Bible Churches?

What exactly is a "bible" church? They seem to be everywhere. What do they believe? I will endeavor to show, in this post, that so-called "bible" churches aren't really faithful to what the actual bible teaches.

To begin, a bible church is typically non-denominational and independent. This is to say, the spectrum of beliefs in bible churches varies to an extent, since individual bible churches are not committed to any catechism or confession of faith. Generally speaking, a bible church will have an independent statement of faith developed by the elders or deacons of their church that is in accord with the bible, but is independent of any other church.

This being said, bible churches do have a specific large influence and, perhaps, starting point. Hence, bible churches, commonly, have specific beliefs that are in common with the vast majority of other bible churches, despite each individual church concocting its own unique statement of faith.

That influence is Dallas Theological Seminary, the classic American dispensational seminary.

A bible church will nearly always believe the following doctrines and openly teach them as biblical Christianity.

1. Premillennial and Pre-Tribulation Eschatology

This is not, I repeat, absolutely not, a Lutheran belief. This is the commonly held belief in a secret rapture where Christ whisks away his church and leaves all the unbelievers behind to endure seven years of God pouring out His wrath on the Earth, before Christ returns in judgment and sets up an earthly 1,000 year kingdom where Christ rules humanity from His throne in Jerusalem. This belief was popularized by authors such as Hal Lindsey (Late, Great, Planet Earth) and Tim Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins (Left Behind series).

The problem is, this theology was never taught in early church, nor did it have any adherents until very recent history. Certainly there were some premillennialists in the early church - Justin Martyr is an example of one - but no pre-tribulation teachers.

More so of a problem is that to get pre-tribulationism out of the bible, one must impose a systematic theology on to the Scriptures. Namely, dispensationalism. Dispensationalism would claim that theirs is the plain, literal reading of the Scripture, but as we shall see, it's not.

2. Expository Preaching

This is the method of preaching that works its way verse by verse through Scripture and explains and expounds on the passage being read. On the surface, this really isn't a bad thing. However, what gets lost in expository preaching quite often is a clear proclamation of the law and the gospel. This is not to say that bible church pastors and teachers reject the law and the gospel, but it is to say that when they preach, the law and gospel are not always clearly proclaimed, in distinction from a Confessional Lutheran sermon.

3. Credobaptism as an Act of Obedience to God

That is to say, bible churches are nearly always Baptist in their theology of baptism. The vast majority, I dare to say almost all, of bible churches will only baptize believers who can articulate their faith. They will not baptize infants. Also, they outright reject baptismal regeneration. Baptism is, in their theology, an act of obedience done by the believer as a response to a command of Christ.

The problem here is, their theology of baptism is not at all how the bible speaks of baptism. Here we could rattle off Scripture after Scripture that speaks against the bible church doctrine.

4. Holy Communion as an Act of Obedience

And by the way, it's just bread and grape juice, there is no bodily presence of Christ. Their theology tells them that the Eucharist is nothing more than a remembrance meal done in obedience to Christ. It is not, as Christ says, "...for the forgiveness of sins." (Mat 26)

I would argue, as a Lutheran, on the basis of Scripture, that numbers 1, 3, and 4 are outright wrong because Scripture says so - and the entire history of the church agrees up until recently - and number 2 runs the risk of shielding and hiding the gospel when in reality believers and unbelievers alike need to hear the gospel as often as possible.

The conclusion is that bible churches are not really bible churches in their beliefs. Certainly there are many things they also have right. They're trinitarians, for instance. They also affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and justification by faith alone (albeit a bit of a different idea than Luther).

However, at the end of the day, a bible church rejects all sorts of core biblical truth as a Lutheran understands Scripture.

+Pax+

Let Me Do Something!

I simply must be able to do something to get myself saved. I have to. I mean, I am a self-willing autonomous human being!

So what can I do? Can I make a positive choice to be saved? Can I just walk the aisle and answer the altar call? Can I do good works to be saved? Isn't loving God and loving neighbor the Gospel?

I just have to be able to do something to get myself saved.

All of these ideas spring not from faith but rather from the Old Adam living within us all. To put it another way, it is our sinful self that concocts these ideas that we must be able to do something to save ourselves - not out new self that is in Christ.

The Scriptures answer this very clearly. I'll give one example:

1 Corinthians 2:14: The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Here is says that "the natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God..." so much for "accepting Jesus into your heart."

The Augsburg Confession answers as well:

AC XVIII: 1-3: Of Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word.

The Confession also tells us how salvation occurs. As the AC states, "this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word."

But I must be able to do something! I have to be able!

NO. Scripture says no, the Confessions say no. Grumpy Cat says no as well, because well, that's all Grumpy Cat says, evidently.

So, if I really can't do something, does that make me unsavable? In myself, yes, I am unsavable. The Old Adam in me is anti-God. He hates God. He would rather indulge in golf on Sunday morning than church. There is nothing wrong with golf, of course. But the point is, the Old Adam wants nothing to do with God. He won't go to church, he thinks he is good enough to save himself by something he does, and he is curved inward on himself. He is a selfish old bastard. He makes excuses. I need to rest this morning. It is my only day off of work all week, I am going fishing. I don't need to go to church to be a Christian. Perhaps I will just do church at home.

Where there is an element of truth in some of these ideas, they still are ideas that spring not from faith in Christ, but from the Old Adam.

So how can I be saved? Perhaps a quick look at St. Matthew and the words of Christ will be helpful here.

St. Matthew 19:23-26: And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

You get it? Nobody can be saved by anything they do. It is impossible. Jesus says so. But with God, all things are possible. God saves us. He Himself comes down from heaven, takes on human flesh, and makes all things new. He is born of a virgin, lives a perfect life, fulfills the law, and dies on the cross to save us. But He doesn't stay dead. On the third day, He rises again, is seen by over 500 people, and later ascends into heaven.

He still comes to us today, saving us through His means of grace that give us continual forgiveness of sins. He kills that Old Adam. He uses natural means to do this too. The foolishness of the preaching of the Gospel, plain old water in Holy Baptism, and simple bread and wine where He gives us His true body and blood in Holy Communion. These are all God's acts; ways in which He delivers that once for all sacrifice on Calvary to us.

So back we go. What things can we do to be saved? Nothing. God saves us. Isn't loving God and loving neighbor the Gospel? No, not even close. That is the Law. The Gospel is all about Christ and what He has done on our behalf. Loving God and loving neighbor is the Law. We are unable to keep that Law. Christ did it for us. That is Gospel.

Thankfully, God desires the salvation of each and every individual (1 Tim 2:1-7, 2 Pet 3:9). Yet He alone does the saving, apart from us. We can do nothing to be saved. But God (cf. Eph 2:4) does it all. By grace are we saved, through faith (Eph 2:8-9).

+Grace+

Keep That Gospel Pure

There is only one Gospel. Scripture makes this explicitly clear.

Galatians 1:6-9: I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

St. Paul writes in his epistle to the Galatians that there is indeed only one Gospel. He goes even further and says that those who pervert it are accursed. In this brief post, we will examine how our friends in two different theological systems - Calvinism and Arminianism - flirt with this line.

Let us use another passage from St. Paul to guide us in our definition of the Gospel. Here it is:

1 Corinthians 15:1-5: Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: 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, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.

Notice what St. Paul preached to these people. Notice that this is the Gospel by which they are saved. He preached to them that Christ died for them and rose again for them. He tells them that this is what is saving. Notice also that St. Paul says that the Gospel is all about Christ. In other words, St. Paul refuses to mingle law in with Gospel.

Calvinism messes with the Gospel with its doctrine of limited atonement. Calvinism cannot preach consistently to the sinner that Christ died and rose for them until after they are certain that the person is truly saved. But in Calvinism, how does one know who is truly saved? The only way one can make a judgment on this is by looking for a totally changed life. But then, who is to say that the person is not deceived if they fall away and reject Christ later in life? Calvinism desires to uphold monergism, but due to the doctrine of limited atonement, they rip the heart out of the Gospel. There is no surety of Christ for you no matter what in Calvinism. How do they know that Christ died for them? How can they objectively know this, with 100% certainty, if Christ only died for the elect? Pretty much they have to be certain they are elect. And in Calvinism, without a 100% certainty in Word and Sacrament and the atonement, they must look to their own faith to an extent.

Arminianism messes with the Gospel by inserting law into the Gospel, thereby diluting it and making it something other than pure grace. They do this by making a person's choice via their own free will the dominant factor in salvation. Christ's work is never enough in Arminianism and the will of the person must be exercised in order to make it effective. Hence, Arminianism adds something we must do to the Gospel. This is a grave error indeed! Arminianism, no matter what cute theological terminology is used, is a form of works salvation due to turning faith into a meritorious work. Not to mention all the off shoots of Arminianism such as Wesleyanism, Open Theism, and free will Baptist theology.

Ironically, these two bitter theological opponents ultimately put the sinner right back in the same place. Neither one can objectively put the sinner at the cross and in the pure grace of the Word and the Sacraments. Calvinism cannot objectively say that Christ is for you. Not at Calvary, and not in word and Sacrament. Reformed Sacramentology does not allow for this. Arminianism says that you must do something in addition to Christ's work and grace freely given.

Ultimately, both theologies put the sinner right back at themselves. Both have the sinner asking themselves if they are really truly saved.

In the end, both theologies have a problem with Christ's objective promises, despite one being monergist and the other synergist.

In Calvinism, Christ is for the elect. Period.

In Arminianism, Christ is for you, but only if you ____.

In Scripture, Christ is for you. Period. End of story. In His death and rising. In the Word. In the Sacraments.

Christ for you. That is pure Gospel.

+Pax+

What faith alone in Christ alone truly means

Faith alone isn't a commitment to live for Jesus. Nor to do better. Nor dedicate our lives to serve and obey Jesus. Nor let Jesus into our hearts. Nor us giving ourselves for Him.

Faith alone is a passive reception of all that Jesus did for us: Him crucified for our sins, Him resurrected to give us hope.

Faith alone doesn't look to what we will do or commit to do for Jesus. It looks to Jesus giving of Himself for us. It looks to Him living and dying and living again for us. It looks to Him committing and dedicating to be our Savior who as spotless Lamb of God who takes away our sins.

Faith alone looks outside ourselves. Not inwards at ourselves.

Assurance in the truest sense of the word is objectively centered on God Incarnate who did it all for us 2000 years and meet us in objective means God calls us to receive Him in real time, by grace through faith in objective fact that Christ had accomplished redemption and forgiveness of our sins on our behalf.

Here we stand.

Warning! There is but One Way!

Beware of inventing alternative ways of salvation, as many people within the church are oh-so-likely to do.

We Christians love to fill heaven (in our own minds) with all sorts of means of salvation. On one hand, this is not a bad trait to have. We love our fellow man. On the other hand, this might be the worst trait to have. We are flatly rejecting God's Word.

How many ways of salvation does Scripture tell us about? Just one. THE way of salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. Period. Plus nothing.

We are not saved by:

1. Innocence. The number one heaven-filler, if you ask most American Evangelicals, is innocence. The salvation by innocence dogma usually takes its form in the so-called "Age of Accountability." The problem is, the Scriptures do not teach this idea anywhere. On the contrary, the Bible says that everyone is a sinner. Yeah, that includes infants and young children.

Does this mean that all infants and young children are unsaved heathens who get to fan the flames? Well, of course not. God works faith even in them, and even in utero, if John the Baptist is any example.

2. Our Good Works. Many Christians have decided that living a good life is an alternate way to heaven. This is just as much nonsense as the innocence argument above. To think that a person can just do their best to please God and that will earn them heaven has numerous theological problems. First and foremost, it actually assumes that God is not holy. That's just a little bit of a problem...

3. Ignorance. Well, what about the bushman who has never heard the Gospel, someone may ask? Is he saved because he never heard? Well, no, unless you think he deserves to be saved. If this is the case, shouldn't we just not tell anyone about Christ?

We do our best to cling to the simple words of Scripture. By grace you are saved, through faith. (Eph 2:8-9)  How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? (Ro 10:14) Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)

The better question is why would we even want to go beyond what God's Word says about the topic?

Are Lutherans Guilty of Picking and Choosing?

A friend of mine, who happens to be a Reformed Baptist pastor, said the following the other day:

"If the texts that say "this is my body" and "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,.." are plain and simple why does "you see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone"(James 2:24) now require the whole counsel of God to speak? Why one and not the other two?" ~Fernando Ramirez

This statement is worth addressing because I think there are clear Scriptural answers to this. He raises a legitimate question, to be sure. The answer to this lies in Scripture itself.

He posits that if we Lutherans are taking the Sacramental passages literally, we also ought to take the justification by works passage literally. There is good reason why we interpret them how we do of course.

First and foremost, all three of the statements require the whole counsel of God to speak. And therein lies the rub. We're not lifting the Sacramental passages out of the whole counsel of God and interpreting them in a vacuum. There is a clear reason as to why James 2:24 is interpreted in the light we interpret it (and I suspect it's the same way in which my Baptist friend interprets it).

Very simply put, there is nowhere in Scripture that leaves us to interpret the Sacramental passages in any other manner. In short, every passage about the Eucharist never even hints that "this is NOT My body." Nowhere do the Holy Scriptures intimate that Christ's body is not present in the Eucharist. Thus, we are left with the plain and simple meaning of Scripture on this one. "This is My body" means just that.

This sounds like a simplistic explanation of this one, but what else can we do? Why should we go looking for alternate interpretations of clear statements when Scripture never gives us any? Look up all the Eucharistic passages. This is not My body (or something like that) is nowhere to be found.

The same line of thought applies to Holy Baptism. Baptism passages in the New Testament are loaded with salvation. The didactic epistles are chock full of language that directly says that Baptism now saves us, buries us with Christ, raises us in faith, washes us clean, and so on. And again, nowhere does Scripture ever say anything about Baptism not saving us, or not uniting us to Christ, or being an outward profession of an inward change.

However, James 2:24 is a different animal. In that case, we have very plain passages that say the opposite. I refer specifically to Romans 4 and Ephesians 2.

Romans 4:4-5 (ESV): Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness

Ephesians 2:8-10 (ESV): For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Thus, I would argue that passages like James 2 are strong correlations to passages like Ephesians 2:8-10. Faith in Christ desires to obey Him and thus works. With all the Reformers and Scripture, we assert that faith works in love, but the grounds of our justification is the finished work of Christ, given by grace and received in Word and Sacrament through faith alone.

But if we hold to justification by works, we make St. Paul and St. James contradict each other. That is a large problem. But in the case of Baptism and the Eucharist, this is not so, because Scripture never gives us any passages that would have us interpret the Sacraments in a different manner. Someone may object by using the justification by faith passages, but this is not a good argument. I addressed that here:

Baptism and Sola Fide

Interpreting James 2:24 in that manner however, is to directly contradict St. Paul. In other words, to interpret James 2:24 in a sense that we are justified before God by what we do (we earn it) is an error. And if it's not an error, then St. Paul is flat wrong!

On the other hand, we do not have that problem with the texts about the Sacraments. All the other inspired Scriptures regarding them support the interpretation of the Lutheran Church. Scripture never hints that Baptism is not salvific in nature. Likewise, Scripture never hints that the Eucharist is not the true body and blood of Christ.

It's very different with James 2.

+Grace and Peace+

Limited Atonement and Navel Oranges

1 Timothy 4:10 (ESV):  For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

1 Timothy 4:10 (KJV): For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Oh, the shenanigans! Not the Bible of course. The Bible speaks clearly the vast majority of the time.

1 Timothy 4:10 is a very difficult passage for the Calvinist because taken at face value, it is a dagger to the L in the famous TULIP. Of course, Calvinists are still sola scriptura folks, so they do not ignore the passage and do indeed have ways to explain it.

Here is Dr. Gary Long's attempt at some various explanations in his book Definite Atonement: 1 Timothy 4:10

The obvious problem here for the Reformed camp is the phrase found in the verse that says "...God, who is the Savior of all people (all men KJV)..."

Saviors save. Dr. Long's final conclusion makes little to no sense. He claims that "Savior" here means that God is the "providential preserver" of all men. Well, that is true. God is indeed the providential preserver of all men. What Christian disputes that? But on what basis can Dr. Long turn "Savior" into "providential preserver?" Where else in Holy Scripture does it equate saving and Christ being the Savior with His providential preservation? To put it bluntly, it doesn't. Dr. Long has to completely twist this Scripture to fit his theology.

Saviors save. Christ is the Savior. Christians know this. So, according to 1 Timothy 4:10, who did Christ save? Well, thankfully, Scripture answers this one in this verse. It says, "all people."

Saviors save. Where was Christ's saving work done? All Christians would faithfully answer: In His incarnation, on the cross, and in His rising from the grave.

According to 1 Timothy 4:10, He is the Savior of all people. His work saves, and it was done for everyone. But that isn't the end of the story. It still must be received by Word and Sacrament, in faith.

The doctrine of limited atonement not only twists the living crap out of this verse (among others), but it also has a pretty nasty (unintended) side effect. If Jesus only died for the elect and not the ones whom will end up in perdition, then how can one know if Christ actually died for them?

By looking to yourself and how well you're following Christ, of course! In other words, the doctrine of limited atonement has the nasty consequence of pointing us at ourselves and not to Christ and His promises for assurance of salvation.

This is why men like the Puritans and theonomists and reconstructionists are just being consistent. Limited Atonement, as well as Reformed Theology in general, when applying their own logical principles, is sharply theonomic and points us directly to our own navels for assurance and is very much based on adherence to the moral Law, and a confusion of Law and Gospel.

With sincere apologies to our Continental Reformed brethren, who do a lot better with the Gospel than the theonomists and Puritans.

+Pax+

What Does God Expect?

How good must one be to enter glory with Christ? It's a royally important question, and Christianity itself hinges on the answer to it. It hinges first on how we answer the initial question: Just how good do we have to be? What is the standard of righteousness that God requires? The second manner in which we must answer then is: How is this standard fulfilled?

From the outset, all Christians agree that there must be some standard for eternal life. Likewise, there also must be some manner in which that standard is met. Since no one believes that ultimately everyone is condemned (and we won't deal with universalism here), then the two preceding conditions must have answers to them that result in some people being saved.

1. Just how good do we have to be? What is the standard that God expects?

This one should be pretty easy for all Christians to answer. I say that with reservation though, since it's answered incorrectly by many people now days.

Christianity is not a religion of "just do your best." God doesn't accept that. Your best is never good enough, nor can it be.

We all agree that God is perfectly and infinitely Holy, Righteous, and Just. And if we don't, what we worship is less than God. Therefore, the answer should be obvious: God requires a standard that is completely in-line with His perfect holiness, righteousness, and justice.

He requires absolute perfection.

To relax that standard would be for God to relax His attributes and God does not do that. To relax them would be to not hold to them in a sense. In another sense, He cannot relax them because relaxing them would mean that those attributes are not perfect and infinite in the first place.

Jesus' Sermon on the Mount gives us insight into this very truth. He states:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸ For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. ¹⁹ Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰ For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (St. Matthew 5:17-20)

And then Jesus gets even more blunt later in His sermon, stating:

You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (St. Matthew 5:48)

To speak plainly, we must be perfect. We must keep God's Law to perfection. Top put it another way, God demands that we be sinless.

What is a good definition of what it is to be sinless? Well, we could go to the decalogue (10 commandments) and say; keep those perfectly. But I am going to go to Jesus' summation of the decalogue found later in the Gospel according to St. Matthew.

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” ³⁷ And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. ³⁸ This is the great and first commandment. ³⁹ And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. ⁴⁰ On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (St. Matthew 22:36-40)

But wait a second. Aren't we all sinners? Yeah, we are. That is why the next question and answer is so vital to the Christian faith.

2. How is this standard of righteousness fulfilled?

Does God demand that we fulfill this standard? Yes, He does, we already addressed that in the last section. He demands that we be perfect and then tells us that we must love the Lord our God with our everything, all the time. And also love our neighbors as ourselves.

Have you done that today? Have you loved the Lord your God with your whole heart, mind, strength, soul, and everything of yourself for even one second? I would assert that if you say you have, you're breaking the 8th commandment regarding bearing false witness.

So, pretty clearly we as sinful humanity cannot meet this standard that God states and commands all in one fell swoop. Ironically, the theological camps that think they can meet these standards have quite a low view of sin, despite the fact that they talk all the time about not sinning!

Therefore, there must be another way, lest we all be universally condemned. Thanks be to God, the other way is the Gospel.

In other words, we have a substitute. We have an advocate. We have another who has fulfilled these demands on our behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, and He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (St. John 1:29).

You must be in Christ. If a person is in Christ, they are perfect on account of the work of Christ and His righteousness being imputed to them (Romans 4, 2 Corinthians 5:21). The only way that a person can be perfect is to be counted righteous on behalf of Christ. For you have died, and your life is hidden in Christ with God (Colossians 3:3). Not by works, lest anyone should boast (Ephesians 2:9).

Our works cannot ever save us. Our obedience can't either. Only the perfect Lamb of God can do that. Not because we are perfect obedient servants -repentant as we are, as Christians live a daily life of repentance- but that Christ is the perfect obedient Servant.

Such is the way of being simul iustus et peccator. Or in English: Simultaneously justified and sinful. Or, we are both sinner and saint.

Thanks be to God for His saving work in Christ!

Polluted Righteous Toxicity

The Pharisees again. Jesus had a lot of interactions with them, didn't He? The Pharisees were the leaders of the day in Judaism. Yet they had it all wrong. The Holy Gospel reading this Sunday concluded with this verse:

St. Luke 16:15: And he said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

Are these Pharisees or Orthodox Priests?

Jesus once again has some strong words for the religious leaders of the day.

Some people today have proposed that the Pharisees were being rebuked by Christ just for being hypocrites, not for their actual law-keeping works.

This isn't really the case, however. Jesus repeatedly rebukes them for being hypocrites, but also for following the law as the way to righteousness.

Jesus rebukes them here for being those who justify themselves before men, yet in reality, their works are an abomination before God. Sort of sounds like Isaiah, doesn't it? If you're not familiar with the verse to which I refer, here it is:

Isaiah 64:6: We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

All our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. The KJV renders it 'filthy rags.' Our deeds are incapable of righteousness. Our deeds cannot justify us.

We may try to be outwardly righteous. We may appear outwardly righteous. But we aren't. Our works are an abomination because they can never conform perfectly to God's Law. We are commanded to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, but we never do. And we never can. We're sinners. We are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves. But we never do this perfectly either.

The folly of the Pharisees is that they thought this was the way to righteousness. They missed the entire point of the Law and the Prophets. The entire point of the Law and Prophets was standing right in front of them, rebuking them!

The Pharisees perceived righteousness was polluted, because the Pharisees were, just like us, sinful in thought, word, and deed. Their God was too small. And their religion was toxic. It was condeming because it failed to trust Christ, but rather tried to earn the Father's favor by doing good.

It is true, however, that we must be righteous. But is this accomplished by our law-keeping or obedience? No, it can never be. The entire point of the Law and the Prophets stood in front of the Pharisees, rebuking them. That Christ is our righteousness. You must be righteous, but only He is.

Hence, the cross, the grave, and the resurrection. For the Christ has taken our sin on Himself and risen for our justification; to declare us righteous as heirs of His Kingdom, for all who believe.

2 Corinthians 5:21: For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Romans 3:21-26: But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— ²² the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, ²⁵ whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. ²⁶ It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

It's all about Jesus from start to finish. So don't be like the Pharisees and have your own polluted righteousness and toxic false religion of working to earn something before God.

Jesus already earned everything that is necessary. He did it all alone, by Himself. And He did enough to save everyone.

Receive your Savior.

Why Lutheran? Objectivity.

Lutheranism is objective. From assurance of salvation to the means of grace, to Christ crucified, it's objective. I don't think Reformed Theology or Arminianism, let alone Roman Catholicism, has the level of objectivity that Lutheranism does. I'll explain.

In Lutheranism, the means of grace are objective. We are baptised into Christ and Christ is truly given to us in baptism. Not only some people receive Christ in baptism, but everyone does. If Christ is rejected in baptism, it is all on the person rejecting, not because they did not receive an inward call or because they didn't make their own baptism effective by their own free will. This also applies to the Sacrament of the Altar. Christ is truly and objectively given to you - this means to everyone who receives the Eucharist. The Reformed claim that Christ is only received by the elect in the Eucharist. Therefore, He is not received by the non-elect. In Arminianism, the Eucharist is usually just a memorial.

The atonement of Christ is also objective in Lutheranism. In Lutheranism, Christ died for you. Thus, we know He died for us because He died for everybody. Not only that, but Christ universally objectively justified the human race at the cross (Rom 5:18). This, of course, must be received through the means of grace. But, Christ's atonement is perfect and justifies; a work already done that only need be received as a free gift. In Calvinism, it does the same thing, but is limited to the elect alone. Therefore, the question comes up repeatedly: How do you know Christ died for you? In Arminianism, Christ's death is not penal at all. It's all dependent on the will of man to make it effective. There are worse theological problems with that, but that is for another time.

This all brings us back to the assurance of salvation. In Calvinism, which of course is another Reformation tradition, they have grace alone through faith alone. Rock on. However, this faith alone is not a sure thing because of the lurking question of did Christ die for me or not? They could be baptised and not receive grace; hear the Gospel preached and not receive grace; and receive the Eucharist and not receive grace. All of these are dependent on the mysterious sovereign inward call of the Spirit. Thus, assurance of salvation generally comes back to less sinning. In Arminianism, assurance all revolves around holy living; sometimes salvation itself. This is not to say that Calvinists and Arminians cannot have assurance of salvation. But it is to say that they have less objectivity in that realm that the Lutheran doctrines teach.

In Lutheranism, we know we are justified because a) Christ justified us on the cross, outside of ourselves, and b) we have received Christ in baptism, the Word, and the sacrament as a free gift, by God giving Himself to us. Both of these are outside of ourselves and the means of grace actually work faith in the recipient (cf. Eph 2:8-9). Thus, God gives us Christ on the cross, for everyone - and then Christ is given to us via Word and Sacrament, as a free gift, apart from our willing or doing (Rom 9:16). Both Word and Sacrament are to be received by faith alone; which they themselves bring! All of it is completely outside of ourselves. All we contribute is the sin that made it necessary. These means of grace give forgiveness of sins and faith and the Holy Spirit is there all the time. Not because we believe the Spirit can be manipulated, but because God has said He will come to us in grace in these ways.

Thanks be to God.

It's All About Jesus. Really, It Is.

The Gospel reading from the three year lectionary Sunday came from Luke 13:22-30. Here is a portion of it.

Luke 13:24-25: Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’

In Luke 13:22-30, Jesus speaks about striving to enter through the narrow door. When we look at this text, it becomes clear that Jesus is not telling people they can strive to the point of earning righteousness; much less salvation.

What is Jesus' point? It's really pretty simple. He IS the door (cf. John 10:9). There have been many people in history striving to enter the door, but only One has done so. Jesus. He is the door and He is the only human who has ever entered the door by His own merits.

Therefore, since Christ alone has entered the door, we must be in Christ. How can we enter the door as well? Only by being in the One who is the door. That is the only way. Only Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). Jesus Christ Himself is the end of all self-justifying activity. Every mouth is stopped and every deed is a filthy rag.

He washes us, sanctifies us, and justifies us. (1 Corinthians 6:11) So take and eat, this is His true body and blood given for you for the forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:28)

It really is all about Jesus. Really.

O Almighty God, whom to know is everlasting life, grant us without all doubt to know your Son Jesus Christ to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life that, following his steps, we may steadfastly walk in the way that leads to eternal life; through Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.

Amen.

Faith Alone Means Baptism Can't Possibly Do Anything! Bzzz. False.

When you come to two groupings of Scriptures that are both very clear, they're both true.

Keep that in mind as we move on. I will grant that there are passages in Scripture that are unclear and/or difficult to interpret because they do not give us a full picture for one reason or another. Yet, there are many very clear passages of Scripture. And those clear passages of Scripture say what they mean, mean what they say, and usually are repeated in one form or another numerous times and places.

What am I getting at here? A very common evangelical argument that is leveled at the Lutheran doctrine of baptismal regeneration is that it adds works to our salvation and denies justification by grace through faith, apart from works (Eph 2:8-9). But here is the problem: Lutherans firmly hold to the solas of the Reformation. So, unless you're not listening to the Lutheran stance (and the Bible!), you may just be erecting a false dichotomy and a strawman. Since nobody wants to do that, let us examine the passages. I will group the passages into two groups. Group #1 will be a group of passages that clearly teach justification by faith. Group #2 will be passages that clearly teach that baptism unites us to Christ, saves, regenerates, and so on. The lists will not be exhaustive, but I will post enough for the picture to become clear.

Group #1:

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Romans 10:9-10, 13: because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.  For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Acts 16:31a: And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved

Ok, so there are some passages that teach that we are saved by faith. Along with this all-important one:

Ephesians 2:8-9: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Group #2:

Acts 2:38-39: And Peter said to them, “Repent and come forward to the altar call and say the sinner's prayer be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Romans 6:3-4: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2:11-12: In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

1 Peter 3:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Titus 3:4-7: But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 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, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

So there is group 2, and they're all pretty clear. I'll even grant the evangelicals Titus 3:5 because it doesn't use the word 'baptism' or 'baptized.' Yet, it's pretty clear that it is talking about baptism.

So here is the thing. You have group #1 of passages that are very clear regarding faith. You have group #2 of passages that are very clear regarding baptism. Group #1 is clear that faith justifies and we are saved by faith. Group #2 is clear that baptism unites us to Christ, saves us, and regenerates us.

Instead of using group #1 as a hammer to make group #2 untrue or to reinterpret all of the group #2 passages to mean something other than what they mean at face value - we have to determine how both of these groups can be true. In other words, we must stop pitting clear Scriptures against other clear Scriptures, when God's Word is all true. So when the evangelical surmises that since faith saves, baptism cannot, they are in effect creating a false dichotomy. The two are not mutually exclusive. To pit faith alone against baptism is to pit faith alone against grace alone. You just don't do that.

This brings us back to Ephesians 2:8-9, which is very clear that we are saved by grace through faith, not of works. The evangelical interjects here: "See! See! Baptism is a work, therefore it cannot save!" But this interjection and argument rests on a false assumption in the first place. Where does Holy Scripture say what the evangelical says about baptism? Namely, where does it say that baptism is an outward sign of something that already occurred inwardly and that in order to be baptized a person must be able to confess their Christian faith and know what baptism is? Where does Scripture say that? Perhaps it's in the lost book of 2 Apollos, chapter 7. I don't know. But once you see that this interpretation of baptism is foreign to God's Word, well, then it becomes much more clear.

But what about the thief on the cross? He wasn't baptized! Ha! Got you! Well, crapnuggets, I never thought of that. You got me now. I have to retract this whole thing.

The problem is, this is not a good argument at all. Just because the thief on the cross was not baptized does not mean that baptism doesn't save or that baptism is not the normal means by which we are united to Christ. Baptism is a Word of promise from God that saves us. The thief on the cross got one of those too. There was some guy on another cross next to him. Not sure who He was, but I think His name started with a J. And this other guy gave the thief on the cross a word of promise that he would be saved and be with Him in paradise that day. Logic destroys the thief on the cross objection. More importantly, Scripture destroys it.

So, how can group #1 and group #2 both be true? Let's look at Ephesians 2:8-9, which states that we are saved by grace through faith, not of ourselves and not by works. Solely by God's gift. Grace is a gift, faith is a gift, and salvation is a gift. The whole thing is a gift.

If baptism does what Holy Scripture says it does, the solution to the problem is quite simple. Only Christ's work saves us, and it is given to us by grace alone, not of works. If baptism regenerates us, unites us to Christ, and saves us, it cannot be a work, and it has to be grace (Rom 11:6 is pretty clear). Only grace saves. If baptism is grace, it must do something to us that delivers the work of Christ to us personally and objectively. And if it is grace, it also must bring the gift of faith with it; per Ephesians 2:8-9, since this is what grace does. It delivers to us Christ and faith.

So, if baptism is grace and delivers faith, there is no contradiction at all. Baptism is simply a means of grace. It is God's work done to us, not our work done to God out of the pious purity of our heart. It is one way in which Christ is delivered to us. In fact, it is the usual way in which we are united to Christ. The norm, as it were.

Baptism unites us to Christ (Rom 6, Gal 3). Why? Because God baptises us in baptism. It's all Him and none of us. We are baptized, not active workers to save ourselves by works.

We are washed, sanctified, justified (1Cor 6:11), reborn (John 3:5, Tit 3:5), and saved (1Pet 3:21) in baptism. Why, because we are just so obedient, that's why. No, no. These things occur because God delivers His grace through means, of which baptism is one of them; just as the Lord's Supper and the preaching of the Gospel. In short, it is the Word of God with these Sacraments that do these things. Not just water in baptism, but being washed with water and the Word (Eph 5:26).

Baptism is the normal means that God grants us faith. It is pure grace, delivering the crucified Christ to you, personally and objectively. We are saved by grace through faith and we are justified by faith alone. But this faith comes by grace and this grace is delivered through means. We receive it through light rays when we read the Word, sound waves when we hear the Gospel and receive absolution, water in baptism, and bread and wine in the Eucharist.

What most evangelicals are actually against is the idea that baptism can do anything, especially to infants, because it's against their sovereign right to choose. In short, they're against divine monergism, because baptizing an infant (especially an infant) violates their free will because they haven't chosen to be baptized and haven't made their own personal confession of faith. The majority of them won't ever be able to see or consider the biblical stance of baptismal grace which imparts faith because to them faith = choice. This plays off of a false dichotomy as well that equates faith with free will choice and not a gift of God. They've sadly missed the point that we are passive receivers of God's good gifts. Pastor Matt Richard has aptly pointed that out over at Steadfast Lutherans. The article can be found here:

http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=28761

And Pr. Richard's excellent blogwork can be found here:

http://www.pastormattrichard.com/

Baptism is in no way contrary to faith alone. Baptism is grace that delivers faith to us. God set it up that way. He saves the natural world by connecting His supernatural and eternal Word to natural means. You know, like water, bread, and wine. And stuff.

Works of the Law

One of the hottest discussions in Christianity throughout the ages has been in reference to the relationship of “works” in the book of James (Js 2:14-26) and the phrase employed by St. Paul “works of the law.” Some Roman Catholics, at least since the middle ages, have argued that the phrases are completely different from each other. Many Roman Catholics today favor this interpretation, even some apologists. After all, this is one of the direct interpretations of Scripture that the Reformers were fighting against. This interpretation, if correct, has direct bearing on the Protestant (and biblical) doctrine of sola fide (justification by faith alone), denying it outright. The Reformers held that man is justified before God by faith alone and only on the merits of Christ’s work alone. Rome countered that this was not the case, and that man is justified by faith plus works; made official Roman dogma at Trent. To understand the Roman Catholic view on justification, we must go to the Council of Trent, which speaks at length regarding justification.  Therefore, the Roman Catholic view of justification is that we are not justified by faith alone, but rather, by faith plus works. A cursory reading of Scripture should show us quite conclusively that this is not the case and indeed is literally impossible, unless we are willing to allow for God accepting less than perfection. Hence, Rome solves this dilemma in that they deny the imputed righteousness of Christ to all who believe with the doctrine of purgatory, which is a perfectly logical doctrine if imputed righteousness is false and a person can be partially justified. As an aside, it is quite ironic that Rome denies imputed righteousness while a person is yet alive on Earth but in essence affirms it in purgatory, after death.

It is also quite right to point out that Protestants do not deny the importance of good works in the life of a Christian. We simply deny that these good works are capable of meriting anything before God, who demands absolute perfection. Protestant doctrine holds that we are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone. It will result in good works springing from a changed nature that desires to please God. Therefore, since God still demands absolute perfection and conformity to His law since He hasn’t changed, it is literally impossible for a person to be justified on these grounds, since not only have all sinned (Rom 3:23), and all are born sinful (Ps 51:5, Rom 5:12-21), but one transgression of God’s Holy Law renders us guilty of breaking all of it (Js 2:10). Simply put, if mankind must stand before God on account of their own righteousness, nobody can possibly be justified, since none have fulfilled the Law in its entirety. If we claim we have no sin, we are liars, according to St. John (1 Jn 1:8-10). Save for one. Jesus Christ.

Let us examine all of the passages that are relevant to the topic at hand. Namely, those which use the phrase “works of the Law” and those that speak about justification and works.

All Scriptures quoted from the ESV.

Romans 3:20: For by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:27-28: Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Romans 4:2: For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

Romans 4:4: Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.

Romans 4:6: Just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works.

Galatians 2:15-16: We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Galatians 3:2: Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?

Galatians 3:5-6: Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith - just as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness?

Galatians 3:10-14: For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the law, and do them. Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for the righteous shall live by faith. But the law is not of faith, rather The one who does them shall live by them. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us - for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree - so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

Ephesians 2:8-10: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

And then, James 2:14-26.

Thus, Scripture gives us tons of passages that speak about works. To gain an understanding about what the Scriptural teaching is on the topic, we need to define a few things, or else we end up in limbo and the conclusions we come to can easily be refuted on Scriptural grounds. But before we do that, let’s check out all the passages that speak of “works of the law,” since that ultimately is the phrase that gets  isolated by those who will in the end disagree with the conclusion that will be drawn here.

Per Scripture, the works of the law will not justify anyone. The question then becomes: what does “works of the law mean?” Generally, there are two main options put forth in regard to this question. First, we have the Roman Catholic idea that “works of the law” refers to Jewish ceremonial observance. Quite often, they appeal to circumcision and other ceremonial rites. Indeed, in Galatians, Paul is rebuking the Judaizers for adding Jewish rites to Christ alone for salvation. They appeal to James chapter 2; especially when James says that works justify a person. The second explanation is the Protestant one, which I will be defending here. That is, that “works of the law” refers to trying to merit any favor before God by good works of law-keeping, which includes of course, the ten commandments. In this interpretation, James is not speaking of the doctrine of justification that declares us righteous before God, but rather, speaking of the difference between a false and spurious faith and a real faith. Faith without works is dead, says James.

Scripture gives us numerous clues as to what the works of the law are. We are told that: No one will be justified by the works of the law…Since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (Rom 3:20), and instead through faith in Christ. (Gal 2:15-16)

We also know that the Spirit is received by faith and not works of the law (Gal 3:2), all who rely on works of the law are under a curse (Gal 3:10), no one is justified before God by the law (Gal 3:11), and the one who relies on works of the law must keep the entire book of the law and live by them. (Gal 3:10-11) Hence, we need Christ (Gal 3:12-14), who fulfilled the law on our behalf by becoming a curse for us through His crucifixion (Gal 3:12-14).

We also have the following information regarding works:

If Abraham was justified by works, he could have boasted (Rom 4:2). If works are what justify us before God, we are given our due and not a gift. (Rom 4:4) And we are saved by grace through faith, apart from works. (Eph 2:8-9)

When we boil this down, what we need to determine is if works of the law refers simply to Jewish observance and ceremonial actions or if it refers to doing any work that is in line with the law for justification. Some Roman Catholic apologists take this line of thought. I am convinced that this is not the official position of Rome on the issue though, and we will get to that later. But, we must refute this as well, since it would seem that this interpretation, although not the official Roman Catholic one, is a very popular one used by Roman Catholics. Romans 3 and Galatians are the places we need to go to determine this. And to get a clue as to which answer is proper, we need to examine what St. Paul says regarding works of the law and the reasoning he gives as to why these works of the law cannot justify us.

We first can see that in Romans 3, St. Paul tells us that no human being will be justified by works of the law because through the law comes knowledge of sin. That is, the law is what shows us what sin is. It is to break God’s law. We therefore cannot be justified by these works, since the law shows us what sin is and we have knowledge of this sin through the law that God has given. We also know that St. Paul gave us more reasoning in the same passage, contrasting faith and works at the conclusion off Romans 3. He states here that “one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom 3:28) and then “since God is one - who will justify the circumcised (Jews) by faith and the uncircumcised (Gentiles) through faith.” (Rom 3:30) He likewise was not an antinomian as he stated the next verse: “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” (Rom 3:31) The point here is that St. Paul is talking about upholding the law as someone who is already justified. Thus, in essence, what he is claiming, as he also does in Galatians, is that following the law is not the manner in which a person is justified before God.

He goes on in Galatians 2 with more of the same, saying that “yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law.” (Gal 2:16a) This coming directly after saying that he is a Jew and not a Gentile, and neither of them will be justified by law-keeping. He concludes his thought in verse 21, saying “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” (Gal 2:21)

But Galatians 3 is really the killer for the Jewish observance interpretation, as St. Paul states that “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (Gal 3:10) And then, “Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for the righteous shall live by faith.” (Gal 3:11) And then of course continues on to explain the removal of the law’s curse through Christ’s crucifixion, precisely because we are incapable of being justified by law-keeping.

All of this is fine and dandy, but we also need to answer the question, “how are good works defined?” Because good works must be defined according to something. If they lie outside of God’s law, then in fact an argument could be made for the Jewish observance argument. However, this argument implies that the law itself is only for Jews, and only Jews in the pre-Christ era will be judged according to God’s law. I find this line to be problematic for this interpretation, since everyone universally is considered to be “in Adam,” precisely because Adam sinned and we are born sinners and we also sin, which is simply put - breaking of God’s law. Thus, by definition, sin is defined by God’s law. When we sin, that is exactly what we are doing - missing the mark of God’s holiness. Now I ask then - what answer does Scripture give us in regards to what sin is? The law, of course. Likewise, to not sin would then also be to adhere to the law, which of course means that we are not justified by not sinning. But we also must insist on taking this even another step further. That is to say, that good works are defined by the law as well. Jesus Christ Himself states in Matthew 22:37-40: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the prophets.” This answer our Lord gave was in response to the question “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” (Matt 22:36) This answer that Christ gave is often called the Great Commandment (not to be confused with the Gospel or the Great Commission). Therefore, Christ sums up the law itself by loving God and loving neighbor. Now, good works must be defined in this manner. The works that are done that please God fall in these two categories. Thus, good works themselves are defined by following the law, since the summary of the law is found in Matthew 22:37-40, given by Christ. Thus, our good works cannot justify us, since good works are in essence following the law, since that is the answer Scripture gives us as to what pleases God. Therefore, it is spurious to create a category of good works apart from the law of God, since God Himself is the only one who defines what a good work is, and the answer Scripture gives us as to what actually is a good work is essentially a work pleasing to God that is in line with His law. That (His law) is what He has given us that to define what sin is, and by correlation, what sin is not.

We also must say a couple other things, because all of this could lead us to believe that our sanctification is done by law-keeping, even though our justification is clearly not. Some would affirm this idea. I must reject it for a couple reasons. First, we are conformed to the image of Christ by following the Holy Spirit, not doing works. We do works, yes. But we do not do works just to follow the law. That would be absurd. St. Paul had something like this in mind in the beginning of Galatians 3, when he states “Let me ask you this only: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Gal 3:2-3) In essence, God does not save us from the curse of the law and justify us apart from our works just to drive us right back to the law to be sanctified.

Second, we also must say that the law is good, righteous, and holy, and there is nothing wrong with the third usage of it. That is, the law gives us a norm for Christian life. Specifically, the Decalogue (ten commandments). But, we do not follow the law for law-keeping sake, as St. Paul rejects in Galatians 3:2-3. On the other hand, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, we now, as New Covenant believers, have the law written upon our hearts (see Eze36:25-27), and we are conformed to Christ by following the Spirit, who brings us to Christ through grace and drives us to desire to please Him. But we also must guard against inventing our own laws that add to God’s. God has given us His, and His is what He has said is pleasing to Him. How presumptuous of us to add our own laws that we think should please Him and neglect the one He has given us!

This all brings us to James. What was James talking about? We have already shown above that good works are best defined on a Scriptural basis ultimately by keeping God’s law, and we have numerous clear statements from St. Paul that no one will be justified by works of the law (Rom 3:20, 28, Gal 2:16, Gal 3:10-14) and that, in more general terms, the biblical report is that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, and this is not of ourselves, but is rather God’s gift - which then drives us to good works. (Ephesians 2:8-10) James however, at first glance seems to disagree with Paul. This is not possible of course. As an aside, even a great man of God and theologian Martin Luther had problems reconciling Paul and James. Luther was unsure as to the canonicity of the book of James. But, perhaps Luther simply may not have seen James’ passage in the right light. Digging in, it’s pretty clear what James is trying to say. James makes such statements as “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (Jms 2:14) “Show me your faith apart from your works and I will show you my faith by my works.” (Jms 2:18) And then, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?” (Jms 2:21) And, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (Jms 2:24)

The point we need to recognize here is that James is not erecting a false dichotomy between faith and works and separating them to the point of being completely different. If this is the case, then faith becomes no more than mental assent, and Scripture, specifically the New Testament, denies that idea everywhere else. Likewise, faith and obedience are treated as essentially the same in numerous other places in Scripture. They can be distinguished, but never separated. For instance, John 3:36, Hebrews 5:9, Romans 1:5, and Romans 16:26. The biblical report is that true faith will obey. The fruits of the Spirit will be borne, and good works will be the result. Thus, we can discern that even in James 2, that what James is contrasting is not faith and works, but true faith and false faith. He makes this clear by using demons as an example. Even they believe, he says. (Jms 2:19) When viewed in this light, Paul and James are completely consistent with each other. Paul was fighting against legalists in Galatians - those who would add works in order to be justified, while James was fighting the opposite battle; antinomianism. That is, faith with no works, which is a false and dead faith. Our faith needs to be shown by our works, and if our faith is real, it will be. Likewise, James cannot be blasting the Reformation distinctive of justification by faith alone in verse 24, for then he would not only be contradicting Paul, but also creating a new category of works that are classified outside of God’s law, which, as seen above, is very unlikely. Proponents of justification by works love to point out that the only time the phrase “faith alone’ appears in Holy Writ is in James 2:24, when James says that we are not justified by faith alone. But James does not mean it in the same sense that the Reformers and St. Paul meant it. That is, he is not creating a dichotomy between faith and works to the point they are separate, but rather, he is fighting against antinomianism, those who have a false profession but a lifestyle that contradicts what they say. This is the epitome of lying, obviously. The people James is referring to are clearly people who have the same “belief” as the demons he mentions in verse 19. That is, they believe Christ is who he claimed, but they do not possess a faith given by the Spirit of God and do not have the law written on their hearts, evidenced by their lack of works. Therefore, these people are not shown to be just simply by their profession of faith. They may even be part of the visible church, but their professions are severely lacking. Hence all the warnings in Hebrews. There were numerous people in the visible church who had false professions then, and numerous ones who have false professions now. We see that what James is saying here is not that man is justified by doing good works, as if they are a cause for merit, because Paul plainly rebukes that idea, but rather, that a true profession of faith will result in a desire to follow God and obey. A true faith will work.. It’s that simple, especially in numerous other places in Scripture the just are said to “live by faith.” (Rom 1:17, 2 Cor 5:7, etc) Therefore, the works that we do come from our faith, which is the result of a new nature implanted by the  Holy Spirit through regeneration. It is precisely in this light that Paul can command us to “work out our own salvation” (Phi 2:12) because “it is God who works in you.” (Phi 2:13) God has worked it in, therefore, we need to work it out, through our obedience and works. This working out can only be done because we already possess salvation, not in order to earn it. If we did not possess it, Paul could not say that “it is God who works in you.” We know, only the adopted children of God have God working in them, since only the saved are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. (Rom 8:7-10)

But it is also quite important to point out that I just spent a bunch of time refuting the position of *some* Roman Catholic apologists and of *some* Roman Catholic parishioners. On the other hand, I am convinced that this position is NOT the official position of the Roman Catholic church, as evidenced by the Council of Trent. Therefore, I desire to be very careful not to misrepresent the Roman Catholic position on justification, lest I attempt to refute a straw man, which is absolutely not what I desire to do. As a Reformed guy, I recognize the annoyance of straw men and recognize that refuting a straw man doesn’t really refute anything. Dr. Robert Sungenis, perhaps the most formidable Roman Catholic apologist of the day (seriously - chew on some of his arguments some time, they‘re very well done in many cases), agrees with Reformed Theology in the sense that “works of the law“ cannot be referring to ceremonial observance. Sungenis quotes: “Various Catholic apologists today, when teaching on the meaning of the "works of the law," will often explain it as referring to the ceremonial law of Israel, to the exclusion, or the virtual exclusion, of the remaining law in Israel. (The ceremonial law refers to all the ritual religious practices, such as circumcision, eating kosher foods, priestly sacrifices, seventh-day sabbath observance, etc). Sad to say, that answer is at best a half-truth, and at worst, it is a distortion of the Catholic teaching on Justification.”

He continues “One of the reasons these apologists categorize "works of the law" as referring to the ceremonial law is that they have found it to be an easy polemical tool against Protestants. Protestants say that St. Paul condemns ALL work as having any part in Justification. The Catholic apologist counters by saying that when Paul uses the phrase "works of the law" he does not mean ALL works; he only means the works of the ceremonial law of Israel.”

Now, granted, I think the above arguments I made are a fairly decent refutation of that “easy polemical tool.” I believe that Dr. Sungenis would most likely agree with what I have written above regarding the works of the law (although he would disagree with my explanation of James 2). Sungenis then concludes (regarding this works of the law interpretation): “…the answer he gives as to the distinguishing characteristic (the ceremonial law) is only partially correct, and in being such, it is the wrong answer to this most crucial question.” He also points out, rightfully so, that the biggest Roman Catholic authority on justification, the Council of Trent, never uses that argumentation, and never even went so far to even speak of the ceremonial law regarding justification. Earlier theologians such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas agreed with Dr. Sungenis in this regard, and it would seem, most relevant theologians claimed by Rome. Thus, Sungenis, after a long and drawn out argument, says this: “In other words, "works of the law" are precisely what the phrase says - they are works performed in a system of law; works performed under a legal contract; works wherein legal payment is expected. The moral and ceremonial laws, as well as the civil laws of Israel, were all part of the legal system of the Old Covenant -- a legal system that had to be set aside in order to make room for the New Covenant, a system of grace.”

In the main, his arguments seem satisfactory to me as regarding what works of the law are. Sungenis also has some excellent insight when he says the following: “It is important to note that in Romans 4 Paul is teaching that Abraham was Justified by means of the New Covenant of grace, which, because of Christ's anticipated sacrifice, could stretch all the way back to the time of Abraham and beyond, in order to save men. That is why, for example, Hebrews 11:4-7 mentions the prominent saints of old, beginning with Abel and Enoch and Noah, who were saved by faith -- the faith required by the New Covenant in Christ. It is the same reason that Hebrews 11:26 says that Moses "considered the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt," or why 1 Corinthians 10:4 says that of those who left Egypt "a spiritual rock followed them; and that rock was Christ." The only way anyone was justified in the Old Covenant was on the basis of what Christ would do in the New Covenant.”

But I do not quite understand how the next statement he made can be drawn, when he says: “On the other hand, the circumcision Paul mentions in Romans 4:9-12, and the circumcision in which Abraham and his progeny received, represent the Old Covenant, a covenant of law which had no power to save anyone.” It is important to point out, in this case, that the circumcision Abraham received could not have been a circumcision putting him into a system of law, since the covenant made with Abraham came 430 prior to the giving of the system of law at Sinai that Israel was under. (Gal 3:17) Therefore, the sacrament of circumcision given to Abraham was in essence a sacrament that pointed to circumcision of the heart, which is the result of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant by Jesus Christ. (See Gen 17:1-14) It is no wonder then, that Reformed Theology, as well as Roman Catholicism, sees baptism as the sacrament that replaces circumcision, although the conclusions they draw beyond that are different. Likewise, baptism then symbolizes circumcision of the heart. This of course is to assume that the promise made to Abraham is not the Old Covenant, per se, as that phrase is commonly used too refer to the law given at Sinai, but rather, is the promise of the New Covenant in its pre-Christ form. Thus, to echo Sungenis, even Abraham and all the other elect of God that lived before Christ were indeed justified by grace and not by law keeping of any form.

All of this leads Trent and Dr. Sungenis to answer the question “But aren’t we supposed to obey the moral law?” With an answer that goes like this: “If the moral law is included with the ceremonial law as that which condemns mankind, how does that square with the fact that we are supposed to obey the moral commands of the Old Testament, but not obey the ceremonial commands? The answer is very simple. We are not obeying the moral laws of the Old Covenant. We are obeying the principles of the moral laws found in the Old Covenant. More than that, we are obeying the much improved moral laws, which God placed in the New Covenant. The New Covenant of Jesus Christ borrows from the good laws of the Old Covenant and makes them better.” He then continues: “But notice this important point: It is the WHOLE system of the Old Covenant that must go, not just a part here or there. Those who teach that "works of the law" refers only to the ceremonial law are essentially teaching that only PART of the Old Covenant was set aside. What about the ceremonial law? Isn't it true that we are not to obey the ceremonial law any longer, and didn't Paul make that clear in, for example, Colossians 2:16; while also teaching in Romans 13:9 that we are to obey the moral laws? Well, we already answered the "moral law" question above. We are obeying the principles of the Old Covenant decalogue, but we are no longer under the Old Covenant itself. As for our not obeying the ceremonial laws any longer, that is true, but it is true in the same way that we are no longer obeying the moral laws of the Old Covenant. Rather, we are obeying the principles of the Old Covenant ceremonial laws.” Of course, these ceremonial laws that are now in effect are represented in Catholicism by the seven sacraments.

This brings us to the Roman Catholic view on justification, as articulated by Dr. Sungenis. Sungenis argued at length that the works of the law cannot save us and that the entire law has been set aside. Then he argues this, regarding justification, after using James 2:24 and Romans 2:6-13 as his support: “The reason these works can be rewarded with justification and eternal life is simply that they are NOT rewarded on the basis of debt or law, but on the basis of grace. The only kind of works Paul disallows for justification are works performed in the system of Law, which is a legal system totally devoid of grace. Works performed in the system of grace are always meritorious, because God, by His very nature, seeks to reward those who do good. So notice that its not the KIND of works that is at issue, but the SYSTEM in which one performs those works -- a system of Law (the Old Covenant) or a system of Grace (the New Covenant). One gets into the system of grace by accepting God in faith. Once one believes, then he can work for God, and as he works God will reward him graciously for his efforts. The more one believes and works, the closer he comes to God until, one day, his life is over and God takes him home. There, in heaven, he will receive the ultimate reward of grace.”

And now, it would seem, we have a fuller definition and idea of what the Roman Catholic view of justification is. We must, however, point out some inconsistencies with this view. First of all, after arguing that the whole law has been set aside by the inauguration of the New Covenant and therefore doing the works of the law in order to be justified, Sungenis then argues in the above paragraph that since we are not under the law, we CAN be justified by performing the works that are set forth in the law, or at least, the principles of them. It is important to point out here that Protestants do not reject what we refer to as the third use of the law (also called the normative usage). What we mean by this is that the law can provide the “norms” for Christian life. When we look in Scripture and ask “What pleases God?” The answer Scripture gives us is His law. It would seem then, that the main difference between our two schools of theology revolve around the idea of merit. In Protestant Reformed Theology (including Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterian, and Reformational Anglicans), good works are not spurned and licentious living is not endorsed. In fact, we would put forth the argument that such fruits are an indication of a person who is unsaved and therefore not justified. Contrary to popular straw man-ology, Reformed Theology does not promote vile living and antinomianism, and contrary to some dispensationalists, Reformed Theology likewise does not put the Christian under the law. Both of these charges are false. In the same manner, I do not wish to misrepresent Rome; hence my reading of Trent and Dr. Sungenis (who, as I mentioned above, I hold in high regard as a quality theologian - in the sense that he is very thorough, honest, and difficult to refute in many cases). However, at the risk of gaining howls of protests from my Roman Catholic friends, I will state this: If we are attempting to be justified by our works, whether they be from the law or from the principles of the law, it is difficult for me to conclude that we would be under grace, no matter what we call it. In short, it is difficult to see much difference between works justifying us in a system of law or in a system of grace. In both cases, we make God our debtor and attempt to be justified by something we do. If our works are done to gain merit from God and to justify us, it seems to me that grace is completely undermined. The argument quickly degenerates into something like this: Well, we cannot be justified by the works of the law if we are under the law, but we can be justified by the works of the law if we are under grace. Same works, different systems. Thus, the phrase works of the law, to Sungenis, does not mean simply the works done that align with God’s law, but rather, the works done that align with God’s law for people that are under God’s law. Therefore, these same exact works of the law are meritorious for Christians who are not under the law. Same works, same law, but the status of the person is what makes the difference. Thus it would follow that it would not matter much if we claim to be in the New Covenant if we are relying on our works to justify us, especially if those are the same works that are sharply defined by the law of God, since, as Sungenis has claimed, “that its not the KIND of works that is at issue, but the SYSTEM in which one performs those works.” It is, however, pertinent to this topic to point out that St. Paul uses the phrase “works OF the law.” There is no mention by St. Paul in any of these specific passages to “works done UNDER the law” or “works done in a SYSTEM of law.” He simply points out that the works of the law cannot justify. This would imply that the system one is under is irrelevant, since the works OF the law would be the same in either case. Sungenis is forced to change St. Paul's words from works OF the law to works done IN A SYSTEM of law or works done UNDER the law.

Sungenis then concludes: “So, we see that the New Covenant, even though in some respects it is a much improved covenant, in another sense it is even more demanding, for with much freedom comes much responsibility. Now, as opposed to the Old Covenant Law being our judge, such that it could convict us for murder but not be able to peer into our heart to see if we actually hated our brother (cf., Matthew 5:21-24), God, in the New Covenant, is able to peer into our heart and know our most secret motives. And it is upon this basis that the New Covenant judges us (1 Corinthians 4:5; 9:27). Fortunately, God infuses grace into our soul upon confession of sin so that when He looks at us He sees a purified being, justified in His sight. But if we spurn his New Covenant graces, then we will receive the "severer" punishment, a punishment even harsher that what was given in the Old Covenant.”

Looked at in this light (and I would agree with this), Christ’s definitions of the law are even more demanding. It’s also important to note that Christ did not abolish the law, but rather, abolished the theocracy that swore “all this we will do” and failed to do it - namely, because it was impossible for Israel to perfectly obey on a national level, thereby gaining the promised land, and by extension, the eternal rest. Another thing is that since God is an unchanging God, He likewise does not change His law. Granted, more of it is revealed in different books of Scripture, but His entire law remains the same. God’s law is still God’s law and no one has ever been justified by it (because the law can only command) and no one has been justified by doing the works of it, since once again, the law can only command. Therefore, it is impossible to be justified before God by doing, since when God commands us to “do” His requirement for justification based on that doing is nothing less than perfect obedience to all of His precepts. God cannot command anything less. Such would be a violation of his holiness and a compromise on His part. God, by His nature, does not and cannot do this. This was one major point of giving Israel the law and having Israel herself swear the oath, thereby calling the curses on herself for violation, precisely to point us to Christ, who is the law keeper and fulfiller.  However, the Abrahamic promise is not like that. God Himself and God alone passed through the halves of the slaughtered animals and not Abraham, thereby calling the curses down on Himself for violation. (Gen 15:12-17) Likewise, God made good on this promise by sending Christ to bear the sins of His people, as Christ took the curse upon Himself by hanging on a tree. (Gal 3:10-14) God alone took the oath for the Abrahamic promise and also the fulfillment thereof - the New Covenant, since God had already taken the oath and promised to take it once again in the ultimate fulfillment thereof. Abraham himself swore nothing. This is completely in contrast to Israel swearing obedience at Sinai and in the numerous renewals of the law found throughout the Old Testament. (Joshua 24, for one) Therefore, how is it possible to be justified by our swearing and doing via doing the works of the law, (even under grace) if we are part of a covenant of grace which God Himself has sworn upon Himself the curses? As Horton has pointed out quite well in his excellent work “Introducing Covenant Theology,” the Sinai covenant given to Israel is a classic suzerainty treaty, where the great King (in this case God) initiates a covenant with a people (in this case Israel) because the great King had done something on their behalf. This is why the giving of the law at Sinai begins with “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” (Exo 20:2) It begins by stating what God had done for them, and therefore, since He did this, He can then command the following stipulations. In this case, God goes on to give Israel the Decalogue, followed by other various laws that take up Exodus 20-23. When we get to Exodus 24, we see that Israel confirms the covenant by swearing “All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do.” (Exo 24:3) The covenant demands perfect obedience on a national level in order to inherit the promised land. Of course, Israel failed miserably on numerous occasions, precisely because perfect national obedience was impossible. God cannot command anything less than perfect obedience, as has been pointed out. Yet God did not cast off Israel. However, God never remembered Israel based on the covenant given at Sinai, since they continually broke that covenant and God Himself swore nothing and therefore was not obligated to remember them at all. In fact, they deserved death and nothing less.

But He remembered Israel based on the covenant He made with Abraham, which was not a classic suzerainty treaty where the great King commanded and the vassal them swore, but rather, it was much closer to another type of covenant called a royal grant. God unilaterally promised and then took the oath Himself. As opposed to Sinai, when God said do all this and only then you will live, the promise given to Abraham was different. God in essence said: “I will do this and you will live.” Quite different. God therefore, dispenses His grace on the basis of His promise (the covenant of grace) and not on the basis of obeying His law, since the works of the law cannot justify, but only God’s grace can. Setting up a new system based on seven sacraments (new and better ceremonies, per Sungenis) is in essence to set up another legal system of ceremonial observance with grace dispensed through these ceremonies and likewise comes very close to denying that there was nothing in God’s law that was gracious, which would be false. On the other hand, we can also observe that in essence Rome has set up the New Covenant as nothing more than a better system of law, and per their definitions, I would agree that it is better. But it still has the form of law in many ways; namely, as it pertains to justification, where Rome claims we ARE justified by obedience to the law (or at least, to the better principles of God’s law), and this is possible only because we are under grace, or in a different system.

This however, confuses works and grace, one of the very things Sungenis labored to point out that the contrast of the two is Paul’s major emphasis in Romans. Another way of saying this is that it confuses law and Gospel, or imperatives and indicatives. This leads Rome to claim, per Sungenis: “In the Old Covenant the ceremonial laws were merely signs and seals of God's promises. But in the New Covenant the ceremonies, that is, the seven sacraments, are not only signs but they do the very thing that the sign signifies! For example, the sign of Baptism replaced the sign of Circumcision. Circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant but it had no power to save. But Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant that actually saves us in the act of being baptized! Not only that, but baptism can be given to Jew and Gentile, male and female, child and adult. It is universal and salvific.” I do not deny that God does work through the sacraments as means of grace, and I do not view the sacraments as works of man, but rather, as gracious works of God as He descends to us, but I have a hard time accepting a system which holds to infused grace, basically turning grace into a metaphysical substance, and salvation through a sacramental system and justification with works of the law (even though we are under grace, per Rome) involved.  It is a basic confusion of works and grace, turning works into something meritorious that can gain us more grace, but only if we are under grace in the first place. It almost makes one wonder -and this is a mere observation on my part- if there is some sort of sliding scale of justification in this system, where grace is infused via the sacraments and by good works of the principles of the law, and if non-Catholics need to do that much more good works to have the grace infused that they aren’t receiving through the sacraments. I do know that Roman Catholicism does open up ways of salvation for non-Roman Catholics, but I have to wonder as to how? Obviously, these people who potentially could die in a state of grace are not receiving the Catholic sacraments and therefore not being infused by grace via the sacraments. Therefore, the only option left is infused grace via good works, since the sacraments are ruled out and so is faith in Christ. This of course, overthrows much of the New Testament and it’s emphasis on faith in Christ and what you are left with is purely salvation as a reward for good works. I don’t see any way around this. I would argue that Rome was much more consistent before Vatican II, when they officially opened up salvation to Protestants, Muslims, Jews (by religion), and even Pagans. That said, I am sure Rome has some reason for dogmatizing such, although it would seem to not make much sense on a theological basis.

Therefore, our works and obedience show us to be true children of the King, and not antinomian (no works) or legalist (works to gain life and merit from God) posers. We do good works not to gain anything from God, but simply because we love God, being the recipients of a new heart, and desire nothing more than to please Him and obey his commands. Nothing can be more joyful. Both antinomianism and legalism are errors, and both are considered to be another Gospel. Legalism is condemned by Paul in Galatians 1:6-10,and antinomianism condemned by James in James 2:14-26. Therefore, our works cannot justify us, as this would make God a debtor to us, no matter what motive or reason or system we put forth, but rather, can only be the fruit of a real faith that God has so gifted to the believer. (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 12:3, Heb 12:2) God is no respecter of persons and we cannot, in our sinful fallen state, gain favor with God by anything we do, lest we overthrow God’s perfect holiness in the process. God has commanded perfection ever since the dawn of creation. He cannot command anything less, because anything less would be a compromise of His holiness. Thus, we must be in Christ, our sin-bearer, the perfect lamb of God, with His righteousness, which is perfect, imputed to us. Paul sums up the relationship between faith and works nicely in Ephesians, and on this note we shall be finished here.

Ephesians 2:8-10: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Due to all the above reasons, I remain a convinced Protestant.