Churchmouse On The Air

My good cyber-friend Ray (aka "Churchmouse") made it on to this past Wednesday's Iron Sharpens Iron program to ask Catholic apologist Gerry Matatics a question. The next day, he sent an e-mail question to Iron Sharpens Iron which was read on the air (to which James White responded). I pulled both clips from the show, spliced them together as an MP3 file: Churchmouse On The Air.

Ray has been a good friend for many years now. He has his own blog, A Churchmouse's Musings. He has also contributed articles to this blog:

Guest Blog:Did Jerome Change His Mind on the Apocrypha ?

Guest Blog: Response To a Catholic Critique Of The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of Inscripturation (Part Three)

This is part three of a response to a paper critiquing The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of Inscripturation and The Fullness of Time.

Part one can be found here: Guest Blog: Response To a Catholic Critique Of The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of Inscripturation (Part One).

Part two can be found here.

Iohannes offered to take a look at Frank’s paper, and provide a critique. His response will be posted here in parts. To really appreciate this interaction, it is essential that one actually first reads the paper posted by Frank Ramirez.

************************************

A defense of the Protestant position on Scripture

Here it is needful to demonstrate two things: (a) that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice; and (b) that the testimony of an infallible church is not necessary for the reception of the Scriptures as being, with certainty, the word of God. In both cases it will be possible to give only a cursory overview of the subject matter; but nevertheless, this overview will hopefully provide an accurate depiction of the larger issue.

There are many approaches to proving that the Scriptures are the rule of faith and practice, and a thorough, albeit condensed, treatment of this matter is available in the fifth chapter of A.A. Hodge’s Outlines of Theology. Rather than repeat unnecessarily the breadth of the arguments there presented, here we shall focus only on one argument, which is that “Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.” This does not mean that the word as proclaimed orally in the ministry of Christ and the apostles was without authority. The point is rather that the example of Christ and the apostles shows that for the Church today, “The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, having been given by inspiration of God, are the all-sufficient and only rule of faith and practice, and judge of controversies.”

It was noted at the outset that the Savior’s words in John 5:39 can be read as a command to “search the scriptures.” Even if the imperative reading be rejected in this particular verse, there is abundant witness elsewhere in the Bible to the fact that the Scriptures are the authoritative corpus of divine revelation, and that it is by the standard of Scripture that all teaching is to be tested. To begin with, Christ constantly quoted and appealed to the Scriptures in order to establish his doctrine and defend it against the charges of critics. In this he followed the watchword of Isaiah: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

The practice of Christ shows that the law and testimony, as delivered by the oracles of old, was to be found in Scripture. This is exemplified in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Abraham responds to Dives’ entreaty for his brethren by saying, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” Moses and the prophets, though they had perished long ago, were yet still speaking in Christ’s time through their written testimony. Although oral traditions about the teachings of the prophets may have survived at that time, nevertheless the definitive account of the prophets’ doctrine was in fact the written word. This is shown, for example, in Luke 24:27: “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” (cf. vs. 44) When the risen Lord wished to show the disciples ‘all that the prophets had spoken’ about himself, he took them through all the scriptures, since that is where the prophets’ revelation was authoritatively recorded for the church. As Hodge said, it is significant that in his ministry on earth Christ both taught with his own authority and appealed to the authority of Scripture, but nowhere does it appear that he recognized any further rule of faith.

Christ’s practice continued after his ascension, as is shown by the letters and history of the apostles. The apostles not only taught authoritatively as Christ’s ambassadors, but, like their Lord, also frequently made appeal to Scripture. They did not countenance any doctrinal authority not countenanced by Christ. Moreover, as the commendation of the Bereans in Acts 17 shows, the message of the apostles themselves, like all doctrine, was to be judged by Scripture. In the current age, with Christ and the apostles departed, the Church must continue to follow their example. And as was the case with the prophets of old, Christ and his apostles, though not present with us in the body, are yet still speaking to the world, their doctrine having been likewise authoritatively set down for the Church in Scripture.

Thus, in its simplest form, runs one of the arguments for the sola scriptura. This argument may not put to rest every thesis that may be advanced in support of the Roman doctrine of tradition, but it does, at any rate, hopefully give some insight into how the Protestant position may be substantiated. Having addressed the place of Scripture as the rule of faith and life, it is proper now to look at the last matter requiring our attention, namely the basis on which the Christian receives the Scriptures as the word of God. This was already covered at length in the previous discussion, and rather than repeat everything that was said there, it is best here only to restate the Protestant view and to point out the main weaknesses of the claim for the necessity of the Church’s infallible testimony.

Protestants hold that God, in the abundance of His wisdom and mercy, has given men many useful external testimonies to the truth and authority of Scripture. These include the evidence of history and the witness of individual believers, as well as, perhaps most importantly, the testimony of the Church. Furthermore, the written word does itself exhibit magnificent characteristics that foster an impression of credibility. The totality of this evidence is quite weighty, but as the Westminster Confession says, “yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority [of Scripture], is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” In the nature of the case, nothing less than this would be sufficient; and at the same time nothing else could be more persuasive. Calvin puts the matter well in saying:

In vain were the authority of Scripture fortified by argument, or supported by the consent of the Church, or confirmed by any other helps, if unaccompanied by an assurance higher and stronger than human Judgment can give. Till this better foundation has been laid, the authority of Scripture remains in suspense. On the other hand, when recognising its exemption from the common rule, we receive it reverently, and according to its dignity, those proofs which were not so strong as to produce and rivet a full conviction in our minds, become most appropriate helps.[Institutes, Bk. I, Ch. 8]

A defense of this position was made at length in the sixteenth century by William Whitaker in his Disputations on Holy Scripture [pp. 332-358 of the Parker Society edition]. In that work he advanced in meticulous, even scholastic fashion, nineteen arguments in its favor. It is not necessary, however, to argue in this way, nor is it necessary that each of Whitaker’s arguments be accepted; for the strength of the position can be shown through its comparison with some of the simplest teachings of Scripture. In the parable referenced above, Abraham informs Dives that if men “hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Calvin, commenting on the verse, observes that “faith does not depend on miracles, or any extraordinary sign, but is the peculiar gift of the Spirit, and is produced by means of the word.” Just as men will not ultimately believe in Christ until the Spirit gives them eyes to see salvation in Him, so too they will not receive the Scriptures for what they are until the Spirit gives them ears to hear God’s word in them.

It should be remembered that when the ancients heard Christ preaching, they did not have the benefit of the church, infallible or otherwise, telling them to receive his words. Christ simply taught as one with authority, and his word was with power (cf. Mat. 7:29, Mark 1:22, Luke 4:32). It is true both that John the Baptist bore witness to Christ, and that Christ wrought many miracles that showed himself and his message to be from above. But it is also true that, in spite of this impressive evidence, very many people refused to believe. “The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” Christ’s preaching did not produce true faith in any of his hearers until the Spirit unstopped their ears; until He opened their eyes and hearts, and thus illuminated their minds and understandings. It is this illuminating testimony of the Spirit that gives believers the certainty of their faith. Once it is enjoyed, all other testimonies, even the most forceful of them, appear as what they properly are—what Calvin called “secondary helps to our weakness,” or testimonies corroborating “that chief and highest proof,” i.e. “the inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit.” And as Owen said, “When our Saviour Christ himself preached, what he spoke was as much the word of God when he spake it as now that it is written.” [Sermon on Luke 16:29] Even as the hearers of Christ had many corroborating testimonies to the truth and authority of his message, so too have we many to the truth and authority of Scripture; but just as their certainty came ultimately from the testimony of the Holy Spirit, so must ours also.

There are other places in Scripture which shed light on this doctrine. Among them is the line in First John: “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.” (vs. 2:20) Regarding this verse, John Murray wrote, “This anointing is an abiding possession and invests believers with discernment of the truth and stedfastness in it.” [The Infallible Word, ed. Stonehouse & Woolley.] For the present purposes, however, it is appropriate now to turn from the positive case in order to respond to an objection. It was asked whether an Old Testament believer would, when accepting the teaching of Isaiah, need to have faith in the prophet in addition to faith in his message. Here the trust had in Isaiah would indeed be an important confirmation of the truth of his proclamation. But in this case as in others, the message was to be received with certainty not so much because the believer heard Isaiah utter it, but because he heard God speaking in what Isaiah uttered. When Paul was in Athens, he was so little esteemed by some of the learned men that they called him a “babbler.” (Acts 17:18) This is an idiomatic rendering of a rather contemptuous word. Yet although Paul was despised, his words to the Athenians and foreigners at the Areopagus did not lose any of their authority or their trustworthiness. In the same way, when Paul first entered the synagogue in a town and began to preach the gospel, he was not immediately recognized as an apostle commissioned by the Lord Jesus. Whatever trust men had in him as a teacher, it was not because of this that they were ultimately led to embrace the good news he brought. They embraced the gospel in the end because God enabled them to see the truth of what Paul preached. It is only after they recognized Jesus as Lord that they could properly recognize Paul as their Lord’s duly appointed herald.

This leads us to the often-made claim that without an infallible church, believers could not have certainty that the Bible they receive is the word of God. Two main responses have been made to this, in order to show it is mistaken. The first is that it seems problematic historically. For the ancient Jews did not have an infallible Church to settle for them the matter of which books were divinely inspired. As Old Testament scholar Edward J. Young said:

How the books were gathered together we are not told. Apparently, no religious council in ancient Israel ever drew up a list of the divine books. Rather, in the singular providence of God, his people recognized his Word and honored it from the time of its first appearance. Thus was formed the collection of inspired writings which are known as the canonical books of the Old Testament. [The Infallible Word]

The key concept here is that “in the singular providence of God, his people recognized his Word.” This is what Protestants hold to be case in the New Testament age, as well. And the historical facts seem to fit well with this thesis. It makes sense that in the absence of a distinct body of tradition that authoritatively resolves the matter of the canon, there may at times, especially early on, have been some disagreements about it. As was suggested previously, it is conceivable that in the days before the cessation of the gift of prophesy, Christians may sometimes have erred in thinking something to have been delivered from God which in fact came only from men (cf. 1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:21) In the same way, Christians may sometimes have erred in their judgments about the canon. Yet if the position of the Church of Rome is correct, it seems peculiar that other very ancient Churches, each claiming to follow the tradition of the apostles, have different canons. It seems also a little strange that the church fathers, who are said to have transmitted apostolic tradition to the later church, did not have a more perfect agreement about the canon.

It might be asked how, if the Protestant position is correct, the Church could ever finally settle on a single recognized canon. Calvin’s remarks on the command to ‘try the spirits’ in 1 John 4:1 may be helpful with this and like questions. The passage is somewhat too lengthy to quote in full, but the most relevant portion is the following:

But here a difficult question arises: If every one has the right and the liberty to judge, nothing can be settled as certain, but on the contrary the whole of religion will be uncertain. To this I answer, that there is a twofold trial of doctrine, private and public. The private trial is that by which every one settles his own faith, when he wholly acquiesces in that doctrine which he knows has come from God; for consciences will never find a safe and tranquil port otherwise than in God. Public trial refers to the common consent and polity of the Church; for as there is danger lest fanatics should rise up, who may presumptuously boast that they are endued with the Spirit of God, it is a necessary remedy, that the faithful meet together and seek a way by which they may agree in a holy and godly manner. But as the old proverb is too true, “So many heads, so many opinions,” it is doubtless a singular work of God, when he subdues our perverseness and makes us to think the same thing, and to agree in a holy unity of faith.

The last sentence is especially interesting. The general consensus on the canon that appears historically is a precious token of divine providence. This consensus is not altogether perfect, and it is not in itself infallible. Nevertheless, given that so many believers have historically testified that God speaks in the recognized books of the Bible, their testimony carries great weight. They were, after all, the people of God, indwelt and guided by the Holy Spirit. Although the testimony of the Spirit is ultimately decisive as the source of the believer’s certainty—for our faith stands not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God—nevertheless, if a man thinks the Spirit leads him away from the consensus reached by the great body of believers, then he should carefully consider whether his perception is correct. There is a time when it is necessary to stand, like Athanasius, against the world. Protestants believe this was the case at the time of the Reformation. The judgment of men, and even of the men of the church, is not infallible, and God’s word must remain the final arbiter of controversies. Nonetheless, believers should treat with a healthy respect the conclusions of their brethren and forebears in the faith.

This brings us to the other weakness of the notion that an infallible church is required for the certainty about the canon. It may be assumed, for the sake of argument, that the Roman Magisterium is infallible in its teaching on the canon. However, even if this were the case, for our certainty about the Scripture to be mediated through the infallible judgment of the Magisterium, it would first be necessary for us to recognize the authority of the Magisterium. We must then ask on what basis a Roman Catholic comes to believe that, as his Catechism says, “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone.” The answer is bound to be similar to the Protestant’s reason for receiving the Scriptures as the word of God. The Roman Catholic believer might indeed be able to point to many objective evidences that support the claim for authority made by the Magisterium. But would he not in the end say, that even after all these important testimonies have been considered, his full persuasion and assurance about the infallibility and divine authority of the Church’s teaching office come from nothing less than work and witness of the indwelling Holy Spirit? Is it not because of this witness of the Spirit that the Roman Catholic believer finds himself, in the last analysis, truly certain that the Roman Church has correctly interpreted the apostolic tradition, while the Greek Church has not?

The same tremendous epistemological weight therefore bears down on the Roman Catholic deciding to accept the judgment of the Magisterium that bears down on the Protestant deciding to receive the books of Scripture. In both cases, although the believer’s conviction may be buttressed by objective evidence, it nonetheless derives its certainty not from anything of this world, but from the voice and agency of the Triune God. Only God Himself can handle the epistemic burden. Only the light of the Spirit can finally illuminate and dispel the twilight of uncertainty.

It is true that both Roman Catholics and Protestants reason in a circle. Being the finite creatures of the infinite God, the situation could not be otherwise. The important question that must be asked is, whose template of beliefs fits reality? Which position can consistently harmonize the facts of Christian faith and experience? As contraries rather than contradictions, it is possible that both sides could be mistaken. But for my part, I firmly believe that one is correct, and hope that this response might show something of the reason.

With Prayer and Respect,

Iohannes

Guest Blog: Response To a Catholic Critique Of The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of Inscripturation (Part Two)

This is part two of a response to a paper critiquing The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of Inscripturation and The Fullness of Time. Part one can be found here: Guest Blog: Response To a Catholic Critique Of The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of Inscripturation (Part One). Iohannes offered to take a look at Frank’s paper, and provide a critique. His response will be posted here in parts. To really appreciate this interaction, it is essential that one actually first reads the paper posted by Frank Ramirez.

************************************

It is appropriate to turn now to the Scriptural evidence cited for the Roman Church’s position. In the interest of brevity some of the verses which were brought forward will have to be left unnoticed, but an attempt will be made to address the weightiest of the proof texts given. As part of the providence of God, the matters now under discussion have been explored extensively by many gifted theologians of the past, and since the true Protestant doctrine is sola scriptura—as opposed to what is sometimes called ‘solo scriptura’—reference will be made to the accounts given by learned commentators: it nonetheless being the reader’s task to judge whether these accounts truly accord with the bible’s teaching, which must remain the final authority.

These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. I Tim. 3:14f

Here is an excerpt from one commentator:

"By holding out to pastors the greatness of the office, he undoubtedly intended to remind them with what fidelity, and industry, and reverence they ought to discharge it. […] Hence we may easily conclude in what sense Paul uses these words. The reason why the Church is called the “pillar of truth” is, that she defends and spreads it by her agency. God does not himself come down from heaven to us, nor does he daily send angels to make known his truth; but he employs pastors, whom he has appointed for that purpose. To express it in a more homely manner, is not the Church the mother of all believers? Does she not regenerate them by the word of God, educate and nourish them through their whole life, strengthen, and bring them at length to absolute perfection? For the same reason, also, she is called “the pillar of truth;” because the office of administering doctrine, which God hath placed in her hands, is the only instrument of preserving the truth, that it may not perish from the remembrance of men."

Who wrote this? The answer is none other than John Calvin, whose words are quoted here in order to show that one need not speak meanly of the church when denying Rome’s claims about infallibility.

Calvin’s explanation of the passage is that Paul reminds Timothy of the high purpose of the church—namely, to hold up and defend God’s truth in the world—so that he and other pastors might be stirred to a great diligence and care in performing their service. If this is the real meaning of the passage, it seems to be something of a stretch to infer that the Church is “the ‘pillar and foundation’ of the Word of God,” as is said in the paper. For the truth that the Church maintains in the world is the truth now contained in Scripture, and it is on this truth that the Church itself rests. As John Owen observed, the church “cannot be so the pillar and ground of truth that the truth should be, as it were, built and rest upon it as its foundation; for this is directly contrary to the same apostle, who teacheth us that the church itself is ‘built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone,’ Eph. ii. 20. The church cannot be the ground of truth, and truth the ground of the church, in the same sense or kind.” [Pneumatologia, Bk. VI, P. 1, Ch. 3]

It should be noted that the allusion to a pillar may involve the church not only holding up the truth, but also holding it out. Matthew Henry’s commentary states:

"The church itself is the pillar and ground of truth. Not that the authority of the scriptures depends upon that of the church, as the papists pretend, for truth is the pillar and ground of the church; but the church holds forth the scripture and the doctrine of Christ, as the pillar to which a proclamation is affixed holds forth the proclamation. Even to the principalities and powers in heavenly places is made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, Eph. 3:10."

The commentator may have spoken somewhat imprecisely in attributing to Rome the notion that the authority of Scripture depends upon that of the church, but notice the statement that “truth is the pillar and ground of the church.” Is this a subtle Protestant attempt to weaken the authority of the church? Certainly not, for it is Chrysostom who said of the church that, “it is this that maintains the faith and the preaching of the Word. For the truth is the pillar and the ground of the Church.” [Homily XI on First Timothy] And therefore, if the foundation of truth upon which a particular church rests begins to crumble, then the pillar which that church is may become unsteady, and may even fall. Recognizing this, Calvin insisted that: “Paul does not wish that any society, in which the truth of God does not hold a lofty and conspicuous place, shall be acknowledged to be a Church.” The text consequently demonstrates that one of the marks of a true church is the maintenance of sound doctrine. For this application of the text, see Article 29 of the Belgic Confession, which lists the distinctive characteristics of the true church.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. II Thess. 2:15

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances [or, traditions], as I delivered them to you. I Cor. 11:2

These verses are best treated together, since both are relevant to the discussion specifically because of the use of the word paradoseis, or traditions. It is important that this word be understood rightly, and for that reason it is helpful to consider an excerpt from J.N.D. Kelly’s work on Early Christian Doctrines.

"At the threshold, however, the reader should be placed on his guard against an ambiguity inherent in the word. In present day idiom ‘tradition’ denotes the body of unwritten doctrine handed down in the Church, or the handing down of such doctrine, and so tends to be contrasted with Scripture. In the language of the fathers, as indeed of the New Testament, the term of course conveyed this idea of transmission, and eventually the modern usage became regular. But its primary significance (cf. paradidonai; tradere), viz. authoritative delivery, was originally to the fore and always remained prominent. Hence by tradition the fathers usually mean doctrine which the Lord or His apostles committed to the church, irrespective of whether it was handed down orally or in documents, and in the earlier centuries at any rate they prefer to employ other words or phrases to designate the Church’s unwritten traditional teaching." [pp. 30f of the Prince Press edition]

This understanding of the word’s meaning is reflected in the way Archibald Alexander responded to the claim that these verses support the Roman Church’s doctrine of tradition:

Now all that is necessary to refute the argument derived from these and such like passages, where the word traditions is used, is to observe, that Paul employs this word in a very extensive sense, to signify whatever doctrines or institutions he had delivered to the churches, whether by his preaching or writing. [...] [I]n the quotation from the second chapter, it is clear, that by traditions, the apostle did not mean merely oral communications, for he explains himself, by saying, “whether by word or epistle.” It is not denied, that Paul delivered many things orally to the churches, as has been already acknowledged. All the instructions given to the churches first planted, were oral, for as yet no gospels nor epistles were written; but the true point in dispute is, whether any article of faith, or any important institution, thus originally communicated, was omitted, when the books of the New Testament were written by divine inspiration. Whether, while a part of the revelation of God, for the use of his church, was committed to writing, another important part was left to be handed down by tradition. That the word tradition, as used by Paul, makes nothing in favour of the doctrine of the Romish church, is evident, because by this word he commonly means such things as were distinctly recorded in the Scriptures. Thus, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, he says, “For I delivered unto you first of all,” where the word for transmitting by tradition, is used; but what were those things which he had by tradition communicated to them? He informs us in the next words, “How that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures.” 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4. [cf. I Cor. 11:23ff] [The Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, Part 2, Sect. 17]

Further evidence would therefore be needed to prove the Roman doctrine of tradition. The bare fact that the Apostles taught the first Christians by both spoken and written words does not in any sense require the conclusion that later Christians were to receive God’s final and authoritative revelation of Himself through the twin streams of written books and unwritten traditions, or that, as is said in Dei Verbum (9), “both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.” Protestants do, of course, believe the tradition of the apostles is authoritative, but they also believe that this tradition is now perfectly recorded in the completed Scriptures, to which nothing is to be added as part of the rule of faith and life.

When these verses were cited in the paper, it was said that “the Reformed theologians would respond that these apostolic traditions were what the divine economy required at that time.” But to be clear, the special importance of the spoken word in the earliest days of the Church was due not so much to a deep theological reason as it was to a practical reality—until the New Testament was completed, God’s revelation could not but be spread orally. God made provision for this situation by commissioning the apostles and other special officers, who would be responsible for the initial diffusion of the gospel. Paul’s words in First Corinthians are illustrative here (either directly or indirectly): “...when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” Jonathan Edwards held that the text has in view what he called a “twofold perfect,” and in explaining one aspect of this he said: “The church in its beginning, or in its first stage, before it was strongly established in the world, and settled in its New Testament state, and before the canon of Scripture was completed, was in an imperfect state — a state, as it were, of childhood, in comparison with what it was to be in its elder and later ages, when it should have reached its state of manhood, or of comparative earthly perfection.” [Charity and Its Fruits, Sermon 16] In other words, while it was entirely proper for the Church, in its state of relative childhood, to receive the word of God from the mouths of the apostles, this was not to continue into the age of the Church’s relative maturity, once the Church had been well established, and the whole of God’s revealed will for His Church had been committed to writing.

Two points remain to be addressed with connection to these verses. The first point is that which Thomas Scott noted in his commentary on the verse from Second Thessalonians: “Doubtless Paul’s traditions were worthy of credence and obedience; but how shall we know anything of them, except as they were written for our benefit?” In order to hold that there is an authoritative body of extra-Scriptural apostolic tradition, it is necessary to show that such traditions as it is held to include actually came from the apostles. As Scott wrote, the good news “which Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy were sent to preach to” the Thessalonians “came not to them in word only, but with the power of the Holy Ghost” (cf. I Thess. 1:5; I Cor. 2:4). It appears that God gave a strong witness to the truth of his apostles’ message that he has not similarly given to truth of the alleged body of unwritten tradition. The other point is a response to the (admittedly clever) suggestion in the paper that the Protestant position amounts to shouting, “To hell with Timothy, we want 1 and 2 Timothy!” As should be clear by now, the Protestant position does not diminish the honor or importance of the special officers through whom God delivered the gospel to the early Church. Neither do Protestants, in recognizing the authority of Scripture as the infallible rule of faith and life, in any way rob the church and its pastors of their high importance in Christianity. Recognizing that it is with the feet that the body stands, and that rather using the hands for standing, the body uses them for holding things, does not in any way belittle the hands and their service.

What has been covered thus far should be sufficient for relating the general answer to the Scripture witness offered in the paper. Nevertheless, in order that the case might be more fully presented, it will be beneficial to look briefly at a few more of the Scripture passages that were referenced.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. II Tim. 2:2

This verse should be compared with Paul’s words in the previous chapter: “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.” It is without doubt that the Spirit aids the good pastors set over the church; as it is said in Matthew Henry’s commentary, “Even those who are ever so well taught cannot keep what they have learned, any more than they could at first learn it, without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. We must not think to keep it by our own strength, but keep it by the Holy Ghost.” At the same time, it clearly goes beyond what is written to infer from these verses anything touching the putative infallibility of the church’s teaching office. Regarding the command to “hold fast the form of sound words,” and to pass this on to future generations, this has historically been done, at least in part, through the drafting of creedal statements, which are simply short compendiums of Christian doctrine. These statements are received by the Church as authoritative, not in themselves, but derivatively and in a secondary way because they concisely but accurately present the teaching of Scripture.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Acts 20:28

At this point it should be unnecessary to comment directly on the use made of this verse in the paper. But rather than silently pass by such a wonderful sentence, it seemed proper to quote it and make two observations on it. The first is that it contains a profound statement about how salvation comes to us in Christ; for God purchased His Church with nothing less than His own blood. The second, which must seem quite mundane in comparison, is that Paul here calls ‘overseers’ or ‘bishops’, i.e. episkopoi, the same men who in verse 17 are called ‘elders’, i.e. presbuteroi. Although it may be true that the institution of the monarchical bishop can be traced to very ancient times, the New Testament yet knows nothing of it, and seems rather to contradict it by equating bishops and elders.

These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:25f

This passage has long been used by the Church of Rome to prove, as is maintained in the paper, that Christ promised that the Spirit “would help the Church’s memory.” The old Catholic Encyclopedia identifies it as one of several places in this part of John’s Gospel “which clearly imply the promise of infallibility.” In response to this claim, Protestants do not necessarily deny that this promise can indirectly, in some sense, be extended to all believers. As is said in Matthew Poole’s commentary, “It is one great work of the holy Spirit, to bring the revelations of holy Writ to our remembrance, and withall to [make] clear to us the sense of them, and confirm our faith in them, and chiefly to quicken us to practice what is our duty.” Nevertheless, this is not at all the primary meaning of the passage; for Christ was here addressing his immediate disciples, telling them that they would be helped to remember the things which he himself had spoken to them during their time together.

An old article from Time Magazine [Nov. 1, 1968] describes a book by Roman Catholic Bishop Francis Simons titled Infallibility and the Evidence. This book was extremely controversial because Bishop Simons plainly asserted that, “a scrutiny of the traditional arguments seems to prove that the very structure of infallibility has to be abandoned.” Here is a short excerpt from the article: “Simons cites Jesus' declaration in John 14:26... In Simons' view, the obviously personal meaning of the word remembrance ‘makes the words applicable only to the Apostles.’ Nor is there any hint in the Bible, Simons claims, that the Apostles' successors would inherit more than ordinary providential assistance in interpreting what the Apostles themselves witnessed.” Depending on the context in which it is said, it may go a little too far to assert that the verse is applicable strictly to the Apostles alone. Nonetheless, the basic point remains as something deserving consideration.

This verse is also relevant to a fact that was mentioned several times in the discussion: namely, that Luke “had to sift through the traditions in order to write his Gospel.” Luke may indeed have had to sift through many sources when drafting his Gospel, but it is worth noting that in this process, besides having the benefit of divine inspiration, he also had the benefit of having been the contemporary of the men to whom the promise in John 14:26 was directly given. This is far from being the case with the men who today must interpret tradition as part of Rome’s teaching office.

Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full. II John 12

I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: but I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. III John 13f

These verses were referenced in the paper’s conclusion, not so much as outright proofs of the Roman Church’s doctrine, but as evidence tending to support it. In response it may be said that John’s purpose in coming in person rather than only in letter appears to have been determined more by the nature of pastoral care and Christian fellowship than by the nature of revelation. After all, John explicitly identifies his reason as being “that our joy may be full.” Since unwritten tradition moves men no closer to this end than the written word does, it is somewhat unnatural to read into this text a witness to the Roman position on revelation.

It was also asserted in the paper, again as something on the order of confirmatory evidence for a position already established: “That Moses and the Prophets were to write down everything is clear from the Old Testament writings... In the New Testament, however, these explicit divine commands to inscripturate are totally absent.” Two observations may be made in answer to this. First, in it is logical form it is essentially an argument from silence, and thus its value is doubtful, especially when other more forceful arguments can be made. But further, taking the argument at face value, the premise that the New Testament lacks any command to commit revelation to writing does itself appear questionable. In the opening chapter of the Apocalypse John is twice bidden to write down the vision that he receives (verses 11 and 19). This command to write is then reiterated at various important points in the prophesy (see the instructions to write to the angels of the seven particular churches, as well as 14:13, 19:9, and 21:5). It is true that no equally explicit command is found in the rest of the New Testament. However, it seems fair to infer from the Old Testament examples that such commands to write are more to be expected in prophetic literature than in other genres, and given that the Apocalypse is the only book of its type in the New Testament, it does not seem unusual that a command to write should be found in it but not in the other books.

With this the examination of the biblical witness brought forward in the paper must, for now, conclude, so that there be time to give something toward a defense of the Protestant position on Scripture.

Guest Blog: Response To a Catholic Critique Of The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of Inscripturation (Part One)

Recently a Roman Catholic stopped over here and took part in a lively discussion responding to my entry on Pope Damasus and the Canon of Scripture. He went by the nickname “Pope St. Peter”. His name is Frank G. Ramirez, and hosts a blog entitled, Sancta Mater Ecclesia. He mentioned that he had posted a paper critiquing The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of Inscripturation and The Fullness of Time. Also involved in the discussion was a person with the nickname “Iohannes”. Iohannes offered to take a look at Frank’s paper, and provide a critique. His response will be posted here in parts. To really appreciate this interaction, it is essential that one actually first reads the paper posted by Frank Ramirez, and then read the blog entries which will be found here in the next few days.

************************************

Greetings,

With apologies for the long delay, I offer now my response to “Pope St. Peter’s” paper on the Reformed understanding of Scripture. It was not immediately obvious to me what the best way would be in which to structure the following remarks, but in the end it seemed prudent to divide them into three parts: first, an answer to the general line of argument; second, an examination of the Scripture witness adduced for the Roman Church’s position; and third, a brief defense of the Protestant position, as over against that of Rome. I acknowledge that this will not be an exhaustive treatment of the paper and its contents, but I hope that it will serve in some way to advance our discussion toward the end of mutual edification. If there is anything that I pass by in the paper, on which comment is desired, I would gladly respond to it, once the deficiency is pointed out.

The basic drift of the paper appears to be reflected in this passage:

Jesus chastised the Pharisees for not realizing that He recapitulated the Old Testament: “You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they who bear witness to me” (Jn 5:39). In other words, the Word made Text points toward the Word made Flesh. And what happens next? Not Word made Text again! The Word made Flesh points toward His Bride with whom He has become one Flesh. Indeed, the Word became flesh, so that the Two could become one Flesh (cf. Jn 1:14; Eph 5:32)!

Before approaching the real issue, I would observe, as something which will be relevant later on, that the verse quoted from John’s Gospel can be read with the verb ‘to search’ in the indicative mood (as here translated) or in the imperative (as a command to ‘search the scriptures’). The former is the reading commonly given in modern versions, probably because it is thought to flow better with the next verse. Nevertheless, the imperative reading is well supported historically, with both Chrysostom and Augustine following it, as well as the translators of the Authorized Version and the Rheims New Testament. But in any case, it is not with this that we are presently concerned.

All Christians will agree that the written word in the scripture points to Christ the incarnate Word. In the passage above, the particular stress appears to be that the written word in the Old Testament anticipates a new fullness of revelation in Christ. With the coming of Christ, the manner of revelation is changed. For Christ founds his Church, and although he in the flesh is ascended into heaven, he remains present on earth in the body of his beloved, in whom he dwells by the Spirit, and with whom he is most intimately united. This is summarized in the chain depicted in the paper: Logos — Spoken Word — Inscripturated Word — Incarnated Word — Extension of Incarnate Word. (Son) (Patriarchs) (Old Testament writers) (Jesus) (Church) The problem with the Reformed doctrine is therefore that, not recognizing the whole of what is entailed in the culmination of all things in the incarnation of Christ, it does not terminate in Christ and his bride. Instead, mirroring the old covenant paradigm, it returns again to the inscripturated word.

In response, it is readily acknowledged that the coming of Christ constitutes a radical development in the history of revelation. This is the grand truth with which the Epistle to the Hebrews opens: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.” All revelation prior to Christ’s coming, in whatever form it was given, looked forward to him—“to him give all the prophets witness”—and the focus gradually sharpened as his incarnation drew nearer. Then, “when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son,” whose advent marked the beginning of the age in which God’s revelation would at last arrive in its true fullness. In contrast to what went before, this revelation would not be given ‘at sundry times’ or portion by portion; for through the ministry of Christ and his apostles, the faith was indeed “once for all delivered to the saints.” Nor would the diversity of ways in which God spoke to his people in the old covenant continue in the new; “those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people,” as the Westminster Confession says, “being now ceased.”

The coming of Christ is therefore of momentous import in the history of revelation. But the question remains, what is final form of this revelation? It has been contended that the Protestant teaching wrongly terminates in the scriptures, not in Christ and his bride. This, however, is a misunderstanding of the nature of scripture. Scripture is not an end in itself; it is a means, or a vehicle, by and through which God vouchsafed to give his revelation to his people. Just as the scriptures of the Old Testament constantly point men to the coming savior, the scriptures of the New Testament constantly direct men to the incarnate, dead and risen, ascended savior, who will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. Moreover, in pointing men to Christ who in his flesh now sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven, the scriptures also lead men to the body of Christ on earth, the church, which as the ekklesia is the assembly of all those who have been called out of the darkness into the light of life in Christ.

The Protestant teaching is not that the Scriptures are the whole of Christianity; they have a specific office, which is that of being the only infallible rule of faith and life. They contain without error the whole doctrine taught and proclaimed by the apostles and prophets and Christ himself, which is the foundation of the church (see Eph. 2:20). That the written word is the rule of faith and life does not, however, in any way derogate from Christ, or from his incarnation, from any particular part of Christianity. In fact, there is no reason necessarily to disagree with the assertion made in the paper that “The Word made Flesh points toward His Bride with whom He has become one Flesh.” But it must be borne in mind that Christ, in pointing to the church, points to her as having her own proper office. This office is actively to be the extension of himself in carrying the message he gave the world (which is contained perfectly in the Scriptures) out into the world, teaching all nations, and baptizing them in the name of the Triune God. Is the Church removed from Christianity because its function differs from that of the Scripture? To borrow Paul’s analogy, “If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?” The Scriptures and the Church each have their place in Christianity, and while they are united closely together, their respective functions must not be confounded.

Guest Blog: Captivation of the Will and Mariology

by Frank Marron (Lutheran)

Martin Luther gradually came out of medieval Roman Catholicism, which included an incorrect view of Mary in the role of salvation. Eventually, Luther’s writings reflect a man whose entire thinking became conformed to the Word of God, rather than held hostage to human traditions, empty philosophies, myths, legends, and human reason/logic. Luther matured to the point that whenever there was any apparent conflict between his human reason and the plain Word of God, the Scriptures always trumped the other.

Luther believed his greatest writing was The Bondage of the Will, and most theologians of all ages have had difficulty with this truth because their natural wills are bound and they cannot yield to the Holy Spirit. The bible is rather plain and easy to understand- the problem is that sinners do not want to receive the truths contained therein, including most theologians! Luther’s adversary during this confrontation was the genius Erasmus, who simply could and would not believe that all men are born with Satan as the rider of their wills. The Reformation was not intended to reform the Church, but rather reform preaching, The reason for this is that if one falsely believes men can choose correctly in spiritual matters, then sermons will always be oriented to encourage correct choices, as in many modern day lectures from Joel Osteen and Rick Warren, for example. On the other hand, if one believes all men are born DEAD in sin and in bondage to Satan(Ephesians 2:5; Col 1:13), then the sermons will preach Christ crucified for sinners and the emphasis will be on the accomplishment of Christ for sinners and the Means of Grace by which men are credited with His work. The emphasis in good preaching will be to allow the Holy Spirit to create and sustain faith by the Word of God so that the Holy Spirit becomes the rider of the human will rather than Satan. With the Lord in command of an individual’s will and a new heart, good works pleasing to God, referred to as fruits of the Holy Spirit, will automatically come forth.

What does this have to do with Mariology? Everything! If a person wishes to allow his human reason to be master over Holy Scripture, then it makes total sense that since Jesus was born without sin, his biological mother must also be sinless. Of course this ignores the domino-like reasoning which would say that the mother of Mary, Ann, would have of necessity also been sinless, as her mother before her, and so on and so forth. Human reason can readily accept such logic, even though Scripture clearly states that all are born dead in sin and slaves to Satan(Romans 3:23). The difficulty is that sinful men cannot accept the plain Word of God that Jesus was born sinless and that his biological mother was born in sin like all humans. Mary even confessed her need for the Savior (Luke 1:47).Humans continue to attempt to impose their fallible human reasoning in order to understand everything about God, whether revealed in Scripture or not. Most truth about God remains hidden from humans. Only that which God has deemed sufficient for salvation has been revealed in Scripture(2Tim 3:16; John 20:30ff). How the Son of God can become incarnate in the womb of the virgin and be unstained by sin is not something we humans can totally grasp with our brains, but instead we confess, or say back, to God what He has revealed to us. We are the pots and He is the master potter. When the Holy Spirit has created faith in our hearts, then it is easy to acknowledge what Scripture says about sin, death, Satan, Jesus, and Mary. Until saving faith is received it is difficult to deal with spiritual issues. In fact, unbelievers cannot understand anything spiritual(1Cor 2:14).

The entire issue of Mary and her sin is of the devil, who always attempts to tear our eyes off of Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith(Hebrews 12:2). Sometimes Satan even works miracles to do so, referred to as signs and false wonders(2Thess 2:9). As Luther discovered, believers must cleave to Christ at all times and not be persuaded by emotion or reason but rather the plain Word of God. The entire issue of Mary is one inherited from the confusion of the medieval period. The reason Mary was a virgin was not that being a virgin is anything special spiritually speaking, but rather it demonstrates the miraculous from God. Being a virgin doesn’t necessarily denote purity because God has always been interested in a person’s heart condition and motives(e.g. Psalm 51:10; Psalm 73:1), not their physical stature. Sure, being a virgin prior to marriage is the will of God, but so are pure thoughts. Virgins are sinners with impure thoughts as much as those who abuse their gifts of sexuality. The hang-ups with virginity and Mary ignore the critical importance of a pure heart, which only God the Holy Spirit can generate in a person through the Means of Grace.

Was Mary saved? I believe she was saved in exactly the same fashion as any human. She heard the Word of God from the angel, the fetus Jesus and faith were spontaneously generated in her body heart, and her mind started to be renewed to this faith as she pondered everything. Her faith was able to generate love, trust, and obedience to God as the Holy Spirit filled her heart and controlled her will. As time passed she, like the apostles, grew in her human understanding of the revealed will of God as manifested in Jesus the Messiah/Christ. Mary’s righteousness was foreign to her human nature, one that was reckoned to her by Christ through faith. The righteousness of Christ became Mary’s ticket to heaven, not her own unrighteousness and sinfulness. Although she played a special role in salvation history, Mary was saved exactly the way anyone else is: by the grace of God through faith in Jesus alone(Ephesians 2:8-9).

********
Other blog entries by Frank Marron:

Guest Blogger: Frank Marron (Lutheran)

Guest Blog: Law & Gospel

Guest Blog: The Word Of The Lord Endures forever, Not The words Of Martin Luther!

Guest Blog:Why Are There So Many Christian Denominations?

Guest Blog: Bondage Of The Will

Guest Blog: Thoughts on “The Examination of the Council of Trent”

Guest Blog: Properly Dividing Law and Gospel

Guest Blog: The Purpose Driven Life- A Review

Guest Blog: Properly Dividing Law And gospel

by Frank Marron (Lutheran)

While many sermons on Sunday may teach the orthodox Christian faith, most are not proper because they do apply the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the lives of believers. Sure, you may leave church after hearing the truth concerning both the Divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ – that He is both man and God, but most likely you will not have heard the Gospel applied to your everyday life. Here is a case study illustrating this fact, based on a recent broadcast of Law & Gospel by Pastor Tom Baker. All names are fictitious.

Ann is a middle-aged woman who recently lost her husband in an automobile accident, where a drunk driver was responsible. She is a member of a mainstream Christian church denomination where her fellow members and pastor all encourage her to forget and forgive because the bible tells her she must do so. After all, we read such commands in the bible. Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, St Paul writes:

Ephes. 4:32
Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

Jesus Himself states:
Matthew 6:14-15
For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, [15] but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Grieving over the loss of her life’s companion, Ann is naturally confused. When asked, she forcefully testifies she is not angry with God, but instead angry with the drunk driver who caused her pain and suffering. Her pastor and church friends are uncomfortable being around Ann and continue to encourage her to forgive the drunk driver and get on with her life. But Ann cannot simply do this. She thinks she is in a good church home and has heard the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But has she really?

Most Christian denominations believe that “if the bible says it, then that settles it - I believe it”. Sadly, such a viewpoint is prominent throughout Christianity and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the Word of God. There are two methods God speaks in His Word: Law and Gospel. “Law” is shorthand for the will of God, usually understood in the context of the ten commandments. In the above Scripture quotations, these verses are definitely Law. It is the will of God that we forgive one another, just as stated in the Lord’s Prayer(e.g. Matthew 6:12). All religions of the world are Law based, believing that the way a person gets right with God is by doing the will of God. Such people are referred to as those who live under the Law. Although Ann’s denomination professes belief in Jesus Christ, this church is not really different from all other religions of the world because it encourages it’s members to live under the Law. Ann is terribly burdened by her loss and under condemnation for failing to forgive the drunk driver who killed her husband. Instead of comforting Ann, her church burdens her with the full weight of the Law: Ann must forgive. This is a classic example of the failure to properly distinguish between Law and Gospel.

The bible is riddled with passages of Scripture that are either Law or Gospel. In fact, many verses can be understood as either one, depending upon whether one lives under Law or under the Gospel. Most denominations fail to understand that the primary purpose of the Law is to reveal and magnify sin, not to present a challenge for a man to keep the will of God(Romans 3:20;5:20). The Law of God is good in that it reveals the will of God, but it only condemns a person and does not enable him to keep it. The Law is a mirror showing us how imperfect and sinful we really are and is a tutor pointing to Christ(Galatians 3:24). Most denominations know the Law well and rather than emphasize the scriptural purpose for it, they encourage members to try to keep it, often believing that the Holy Spirit will empower people to do this, thus pleasing God. Such encouragement is a confusion of Law and Gospel and even attempts to use the cross of Christ as Law rather than Gospel! Such denominations believe that the purpose of the bible is to present “right rules for living”. Unfortunately, this is not Christianity, but rather exactly what all other man made religions of the world teach, such as Buddhism, Mormonism, or Islam.

Romans chapters 7 and 8 illustrate the apostle Paul’s understanding of Law and Gospel, sin and Grace. Romans 7:9 shows how the Law created awareness of sin for Paul and the inner turmoil over failure to keep it. Paul says that even though the Law is good, it caused death for him. In verse 15 Paul states that he does the exact opposite of the will of God, despite his desire to do otherwise! Verse 24 shows Paul exclaiming what a wretched man he is, finally realizing that the only solution to his dilemma is Jesus Christ. Paul is no different than any other man: All have sinned and fallen short of the will of God(Romans 3:23). The good news is that there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus(Romans 8:1). Most denominations don’t seem to understand why there is no condemnation of believers such as Ann, who professes belief in Jesus Christ. Instead, such churches place Ann on another guilt trip for failure to keep the Law completely. Such denominations read Romans 8:1-6 as those who live under the Law, believing that walking according to the flesh refers to continuing to sin and walking according to the Spirit as ceasing from sinning. But this is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ! Such churches should be embarrassed and ashamed at failing their members. Ann’s denomination does not heed the Scriptures, which plainly state that the Law reveals sin to those secure in their sins, as shown above, but that the Gospel is to be given to those terrified of their trespasses. Jesus came to fulfill the Law perfectly for all men, including Ann(Matthew 5:17). Jesus did what no other man was capable of – He was the Representative Man. Jesus came not for the righteous, but sinners(Matthew 9:13), including Ann. As a believer, Ann is concerned over her failure to forgive, which is a sin of omission, not commission(e.g. James 4:17). The Gospel is that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the entire world, which includes Ann(John 3:16). Jesus did not die for y those who kept the will of God perfectly throughout their entire lives, but for sinners. Only Christ lived the perfect, sinless life. This is the GOOD NEWS, the Gospel, which is rarely preached from the pulpits of most denominations. The Gospel is not that God forgives your sins and sends the Holy Spirit to enable you to keep the Law of God. The Gospel is 100 percent gift: God forgives your sins because the Son of God took the punishment for your sins. God gives you the gift of Faith in which to receive this blessing and also the seal of the Holy Sirit(Ephesians 1:13-14). Jesus Christ exchanges His Righteousness for your sins so that we become adopted children of God through absolutely no merit of our own. Being aware of her sins and failure to forgive the person who killed her husband, instead of being burdened with more Law, Ann should have been comforted with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Ann should be encouraged to continue to walk by the Spirit, confessing her sins and receiving the forgiveness of sins and the peace of God through Jesus Christ her Savior, which is living under the Gospel. Jesus Christ lived the perfect life of obedience under the Law for Ann. Jesus Christ received the full wrath of God for Ann’s sins. In the eyes of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, Ann is considered perfect, sinless, and righteous(2Cor 5:21). This is the Gospel. This is the comfort and peace which is sorely lacking in Christian preaching today.

Guest Blog: Properly Dividing Law & Gospel

by Frank Marron (Lutheran)

While many sermons on Sunday may teach the orthodox Christian faith, most are not proper because they do apply the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the lives of believers. Sure, you may leave church after hearing the truth concerning both the Divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ – that He is both man and God, but most likely you will not have heard the Gospel applied to your everyday life. Here is a case study illustrating this fact, based on a recent broadcast of Law & Gospel by Pastor Tom Baker. All names are fictitious.

Ann is a middle-aged woman who recently lost her husband in an automobile accident, where a drunk driver was responsible. She is a member of a mainstream Christian church denomination where her fellow members and pastor all encourage her to forget and forgive because the bible tells her she must do so. After all, we read such commands in the bible. Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, St Paul writes:

Ephes. 4:32
Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

Jesus Himself states:

Matthew 6:14-15
For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, [15] but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Grieving over the loss of her life’s companion, Ann is naturally confused. When asked, she forcefully testifies she is not angry with God, but instead angry with the drunk driver who caused her pain and suffering. Her pastor and church friends are uncomfortable being around Ann and continue to encourage her to forgive the drunk driver and get on with her life. But Ann cannot simply do this. She thinks she is in a good church home and has heard the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But has she really?

Most Christian denominations believe that “if the bible says it, then that settles it - I believe it”. Sadly, such a viewpoint is prominent throughout Christianity and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the Word of God. There are two methods God speaks in His Word: Law and Gospel. “Law” is shorthand for the will of God, usually understood in the context of the ten commandments. In the above Scripture quotations, these verses are definitely Law. It is the will of God that we forgive one another, just as stated in the Lord’s Prayer(e.g. Matthew 6:12). All religions of the world are Law based, believing that the way a person gets right with God is by doing the will of God. Such people are referred to as those who live under the Law. Although Ann’s denomination professes belief in Jesus Christ, this church is not really different from all other religions of the world because it encourages it’s members to live under the Law. Ann is terribly burdened by her loss and under condemnation for failing to forgive the drunk driver who killed her husband. Instead of comforting Ann, her church burdens her with the full weight of the Law: Ann must forgive. This is a classic example of the failure to properly distinguish between Law and Gospel.

The bible is riddled with passages of Scripture that are either Law or Gospel. In fact, many verses can be understood as either one, depending upon whether one lives under Law or under the Gospel. Most denominations fail to understand that the primary purpose of the Law is to reveal and magnify sin, not to present a challenge for a man to keep the will of God(Romans 3:20;5:20). The Law of God is good in that it reveals the will of God, but it only condemns a person and does not enable him to keep it. The Law is a mirror showing us how imperfect and sinful we really are and is a tutor pointing to Christ(Galatians 3:24). Most denominations know the Law well and rather than emphasize the scriptural purpose for it, they encourage members to try to keep it, often believing that the Holy Spirit will empower people to do this, thus pleasing God. Such encouragement is a confusion of Law and Gospel and even attempts to use the cross of Christ as Law rather than Gospel! Such denominations believe that the purpose of the bible is to present “right rules for living”. Unfortunately, this is not Christianity, but rather exactly what all other man made religions of the world teach, such as Buddhism, Mormonism, or Islam.

Romans chapters 7 and 8 illustrate the apostle Paul’s understanding of Law and Gospel, sin and Grace. Romans 7:9 shows how the Law created awareness of sin for Paul and the inner turmoil over failure to keep it. Paul says that even though the Law is good, it caused death for him. In verse 15 Paul states that he does the exact opposite of the will of God, despite his desire to do otherwise! Verse 24 shows Paul exclaiming what a wretched man he is, finally realizing that the only solution to his dilemma is Jesus Christ. Paul is no different than any other man: All have sinned and fallen short of the will of God(Romans 3:23). The good news is that there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus(Romans 8:1). Most denominations don’t seem to understand why there is no condemnation of believers such as Ann, who professes belief in Jesus Christ. Instead, such churches place Ann on another guilt trip for failure to keep the Law completely. Such denominations read Romans 8:1-6 as those who live under the Law, believing that walking according to the flesh refers to continuing to sin and walking according to the Spirit as ceasing from sinning. But this is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ! Such churches should be embarrassed and ashamed at failing their members. Ann’s denomination does not heed the Scriptures, which plainly state that the Law reveals sin to those secure in their sins, as shown above, but that the Gospel is to be given to those terrified of their trespasses. Jesus came to fulfill the Law perfectly for all men, including Ann(Matthew 5:17). Jesus did what no other man was capable of – He was the Representative Man. Jesus came not for the righteous, but sinners(Matthew 9:13), including Ann. As a believer, Ann is concerned over her failure to forgive, which is a sin of omission, not commission(e.g. James 4:17). The Gospel is that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the entire world, which includes Ann(John 3:16). Jesus did not die for y those who kept the will of God perfectly throughout their entire lives, but for sinners. Only Christ lived the perfect, sinless life. This is the GOOD NEWS, the Gospel, which is rarely preached from the pulpits of most denominations. The Gospel is not that God forgives your sins and sends the Holy Spirit to enable you to keep the Law of God. The Gospel is 100 percent gift: God forgives your sins because the Son of God took the punishment for your sins. God gives you the gift of Faith in which to receive this blessing and also the seal of the Holy Sirit(Ephesians 1:13-14). Jesus Christ exchanges His Righteousness for your sins so that we become adopted children of God through absolutely no merit of our own. Being aware of her sins and failure to forgive the person who killed her husband, instead of being burdened with more Law, Ann should have been comforted with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Ann should be encouraged to continue to walk by the Spirit, confessing her sins and receiving the forgiveness of sins and the peace of God through Jesus Christ her Savior, which is living under the Gospel. Jesus Christ lived the perfect life of obedience under the Law for Ann. Jesus Christ received the full wrath of God for Ann’s sins. In the eyes of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, Ann is considered perfect, sinless, and righteous(2Cor 5:21). This is the Gospel. This is the comfort and peace which is sorely lacking in Christian preaching today.

Guest Blog: The Purpose Driven Life – A Review

by Frank Marron (Lutheran)


Summary: Although the book The Purpose Driven Life (TPDL) begins well by insisting the purpose of life is not about man but rather God, author Rick Warren devotes the entire book on how to improve the spiritual life of people, similar to any self-help book. Rather than emphasizing the Gospel of Jesus Christ and what God has accomplished in His Son, Warren presents over 160 legalistic rules by which men can obtain and live a victorious “purpose-driven” Christian life. In reality, TPDL offers nothing more than the repetition of ancient heresies and false teachings which sparked the 16th century Reformation. St Paul addressed similar heresies when he wrote his letter to the Galatians and which have continued to plague the Christian faith throughout history. The book is written from an Arminian or semi-Pelagian theological viewpoint, rather than orthodox Christianity as found in the bible. The author illustrates the system of theology known as Theology of Glory(TG), which is the exact opposite of the Christocentric system referred to as Theology of the Cross(TC). The bible is centered in the works of God as shown in the perfect life, death, and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ, not the works of man. However, author Rick Warren devotes his entire treatise on convincing readers that they need to perform good works in order to ensure their status in heaven. Warren maintains that all men have free will and our acceptance by God is based upon our choices and obedience to God’s will. This is a throwback to the heresies of Medieval Roman Catholicism confronted by Martin Luther. Readers of TPDL are not pointed to Christ as their Righteousness, but instead are directed to dedicating themselves to “40 days of purpose”.

One of the most popular books in Christian bookstores is The Purpose Driven Life (TPDL) by author Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Community Church in Lake Forest, California. Even secular authorities, including President George Bush, have praised the insights of author Rick Warren. Many news reporters have seen fit to interview this highly successful writer. After all, TPDL has sold upwards of 25 million copies worldwide, an incredible accomplishment by any standard. I will attempt to provide insights as to why this book is so successful and whether it is in conflict or harmony with basic Christian doctrine as found in the Scriptures, as rediscovered during the 16th century Reformation in Germany.

Merely reading through TPDL shows it’s appeal to the masses. It is well written and appeals to the logic and common sense of the average person. All well written self-help books are always successful in the marketplace and Zondervan Publishing is certainly capitalizing on this fact in their sponsorship of TPDL. Basic Christian doctrine asserts that everyone is born in spiritual depravity having absolutely no inclination to love, trust, and obey the true God as revealed in Holy Scripture(Ps 51:5;Rom 3:23;5:12). St Paul refers to this basic degenerate nature within each of us as the “Old Man” or “Old Adam”, inherited from the original Adam(Col 3:9;Eph 4:22;Rom 6:6). This sinful, prideful, and arrogant nature remains within all men throughout their earthly lives. The reason for the overwhelming success of TPDL is that it appeals to the Old Adam within each of us. The Old Adam is delighted in hearing that there is a purpose to his life and that by focusing on finding and fulfilling that purpose he can have fellowship with God. This book is a repetition of the Galatian heresy, where St Paul wrote to the churches in Galatia and lamented:

Galatians 3:1-3
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. [2] Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? [3] Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

The basic human nature in Adam is to believe that man has to do something to please God. The fifth century heresy of Pelagius taught that man is not totally corrupt and can be saved by an act of his will. This theological error continued throughout history with notable adherents such as Jacob Arminius, Charles Finney, and modern Evangelicals such as Billy Graham and Rick Warren. Arminian theology rejects the total depravity of natural man and this is the underlying assumption throughout TPDL. This book is written to everyone, not just Christians.Christian theology derived from Holy Scripture teaches that by the Grace of God through the vehicle of Faith, natural degenerate man can become a temple of the Holy Spirit. The perfect life, suffering, and death of Jesus of Nazareth resulted in the New Covenant in His blood, enabling saving faith and the grafting of men into the body of Christ through Word and Sacrament. This regenerated man is referred to as a New Creation or “born again”(John 3:3ff;2Cor 5:7;Gal 6:15). The biblical message is that the Old Adam cannot be corrected and improved, as suggested in TPDL, but instead must be crucified and buried so that an entirely new life emerges in the waters of baptism.

The difficulty most readers of TPDL have is that everything Warren states seems logical and reasonable. This is what makes this book so insidious: there is a mixture of some truth interspersed with much heresy.

The primary message of TPDL is that although faith in Christ may get a person into heaven, what a believer does with his earthly life determines his status in heaven. On page 34 Warren states this premise clearly by saying that one day each of us will stand before God for a final audit of our lives. The underlying premise of TPDL is that the bible is a guidebook as to how God expects us to live our lives and forms the basis for our final exam by God on Judgment Day. Warren states that there are two questions God will ask each person:

1. “What did you do with my Son, Jesus Christ?”
2. “What did you do with what I gave you?”

The majority of TPDL expounds how believers can obtain high marks on their final exam, thus securing prominence in the Kingdom of Heaven. This type of thinking is what is referred to as Theology of Glory(TG). A TG believes that God’s ways can be generally understood by human reason; that God’s favor is manifested in the circumstances of life-our successes and victories; and that God is pleased with sincere human effort. All men, including believers, to one extent or the other, are TG. This system of theology attempts to transfer human experiences in the world to the Kingdom of Heaven. In the world a man is rewarded for achievement and penalized for poor performance and the TG applies this concept to his theology. Rick Warren provides a good example of this philosophy in his explanation to the above questions on page 34 of TPDL:

“The first question will determine where you spend eternity. The second question will determine what you do in eternity.”

Is this what the Scripture teaches? Hear the words of Jesus Christ:

Matthew 11:11
Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Luke 9:48
... and said to them, "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great."

Apparently the Kingdom of Heaven operates differently than the temporal world! The Scriptures are clear that the basis for the Kingdom of Heaven is the Grace of God as shown in the perfect life, suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the substitutionary atonement for the sins of the world, while the temporal realm operates on merit. Could it be that Rick Warren is confused regarding his theology?

The other system of theology is the Theology of the Cross(TC). Such a believer views everything through the lens of the cross of Christ. While the TG bases his theological understanding primarily on his experiences, the TC views everything based upon the revelation of God in His Word, the Holy Scriptures. The TC understands that God’s ways are paradoxical and hidden to human reason; that His favor is manifested in Jesus Christ, especially His suffering, death, and resurrection; and that God is only pleased with His Son. The Scriptures form the basis for correct theology in the life of a TC, not his reason or experiences. To a TC Jesus Christ is the center and purpose of God, not man. Everything in the universe was created by and for Christ, not man. St Paul contrasts these two theological systems when he wrote:

1 Cor. 1:18-25
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

The TG and TC are mutually exclusive. They are two completely different ways of understanding God. The TG speculates that if all is going well with him, then God must be pleased. The TG believes God is pleased with him because he attempts to please God. However, in Isaiah 45:15 we read “Truly, Thou art a God who hides Himself, O God of Israel, Savior!”. The reason for this is a paradox: God hides Himself in order to reveal Himself. St Paul writes that God reveals Himself in weakness, foolishness, and in death. As a TG, Rick Warren does not comprehend such truths and as Martin Luther stated in Thesis 19 of his Heidelberg Disputation he does not deserve to be called a true theologian. Warren’s book TPDL is pure TG, professing to understand God through his human reason and insisting that man can actually please God through his human efforts. The TC understands that the true disposition of God towards humanity can only be known through the cross of Christ. The TC understands that God is only pleased in His Son and that the cross of Christ continues to be foolishness and shame to the TG. All believers are tempted by the TG assertions as contained in TPDL, which present a god who is easily understood and pleased, where the cross is not the center of theology. There is always the tendency to exchange the shame, weakness, and foolishness of the cross for human glory, strength, and wisdom through a system of good works as presented in TPDL.

As a good Arminian theologian, Rick Warren naturally emphasizes the life and obedience of mankind as a measure of the Kingdom of God on earth. That is why all the chapters in TPDL are man oriented rather than Christ centered. Everything Warren sites is based upon the premise that man must cooperate with God in his salvation and that the success of his Sanctification, or Christian life, depends upon the extent of man’s obedience to the will of God. The problem with what Warren says throughout the book is that it merely assumes that people can begin to love, trust, and obey God based upon their human will. For example, on page 38 Warren says:

The most damaging aspect of contemporary living is short-term thinking. To make the most of your life, you must keep the vision of eternity continually in your mind and the value of it in your heart.

This Arminian thinking simply ignores the fact that all men are born dead spiritually and do not want to love, trust, and obey God, but rather live in the futility of their minds. Natural man is in bondage to sin. Sinners are unwilling to come to God, hostile to Him, and unable to receive the things of Christ. Jesus says in John 6:44 and 45 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day... no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." St Paul says in Romans 9:16 “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy”. Faith is a gift from God(Ephesians 2:8-9).

Luther was well acquainted with the semi-Pelagian thinking expressed by Rick Warren, which is nothing less than Medieval Roman Catholicism. In his treatise against Erasmus, Luther maintained that the issue of the inability for natural man to come to God by his own free will was the primary theological issue in the entire Reformation. From God’s perspective, the only free will natural man has is to continue to sin. He is in bondage to it and can do no other.

Warren simply ignores this basic biblical fact and writes hundreds of pages explaining how all men can please God by discovering their purpose in life and living it out experientially. The Scriptures are clear that there is no one good except God and that the heart of man is evil, wicked, and beyond imagination. The above quote from Warren once again shows his failure to distinguish between believers enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and unbelievers. To Warren, Jesus Christ is an example of “purpose driven” living. Here is what Warren says about Christ:

“Jesus came to earth so we could fully understand God’s glory” – page 54

“Jesus stood at a fork in the road. Would he fulfill his purpose and bring glory to God, or would he shrink back and live a comfortable, self-centered life?” - page 57

On page 58 Warren states that real life is committing yourself completely to Christ and “all you need to do is receive and believe”. What Warren fails to understand is that no unbeliever can ever receive or believe in Christ and His atonement for his sins – it takes a miracle of God, not an act of the will of fallen man. The bible is clear on this point: faith comes from hearing the Word of God. The Law of God convicts a man of his sins and begins repentance. The Gospel is then given to provide assurance that God has already reconciled Himself to the entire world and the substitutionary atonement of Christ declares him Righteous. As the hymn Thy Strong Word maintains: “Thy strong Word bespeaks us righteous; Bright with thine own holiness…”. Warren maintains that any person can regenerate himself and cleave to the promises of Christ through an act of his will! Jesus did not stand at any “fork in the road”, but the Scriptures clearly state that He was the “lamb slain before the foundation of the world”. Jesus did not come to earth so that fallen man could understand God’s glory, but that through His perfect life of obedience and suffering and death for the sins of the world, believers would automatically receive His righteousness and their inheritance in heaven. Warren fails to understand that the bible clearly states that by Grace through Faith a man is declared Righteous by God, not through his human obedience. The Scriptures state that there are two ways a man can obtain eternal life: through absolute perfection and obedience to God throughout one’s entire life, or by Grace through Faith in the atonement of Christ for his sins. Option one is an impossibility, as expounded by Christ in His Sermon on the Mount recorded in Matthew chapter 5. Jesus explained that if a man desires righteousness under the Law, then he must keep all the commandments perfectly in thought, word, and deed. St James also adds that a man must never fail to do good, or else he sins by omission, and that if you break any commandment you have violated all of them. Upon closer inspection, no person can even keep the first commandment of loving God with your whole heart, mind, and soul. Consequently, it is impossible to keep any of the commandments perfectly. This leads a man to option two: righteousness is obtained by Grace through Faith in Christ. The perfect obedience and Righteousness of Christ is credited to a man through Faith alone. This fact is constantly denied by TPDL and the volumes of similar books produced by TG and sold in the popular bible bookstores across the nation.

Although Warren speaks about faith in Christ, he falls short of presenting the biblical position on how saving faith is attained. On page 118 Warren states “The only way to get into God’s family is by being born again into it. You become part of the human family by your first birth, but you become a member of God’s family by your second birth”.

Most Christians agree on what Warren says, but the question is: how does a man become born again? In Scripture, the new birth is described as coming through baptism:

John 3:3-5
Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." [4] Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" [5] Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

St Paul testifies in Titus 3:5 “he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” . In baptism, we receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit(Acts 2:38; 22:16), union with Christ(Romans 6:1ff), salvation(1Peter 3:21), etc. In Luther’s Small Catechism the benefits of baptism are summarized as: It works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

However, Warren specifically denies the Scriptural benefits of baptism! On page 120 Warren states: “ Baptism doesn’t make you a member of God’s family. Only faith in Christ does that. Baptism shows you are a part of God’s family”. As a Southern Baptist preacher and TG, Warren is continuing the tradition of denying the Word of God with respect to the benefits of baptism. He plainly states that baptism is merely a symbol or act of obedience to God. For orthodox Christians(TC), baptism is a Means of Grace, a Sacrament by which the Word of God is attached to a physical element(water) through which the benefits of the work of Christ are delivered to men.

The rejection of the orthodox view of baptism by Arminian theologians such as Warren is consistent with their failure to believe that salvation is, and must be, by Grace alone. In baptism, Jesus comes to a helpless infant unable to even pronounce His name, much less live a “purpose-driven” life. The fact that baptism is Christ’s work, and not ours, makes it a powerful means of assurance. How does a man know he is saved? He is baptized! Since the benefits of baptism are grounded outside of the believer, in the words and promises of Christ, it is unshakable.

Of course, Warren removes this comfort and assurance from believers, replacing it with uncertainty and introspection, which will ultimately lead to despair. For believers, the Word of God pronounces them Righteous on account of Christ. Their baptism is a concrete physical declaration of this faith and salvation – their adoption papers. Baptism provides tangible physical proof of how God chose us. We didn’t choose Him(John 15:16). Baptism shows how believers have been grafted into the true vine, Christ Himself. Without Him we can do absolutely nothing(John 15). As a part of the Body of Christ, believers are nourished by Christ, and automatically produce fruits of the Holy Spirit (Gal 6:22ff), the only works pleasing to God. All other works, even those performed by Christians, are always imperfect, being a mixture of pure and selfish motives. Although many works of men may benefit their neighbor in the temporal realm, pleasing God and resulting in praise from men, they have absolutely nothing to do with eternal salvation. Only the work of Christ is pleasing to God in the spiritual realm, through which the forgiveness of sins and heavenly rewards are produced(John 3:16). Consequently, the continuing fruits of the Holy Spirit through believers are pleasing to God and recognized on Judgment Day as recorded in Matthew 25:34-40. These fruits are done automatically and spontaneously through believers without their knowledge. Only believers can please God because without faith nothing is acceptable to Him(Hebrews 11:6). Only believers are free to do good works, while unbelievers feel compelled to perform them. While unbelievers must always placate the god of their imaginations, the TG similarly feels compelled to perform good works to please his god, as presented in TPDL. On the other hand, believers(TC) are free to love and serve their neighbor because they no longer worry about pleasing God – Jesus has already done this. While unbelievers can only produce more sins as they try to imitate the works of the Holy Spirit, the TG acts in a similar fashion through his failure to understand the hidden God revealed in Scripture by undertaking the 164 step program to please God laid out in TPDL(see Appendix). God looks at the hearts and motivations of men. Only believers have received a heart transplant where the Holy Spirit rules and through Whom perfect motivations are produced(Ps 51:10). Martin Luther summed it up nicely in his explanation to the Third Article of the Apostles’ Creed:

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.


It should also be pointed out that Warren’s viewpoint on Christian worship is also off-center due to his Arminian theology. Chapter 13 begins by quoting Mark 12:30 "And 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.” Right away a TC would be alerted that Warren cannot properly distinguish between Law and Gospel in the bible. Warren would be advised to devour the treatise on this subject by C.F.W. Walther written in the 19th century. As a good Arminian, Warren obviously believes whenever he encounters a command, or Law, from God in the bible, that mankind has the ability and responsibility to do it. Appendix B provides a discussion of this critical topic, illustrating that how a person reads Scripture influences whether he focuses on Jesus Christ or turns inward upon himself.

Rick Warren asserts that we worship for God’s benefit, not our own. He maintains that God is pleased only when we have a proper attitude that is thoughtful, authentic, and practical. Warren sees worship as a sacrifice whereby we offer ourselves as living sacrifices back to God. This is pure TG and fails to acknowledge that our lives are acceptable to God not because of our attitude, but on account of the Finished Work of Jesus Christ. As we are united to Christ in baptism by Grace through Faith, God is pleased and has fellowship with us. Hence, orthodox Christians understand true worship exactly the opposite of Warren. True worship consists of our repentance over sin and in receiving the gifts that God lavishly bestows through Word and Sacrament. The orthodox believer attends the Divine Service in order to continue the cycle of repentance over sin and reception of the forgiveness of sins in the Lord’s Supper(1John 1; 1Cor 11; Matt 26:28). Then the believer is enabled to once again go back into the world and truly love his neighbor. We are able to love because He first loved us(1John 4:19).

Appendix A

It should also be noted that although Warren frequently quotes Scripture to make his case, a careful reading would reveal that he uses fifteen different translations and paraphrases to make a point(pages 325-326). The reason for this is because a good translation, such as the New American Standard Bible or English Standard Version(ESV), usually do not agree with Warren’s viewpoint. For example, on page 19 Warren quotes Matthew 16:25 using the The Message, a paraphrase:

“Self-help is no help at all. Self-sacrifice is the way, my way, to finding yourself, your true self.”

Consider a good translation of the same verse using the English Standard Version:

Matthew 16:25
For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

The Message version presents an emphasis on self-emprovement, while the ESV places the emphasis squarely where it belongs: on Jesus Christ.

Warren intersperses Scripture throughout his book in the attempt to appeal to the Theologian of Glory in each of us. For example, on page 40 he quotes 1John 2:17 using The Living Translation:

“This world is fading away, along with everything it craves. But if you do the will of God, you will live forever.”

The ESV reads:
“And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.”

As a Theologian of Glory and good Arminian, Warren obviously wishes his readers to interpret such a verse as a desire by God that you begin to do His will by making purpose-driven decisions as presented in his book. However, a Theologian of the Cross would understand the same verse based upon other Scripture, as follows:

John 6:40
“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Hence, the will of God is not to dedicate your life to good works and making purpose-driven decisions, but to believe in Jesus Christ.

On page 151 Warren attempts to emphasize the need for developing community within the church and he quotes the famous verse of Scripture John 3:16, using Gods’s Word Translation of which I have never heard of before:

“We understand what love is when we realize that Christ gave his life for us. That means we must give our lives for other believers.”

However, consider the ESV rendition of this famous verse:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

The emphasis in the ESV and throughout the entire bible is that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world. However, Warren wishes to place the emphasis off of Christ and back on the believer!

Warren maintains that men are to take the initial step and God plays an advisory role. Consider the plethora of Law oriented principles presented in TPDL for leading a purpose-driven life:

· discovering 3 insights into your purpose - page 20
· ascertaining the 5 reasons to live a purpose-driven life - pages 30-34
· applying the 3 metaphors of God’s view of life - page 42
· learning God’s 5 purposes for your life - page 55
· living God’s 5 plans for your life - pages61,115,169,225,279
· enacting the 5 acts of worship that make God smile - page 70
· uncovering 6 secrets of friendship with God - page 87
· developing the 4 characteristics of God-pleasing worship - page 100
· performing the 3 truths for fruitful fellowship - pages 139-143
· learning the 4 steps to cultivating community - pages 146-151
· creating a covenant using the 9 characteristics of fellowship - page 151
· following the 7 steps to restoring broken fellowship - page 154
· promoting 6 ways to ensure unity - page 161-167
· following the 3 steps to conflict resolution - page 165
· uncovering the 3 responsibilities in becoming like Christ - page 175
· practicing the 3 activities to abide in God’s Word - page 186
· following the 3 steps to overcome temptation - page 204
· learning the 4 keys to defeating temptation - page 209
· understanding the 5 reasons for slow spiritual growth - pages 219-221
· enacting the 4 steps in cooperating with God - pages 221-223
· examining the 6 experiences God uses to mold us - page 246
· discerning the 3 steps in uncovering God’s will for us - page 250-252
· uncovering the 6 steps of true servanthood - pages 258-264
· developing the 5 attitudes of a true servant - page265
· taking the 4 steps in allowing God to deal with weakness - pages 273-278
· establishing the 6 steps to discover your mission -pages 282-286
· discerning the 4 parts of your Life Message - page 289
· uncovering your 7 life lessons - page 292
· implementing the 4 principles for world-class thinking - pages 299-304
· participating in the 4 activities for purposeful living -page 306
· learning the 5 vitalsigns of worship -page 308
· realizing the 5 steps in your purpose statement - page 313
· remembering life’s 5 greatest questions - page 308


Appendix B

Most Christians I meet believe that they do the best they can and that God doesn’t expect perfection, but instead looks at their hearts to know if their motives are good. This sounds reasonable to most people and that is even how I myself always thought of spiritual matters in general. Unfortunately, this thinking is absolutely incorrect. God does require absolute perfection, in thought, word, and deed – throughout the entire life of each person. Just read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapter 5 where Jesus explains to the people the realities of the Law of God. Jesus says that a man must not even look at other women with lustful thoughts. Jesus also says that if you hate another person you have already begun murder. And James says that if you break one commandment, you have broken them all(James 2:10). James also says that a person sins by even omitting to do good - sins of omission(James 4:17). If Jesus requires absolute God-like perfection for salvation(Matt 5:48), how can anyone ever be saved? The answer is: no person can ever be saved by their own works. Most people don’t understand the purpose of the Law. Most people believe that God would never tell you to keep His commandments unless He expected you to keep them. After all, Jesus is quoted as saying “Do this and you will live”(Luke 10:28) when referring to the commandments. If it is impossible for men to keep the Law of God perfectly as demanded by God, why would Jesus say such a thing?

The answer lies in what is referred to as the Proper Distinction Between Law & Gospel, unheard of in Roman Catholicism and most of Christianity in general. The first covenant between God and mankind was instituted at Mt Sinai as described in Exodus chapter 24. When presented with the Law of God the people all agreed that they would do everything in the Law to keep their part of the covenant(Exodus 24:7). History has shown that the Old Testament nation of Israel lied and became a harlot to God. Just read the Old Testament, especially the prophets as they attempted to call the people back to repentance. Fortunately for mankind, God instituted a replacement covenant, the New Covenant. This was a covenant of Grace, not obedience to the Law. In this New Covenant, God accomplished absolutely everything in reconciling Himself to the entire world through the sacrifice of His Son(2Corinthians 5:18-21;Romans 5:10). The only question that remains is whether mankind will in turn be reconciled back to God. This happens not through obedience to the Law or any works, but through FAITH in Jesus Christ as the atonement for your sins(John 3:16). If this is true, what purpose is the Law of God? The answer is that the Law’s primary purpose is to show you your sin and need for the Savior(Romans 3:20; Romans 4:13-15). Once a man is convicted of his sins through the Law, repentance can be produced. Then the Gospel is given which instills saving Faith in a man(Romans 10:17). This Faith is the means by which the perfection and Righteousness of Christ is imputed to a person. In this way, believers are credited with the Righteousness and perfection of Christ just as Abraham was in the Old Testament(Romans 4:20-25). Believers are viewed by God as if they had kept all the commandments perfectly their entire lives and had never sinned. They are viewed by God as wearing Christ’s Robe of Righteousness, “clothed in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev 7:9; John 1:29; Luke 15:22; 1John 1:7). The Justice of God has already been satisfied by the punishment Christ received for the sins of the world. Christ was the perfect sacrifice acceptable to God for the sins of the entire world(Hebrews 9 & 10). Believers are immediately declared Not Guilty! The Scriptures definitely speak of this forensic Justification. This is the Gospel, the Good News, which most Christians are never given. John 20:30-31 summarizes the entire purpose of all Scripture: so that men may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing they may have life in His name.

Much confusion results from a misunderstanding of the Gospel. Many ask why anyone should do good works if they are already saved by Grace through Faith(Ephesians 2:8)? The answer is that believers are viewed as adopted children by God(Eph 1:5). We are loved regardless of our imperfections, similar to how an earthly father loves his children. As beloved children, the love of God which is poured out in our hearts motivates us to love our neighbor(Romans 5:5). Believers love their neighbors not out of fear of punishment or expectation of reward, but out of love. These works were prepared before the creation of the world(Eph 2:10). Good works by believers are referred to as “fruits of the Holy Spirit” (Galatians 5:22ff) and are spontaneous and automatic behavior in the believer. Believers are New Creations(2Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15), born again(John 3:3ff), having received a heart transplant where our evil hearts are replaced with a new heart(Psalm 51:10). True fruits of the Holy Spirit are done so automatically that believers are not even aware of them. The sheep on the Last Day were surprised when Christ praised their fruits(Matthew 25:37-39).