commands and instructs us in the way of holiness. But nowhere does the Bible say that the law possesses the power to enable us to do what it says. You could put it this way: the law guides but it does not give. The law shows us what a sanctified life looks like and plots our course, but it does not have sanctifying power—the law cannot change a human heart.
… the law serves us by making us thankful for Jesus when we break it and serves us by showing how to love God and others. Only the gospel empowers us to keep the law. And when we fail to keep it, the gospel comforts by reminding us that God’s infinite approval does not depend on our keeping of the law, but Christ’s keeping of the law on our behalf. The gospel serves the Christian every day and in every way by reminding us that God’s love for us does not get bigger when we obey or smaller when we disobey …
Therefore, it’s the gospel (what Jesus has done) that alone can give God-honoring animation to our obedience. The power to obey comes from being moved and motivated by the completed work of Jesus for us. The fuel to do good flows from what’s already been done. So, while the law directs us, only the gospel can drive us …
J. Gresham Machen wrote, “What I need first of all is not exhortation, but a gospel; not directions for saving myself but knowledge of how God has saved me.” The Gospel of amazing grace gets us in, keeps us in, and will eventually get us to the finish line. It’s all of grace!
Now, go and spread this defiant, scandalously liberating, counter-intuitive Word around the world…it’s waiting!
Tomorrow: R Scott Clark
