It is interesting, to say the least, that in biblical times miracles validated the messenger but in today's world, that is not necessarily the case. Why?
In the book of Acts and the epistles, the vast majority of the miraculous signs and wonders were performed by THE apostles or those closely associated with them. This is what 2 Corinthians 12:12 says:
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
This clearly shows that one of the signs of a true apostle was signs and wonders. When I say true apostle, I am talking about an original apostle...one of the 11, after Judas had gone to do what he was going to do. And Paul...he can be thrown into this mix because he was an eyewitness of the Lord Jesus according to Acts 9. Does this mean that ordinary people cannot perform miraculous things with the help of the Holy Spirit? No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that those occurrences are the exception, not the norm. These things are not something that need to be, or should be, sought out. God can do what He wants to do whenever He feels like He wants to do it. But, according to His recorded Word, the miraculous signs and wonders were something that followed the apostles, not Joe Smith on Main Street.
According to the Scripture, in Acts 2:22, Jesus was a man "approved of God" by miraculous things:
“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know
I will say no more about this. I don't need to say anything further. It speaks for itself. Jesus was "approved of God" because of the "miracles and wonders and signs" which God did through Him. Further along in Acts, chapter 14 and verse 3, Paul and Barnabas were confirmed as genuine messengers of God.....because of the signs they did:
Therefore they spent a long time there, speaking boldly with reliance upon the Lord, who was testifying to the word of His grace, granting that signs and wonders be done by their hands.
Now, again, these verses DO NOT prove that God doesn’t give His miraculous gifts to just anybody. He can do what He feels like doing when He feels like doing it. But, these verses also DO NOT say that miraculous signs are for just any believer. If anybody outside of those people had these miraculous gifts, it was the exception, not the norm. All of these verses speak to God's apostles....or to Jesus Himself. Therefore, we can conclude that miraculous signs were given to the apostles, and Christ, at this time to CONFIRM the message of God and the Gospel.
Also, another thing to keep in mind is this:
At this time, there was no Word of God. There was no Bible. We could not look to what God had to say to us. He was speaking new revelation to people because He needed to do this. He was doing miraculous things because He needed to do these things. Now, we don't need this. We have His word. He has given to us all we need. Here is how I know this:
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Notice the tense....this is in past tense. "after He spoke long ago....". "...last days has spoken....". These verbs are in the past tense. It's been done. It's not something that He is doing. He has done it. He HAS SPOKEN to His people. Also, 2 Peter 1:19:
So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place
Peter, James and John had a legitimate experience on the mount of Transfiguration. They saw the Lord Jesus in all His glory. They saw Moses and Elijah. They asked if they should put up a tent for them, for heaven's sake. They saw these men. It was a legitimate thing that happened to them. But, Peter pointed his audience to God's Word. That is our anchor. Let me tell you why this needs to be our anchor...2 Corinthians 11:13-14:
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light
This passage is talking about false teachers, in context. But, it also can be applied to false spirits, masquerading as messengers of Jesus, leading people astray because that's what they want...miraculous signs and wonders. Pauls goes on, verse 15:
Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.
He is saying not to be surprised when demons and devils disguise themselves as angels of light. Why? Because it is their job. They are here to betray. They are here to mislead. They are here to deceive. In Matthew, chapter 24, our Lord himself said this:
Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. (Matthew 24:11)
For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)
These signs and wonders, AND PROPHETIC UTTERANCES, will be so convincing so as to even deceive those that are elect of the Father, if that were possible to do. That, of course, is not possible. But to those who fall into this category, who rely on these things; to those, this is going to happen....and it is the most terrifying passage in all of Scripture, I think. Matthew 7:21-23 says this......take heed:
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [n]miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
There are a ton of things that are done in the "name of Jesus". There are a ton of good works that are done in the "name of Jesus". That does not necessarily mean it is of Jesus.
There are a lot of videos floating around on the internet of prophecies and dreams of political things and raptures. There are people who literally post something new everyday. They mean no harm. They think they are speaking for God. They think they have received a "word" from the Lord. Maybe, maybe not. They may be 100%, absolutely correct in everything they "say" they have received from God. So what? That does not, and I mean DOES NOT, mean it is from the Lord Jesus, God the Father or the Holy Spirit. Satan is ready to deceive. We cannot place any hope in these things. As we have read, Satan is more than ready to lead astray those who place their hope in miraculous signs and wonders....because they are placing their hope and trust in miraculous signs and wonders....not Jesus Himself. I know that sounds harsh. It's just true.
There's one place to place your hope. It's in His word. Period. Look to the Word. And nowhere else. Your soul depends on it.
Sunday, August 23, 2020
Saturday, August 15, 2020
The Gospel...A History Lesson Part 4
Semi-Pelagianism is merely a watered-down version of Pelagianism. Pelagianism teaches that you can save yourself and you are not hindered by Original Sin. Your nature is not damaged by Adam's sin. You are born in a completely neutral state. You can choose to be evil or you can choose to be good. You can choose to follow God and His law or you don't. You can exercise your will and follow God's commandments...all 600+ of them. Semi-Pelagianism teaches that God's grace IS necessary for salvation and you cannot save yourself. BUT, YOU MUST accept God's grace in order to be saved. There is a difference in the two views but not much. The semi-Pelagian view just kinda, sorta sounds better. Ultimately, you are saving yourself by what you do in both systems. Please don't have an aneurysm here. I'll make my point later.
In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the castle church at Wittenberg. They were 95 points of contention that he had with the Roman Church, mainly the selling of indulgences by Johann Tetzel. Luther was a monk at the time he posted his theses, but God opened his eyes to the truth of the gospel 2 years later, in 1519, as he was teaching through Romans. When he got to this verse, Romans 1:17, illumination took place:
For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.”
Young Martin Luther's understanding was shaken as the Holy Spirit taught him what the Word of God meant. I will let the late RC Sproul explain what was happening to Luther in a more understandable, and totally more authoritative, way than I ever could. This is a transcript of a portion of teaching that can be found at the link I will provide at the end of the transcript:
In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the castle church at Wittenberg. They were 95 points of contention that he had with the Roman Church, mainly the selling of indulgences by Johann Tetzel. Luther was a monk at the time he posted his theses, but God opened his eyes to the truth of the gospel 2 years later, in 1519, as he was teaching through Romans. When he got to this verse, Romans 1:17, illumination took place:
For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.”
Young Martin Luther's understanding was shaken as the Holy Spirit taught him what the Word of God meant. I will let the late RC Sproul explain what was happening to Luther in a more understandable, and totally more authoritative, way than I ever could. This is a transcript of a portion of teaching that can be found at the link I will provide at the end of the transcript:
He says, “Here in it,” in the gospel, “the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, ‘the just shall live by faith.’” A verse taken from the book of Habakkuk in the Old Testament that is cited three times in the New Testament. As Luther would stop short and say, “What does this mean, that there’s this righteousness that is by faith, and from faith to faith? What does it mean that the righteous shall live by faith?” Which again as I said was the thematic verse for the whole exposition of the gospel that Paul sets forth here in the book of Romans. And so, the lights came on for Luther. And he began to understand that what Paul was speaking of here was a righteousness that God in His grace was making available to those who would receive it passively, not those who would achieve it actively, but that would receive it by faith, and by which a person could be reconciled to a holy and righteous God.
Now there was a linguistic trick that was going on here too. And it was this, that the Latin word for justification that was used at this time in church history was—and it’s the word from which we get the English word justification—the Latin word justificare. And it came from the Roman judicial system. And the term justificare is made up of the word justus, which is justice or righteousness, and the verb, the infinitive facare, which means to make. And so, the Latin fathers understood the doctrine of justification is what happens when God, through the sacraments of the church and elsewhere, make unrighteous people righteous.
But Luther was looking now at the Greek word that was in the New Testament, not the Latin word. The word dikaios, dikaiosune, which didn’t mean to make righteous, but rather to regard as righteous, to count as righteous, to declare as righteous. And this was the moment of awakening for Luther. He said, “You mean, here Paul is not talking about the righteousness by which God Himself is righteous, but a righteousness that God gives freely by His grace to people who don’t have righteousness of their own.”
And so Luther said, “Woa, you mean the righteousness by which I will be saved, is not mine?” It’s what he called a justitia alienum, an alien righteousness; a righteousness that belongs properly to somebody else. It’s a righteousness that is extra nos, outside of us. Namely, the righteousness of Christ. And Luther said, “When I discovered that, I was born again of the Holy Ghost. And the doors of paradise swung open, and I walked through.”
Luther had been converted. His understanding of the gospel, as he had always known it, had been radically altered forever. And he would go to his grave defending the biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to the Scriptures alone, to the glory of God alone.
On September 1, 1524, Desiderius Erasmus, a Roman Catholic apologist from Rotterdam, published his work titled Diatribe Concerning Free Will. Luther responded with what could be considered his most compelling and important work The Bondage of the Will, containing over 300 bible verses to support his argument. Luther stood shoulder to shoulder with Augustine, defending the biblical doctrine, against the semi-Pelagian views of Erasmus. With this book, Luther drew a distinct line in the sand that marked out the Roman Catholic view of justification and the Reformed view. The ensuing debate has raged from then until this very day.....the Monergistic / Synergistic Controversy. We talked very briefly about these last post.
Erasmus wrote his book directed specifically at Luther because after his conversion, he was having an impact within the Roman Catholic ranks. Erasmus targeted Luther's awakening of Augustinian teaching...that men are totally and completely dead in sins and that there is absolutely nothing that they can contribute to their salvation....that it is a total and complete work of a sovereign God. Instead, he believed and taught that God offered grace to all people. And all people still have within themselves, somewhere, the ability to accept or reject this grace. And it was the choice of the sinner that God rewards with salvation. This is called SYNERGISM, coming from the Greek prefix "syn" and the Greek word "ergos". The prefix "syn" means "with; together with; at the same time". It refers to two or more. For example, it's used in the word SYNCHRONIZE. The word "ergos" means work. Putting these together, you get the word SYNERGISM, meaning "to work together with" or "working at the same time". The word synergism suggests a cooperative effort between man and God to accomplish the salvation of man. God has done what He can do; now you do what you have to do.
Luther saw this as nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig. In other words, this was works based salvation hiding behind flowery language. Luther believed that the semi-Pelagian view of Erasmus denied the doctrine of Original Sin and the full impact Adam's sin had on his offspring. According to Erasmus, man was not dead; he was merely wounded and had the ability to help himself by helping God. Luther understood that this view of Erasmus made the grace of God a reward for our faith. Put another way, a man believes the gospel and, because of his good work of believing, God gives him the grace of salvation.
I do not care how you look at it; I do not care how you play with words; I do not care about semantics. It doesn't matter how you slice it. In the semi-Pelagian view of Erasmus, and the massive majority of churches even today, some of the credit for a man's salvation goes to him because he deserves it. Part of the glory MUST GO to man, right? He did the right thing and chose God. God had done all He could do by offering up Jesus. That is His best. He gave His Son. Now, man does his thing. He has to accept the gift. And when he does, he gets credit; at least some of it. There is absolutely no way around it. The glory of salvation, in this stream, is split between God and man....period. And that is not biblical in the slightest because according to the Scriptures:
Salvation is from the Lord. (Jonah 2:9)
I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images. (Isaiah 42:8)
So, what's really at stake in this monergistic / synergistic controversy, that still goes on today, is the glory of God vs. the glory of man; a right understanding of God and who He is vs. a wrong understanding of man and where he stands before God.
This is the synergistic, semi-Pelagian view of salvation. God has done all He can do. Now it's up to you. How many times have you heard, "You take that first step of faith and God'll take the rest and carry you the rest of the way." That's synergism. That's semi-Pelagianism. That's not biblical but it is the dominant view in the church today.
Next time, we'll look at the other side of the fence...monergism.
Erasmus wrote his book directed specifically at Luther because after his conversion, he was having an impact within the Roman Catholic ranks. Erasmus targeted Luther's awakening of Augustinian teaching...that men are totally and completely dead in sins and that there is absolutely nothing that they can contribute to their salvation....that it is a total and complete work of a sovereign God. Instead, he believed and taught that God offered grace to all people. And all people still have within themselves, somewhere, the ability to accept or reject this grace. And it was the choice of the sinner that God rewards with salvation. This is called SYNERGISM, coming from the Greek prefix "syn" and the Greek word "ergos". The prefix "syn" means "with; together with; at the same time". It refers to two or more. For example, it's used in the word SYNCHRONIZE. The word "ergos" means work. Putting these together, you get the word SYNERGISM, meaning "to work together with" or "working at the same time". The word synergism suggests a cooperative effort between man and God to accomplish the salvation of man. God has done what He can do; now you do what you have to do.
Luther saw this as nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig. In other words, this was works based salvation hiding behind flowery language. Luther believed that the semi-Pelagian view of Erasmus denied the doctrine of Original Sin and the full impact Adam's sin had on his offspring. According to Erasmus, man was not dead; he was merely wounded and had the ability to help himself by helping God. Luther understood that this view of Erasmus made the grace of God a reward for our faith. Put another way, a man believes the gospel and, because of his good work of believing, God gives him the grace of salvation.
I do not care how you look at it; I do not care how you play with words; I do not care about semantics. It doesn't matter how you slice it. In the semi-Pelagian view of Erasmus, and the massive majority of churches even today, some of the credit for a man's salvation goes to him because he deserves it. Part of the glory MUST GO to man, right? He did the right thing and chose God. God had done all He could do by offering up Jesus. That is His best. He gave His Son. Now, man does his thing. He has to accept the gift. And when he does, he gets credit; at least some of it. There is absolutely no way around it. The glory of salvation, in this stream, is split between God and man....period. And that is not biblical in the slightest because according to the Scriptures:
Salvation is from the Lord. (Jonah 2:9)
I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images. (Isaiah 42:8)
So, what's really at stake in this monergistic / synergistic controversy, that still goes on today, is the glory of God vs. the glory of man; a right understanding of God and who He is vs. a wrong understanding of man and where he stands before God.
This is the synergistic, semi-Pelagian view of salvation. God has done all He can do. Now it's up to you. How many times have you heard, "You take that first step of faith and God'll take the rest and carry you the rest of the way." That's synergism. That's semi-Pelagianism. That's not biblical but it is the dominant view in the church today.
Next time, we'll look at the other side of the fence...monergism.
Saturday, July 18, 2020
The Gospel...A History Lesson Part 3
Church historian Philip Schaff helped us see what the Roman Catholic Church would become by reminding us that Zosimus, the Bishop of Rome, agreed with Pelagius and denounced the Council of Carthage for cursing Pelagius and calling his teaching heretical. Enter Cornelius Otto Jansen.
Jansen was a leader of the post-Reformation movement within Roman Catholicism. He died in 1640 but it was after his death that a majority of his writings were published and his teachings became popular. He believed, like Martin Luther, that the Church of Rome had strayed away from the teachings of the early church that all of life was by the grace of God. He believed and taught what Augustine had taught; that man is born with a DEAD spirit that needs regeneration...a resurrection...what the Bible calls being "born again". We will come back to this "born again" concept a little later and explain this next verse and another to help bolster this argument of being "dead" and needing "resurrection". Here are the verses I'm talking about:
Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)
(Ephesians 2:1-5)
Jansen knew that what happened to man was by God's grace and His grace alone, not man making it happen because he had some faith. The Jesuits, on behalf of the Pope, attacked the Jansenists. Pope Clement XI issued a "papal bull", or a formal condemnation of the Jansenists in 1713, disagreeing with and condemning 101 statements in the Jansenist writings. Many of the statements denounced by the Bishop of Rome, or Pope, were direct quotations from Augustine against Pelagius.
The church, in times past, had been on the side of the Augustinians against the Pelagians. So how does this drift happen?
In his history of the church that we quoted last time, Philip Schaff merely gave us a small glimpse into what had happened. As the church moved into the Middle Ages and the Bishop of Rome became the quote, unquote "visible head of the church", or Pope, the "Pelagianizing tendencies" spoken of by Schaff had mutated, metastasized and began to spread like a cancer running through the human body. By the time of the Reformation, the church in Rome was teaching that man saved himself by cooperating with God and His grace...basically, by allowing God to save him. This is known as semi-Pelagianism, an in-between view that is neither Pelagian, which teaches that man is not born dead in sin, or Augustinian, which teaches that man is born dead in sin. Semi-Pelagians teach that man is born, well, just kinda sick.
If Pelagius is correct and man is born innocent and ok, then he simply needs a guide to kinda, sorta lead him.
If man is born sick, then he merely needs the help of a doctor and the two of them, working together in cooperation, can make the sick man well.
If, as Augustine taught, man is born dead, he needs to be resurrected. THAT is something he simply cannot do for himself.
So, the logical result of all of this is:
If you are a Pelagian, you need a teacher to teach you how to do it. You can do it on your own with some guidance.
If you are a semi-Pelagian, all you need is a doctor with whom you can cooperate.
If you are an Augustinian, or someone who believes in the doctrines of grace and would be called a.....gasp.....Calvinist today, then you need a resurrection; a raising from the dead. Furthermore, you realize that salvation is all of God's grace.
The semi-Pelagian view is a synergistic, as opposed to a monergistic, approach to redemption. We will look at those two terms and give a definition in our next post in this series...if you do not already know what they mean. Basically, in a nutshell, semi-Pelagianism teaches that man and God work together, or cooperate, to accomplish redemption. That is not biblical. Not in the slightest.
Back to our two verses and the idea of needing to be "born again". And before we look at the verses in some depth, let me make an argument about birth from a completely logical, human point of view. Then we will look at the grammar and verbiage of the original language.
Did you choose where you were born? Did you choose your parents? Did you choose the timing? Did you ask for it? Did you plan it? Did you have anything, at all, to do with your birth, other than the fact that it happened to you? The answer to all of these questions is no, obviously. I'll close this thought with words from AW Pink in his work The Sovereignty of God:
The new birth is solely the work of God the Spirit and man has no part or lot in it. This from the very nature of the case. Birth altogether excludes the idea of any effort or work on the part of the one who is born. Personally we have no more to do with our spiritual birth than we had with our natural birth. The new birth is a spiritual resurrection, a "passing from death unto life" (John 5:24) and, clearly, resurrection is altogether outside of man's province. No corpse can re-animate itself.
AW Pink
The Sovereignty of God
Apple iBooks Edition
Page 168
Back to our verses. Here is John 3:3:
Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
In this verse, the verb "is born again" translates two Greek words. They are "gennao anothen". Translated literally, it means "born from above". There are two important points to make about the original language here. In the Greek, the verb is in the passive voice and the subjunctive mood, according to blueletterbible.org. The passive voice means that the verb is happening to the subject or, in other words, the subject is the recipient of the action. So, in this verse, the subject, "one", is the recipient of the action of being "born again". It happens to the one. The one doesn't do anything to make it happen. It just happens. It is a moving of the Holy Spirit that you cannot coerce. Also, the subjunctive mood means that the action is a possibility or a potentiality. The action may or may not happen, depending on circumstances. This is corroborated by John 3:8:
The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.
In other words, quite frankly, God the Holy Spirit is in complete control of when and how He works. Period.
Here is Ephesians 2:1-5 again:
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)
In these verses, the word dead translates the Greek word "nekros". After having done an in depth word study, I have discovered that the word "nekros" in the Greek can be translated into English as DEAD, meaning DEAD, as in NOT ALIVE. If something is not alive, it does not need a Pelagian teacher-guide. It does not need a semi-Pelagian doctor assistant to help you get well. It needs to be brought to life...a regeneration...a resurrection. Later on, the phrase "made us alive together with" translates one Greek word, which is "syzoopoieo". This word means "to make one alive together". Do you see the important word here? It is "MAKE". You have to go back to the beginning of verse 4 to figure out who does the "making alive". It is God:
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)
There is not way around it. Scripture is packed full of this teaching; that God is sovereign over salvation. That it is Him and Him alone who does the saving of a soul. The book of John is probably the most concentrated, densely packed place in all the Scripture to see the doctrines of grace expounded and taught.
Pelagianism is heretical and semi-Pelagianism is dangerously close to that. Semi-Pelagianism is also known by a different name and as we continue our jet tour through church history, we will see what that name is.
Jansen was a leader of the post-Reformation movement within Roman Catholicism. He died in 1640 but it was after his death that a majority of his writings were published and his teachings became popular. He believed, like Martin Luther, that the Church of Rome had strayed away from the teachings of the early church that all of life was by the grace of God. He believed and taught what Augustine had taught; that man is born with a DEAD spirit that needs regeneration...a resurrection...what the Bible calls being "born again". We will come back to this "born again" concept a little later and explain this next verse and another to help bolster this argument of being "dead" and needing "resurrection". Here are the verses I'm talking about:
Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)
(Ephesians 2:1-5)
Jansen knew that what happened to man was by God's grace and His grace alone, not man making it happen because he had some faith. The Jesuits, on behalf of the Pope, attacked the Jansenists. Pope Clement XI issued a "papal bull", or a formal condemnation of the Jansenists in 1713, disagreeing with and condemning 101 statements in the Jansenist writings. Many of the statements denounced by the Bishop of Rome, or Pope, were direct quotations from Augustine against Pelagius.
The church, in times past, had been on the side of the Augustinians against the Pelagians. So how does this drift happen?
In his history of the church that we quoted last time, Philip Schaff merely gave us a small glimpse into what had happened. As the church moved into the Middle Ages and the Bishop of Rome became the quote, unquote "visible head of the church", or Pope, the "Pelagianizing tendencies" spoken of by Schaff had mutated, metastasized and began to spread like a cancer running through the human body. By the time of the Reformation, the church in Rome was teaching that man saved himself by cooperating with God and His grace...basically, by allowing God to save him. This is known as semi-Pelagianism, an in-between view that is neither Pelagian, which teaches that man is not born dead in sin, or Augustinian, which teaches that man is born dead in sin. Semi-Pelagians teach that man is born, well, just kinda sick.
If Pelagius is correct and man is born innocent and ok, then he simply needs a guide to kinda, sorta lead him.
If man is born sick, then he merely needs the help of a doctor and the two of them, working together in cooperation, can make the sick man well.
If, as Augustine taught, man is born dead, he needs to be resurrected. THAT is something he simply cannot do for himself.
So, the logical result of all of this is:
If you are a Pelagian, you need a teacher to teach you how to do it. You can do it on your own with some guidance.
If you are a semi-Pelagian, all you need is a doctor with whom you can cooperate.
If you are an Augustinian, or someone who believes in the doctrines of grace and would be called a.....gasp.....Calvinist today, then you need a resurrection; a raising from the dead. Furthermore, you realize that salvation is all of God's grace.
The semi-Pelagian view is a synergistic, as opposed to a monergistic, approach to redemption. We will look at those two terms and give a definition in our next post in this series...if you do not already know what they mean. Basically, in a nutshell, semi-Pelagianism teaches that man and God work together, or cooperate, to accomplish redemption. That is not biblical. Not in the slightest.
Back to our two verses and the idea of needing to be "born again". And before we look at the verses in some depth, let me make an argument about birth from a completely logical, human point of view. Then we will look at the grammar and verbiage of the original language.
Did you choose where you were born? Did you choose your parents? Did you choose the timing? Did you ask for it? Did you plan it? Did you have anything, at all, to do with your birth, other than the fact that it happened to you? The answer to all of these questions is no, obviously. I'll close this thought with words from AW Pink in his work The Sovereignty of God:
The new birth is solely the work of God the Spirit and man has no part or lot in it. This from the very nature of the case. Birth altogether excludes the idea of any effort or work on the part of the one who is born. Personally we have no more to do with our spiritual birth than we had with our natural birth. The new birth is a spiritual resurrection, a "passing from death unto life" (John 5:24) and, clearly, resurrection is altogether outside of man's province. No corpse can re-animate itself.
AW Pink
The Sovereignty of God
Apple iBooks Edition
Page 168
Back to our verses. Here is John 3:3:
Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
In this verse, the verb "is born again" translates two Greek words. They are "gennao anothen". Translated literally, it means "born from above". There are two important points to make about the original language here. In the Greek, the verb is in the passive voice and the subjunctive mood, according to blueletterbible.org. The passive voice means that the verb is happening to the subject or, in other words, the subject is the recipient of the action. So, in this verse, the subject, "one", is the recipient of the action of being "born again". It happens to the one. The one doesn't do anything to make it happen. It just happens. It is a moving of the Holy Spirit that you cannot coerce. Also, the subjunctive mood means that the action is a possibility or a potentiality. The action may or may not happen, depending on circumstances. This is corroborated by John 3:8:
The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.
In other words, quite frankly, God the Holy Spirit is in complete control of when and how He works. Period.
Here is Ephesians 2:1-5 again:
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)
In these verses, the word dead translates the Greek word "nekros". After having done an in depth word study, I have discovered that the word "nekros" in the Greek can be translated into English as DEAD, meaning DEAD, as in NOT ALIVE. If something is not alive, it does not need a Pelagian teacher-guide. It does not need a semi-Pelagian doctor assistant to help you get well. It needs to be brought to life...a regeneration...a resurrection. Later on, the phrase "made us alive together with" translates one Greek word, which is "syzoopoieo". This word means "to make one alive together". Do you see the important word here? It is "MAKE". You have to go back to the beginning of verse 4 to figure out who does the "making alive". It is God:
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)
There is not way around it. Scripture is packed full of this teaching; that God is sovereign over salvation. That it is Him and Him alone who does the saving of a soul. The book of John is probably the most concentrated, densely packed place in all the Scripture to see the doctrines of grace expounded and taught.
Pelagianism is heretical and semi-Pelagianism is dangerously close to that. Semi-Pelagianism is also known by a different name and as we continue our jet tour through church history, we will see what that name is.
Tuesday, June 9, 2020
More Michael Horton
Here's some more from Michael Horton and the article I referenced yesterday. This is so good...and so timely. Just as relevant today as it was 15 years ago. The "emergent church" may not be what it is called today but the idea is the same. This is the same song in a different key.
It’s not surprising that the world would think that “all we need is love,” and we can do without the doctrine, since the world thinks it can do without Christ. Doctrine is where the religions most obviously part ways. Doctrine is where things get interesting-and dangerous. As the playwright Dorothy Sayers said, doctrine isn’t the dull part of Christianity, rather, “The doctrine is the drama.” Jesus was not revolutionary because he said we should love God and each other. Moses said that first. So did Buddha, Confucius, and countless other religious leaders we’ve never heard of. Madonna, Oprah, Dr. Phil, the Dali Lama, and probably a lot of Christian leaders will tell us that the point of religion is to get us to love each other. “God loves you” doesn’t stir the world’s opposition. However, start talking about God’s absolute authority, holiness, wrath, and righteousness, original sin, Christ’s substitutionary atonement, justification apart from works, the necessity of new birth, repentance, baptism, Communion, and the future judgment, and the mood in the room changes considerably. If postmodernism is simply a revival of modern romanticism (experience as sovereign), then it’s not very postmodern after all.
Historians often point out that for all of their differences, pietism and rationalism converged to create the Enlightenment. The heirs of modernity looked inward, to autonomous reason or experience, rather than outward, in faith and repentance toward a God who judges and saves. With Friedrich Schleiermacher, father of modern Protestant liberalism, the emphasis fell on Jesus as the supreme example of the kind of moral existence that we can all have if we share in his “God-consciousness.” So while Christianity may represent the purest and fullest realization of this principle, other religions are in their own ways attempts to put this universal religious and moral experience into words. We just say things differently, but we are experiencing the same reality. Where Kant located the essence of religion in practical reason (moral duty), Schleiermacher located it in religious experience, but either way the self is made the measure of truth and redemption is something that we find within ourselves, even if it is “Christ in my heart.” Revivalism, which is the mother of both Protestant liberalism and Evangelicalism, pressed the “deeds over creeds” and “experience over doctrine” thesis to its limits.
This means, of course, that Christ is not the unique God-Man, but the most divinized human being. The gospel is not what Christ did for me, outside of me, in history, but the impression that he makes on me, the nobility that he stirs up within me, to experience the same God-consciousness and love. Sin is not a condition from which I need to be saved, but actions that I can keep from doing with sufficient motivation and instruction. Christ’s death is not an atoning sacrifice that satisfies God’s just wrath, but an example of God’s love that moves us to repentance. Hence, “What would Jesus do?” is the main question, not “What has Jesus done?” The inside takes priority over the outside.
In the parable that Jesus tells, the Pharisee even prayed, “I thank you that I am not like this tax collector.” The only thing worse than his hypocrisy and self-righteousness was that he pretended to give God a little credit for it. We have all witnessed awards ceremonies in which recipients acknowledged the many people without whom such success could not have been possible. This is quite different, however, from being a beneficiary of the estate of someone who, at the very moment of drafting the bequest, was treated as an enemy. Christless Christianity does not mean religion or spirituality devoid of the words “Jesus,” “Christ,” “Lord,” or even “Savior.” What it means is that the way the names and titles are employed will be removed from their specific location in an unfolding historical plot of human rebellion and divine rescue and from such practices as baptism and Communion. Jesus as life coach, therapist, buddy, significant other, founder of Western civilization, political messiah, example of radical love, and countless other images can distract us from the stumbling block and foolishness of “Christ and him crucified.”
In The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis has the devil (Screwtape) catechizing his minion (Wormwood) to keep the Christians distracted from Christ as redeemer from God’s wrath. Rather than clumsily announce his presence by direct attacks, Wormwood should try to get the churches to become interested in “Christianity and…”: “Christianity and the War,” “Christianity and Poverty,” “Christianity and Morality,” and so on. Of course, Lewis was not suggesting that Christians should not have an interest in such pressing issues of the day, but he was making the point that when the church’s basic message is less about who Christ is and what he has accomplished once and for all for us, and more about who we are and what we have to do in order to justify all of that expense on his part, the religion that is made “relevant” is no longer Christianity. By not thinking that “Christ crucified” is as relevant as “Christ and Family Values” or “Christ and America” or “Christ and World Hunger,” we end up assimilating the gospel to law. Again, there is nothing wrong with the law-the moral commands that expose our moral failure and guide us as believers in the way of discipleship. However, assimilating the good news of what someone else has done to a road map for our own action is disastrous. In the words of Theodore Beza, “The confusion of law and gospel is the principal source of all the abuses that corrupt or have ever corrupted the church.” When God’s Law (and not our own inner sentiment) actually addresses us, our first response should be, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner,” not the reply of the rich young ruler, “All this I have done since my youth.”
Today, we have abundant examples of both tendencies: denial and distraction. On one hand, there are those who explicitly reject the New Testament teaching concerning Christ’s person and work. Jesus was another moral guide-maybe the best ever-but not the divine-human redeemer. However, evangelicals are known for their stand against Protestant liberalism. On the other hand, many who affirm all the right views of Christ and salvation in theory seem to think that what makes Christianity truly relevant, interesting, and revolutionary is something else. Distractions abound. This does not mean that Jesus is not important. His name appears in countless books and sermons, on T-shirts, coffee mugs, and billboards. Yet it has become something like a cliché or trademark instead of “the name that is above every name” by which alone we are saved.
Jesus Christ as the incarnate God in the merciful service of redeeming and reconciling sinners is simply not the main theme in most churches or Christian events these days. And what happens when we stop being reminded of who God is and what he has achieved in human history for a world in bondage to sin and death-in other words, when doctrine is made secondary? We fall back on our natural religion: what happens inside, that which we always know intuitively: law. “Deeds, not creeds” equals “Law, not gospel.” For all their theoretical differences, liberals and evangelicals end up sounding a lot like each other. Evangelicals who say that they believe in Christ end up reducing Christ to a moral example just as thoroughly as liberals, not by outright denial but by distraction. The goal of this article is not to brand contemporary Christians “Sadducees” and “Pharisees,” but to point out that one doesn’t have to deny Christ and the gospel in order to end up with Christless Christianity. In fact, one can appeal to Christ and “make Jesus the center” in a way that drifts back toward “pure religion” (morality) and away from “ecclesiastical faith” (doctrine).
Today, partly in response to the appalling lack of genuine discipleship in a post-Christian era, many Protestants like Stanley Hauerwas and Brian McLaren encourage us to recover the Anabaptist legacy, which, as I mentioned, focused on Jesus as moral example. In A Generous Orthodoxy, Brian McLaren explains, “Anabaptists see the Christian faith primarily as a way of life,” interpreting Paul through the lens of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount rather than vice versa. The emphasis falls on discipleship rather than on doctrine, as if following Jesus’ example could be set against following his teaching. What happens when the Sermon on the Mount is assimilated to a general ethic of love (i.e., pure morality), and doctrine (ecclesiastical faith) is made secondary? Christ himself becomes a mere example to help people become better non-Christians. In fact, McLaren writes, “I must add, though, that I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts.” “I don’t hope all Jews or Hindus will become members of the Christian religion. But I do hope all who feel so called will become Jewish or Hindu followers of Jesus.” It is no wonder, then, that McLaren can say concerning liberal Protestants, “I applaud their desire to live out the meaning of the miracle stores even when they don’t believe the stories really happened as written.” After all, it’s deeds, not creeds that matter. McLaren seems to suggest that following Jesus (pure religion) can exist with or without explicit faith in Christ (ecclesiastical faith).
Michael Horton
Modern Reformation Magazine
"Christless Christianity: Getting in Christ's Way"
Volume 16: Issue 3
05/01/2007
It’s not surprising that the world would think that “all we need is love,” and we can do without the doctrine, since the world thinks it can do without Christ. Doctrine is where the religions most obviously part ways. Doctrine is where things get interesting-and dangerous. As the playwright Dorothy Sayers said, doctrine isn’t the dull part of Christianity, rather, “The doctrine is the drama.” Jesus was not revolutionary because he said we should love God and each other. Moses said that first. So did Buddha, Confucius, and countless other religious leaders we’ve never heard of. Madonna, Oprah, Dr. Phil, the Dali Lama, and probably a lot of Christian leaders will tell us that the point of religion is to get us to love each other. “God loves you” doesn’t stir the world’s opposition. However, start talking about God’s absolute authority, holiness, wrath, and righteousness, original sin, Christ’s substitutionary atonement, justification apart from works, the necessity of new birth, repentance, baptism, Communion, and the future judgment, and the mood in the room changes considerably. If postmodernism is simply a revival of modern romanticism (experience as sovereign), then it’s not very postmodern after all.
Historians often point out that for all of their differences, pietism and rationalism converged to create the Enlightenment. The heirs of modernity looked inward, to autonomous reason or experience, rather than outward, in faith and repentance toward a God who judges and saves. With Friedrich Schleiermacher, father of modern Protestant liberalism, the emphasis fell on Jesus as the supreme example of the kind of moral existence that we can all have if we share in his “God-consciousness.” So while Christianity may represent the purest and fullest realization of this principle, other religions are in their own ways attempts to put this universal religious and moral experience into words. We just say things differently, but we are experiencing the same reality. Where Kant located the essence of religion in practical reason (moral duty), Schleiermacher located it in religious experience, but either way the self is made the measure of truth and redemption is something that we find within ourselves, even if it is “Christ in my heart.” Revivalism, which is the mother of both Protestant liberalism and Evangelicalism, pressed the “deeds over creeds” and “experience over doctrine” thesis to its limits.
This means, of course, that Christ is not the unique God-Man, but the most divinized human being. The gospel is not what Christ did for me, outside of me, in history, but the impression that he makes on me, the nobility that he stirs up within me, to experience the same God-consciousness and love. Sin is not a condition from which I need to be saved, but actions that I can keep from doing with sufficient motivation and instruction. Christ’s death is not an atoning sacrifice that satisfies God’s just wrath, but an example of God’s love that moves us to repentance. Hence, “What would Jesus do?” is the main question, not “What has Jesus done?” The inside takes priority over the outside.
In the parable that Jesus tells, the Pharisee even prayed, “I thank you that I am not like this tax collector.” The only thing worse than his hypocrisy and self-righteousness was that he pretended to give God a little credit for it. We have all witnessed awards ceremonies in which recipients acknowledged the many people without whom such success could not have been possible. This is quite different, however, from being a beneficiary of the estate of someone who, at the very moment of drafting the bequest, was treated as an enemy. Christless Christianity does not mean religion or spirituality devoid of the words “Jesus,” “Christ,” “Lord,” or even “Savior.” What it means is that the way the names and titles are employed will be removed from their specific location in an unfolding historical plot of human rebellion and divine rescue and from such practices as baptism and Communion. Jesus as life coach, therapist, buddy, significant other, founder of Western civilization, political messiah, example of radical love, and countless other images can distract us from the stumbling block and foolishness of “Christ and him crucified.”
In The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis has the devil (Screwtape) catechizing his minion (Wormwood) to keep the Christians distracted from Christ as redeemer from God’s wrath. Rather than clumsily announce his presence by direct attacks, Wormwood should try to get the churches to become interested in “Christianity and…”: “Christianity and the War,” “Christianity and Poverty,” “Christianity and Morality,” and so on. Of course, Lewis was not suggesting that Christians should not have an interest in such pressing issues of the day, but he was making the point that when the church’s basic message is less about who Christ is and what he has accomplished once and for all for us, and more about who we are and what we have to do in order to justify all of that expense on his part, the religion that is made “relevant” is no longer Christianity. By not thinking that “Christ crucified” is as relevant as “Christ and Family Values” or “Christ and America” or “Christ and World Hunger,” we end up assimilating the gospel to law. Again, there is nothing wrong with the law-the moral commands that expose our moral failure and guide us as believers in the way of discipleship. However, assimilating the good news of what someone else has done to a road map for our own action is disastrous. In the words of Theodore Beza, “The confusion of law and gospel is the principal source of all the abuses that corrupt or have ever corrupted the church.” When God’s Law (and not our own inner sentiment) actually addresses us, our first response should be, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner,” not the reply of the rich young ruler, “All this I have done since my youth.”
Today, we have abundant examples of both tendencies: denial and distraction. On one hand, there are those who explicitly reject the New Testament teaching concerning Christ’s person and work. Jesus was another moral guide-maybe the best ever-but not the divine-human redeemer. However, evangelicals are known for their stand against Protestant liberalism. On the other hand, many who affirm all the right views of Christ and salvation in theory seem to think that what makes Christianity truly relevant, interesting, and revolutionary is something else. Distractions abound. This does not mean that Jesus is not important. His name appears in countless books and sermons, on T-shirts, coffee mugs, and billboards. Yet it has become something like a cliché or trademark instead of “the name that is above every name” by which alone we are saved.
Jesus Christ as the incarnate God in the merciful service of redeeming and reconciling sinners is simply not the main theme in most churches or Christian events these days. And what happens when we stop being reminded of who God is and what he has achieved in human history for a world in bondage to sin and death-in other words, when doctrine is made secondary? We fall back on our natural religion: what happens inside, that which we always know intuitively: law. “Deeds, not creeds” equals “Law, not gospel.” For all their theoretical differences, liberals and evangelicals end up sounding a lot like each other. Evangelicals who say that they believe in Christ end up reducing Christ to a moral example just as thoroughly as liberals, not by outright denial but by distraction. The goal of this article is not to brand contemporary Christians “Sadducees” and “Pharisees,” but to point out that one doesn’t have to deny Christ and the gospel in order to end up with Christless Christianity. In fact, one can appeal to Christ and “make Jesus the center” in a way that drifts back toward “pure religion” (morality) and away from “ecclesiastical faith” (doctrine).
Today, partly in response to the appalling lack of genuine discipleship in a post-Christian era, many Protestants like Stanley Hauerwas and Brian McLaren encourage us to recover the Anabaptist legacy, which, as I mentioned, focused on Jesus as moral example. In A Generous Orthodoxy, Brian McLaren explains, “Anabaptists see the Christian faith primarily as a way of life,” interpreting Paul through the lens of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount rather than vice versa. The emphasis falls on discipleship rather than on doctrine, as if following Jesus’ example could be set against following his teaching. What happens when the Sermon on the Mount is assimilated to a general ethic of love (i.e., pure morality), and doctrine (ecclesiastical faith) is made secondary? Christ himself becomes a mere example to help people become better non-Christians. In fact, McLaren writes, “I must add, though, that I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts.” “I don’t hope all Jews or Hindus will become members of the Christian religion. But I do hope all who feel so called will become Jewish or Hindu followers of Jesus.” It is no wonder, then, that McLaren can say concerning liberal Protestants, “I applaud their desire to live out the meaning of the miracle stores even when they don’t believe the stories really happened as written.” After all, it’s deeds, not creeds that matter. McLaren seems to suggest that following Jesus (pure religion) can exist with or without explicit faith in Christ (ecclesiastical faith).
Michael Horton
Modern Reformation Magazine
"Christless Christianity: Getting in Christ's Way"
Volume 16: Issue 3
05/01/2007
Monday, June 8, 2020
Michael Horton Quotes
What would things look like if Satan actually took over a city? The first frames in our imaginative slide show probably depict mayhem on a massive scale: Widespread violence, deviant sexualities, pornography in every vending machine, churches closed down and worshipers dragged off to City Hall. Over a half-century ago, Donald Grey Barnhouse, pastor of Philadelphia’s Tenth Presbyterian Church, gave his CBS radio audience a different picture of what it would look like if Satan took control of a town in America. He said that all of the bars and pool halls would be closed, pornography banished, pristine streets and sidewalks would be occupied by tidy pedestrians who smiled at each other. There would be no swearing. The kids would answer “Yes, sir,” “No, ma’am,” and the churches would be full on Sunday … where Christ is not preached.
Michael Horton
There needs to be no further comment. Michael Horton has just described to you the vast majority of church teaching in America. And it is sad. But, he has also provided the answer...preaching Christ and Him crucified.
Michael Horton
Modern Reformation Magazine
"Christless Christianity: Getting in Christ's Way"
Volume 16: Issue 3
05/01/2007
That is the opening paragraph to his article. I wanted to post something and pontificate on the state of the church today, which is atrocious. I can't pontificate any better than he just pontificated so I will leave the pontificating to him. He pontificates further:
We are totally distracted, on the right, left, and in the middle. Children growing up in evangelical churches know as little as unchurched youth about the basics of the Christian faith. They increasingly inhabit a church world that is less and less shaped by the gospel through Christ-centered catechesis, preaching and sacrament (the means that Jesus instituted for making disciples). The songs they sing are mostly emotive, rather than serving to make “the Word of Christ dwell in [them] richly” (Col. 3:16), and their private devotions are less shaped by the practices of corporate prayer and Scripture reading than in past generations. Nothing has to change on paper: they can still be “conservative evangelicals,” but it just doesn’t matter because doctrine doesn’t matter-which means faith doesn’t matter. It’s works that counts now, so get busy!
That is the opening paragraph to his article. I wanted to post something and pontificate on the state of the church today, which is atrocious. I can't pontificate any better than he just pontificated so I will leave the pontificating to him. He pontificates further:
We are totally distracted, on the right, left, and in the middle. Children growing up in evangelical churches know as little as unchurched youth about the basics of the Christian faith. They increasingly inhabit a church world that is less and less shaped by the gospel through Christ-centered catechesis, preaching and sacrament (the means that Jesus instituted for making disciples). The songs they sing are mostly emotive, rather than serving to make “the Word of Christ dwell in [them] richly” (Col. 3:16), and their private devotions are less shaped by the practices of corporate prayer and Scripture reading than in past generations. Nothing has to change on paper: they can still be “conservative evangelicals,” but it just doesn’t matter because doctrine doesn’t matter-which means faith doesn’t matter. It’s works that counts now, so get busy!
So now people are called to be the “good news,” to make Christ’s mission successful by living “relationally” and “authentically.” Where the New Testament announces a gospel that changes lives, now the “gospel” is our changed life. “We preach not ourselves but Christ” (2 Cor. 4:5) has been exchanged for a constant appeal to our personal and collective holiness as the main attraction. Church marketing guru George Barna encourages us to reach out to the unchurched on the basis of our character: “What they are looking for is a better life. Can you lead them to a place or to a group of people that will deliver the building blocks of a better life? Do not propose Christianity as a system of rules but as a relationship with the One who leads by way of example. Then seek proven ways to achieve meaning and success.” I am not at all implying that we shouldn’t follow Christ’s example or that the church shouldn’t have models and mentors. What I am suggesting is that discipleship is teaching others, and teaching them so well that even when we falter as role models, the maturity of their own discipleship will not fail because it is grounded in Christ and not in us.
No matter what we say we believe about Christ’s person and work, if we aren’t constantly bathed in it, the end result will lead to H. Richard Niebuhr’s description of Protestant liberalism: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through a Christ without a cross.” According to University of North Carolina sociologist Christian Smith, the working religion of America’s teens-whether evangelical or liberal, churched or unchurched-is “moralistic, therapeutic deism.” And the answer to that, according to many megachurches and emerging churches is “do more; be more authentic; live more transparently.” This is the good news that will change the world?
The church exists in order to change the subject from us and our deeds to God and his deeds of salvation, from our various “missions” to save the world to Christ’s mission that has already accomplished redemption. If the message that the church proclaims makes sense without conversion; if it does not offend even lifelong believers from time to time, so that they too need to die more to themselves and live more to Christ, then it is not the gospel. When Christ is talked about, a lot of things can happen, none of which necessarily has anything to do with his doing, dying, rising, reigning, and return. When Christ is proclaimed in his saving office, the church becomes a theater of death and resurrection, leading to genuine lives of witness, love, fellowship, community, and service-yet always requiring forgiveness and therefore always coming back to the good news concerning Christ.
Michael Horton
Modern Reformation Magazine
"Christless Christianity: Getting in Christ's Way"
Volume 16: Issue 3
05/01/2007There needs to be no further comment. Michael Horton has just described to you the vast majority of church teaching in America. And it is sad. But, he has also provided the answer...preaching Christ and Him crucified.
That is what is needed in the church today. The Gospel. Not "What Would Jesus Do" so go and do that but "What Has Jesus Done" now believe that.
Saturday, May 30, 2020
The Gospel...A History Lesson Part 2
The failure of the church to learn from the past has caused a multitude of problems with regard to false teaching and heresy creeping into, then hanging around within, the church. The heresy of Arius was thought to be dead until it was brought back to life through the teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Granted, this heresy is not even remotely orthodox so it cannot be classified as false teaching within the church. However, had the church in the late 19th century took a stand, this soul damning false teaching may not be nearly as prevalent as it is.
In the 5th century, another heresy sprang up, from within and not outside of the church, that was quickly squashed by the early church fathers. There are pockets of this teaching, sporadic at best, that are still around to this day. However, after initially being defeated by the early church, it re-emerged later with some modifications. That mutated, metastasized version is still very much alive and kicking, within and outside the church. It is the forerunner of the works-based system within the Roman Catholic Church, as we will see as we move along. It is also the dominant view within the Protestant church as well, if people will be completely honest about the situation.
"If I ought, I can."
Those words were uttered by the 5th century British monk, Pelagius. He broke onto the scene when he became exercised over a prayer that was circulating around the Christian world. That prayer was written by Aurelius Augustine, also known as St. Augustine of Hippo. He was the preeminent church leader at this time. The prayer simply stated this:
"Lord, give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt."
Pelagius took a massive amount of exception to that statement. He believed that God would never command mankind to do something that they were incapable of doing through the power of their own free will. He also believed that man was not completely and totally corrupted by sin through the fall. Man could still do things, through his own free will, to please God. No one was contaminated by sin through the fall. Adam was responsible for his sin and his alone. Sin, and it's corruption, was not passed on to Adam's posterity. Men were not born in sin. According to Pelagius, a baby was born TABULA RASA, which is Latin. That phrase translated means A BLANK SHEET OF PAPER. In other words, Pelagius believed that every baby was born totally and perfectly capable of obeying and pleasing God through its own free will. He denied the doctrine of Original Sin.
As this controversy progressed, it became clear that this wasn't merely a squabble over minute details and words. The arguments struck to the very core of Christianity. It called into question the nature of God, man and, ultimately, the gospel. The arguments became more crisp and what was at stake came into focus: Does mankind need God's grace to stand before Him in righteousness?
Pelagius said no. God's grace is nice but it is not necessary. Man can exercise his will, obey God and choose not to sin. Augustine said yes. Man is dead in sin, ruined in Adam. Man is completely dependent on God's grace and can do nothing apart from it.
Augustine's prayer was, for lack of better terminology, a plea for help. He realized that everything in our life depended on grace. Basically, he was saying, "God, you command us to do this; grant us the ability and help us to do this. God, you command us to do that; grant us the ability and teach us how to do that." This thinking was ridiculous according to Pelagius because he believed that man already had the ability within himself to do all these things. To ask God to grant the ability to do what man was already able to do was belittling and stupid. We were not that dependent on God to need to ask for His grace to do anything. In other words, Pelagius believed that to ask God to grant us grace to do anything was an affront to human nature because humans were capable to do anything God commanded. He was a humanist, a moralist. Front and center, now in the church, were the humanistic teachings of the Greco-Roman empire, with the doctrine of the natural ability of man, that had been a major influence for centuries.
Pelagius, because of his humanism, believed that man was born perfect. Man was not tied to the sin of Adam. Adam was responsible for his sin. Man was responsible for his. He was completely capable of obeying God. Of course, there were those people who did choose to sin and the death of Jesus on the cross was beneficial to them. With a mental understanding, man could then use his own intelligence and free will to choose forgiveness without any kind of NECESSARY influence outside of himself. NECESSARY is the key word here.
What Pelagius believed and taught is flatly rejected by the testimony of Scripture. Scripture plainly teaches that because of Adam's first sin, he died spiritually and physically as well. Because of that sin, all mankind carries a corrupt nature and the guilt of it is passed on to his posterity; namely, all mankind. If you deny this doctrine, known as Original Sin, and deny the fact that man is dead in trespasses and sin then there is going to be problems. If you deny the effect of Adam's sin on his posterity and believe that each individual is created with the same capacity as Adam then everything else you believe and build upon that foundation is going to be wrong, too. The logical conclusion to this teaching, that man is born in the same way that Adam was created, is that man does not need a Savior. Only a sinner needs a Savior.
Pelagius rejected the doctrine of Original Sin. Adam sinned for Adam and no one else. His sin did not pass on to the rest of man. Each individual man was born with the same clean slate as Adam. Sin was not inevitable. He even taught that there were many people who never sinned. Of course, the question becomes, "Well, did these sinless people die?" Pelagius taught that these people would have died anyway. Adam would have done the same. He was created as a mortal being and would have died even if he had not sinned. By putting together his belief that man's will is not subject to the consequences of the fall and the denial of a corrupt, sinful nature, Pelagius effectively made salvation by grace through faith unnecessary.
In 412 AD, the Council of Carthage was convened to address this issue. Both sides of the argument were there to make their case for their beliefs. The Council overwhelmingly agreed with Augustine. They concluded that the Word does teach that men are conceived and created in sin.
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me...(Psalm 51:5)
Man's will is not free as Pelagius taught but is bound up and held in bondage to the sin nature present in every individual. Men will choose according to their nature when they are unregenerate. Men will ALWAYS choose according to their nature unless God moves.
Pelagius and his followers were declared heretics. In part, the Council said:
Whoever says that Adam was created mortal and would, even without sin, have died by natural necessity, let him be anathema...(Council of Carthage 412 AD)
Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin is death. Wages are something you earn. Because of our disobedience, death was what was earned. It was the wage. One of the main proofs of the fact that we are sinners is because we die physically, since we are living in a state of spiritual death as well. The teaching of Pelagius that man was going to die anyway removes the biblical evidence for God having the warrant to place the curse of death on man for his disobedience. If un-fallen man was going to die anyway then God making the claim and threatening that "the wages of sin is death" becomes goofy and gobbledygook.
In today's "church", where anything and everything goes, it's the height of arrogance and "not Christ like" to pronounce any kind of judgement or curse on anybody. But, the council realized the importance of what was being taught. This issue changed the gospel, plain and simple. The "anathema" was taken from Galatians 1:
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (Galatians 1:8-9)
The word translated accursed is the Greek word anathema. It means exactly what the translation says...accursed. Doomed to destruction. Without hope of being redeemed. Basically, Paul was saying they were going to hell and to let them go. They were cut off from salvation or the possibility of being saved. In a broader sense, he was also saying it was to "cut them off" from the church, from being able to teach in the church so as to lead souls to destruction through heretical teaching.
There were 3 different councils that condemned Pelagianism in all its forms. 6 years after the council of Carthage, a general council of African churches reaffirmed what the council of Carthage stated. But, in the time between Carthage and the general council, Zosimus, the bishop of Rome, sided with Pelagius and what he taught. He wrote a letter in 412 condemning the Council of Carthage, its anathema of Pelagius and what it concluded. The council disregarded Zosimus and his letter, knowing that the Scripture was on their side.
Church historian Philip Schaff stated:
This temporary favor of the Bishop of Rome towards the Pelagian heresy is a significant presage of the indulgence of later popes for Pelagianizing tendencies.
History of the Christian Church
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Volume III
P. 798
It was these Pelagian beliefs, advocated by the Bishop of Rome, that led to the development of the works righteousness system of the RCC. We will launch from there in the next round. It is not going to be an RCC bash session but the history will help to explain the need for the Reformation and beyond.
In the 5th century, another heresy sprang up, from within and not outside of the church, that was quickly squashed by the early church fathers. There are pockets of this teaching, sporadic at best, that are still around to this day. However, after initially being defeated by the early church, it re-emerged later with some modifications. That mutated, metastasized version is still very much alive and kicking, within and outside the church. It is the forerunner of the works-based system within the Roman Catholic Church, as we will see as we move along. It is also the dominant view within the Protestant church as well, if people will be completely honest about the situation.
"If I ought, I can."
Those words were uttered by the 5th century British monk, Pelagius. He broke onto the scene when he became exercised over a prayer that was circulating around the Christian world. That prayer was written by Aurelius Augustine, also known as St. Augustine of Hippo. He was the preeminent church leader at this time. The prayer simply stated this:
"Lord, give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt."
Pelagius took a massive amount of exception to that statement. He believed that God would never command mankind to do something that they were incapable of doing through the power of their own free will. He also believed that man was not completely and totally corrupted by sin through the fall. Man could still do things, through his own free will, to please God. No one was contaminated by sin through the fall. Adam was responsible for his sin and his alone. Sin, and it's corruption, was not passed on to Adam's posterity. Men were not born in sin. According to Pelagius, a baby was born TABULA RASA, which is Latin. That phrase translated means A BLANK SHEET OF PAPER. In other words, Pelagius believed that every baby was born totally and perfectly capable of obeying and pleasing God through its own free will. He denied the doctrine of Original Sin.
As this controversy progressed, it became clear that this wasn't merely a squabble over minute details and words. The arguments struck to the very core of Christianity. It called into question the nature of God, man and, ultimately, the gospel. The arguments became more crisp and what was at stake came into focus: Does mankind need God's grace to stand before Him in righteousness?
Pelagius said no. God's grace is nice but it is not necessary. Man can exercise his will, obey God and choose not to sin. Augustine said yes. Man is dead in sin, ruined in Adam. Man is completely dependent on God's grace and can do nothing apart from it.
Augustine's prayer was, for lack of better terminology, a plea for help. He realized that everything in our life depended on grace. Basically, he was saying, "God, you command us to do this; grant us the ability and help us to do this. God, you command us to do that; grant us the ability and teach us how to do that." This thinking was ridiculous according to Pelagius because he believed that man already had the ability within himself to do all these things. To ask God to grant the ability to do what man was already able to do was belittling and stupid. We were not that dependent on God to need to ask for His grace to do anything. In other words, Pelagius believed that to ask God to grant us grace to do anything was an affront to human nature because humans were capable to do anything God commanded. He was a humanist, a moralist. Front and center, now in the church, were the humanistic teachings of the Greco-Roman empire, with the doctrine of the natural ability of man, that had been a major influence for centuries.
Pelagius, because of his humanism, believed that man was born perfect. Man was not tied to the sin of Adam. Adam was responsible for his sin. Man was responsible for his. He was completely capable of obeying God. Of course, there were those people who did choose to sin and the death of Jesus on the cross was beneficial to them. With a mental understanding, man could then use his own intelligence and free will to choose forgiveness without any kind of NECESSARY influence outside of himself. NECESSARY is the key word here.
What Pelagius believed and taught is flatly rejected by the testimony of Scripture. Scripture plainly teaches that because of Adam's first sin, he died spiritually and physically as well. Because of that sin, all mankind carries a corrupt nature and the guilt of it is passed on to his posterity; namely, all mankind. If you deny this doctrine, known as Original Sin, and deny the fact that man is dead in trespasses and sin then there is going to be problems. If you deny the effect of Adam's sin on his posterity and believe that each individual is created with the same capacity as Adam then everything else you believe and build upon that foundation is going to be wrong, too. The logical conclusion to this teaching, that man is born in the same way that Adam was created, is that man does not need a Savior. Only a sinner needs a Savior.
Pelagius rejected the doctrine of Original Sin. Adam sinned for Adam and no one else. His sin did not pass on to the rest of man. Each individual man was born with the same clean slate as Adam. Sin was not inevitable. He even taught that there were many people who never sinned. Of course, the question becomes, "Well, did these sinless people die?" Pelagius taught that these people would have died anyway. Adam would have done the same. He was created as a mortal being and would have died even if he had not sinned. By putting together his belief that man's will is not subject to the consequences of the fall and the denial of a corrupt, sinful nature, Pelagius effectively made salvation by grace through faith unnecessary.
In 412 AD, the Council of Carthage was convened to address this issue. Both sides of the argument were there to make their case for their beliefs. The Council overwhelmingly agreed with Augustine. They concluded that the Word does teach that men are conceived and created in sin.
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me...(Psalm 51:5)
Man's will is not free as Pelagius taught but is bound up and held in bondage to the sin nature present in every individual. Men will choose according to their nature when they are unregenerate. Men will ALWAYS choose according to their nature unless God moves.
Pelagius and his followers were declared heretics. In part, the Council said:
Whoever says that Adam was created mortal and would, even without sin, have died by natural necessity, let him be anathema...(Council of Carthage 412 AD)
Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin is death. Wages are something you earn. Because of our disobedience, death was what was earned. It was the wage. One of the main proofs of the fact that we are sinners is because we die physically, since we are living in a state of spiritual death as well. The teaching of Pelagius that man was going to die anyway removes the biblical evidence for God having the warrant to place the curse of death on man for his disobedience. If un-fallen man was going to die anyway then God making the claim and threatening that "the wages of sin is death" becomes goofy and gobbledygook.
In today's "church", where anything and everything goes, it's the height of arrogance and "not Christ like" to pronounce any kind of judgement or curse on anybody. But, the council realized the importance of what was being taught. This issue changed the gospel, plain and simple. The "anathema" was taken from Galatians 1:
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (Galatians 1:8-9)
The word translated accursed is the Greek word anathema. It means exactly what the translation says...accursed. Doomed to destruction. Without hope of being redeemed. Basically, Paul was saying they were going to hell and to let them go. They were cut off from salvation or the possibility of being saved. In a broader sense, he was also saying it was to "cut them off" from the church, from being able to teach in the church so as to lead souls to destruction through heretical teaching.
There were 3 different councils that condemned Pelagianism in all its forms. 6 years after the council of Carthage, a general council of African churches reaffirmed what the council of Carthage stated. But, in the time between Carthage and the general council, Zosimus, the bishop of Rome, sided with Pelagius and what he taught. He wrote a letter in 412 condemning the Council of Carthage, its anathema of Pelagius and what it concluded. The council disregarded Zosimus and his letter, knowing that the Scripture was on their side.
Church historian Philip Schaff stated:
This temporary favor of the Bishop of Rome towards the Pelagian heresy is a significant presage of the indulgence of later popes for Pelagianizing tendencies.
History of the Christian Church
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Volume III
P. 798
It was these Pelagian beliefs, advocated by the Bishop of Rome, that led to the development of the works righteousness system of the RCC. We will launch from there in the next round. It is not going to be an RCC bash session but the history will help to explain the need for the Reformation and beyond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)