If Galatians was Published in Christianity Today

To wrap up my little mini-series on the wimpiness of evangelicals when it comes to "tone," and the place polemics has in intramural debate and discussion, I thought I'd repost this classic piece from Sacred Sandwich, entitled, "If Paul's Epistle to the Galatians was Published in Christianity Today." Now, before anybody gets upset, that has very little to do with the work Christianity Today is doing (though of course we could talk about that), and everything to do with the over-sensitivity of contemporary evangelicals.

All I can say is that this is spot-on. It goes to show how effective satire can be. Without further ado, here are the letters to the editor that would come after CT published the book of Galatians.

Letters to the Editor

Dear Christianity Today:

In response to Paul D. Apostle’s article about the Galatian church in your January issue, I have to say how appalled I am by the unchristian tone of this hit piece. Why the negativity? Has he been to the Galatian church recently? I happen to know some of the people at that church, and they are the most loving, caring people I’ve ever met.

Phyllis Snodgrass; Ann Arbor, MI

————————————————————————

Dear Editor:

How arrogant of Mr. Apostle to think he has the right to judge these people and label them accursed. Isn’t that God’s job? Regardless of this circumcision issue, these Galatians believe in Jesus just as much as he does, and it is very Pharisaical to condemn them just because they differ on such a secondary issue. Personally, I don’t want a sharp instrument anywhere near my zipper, but that doesn’t give me the right to judge how someone else follows Christ. Can’t we just focus on our common commitment to Christ and furthering His kingdom, instead of tearing down fellow believers over petty doctrinal matters?

Ed Bilgeway; Tonganoxie, KS

————————————————————————–

Dear CT:

I’ve seen other dubious articles by Paul Apostle in the past, and frankly I’m surprised you felt that his recurrent criticisms of the Church deserved to be printed in your magazine. Mr. Apostle for many years now has had a penchant for thinking he has a right to “mark” certain Christian teachers who don’t agree with his biblical position. Certainly I commend him for desiring to stay faithful to God’s word, but I think he errs in being so dogmatic about his views to the point where he feels free to openly attack his brethren. His attitude makes it difficult to fully unify the Church, and gives credence to the opposition’s view that Christians are judgmental, arrogant people who never show God’s love.

Ken Groener; San Diego, CA

—————————————————————————-

To the Editors:

Paul Apostle says that he hopes the Galatian teachers will cut off their own privates? What kind of Christian attitude is that? Shame on him!

Martha Bobbitt; Boulder, CO

—————————————————————————-

Dear Christianity Today:

The fact that Paul Apostle brags about his public run-in with Peter Cephas, a well-respected leader and brother in Christ, exposes Mr. Apostle for the divisive figure that he has become in the Church today. His diatribe against the Galatian church is just more of the same misguided focus on an antiquated reliance on doctrine instead of love and tolerance. Just look how his hypercritical attitude has cast aspersions on homosexual believers and women elders! The real problem within the Church today is not the lack of doctrinal devotion, as Apostle seems to believe, but in our inability to be transformed by our individual journeys in the Spirit. Evidently, Apostle has failed to detach himself from his legalistic background as a Pharisee, and is unable to let go and experience the genuine love for Christ that is coming from the Galatians who strive to worship God in their own special way.

William Zenby; Richmond, VA

——————————————————————————

Kind Editors:

I happen to be a member of First Christian Church of Galatia, and I take issue with Mr. Apostle’s article. How can he criticize a ministry that has been so blessed by God? Our church has baptized many new members and has made huge in-roads in the Jewish community with our pragmatic view on circumcision. Such a “seeker-sensitive” approach has given the Jews the respect they deserve for being God’s chosen people for thousands of years. In addition, every Gentile in our midst has felt honored to engage in the many edifying rituals of the Hebrew heritage, including circumcision, without losing their passion for Jesus. My advice to Mr. Apostle is to stick to spreading the gospel message of Christ’s unconditional love, and quit criticizing what God is clearly blessing in other churches.

Miriam “Betty” Ben-Hur; Galatia, Turkey

——————————————————————————-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Christianity Today apologizes for our rash decision in publishing Paul Apostle’s exposé of the Galatian church. Had we known the extent in which our readership and advertisers would withdraw their financial support, we never would have printed such unpopular biblical truth. We regret any damage we may have caused in propagating the doctrines of Christ.

In Defense of Polemics: Reposted

The previous post on tone, and the squishiness and squeamishness that provoked it, reminded me of something I posted near the beginning of For Our Benefit. The post is called "In Defense of Polemics," and gives some Biblical justification for my standing complaint with the Tone Police. I've slightly modified it here where appropriate.

If you read my comments on other blogs, you might notice that I'm not afraid to engage in polemical discussions. That is, I'm willing to engage error masquerading as truth and to call a spade a spade. But if you read For Our Benefit, you'll notice that that's not been my modus operandi on this blog so much. Remembering my commitment to be a benefit, that may have something to do with the fact that I think there's more benefit to be given and to be enjoyed in ways other than polemical argumentation. However, I think that polemics can certainly be in the service of benefiting people by presenting Christ to them.

Not everyone agrees with me there. If you lurk around the Christian blogosphere long enough and read widely enough, you'll find that some people find any manner of disagreement utterly distasteful, and they chide you for being "divisive," "unloving," disobedient to John 13:35 (which is laughable, given the content discussed in my recent post on that passage), too worried about doctrine, Pharisaical, or -- the postmodern favorite -- "uncharitable." [Not much has changed in the year and a half since I originally wrote that, huh? Except that now it's not just the out-and-out postmodernists that are complaining about it. This area of postmodernism has crept into the heart of conservative evangelicalism and the YRR/New Calvinism.]

And if you do manage to find a group of folks who don't mind differing viewpoints, you better make sure you don't disagree with someone too severely, and that you preface your disagreement with about 150 things you like about your opponent, or about what your opponent just said, or a slew of qualifiers about how the issue you're disagreeing over is not an essential Christian doctrine, and how you're sure they're a fine person in real life. You get the idea.

But again, I disagree with these people. I think that strong disagreement and polemical argumentation can be very beneficial to the body of Christ. Why do I think that?

Well, throughout the New Testament we find statements from the Apostles exhorting the Church to speak truth each one with his neighbor (Eph 4:25). As demonstrated in my previous post, the way that the body builds itself up in love is by exposing each other to the glory of Christ by speaking truth to each other. When error is presented as truth, harm comes to the body, just as it would if someone served poison instead of food at a meal.

And we have commands exhorting the Church to "expose error" (Eph 5:11). Continuing with the same illustration, if it was common knowledge that someone was masquerading poison as healthy food, those who cared anything about the people to whom it was being served would do what they could to find out what's real, nourishing food and what's not.

Also, the very nature of divine revelation requires that it be the standard of measure of all our thinking. We are told not to believe every spirit, but to test the spirits because many false profits have gone out into the world (1John 4:1). Reproof and correction are also said to be things for which Scripture is profitable (or beneficial, 2Tim 3:16). And as he approaches the end of his life, Paul's solemn charge to Timothy is to "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction" (2Tim 4:2).

And one of the clearest Scriptural examples that I can find of polemical argumentation being for the benefit to the Church is in Acts 18:27-28:

And when [Apollos] had arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

Apollos greatly helped the believers. How? "For," the Scripture says, "he powerfully refuted the Jews in public." A strong, public refutation of error was of great help to the body.

And these strong, even public, rebukes were not limited to unbelievers. In Galatians 2, Paul confronts Peter. Listen to the strength of his language.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Even Peter was subject to this kind of rebuke. And as his error had far-reaching effects, his error found a far-reaching rebuke. His actions were presenting some idea about the Gospel that was false -- hypocritical, even. And his actions were causing Jewish believers and even Barnabas to be "carried away by their hypocrisy." And so Paul lets Peter and everyone affected by his error know that such thinking is wrong, contrary to grace, and is a blight on the pure Gospel of God.

Now, in today's "evangelicalism," Paul would be labeled a Pharisee (how ironic, right?), unloving, arrogant, full of himself, and uncharitable. He'd be told at least 27 times that his tone was unchristian, that he had a log in his own eye, and "Physician, heal thyself!" He'd be accused of being un-Christlike, because Christ said they'd know us by our love for each other. And a million other things.

But guys, don't you see how he was loving Peter?! Don't you see that such confrontation was for Peter's great benefit?! If not, here's a little wisdom from J. Gresham Machen, that great defender of the faith against early 20th-century liberalism:

Men tell us that our preaching should be positive and not negative, that we can preach the truth without attacking error. But if we follow that advice we shall have to close our Bible and desert its teachings. The New Testament is a polemic book almost from beginning to end.

Some years ago I was in a company of teachers of the Bible in the colleges and other educational institutions of America. One of the most eminent theological professors in the country made an address. In it he admitted that there are unfortunate controversies about doctrine in the Epistles of Paul; but, he said in effect, the real essence of Paul’s teaching is found in the hymn to Christian love in the thirteenth chapter of I Corinthians; and we can avoid controversy today, if we will only devote the chief attention to that inspiring hymn.

In reply, I am bound to say that the example was singularly ill-chosen. That hymn to Christian love is in the midst of a great polemic passage; it would never have been written if Paul had been opposed to controversy with error in the Church. It was because his soul was stirred within him by a wrong use of the spiritual gifts that he was able to write that glorious hymn. So it is always in the Church. Every really great Christian utterance, it may almost be said, is born in controversy. It is when men have felt compelled to take a stand against error that they have risen to the really great heights in the celebration of truth. (“Christian Scholarship and the Defense of the New Testament,” in: What is Christianity?, pp. 132-133. See, on this same point, What is Faith?, pp. 41-42; Christianity and Liberalism, p. 17.)

Also, hear John Calvin writing to the heretic Socinus (for more on Socinianism, check this out):

Were I, under the pretence of indulgence, to encourage you in a fault which I judge so ruinous, I should certainly act toward you a treacherous and cruel part. Wherefore I am willing, that you should now for a little be offended by my seeming asperity, rather than that you should not be reclaimed from those curious and alluring speculations, by which you have been already captivated. The time will come, I hope, when you shall rejoice, that you have been awakened even in this violent manner, from your pleasing, but fatal dream. (The Panoplist, Or, the Christian's Armory, p. 76; see here; emphases mine)

You see? Confronting error benefits even those in error by showing them the truth. They are benefited by seeing Christ more clearly than they had been seeing Him, and with greater precision and contour than they had been seeing Him. To gaze into a blurry image of what is perfectly beautiful is infinitely less delightful, satisfying, and beneficial than to gaze into an accurate, clear, precise image of it. Laboring to present that accurate, clear, and precise image of Christ is indeed loving, as it seeks to present to the object his greatest benefit. (See also Hebrews 12:10, 14; Colossians 1:28-2:3.)

And so, contrary to the... squishiness... of our age, we ought to be ready and able (that's a big prerequisite) to speak truth, expose error, rebuke, reprove, admonish, and thereby benefit the body of Christ. Polemical argumentation and theological debate can indeed be abused in such a way that renders it profitless. But as we have seen, there is a place for it. Even a place for it in service of love for our neighbor as ourselves.

A Sanctified Rant about "Tone"

I've not devoted much of my time here at For Our Benefit to "ranting," sanctified or otherwise. Indeed, ranting on a regular basis is not for anyone's benefit. But every once and a while, it can indeed serve unto edification (1Cor 14:26). I hope that's the case here, as it regards something that's been on my mind the last couple of weeks.

One of the hallmarks of the postmodernism that has crept into the contemporary evangelical church flies under the banner of what people are calling "charitableness." Unlike true Christian charity (which comes from the KJV rendering of agape, most notably in 1 Corinthians 13), charitableness, as Phil Johnson has wonderfully put it, "is a broad-minded, insouciantly tolerant, unrelenting goodwill toward practically every conceivable opinion." The bottom line, as Phil goes on, is that "nothing we believe is ultimately anything more than a personal opinion."

A while ago, when Phil wrote that, charitableness was being championed by neo-liberals aligning themselves with the Emergent church, especially as it regarded tolerating out and out heretical views. However, though no one has been calling themselves "Emergent" or "Emerging" for a little while, the postmodernism that was the foundation of both movements has infiltrated and made its mark on what is now called conservative evangelicalism -- especially within the New Calvinist, Young-Restless-Reformed movement. The difference is, because we're conservatives, that we're not anemically tolerant of heresy. Rather, we are tenaciously intolerant of anyone within a particular theological and philosophical "camp" voicing any serious concerns about someone else who fits broadly within that camp.

Basically, if you disagree strongly with anyone who agrees with you about a bunch of other things, you will be branded "uncharitable" before you know what hit you. It won't be long before the Tone Police™ drop by a comment thread to uncharitably level the accusation of uncharitableness against you and to voice their disappointment in the "tone" of your comments. I know it's early, but I've heard enough about "charitableness" and being "uncharitable" from these people to last me for 2011. Evangelicalism is going to have to file for bankruptcy after paying the Tone Police time-and-a-half for all the overtime they've been putting in over the past couple of weeks.

I'm not sure if our brothers know this, but Christian charity doesn't require a man to check his backbone at the door and limp-wristedly offer suggestions and conjectures, complete with a slew of qualifications, to make sure no one gets offended by any particular point he's making. Can we not disagree, even disagree strongly, with what someone believes without being branded a big fat meanie?

As I alluded to before, the irony in this whole thing is that these same people who are so distraught over this horrible, needless, uncharitable infighting, are themselves willing to engage in some uncharitable infighting -- not over anything substantive, like one's philosophy of ministry or how one understands the relationship between justification and sanctification -- but over their tone. It really does astound me how many different people will actually get so anxiously, hand-wringingly bent out of shape because of people's tone. What people are saying doesn't seem to matter half as much as how people are saying it. This most certainly is evidence of our weakness as the Church.

I hear (and read) this a lot. Two or more people find that they disagree over a particular area of theology or about philosophy of ministry. So they begin to discuss it and make their points back and forth. Eventually they get to the point where they realize neither is going to convince the other, and so they just say something like, "Well, I guess we just have different opinions on this issue. But even though we disagree, it was nice to discuss it in such an irenic manner!" And then they pat themselves on the back and go away feeling unified. Now, this sounds good on the surface, and depending on the seriousness of the issue being discussed it may be appropriate. But often it signifies nothing more than a prideful fear of man, a satisfaction with superficial, false unity, and an indifference to truth.

Phil Johnson, in a different message (at around 16:25), adds the following, and is spot on:

There is such a paranoia about being too militant -- maybe it's an excessive fear that we may be falling into the fighting fundamentalist spirit -- that it shocks us nowadays when anyone does rise up in defense of some truth. One of the favorite truths of our age is, 'Let's just agree to disagree.' And then everybody is supposed to put whatever point of truth is under discussion aside, and set it aside so that it's deemed trivial and unnecessary. And that mentality...has done horrific damage to our churches and to the evangelical movement.

'Let's just agree to disagree.' Well, no. How about we agree to argue until one of us actually refutes the other and we come to a common understanding of the Scriptures? ... Truth has too often been set aside in the name of charity and unity. But throwing truth under the bus is not charitable and it doesn't produce unity. ... Authentic unity is when we all agree and say the same thing.

Within the Camp

Most of our brothers on the conservative side will agree with these principles as it applies to those who are clearly outside the faith (e.g., Roman Catholics, Liberal Protestants, etc.), and even those who are within the bounds of orthodoxy but are committed to serious error (e.g., Arminians, egalitarians, etc.). But what really burns them up is when two guys in the same theological "camp" call each other out.

The headline issues in this regard have, over the past month, had to do with (a) John MacArthur critiquing a philosophy of ministry presented in Darrin Patrick's book, Church Planter, and (b) Frank Turk's critique of Michael Horton and R. Scott Clark. All the angst and lamentations are about this notion of "friendly fire." The argument goes, "Since these guys have so much in common, especially on the essentials about the nature of the Gospel" (i.e., all parties involved hold to a Reformed soteriology), and since there's so much to fight against from those who are outside the camp, why pick on each other?"

Like it's just unconscionable that two guys who agree on the 5 points could have any justifiable reason for disagreeing strongly with one another about something else.

But there is a justifiable reason for strong disagreement even among close friends. I found the following quotes to be extremely helpful in giving that justification. The first is from Iranaeus in Against Heresies (1.2):

Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form to make it appear to the inexperienced...more true than truth itself.

This sounds very much like Paul's warning to be on our guard about being deceived by "fine sounding arguments" (Col 2:4), arguments which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom, but are of no value in the war against error (Col 2:23). The next quote is from John Broadus (On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, p. 66):

And since errors held and taught by good men are only the more likely to be hurtful to others, we are surely not less bound to refute them in such cases than when advocated by bad men.

If Iranaeus and Broadus are right, and I think they are, that means we ought to be more ready to refute the error of our closest friends than we are our distant enemies, because the potential for harm is that much greater -- because people are more likely to accept error from men who preach truth in so many other areas. And if you think about it, that's the only way true unity is ever achieved. Agreeing to disagree does not make two people unified; it simply masks the existing disunity and treats it as unimportant.

Iron sharpens iron (Prov 27:17). An extremely durable and extremely sharp piece of metal is swiftly and repeatedly striking another. That's the picture we have of one brother sharpening another brother. With all this mollified squeamishness about tone and high-pitched whimpering about uncharitableness, I'm unsure how the Tone Police can understand this passage. Let us indeed love each other, fervently and from the heart. But let's stop whining and licking the wounds on our thin skin long enough to realize that loving each other sometimes means some straight talk.

I know, I know. Uncharitable.

Defining and Defending Biblical Apologetics

There's so much that I want to say about this video from James White. But every time I set my hand to write, I recognize that what I want to say is exactly what he's said in the video. (You might also check out this post, which is best read in the context of this entire series.)

But just for some context, James White is president of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics ministry based in Phoenix, Arizona, and is an elder at Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. He hosts a weekly radio program called The Dividing Line, and this segment is taken from the show on June 24th, 2010. White is entirely devoted to a presuppositional approach to defending the Christian faith, and in the below video he explains how the theology of the Bible itself requires that one be a presuppositional apologist if one is to be consistently Biblical.

I know 42 minutes is a long time, but I promise you it is well worth your time.

But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. … For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, "He has blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart, so that they would not see him with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them."

- John 12:37, 39-40 -

"All Truth is God's Truth"

Whenever I hear this assertion it's usually being given as substantiation for some devaluation of the sufficiency of Scripture. Whether that be trying to force billions of years into Genesis 1-3, claiming that one's counseling methodology ought to be informed by secular psychological theory, or seeking to legitimize an over-concern with worldliness in the name of being missional or contextualizing the Gospel, this phrase gets a lot of mileage from those seeking to evade the teaching of the sufficient Scripture by affording undue authority to other sources of knowledge. When it comes down to it, the question of the validity of this statement is a question of epistemology. How do we know what we know? What is the authoritative source of all knowledge?

The Bible contains the revelation of the specific words of God to specific people. Because of this specificity, the Bible is said to be the "special revelation" of God (cf. Grudem, p. 122-123). General revelation, on the other hand, is "the knowledge of God’s existence, character, and moral law, which comes through creation to all humanity" (Grudem, p. 122). Such revelation is "general," or "common," because it is revealed to all humanity -- it's something we all have in common, so to speak.

The relationship of the authority of special revelation and general revelation is of particular importance to the issues raised above, i.e., the age of the earth, Biblical vs. integrationist counseling, and the nature of the natural man's spiritual death. The scientist, psychologist, or postmodern thinker argues that all truth is God’s truth, and so if something is found to be true by means of scientific analysis of general revelation, well then that is a manifestation of God’s common grace. Since truth which is gleaned from general revelation, it is argued, is just as much God’s truth as truth gleaned from special revelation, both special and general revelation are equally authoritative and thus each ought to have a place in Christian epistemology.

As a dear brother of mine has said, "Perhaps all truth is God's truth, but not all words are God's Word."

The problem with this "All-truth-is-God's-truth" line of reasoning is that it simply does not acknowledge the inherent difference between general revelation and special revelation in both glory and authority. Scripture assigns to itself more authority than it does to general revelation. Though general revelation is perceived through God’s creation, and though God’s creation began as "very good" (Gen 1:31), the consequences of the Fall of man present a twofold problem. First, God subjected the entire creation to futility (Rom 8:20-23), cursing His "very good" creation as a result of Adam's sin (Gen 3:17). Second, when Adam sinned, all humanity died with him (Rom 5:12). So even though it is through creation that the invisible attributes of God have been clearly seen, leaving men with no excuse (Rom 1:20), the depravity of fallen man causes him to suppress that clearly revealed truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18), rendering both fallen creation and fallen man unqualified epistemological authorities. The creation in its current state is not a reliable subject of study because of its corruption, and since no part of humanity's existence was unaffected by the Fall, our total depravity makes us unreliable students.

The Word of God, on the other hand, is not fallen. Indeed, the law of Yahweh remains perfect, sure, right, pure, clean, true, and righteous altogether (Ps 19:7-9). Unlike the corrupted creation and its depraved students, the integrity – and thus, the authority – of special revelation is entirely unblemished by the Fall. Further, Yahweh's perfect law "restores the soul" (Ps 19:7) of depraved mankind, something general revelation cannot do. "Far greater than all general revelation is the glory of God revealed in His Word, because the Word transforms the heart of man" (Street, Counseling, p. 44).

Those who tout "All truth is God's truth" as a way to put observation of creation (scientific or otherwise) on equal footing with Scripture simply do not realize the inherent difference in glory and authority between general revelation and special revelation.

Even though the heavens are declaring the glory of God (Ps 19:1) such that men are without excuse (Rom 1:20), general revelation cannot free man from the corruption that even it is enslaved to (Rom 8:20-23). Only special revelation can do that; that is, the Word of God which is perfect, restoring the soul (Ps 19:7), able to make us wise unto salvation (2Tim 3:15) .

So all truth may be God's truth, but not all words are God's Word. God's decisive, sufficient, perfect Word surpasses even His good, yet corrupted, creation in both glory and authority.

And that must drive our epistemology. Otherwise, it is not a Christian epistemology.

The law of Yahweh is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple.
The precepts of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes.
The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of Yahweh are true; they are righteous altogether.
They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb.
Moreover, by them Your servant is warned;
In keeping them there is great reward.
- Psalm 19:7-11 -

All Scripture is inspired by God
and profitable
for teaching, for reproof,
for correction, for training in righteousness;
so that the man of God may be adequate,
equipped for every good work.
- 2 Timothy 3:16-17 -

The Patristic Consensus: Sola Fide

I mentioned on Tuesday that in my study of early church history I'm finding myself very encouraged by the fact that the historic core evangelical principles of sola Scriptura and sola fide are taught not only in Scripture, but also in the writings of the Church Fathers. I mentioned that evangelicals shouldn't feel like when the Apostle John died the Church was hijacked by Roman Catholics. Rather, from the close of the Apostolic age through the medieval period and up through the Reformation, God has preserved a faithful remnant of His people teaching His Word even in the most faithless of times.

We mentioned that if there was any sort of "patristic consensus," the Fathers agreed on the core evangelical doctrines of sola Scriptura and sola fide. Tuesday we looked at sola Scriptura, and today we look to their testimony regarding sola fide: the doctrine that we are justified by faith alone, and receive absolutely no merit for our works as regards our justification.

And remember, the Fathers' writings do not establish sola fide, or any other doctrine. We don't look to them as our authority, but -- as even they themselves have counseled us -- to Scripture alone. Nevertheless, their writings do indeed affirm sola fide, and there is a great deal of encouragement that we can receive from that.

Clement of Rome (c. 30-100): “And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (Epistle to the Corinthians).

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50–c. 110): “His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments [legal titles]; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified” (Epistle to Philadelphians).

Polycarp (c. 69–160): “I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ” (The Epistle of Philippians).

Justin Martyr (d. 165) in his Dialogue with Trypho: “No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer . . . are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account.”

Athanasius (c. 296–373): “For naturally, since the Logos of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled by death all that was required.” (On the Incarnation of the Logos, 6-7, 9.)

Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398): “. . . a person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith. There should be no doubt but that faith saves and then lives by doing its own works, so that the works which are added to salvation by faith are not those of the law but a different kind of thing altogether.” (From his Commentary on James, 2:26b.)

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67) on Matthew 20:7: “Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the justification of faith.” (Cited in George Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy, 230.)

Basil of Caesarea (329-379): “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is (or has been) justified solely by faith in Christ” (Cited in Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, 1:505).

Ambrose (c. 339-97): “Therefore let no one boast of his works, because no one can be justified by his works; but he who is just receives it as a gift, because he is justified by the washing of regeneration. It is faith, therefore, which delivers us by the blood of Christ, because blessed is he whose sins are forgiven, and to whom pardon is granted.” (Cited in Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy, 220.)

Jerome (347-420) on Romans 10:3: “God justifies by faith alone.” (Deus ex sola fide justificat). (In Epistolam Ad Romanos, Caput X, v. 3, PL 30:692D.)

Jerome (347-420): “He who with all his spirit has placed his faith in Christ, even if he die in sin, shall by his faith live forever.” (Cited in Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, 61.)

Chrysostom (349-407): For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent. (Homily on Ephesians 4.2.9.)

Augustine (354-430): If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? . . . Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.

Augustine (354-430): “When someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.” (Expositions of the Psalms 1-32, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31.)

Ambrosiaster (4^th century), on Rom. 3:24: “They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God.”

Ambrosiaster (4^th century), on Rom. 3:27: “Paul tells those who live under the law that they have no reason to boast basing themselves on the law and claiming to be of the race of Abraham, seeing that no one is justified before God except by faith.”

Cyril of Alexandria (412-444): For we are justified by faith, not by works of the law, as Scripture says (Gal. 2:16). By faith in whom, then, are we justified? Is it not in him who suffered death according to the flesh for our sake? Is it not in one Lord Jesus Christ? (Against Nestorius in Norman Russell, 165).

Cyril of Alexandria (412-444): “For truly the compassion from beside the Father is Christ, as he takes away the sins, dismisses the charges and justifies by faith, and recovers the lost and makes [them] stronger than death. . . . For by him and in him we have known the Father, and we have become rich in the justification by faith.” (Commentary on Hosea. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, p. 29.)

Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe (c. 467-532) commenting on Eph. 2:8: “The blessed Paul argues that we are saved by faith, which he declares to be not from us but a gift from God. Thus there cannot possibly be true salvation where there is no true faith, and, since this faith is divinely enabled, it is without doubt bestowed by his free generosity. (On the Incarnation, 1.)

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

By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight;
... But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested.
... For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
- Romans 3:20, 21, 28 -

Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly,
his faith is credited as righteousness.
... For this reason it is by faith,
in order that it may be in accordance with grace.
- Romans 4:4-5, 16 -

...knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law
but through faith in Christ Jesus,
even we have believed in Christ Jesus,
so that we may be justified by faith in Christ
and not by the works of the Law;
since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
- Galatians 2:16 -

The Patristic Consensus: Sola Scriptura

One of the classes I'm taking this summer is Historical Theology I. It's a church history course covering the events from Pentecost through the pre-Reformation period. One of the things that I've found mightily encouraging is that the historic core evangelical principles of sola Scriptura and sola fide are taught not only in Scripture, but also in the writings of the Church Fathers -- from the first, second, third, and fourth centuries.

See, a popular view of church history among Protestants (and even evangelicals) is that Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles believed like we do, but after the close of the canon the Church was infiltrated by Roman Catholicism and all faithfulness to Scripture was lost. Basically, the contemporary Protestant view of Church History seems to be that, aside from a few faithful followers, the Church basically "went Roman Catholic" until Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin liberated her from her Roman Catholic shackles in the 16th century.

But such a perception is far from accurate. The writings of the Church Fathers overwhelmingly support the central tenets of evangelical conviction. And a careful study of church history shows us that through the entirety of the past 2,000 years God has preserved a faithful remnant even in the most faithless of times.

Often, Roman Catholic apologists talk about there being a "Patristic Consensus," a unanimous agreement among the Church Fathers supporting the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Well, a balanced reading of the Fathers show that no such unanimity exists. The "early church" was not a homogeneous, cohesive, unified group of Christians, but rather a term that refers collectively to the disciples of the Apostles, the early apologists and polemicists, and second- and third-century theologians. And there is great variety among them. This has led Protestant apologists to call the notion of a Patristic Consensus a myth.

What's interesting, though, is that while the "early church" varied on many fine points of doctrine, if any sort of patristic consensus existed it was on the evangelical doctrines of sola Scriptura and sola fide. The following are some selections from the writings of the Fathers regarding sola Scriptura: that the Christian's authority is Scripture alone, and not the word of any pope, council, magisterium, or even church father -- even themselves!

And remember, while it's interesting and encouraging that these Fathers affirm sola Scriptura, their writings themselves do not establish sola Scriptura. As they will tell you themselves, they are not our authority; only Scripture is.

Irenaeus (c. 140–c. 202): We have received the disposition of our salvation by no others, but those by whom the Gospel came to us; which they then preached, and afterwards by God’s will delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and ground of our faith. [And so the Apostolic oral tradition is recorded for us in the Scriptures.]

Tertullian (c. 160–235): The Scriptures . . . indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith. (Against Praxeas, 11)

Hippolytus (c. 170–c. 236): There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Sacred Scriptures. For as he, who would profess the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise attain it, unless he read the doctrines of the philosophers; so whosoever will exercise piety towards God, can learn it no where but from the Holy Scriptures.

Origen (c. 185–c. 254): In the two testaments every word that pertaineth unto God may be sought and discussed, and out of them all knowledge of things may be understood. And if anything remains which Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third scripture ought to be received to authorize any knowledge, but we must “commit to the fire” what remains, that is, reserve it unto God.

Origen (c. 185–254): In proof of all words which we advance in matters of doctrine, we ought to set forth the sense of the Scripture as confirming the meaning which we are proposing. . . . Therefore we should not take our own ideas for the confirmation of doctrine, unless someone shows that they are holy because they are contained in the divine Scriptures (Homily 25 on Matthew).

Athanasius (c. 296–373): For the true and pious faith in the Lord has become manifest to all, being both ‘known and read’ from the Divine Scriptures. (Letter, 60.6)

Athanasius (c. 296–373): The holy and divinely inspired writings are sufficient of themselves alone to make known the truth.

Athanasius (c. 296–373): In the Holy Scriptures alone is the instruction of religion announced—to which let no man add, from which let no man detract—which are sufficient in themselves for the enunciation of the truth.

Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386): Do not then believe me because I tell these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures. (The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17)

Basil (c. 329–379): It is evidently a falling away from the faith, and a proof of great presumption, to neglect any part of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not written.

Chrysostom (c. 344–407): When there is a question of Divine things, would it not be a folly rashly and blindly to receive the opinions of others, when we have a rule by which we can examine everything? I mean the Divine law. It is for this reason that I conjure you all, without resting in the slightest degree on the judgment of others, to consult the Scriptures.

Chrysostom (c. 344–407): `Tis from ignorance of Scripture that all our evils arise; hence the plague of so many heresies, hence our careless lives, our fruitless labors .. . They err who look not to the bright rays of the divine Scriptures, because they walk in darkness.

Chrysostom (344–407): These then are the reasons; but it is necessary to establish them all from the Scriptures, and to show with exactness that all that has been said on this subject is not an invention of human reasoning, but the very sentence of the Scriptures. (Homilies on the Statues 1.14)

Augustine (354–430): In those things, which are plainly laid down in Scripture, all things are found, which embrace faith and morals.

Augustine (354–430): Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. (De Bono Viduitatis, 2)

Augustine (354–430): Let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other not from divine canonical books but from elsewhere. . . . I do not want the holy church proved by human documents but by divine oracles. (The Unity of the Church, 3)

Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–c. 466): Bring me not human reasonings and syllogisms, for I rely on the divine Scripture alone.

John of Damascus [c. 676–c. 760]: All things that are delivered to us by the Law, the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Evangelists, we receive, acknowledge, and reverence, seeking for nothing beyond these.

All Scripture is inspired by God
and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
- 2 Timothy 3:16-17 -

His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness,
through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.
- 2 Peter 1:3 -

So we have the prophetic word made more sure,
to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place,
until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
- 2 Peter 1:19 -

Piper, Wright, and Redemption

So my last post contended that polemical argumentation, rebuke, correction of error, etc. can be of great benefit to the Church, as it aids in the service of presenting Christ clearly to His people. This post includes some polemical argumentation, rebuke, and correction of error.

People may or may not be aware of the Justification debate going on between N. T. Wright and John Piper. If you're not aware of it, it may be a greater benefit to you that you continue to be unaware of it. But sadly, there are quite a few people confused by and even enamored with the erroneous conclusions that Wright has propounded about the framework of justification.

When I was away for the weekend on a mini-vacation a couple weeks back, I spent some time thinking about these things. I was recognizing that the thoughts that Wright is presenting are actually harming the body of Christ by leading some into confusion and perhaps others into shipwreck. And I believe I'm acting in service to you, to present to you your greatest benefit, when I warn you that N. T. Wright is simply wrong in this debate. You should not be confused. You should not be enamored.

With those thoughts fresh in my mind, I checked Between Two Worlds and found a link to a Christianity Today article in which Trevin Wax compiled snippets from both Piper and Wright on various aspects of the question of justification; e.g., the problem, the law, God's righteousness, etc.

Now, I haven't read everything Wright's ever written, and I'm not qualified to systematically refute the New Perspective on Paul. (Read The Future of Justification for a masterful response to Wright's teaching.) But what I read in this compilation is troubling. So I am going to comment on some of the things both men say in this compilation of their thoughts on the basics.

They both discuss "The Problem":

Piper: God created a good world that was subjected to futility because of the sinful, treasonous choice of the first human beings. Because of this offense against the glory of God, humans are alienated from their Creator and deserve his just condemnation for their sins.

I love it. It's plain. It's simple. A child could understand it. It's the bad news side of the Gospel that we've received.

Wright: God created a good world, designed to be looked after and brought to its intended purpose through his image-bearing human beings. This purpose was thwarted [um, Job 42:1-2?] by the sinful choice of the first human beings. Because of human sinfulness, the world needs to be put to rights again and its original purpose taken forward to completion. God's purpose in putting humans "right" is that through them, the world can be put to rights.

But what is that?

Lots of things could be said, but what I come away with here is that Wright seeks to make the focus of God's creative and redemptive acts the physical creation itself. Since we humans screwed it up, now we're the instruments through which God gets His creation back to how He wanted it. However, what does the Bible teach about God's purpose in redemption?

• 1 John 3:8 - ...the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
• 1 Timothy 1:15 - It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.
• 1 Peter 3:18 - For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God.
• Hebrews 1:3 - When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
• Titus 2:14 - who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

Indeed, the glory of His name is said to depend on the redemption of sinners:

• Isaiah 48:11 - For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.
• Ezekiel 36:22-23 - "It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went. I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD," declares the Lord GOD, "when I prove Myself holy among you in their sight."
• Isaiah 43:25 - I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake.

God's redemptive purpose certainly does extend to the creation (Rom 8:21), and indeed, "as far as the curse is found." But we see even in that passage that the primary object of redemption is God's flock, His elect, a people for His own possession, and that the creation anxiously longs for the revealing of the sons of God. Creation will be restored in order to give a glorified Bride and Her resplendent King a habitable dwelling for eternity.

These ideas are rooted in God's ultimate purpose, which Piper actually expresses quite nicely in the article.

The essence of God's righteousness is his unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of his name in all he does. ... All his acts are done in righteousness.

We are to realize that all God's acts are done in righteousness. And we are to realize that for an act to be done in righteousness it must be utterly committed to upholding the glory of His name. God, dear friends, is about glorifying Himself in all things. And that is great news.

But for His glory to be His ultimate end in creation, a "penultimate" end (so to speak) must not be to restore the physical creation, but instead to redeem a spiritual people. Why? Because that creation does not glorify Him in His fullness without serving as a manifestation of His glory.

But somebody says, "But the creation does manifest the glory of God!" And they're right (Ps 19:1; Rom 1:20)! But to what or to whom does the creation manifest the bountiful perfections of God? To God Himself? Well, sure. God beholds the goodness of His creation, sees the glory and the perfection and wisdom in His work, and enjoys the expression of His abundant beneficence (Gen 1:31). But I contend that the face of the Son, eternally reflecting the exact representation of the radiance of the Father's own glory (Heb 1:3; John 17:5) is a better instrument of manifesting the glory of God to Himself than the creation is.

No, the creation manifests the bountiful perfections of God to the creature, to human beings. God is not as glorified by someone (or something) who merely sees and reflects His beauty as He is by someone who sees, reflects, and rejoices in His beauty. God is not honored unless the perfection of His character is enjoyed and rejoiced in, because He's worthy of such praise. And such worship -- such delight of affections -- is impossible for the inanimate creation.

In God's plan of redemption, He's not just getting through us so He can have His world back all nice again. He is purifying for Himself, not a creation, not an earth, but a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds which reflect His own magnificence. That the creation will be restored is certainly another benefit of His mercy and grace. But His Bride is the apple of His eye (Zech 2:8), because it is in Her -- in the Church -- that His glory is put on fullest display.

...the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
- Ephesians 1:23 -

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
- Ephesians 2:4-7 -

...that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord.
- Ephesians 3:10-11 -