Forgiving those Who are Worthy of Forgiveness

Yes, that is what Jesus teaches. Many people have come to believe that forgiveness is like a blank check,

to be written out to any and all who have wronged us and other people. We imagine that this serves to

show how great God's mercy is, that it is unconditional and given out to all. But this really serves to

cheapen God's mercy, and to do what Jesus tells us not to do, to throw out the precious pearls of God's

mercy to swine. Yes, that is what Jesus calls people who are unworthy of his grace. These are people who

are told they are forgiven of a particular offense, but couldn't care less about the wrong they have

committed or the harm that they have caused. For them, forgiveness means nothing, because their sin

means nothing to them. They trample on grace like pigs trampling on rare and precious stones. They

laugh and mock and go on their destructive way.

This kind of cheap forgiveness does not honor God, nor truly love the person who loves to do harm to

others. Jesus is quite clear, we are to forgive those who are sorry for wrongs committed and want to do

things differently in with their lives. The Bible calls this “repentance”. This is what Jesus teaches in Luke

17:3,4, “Of your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven

times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him.”

This passage shows that we, as Christians, are called to do for others exactly what God has done for us

through Christ. God has forgiven the repentant. A Christian is a repentant person, a person who is sorry

for a way of life that is against God's design, and wants now to live for God's will. We are not forgiven by

God unless we repent and turn to his ways, then we are washed clean by Christ's blood and justified as a

son of God (Acts 2:38). God does not call us to do for others any more then what He has done for us. We

cannot be more righteous than God! As Jesus said, “It is enough for the servant to be like his master.” To

try to be better than God, is in reality, an act of pride that thinks we know a better way.

If God were to forgive a whole world that did not repent, then in reality He would not be loving the world

at all, He would be like an indulgent parent who passively watches his children follow self-destructive

ways. God withholds His forgiveness from a sinful world, until there is repentance. But he does not

withhold His love. It is true, forgiveness is an expression of love, but love transcends forgiveness. This

how the apostle Paul can write, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this; while we were still

sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). And how the apostle John can write, “For God so loved the

world, that he gave his one and only son...”(John 3:16). And how Jesus describes the Father as one who

loves his enemies (Matthew 5:43-48). Yes, God loves his enemies by continually showering on the world

his blessings of creation. We eat, we drink, we laugh and we love. He blesses from day to day, even those

who are indifferent to God and refuse to give Him the thanks and praise for our eating, drinking, laughing

and loving.

This is how God loves the world, but it it is not by forgiving them. Forgiveness is a special grace, given to

special people, who have come to realize that all their indifference to God is a great crime of ingratitude.

They have come to see that choosing their own way of living is wrong, and has caused harm to

themselves and others. These are people who, in biblical terms repent, and because they stand with God,

and against themselves, they become worthy of forgiveness. God blesses them by forgiving them their

ingratitude and self -willed ways. He washes them clean by the blood of His Son.

Those who sin against us and cause great harm, are not to be forgiven, but they are to be loved. When

they curse, we are to bless. In this way, the Spirit works for their good and ours. But our blessing is not to

be the special blessing of forgiveness. That can only be given when all our loving brings “the swine” to

the place of repentance, then they are no longer swine, worthy now of the precious grace of

forgiveness.

Crossing Over

Crossing Over From Death to Life

You will die one day, and that is a problem. Jesus came teaching that he is the solution to your death problem, and he had a surprising way of solving it. He solved your death problem by dying on the cross. But this begs a question: How can Jesus' death solve our death problem? First, we have to know that our death is God's penalty for our sin (Rom 6:23). This is why we all experience death. And this is why we all dread death and think of it as an enemy to our lives (1 Cor.15:26) But Jesus made the amazing statement that not everyone who dies, will die. God is giving you a chance to not die, but to live forever (John 11:25,26).

What did Jesus mean by saying that not all who die, will die?

Jesus came teaching that he himself is the answer to death and every other evil that we can imagine (John 6:35). He came teaching that he is God's solution to your sin and the spiritual and physical death that burdens you (Matthew 11:28). He spent his life teaching and showing what it means live a truly good life, and he did not hold back criticizing the way people live that hurt themselves and others. But he did not just come to criticize, he came to do something about our evil ways, he came die for the evil of mankind (John 12:27). His death was not a tragic accident, it was God's plan, so that you don't have to die for your sin. He took upon himself the punishment for your sin, and he experienced the death you deserve when He was crucified on the cross (John 3:16). Jesus' death was not the end of the story. On the third day after his death he rose again from the grave. This is an historical fact that proves Jesus did not just claim he was sent from God to save us (1 Corinthians 15:20). His resurrection from the dead also shows that he defeated death, and that he opened the way for our life after death (1 Corinthians 15:54,55). Jesus is “the way, the truth and the life”(John 14:6). This is what Jesus means when he says that he brings good news for you. The good news is that Jesus came so that you can cross over from death to life.

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life” (John 5:24).

Jesus was sent from God himself so that you could have this great gift of being be set free from evil ways, and then rising again from the grave and living forever with God, just as Jesus rose from the grave and is now alive with God the Father (Romans 6:8-10). So even though you will die like everyone will, you will rise again from the grave to eternal life.

How do I receive this gift from Jesus?

You are to receive this gift is by confessing your need for God's mercy and by turning away from evil ways and committing to live the way God wants you to live as taught by Jesus. The Bible calls this repentance. You need to commit to leave sinful ways and to following Jesus and his way of life. The Scriptures are God's teachings for you that you will need to begin to learn as you seek his way of life. As you do this, God promises to forgive all your evil ways and to give you his Spirit to guide you and lead you in following Jesus.

“Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him”(John 14:21).

Following Jesus is a Life-long Commitment.

In order to be forgiven of our sins forever, we must commit to following Jesus for our whole lives. This means, that we must commit to learning how God wants us to live in every aspect of our lives, our friendships, our jobs, and marriages (Ephesians 5:8-10). This too is good news, because God knows what is best for us and what will provide peace and joy in this life and the life to come. Also, in order to be forgiven of our sins forever, we must commit to following Jesus for the whole length of our lives, right up until our death (Hebrews10-35-39). God promises that if we don't give up, just like Jesus didn't give up, we will rise from the dead just like Jesus did and live with God forever with full joy and peace (Jude v.20-21). This earth will be re-made into a place of peace and prosperity for all who belong to God (Rev.21:4,5).

Jesus Promises to Always be With you as you Follow Him.

There will be days when this life-long commitment won't be easy. But Jesus promises to walk with you by His Spirit everyday of your life (Matthew 28:20). You enter into a “fight of faith,” but you will not be fighting alone. He will guide you and teach you as you join up with other believers in a faithful church. Also, you may experience times of failure, when old evil ways come back. Jesus promises to continue to forgive and cleanse you of these old ways as you live honestly before him, confessing your sins to him (1 John 1:9). God's mercy is available to you as you pursue this lifelong commitment (Matthew 5:7).

The First Step

The first step that Jesus asks us to take, as a sign of our repentance, is to be baptized in water by a faithful church (Acts 2:38). This is an important sign of your commitment. Jesus himself was baptized before he began his ministry for you. As you go into the water, this represents your cleansing from sin, you go in dirty, but you come out clean because of Jesus' death for you (1 Peter 3:21). As you come up out of the water, this represents new life, coming up from the grave and raised to a new life of living in God's ways (Romans 6:4) Your adventure of following Jesus begins!

“This is the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.” - The apostle Peter from Acts of the Apostles (10:36)

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life and will not be condemned, he has crossed over from death to life.” - Jesus Christ from the Gospel of John (5:24)

“May God bless you, and keep you,

the Lord make his face shine upon you

and be gracious to you;

the Lord turn his face toward you

and give you peace.”

Call Mark @ 1-508-496-876

Why Church Unity Matters…Alot!

It has been recently been called to my attention just how much the apostle Paul was focused on the

churches he served being unified in the faith. In fact, it is rare that he ever exhorts the churches to be out

witnessing, which is a common exhortation in today's church, but his teaching on church unity is a

dominant theme in his letters. Now, it is true, truth matters as well, and Paul was not so concerned with

unity that truth was the be nullified in its pursuit; He was not one to make peace with false teachers.

However, Paul understood truth or the growth of knowledge to be something that leads to ever-increasing

unity and not schism and division. This is clear from Ephesians 4:11-13,

“It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some the be evangelists, and some

to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may

be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become

mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

Notice how “unity in the faith” and “the knowledge of the Son of God” are coordinate with one

another. And as the church attains to this unity “the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” is then

expressed through the church's unified and corporate witness. This is indeed a grand vision. What I have

noticed however, is how the reverse tends to be true in our church experience. The more the knowledge

the sharper the differences, and many times with that the sharper the elbows between Christians. The

church divides and subdivides around ever more distinct and detailed understandings of Jesus Christ and

all the doctrines related to Him. But I jump ahead. I will come back next time to some proposals for a

possible way forward while holding to our conscientiously held doctrinal convictions , but for now it is

important for us to understand and embrace God's call for a unified church.

Probably the best place to start with a discussion of unity is a place most people start, and that is

with the Jesus' prayer to the Father for the disciples and all those who would follow them in the future.

Jesus prayed,

“My prayer is not for them alone. I also pray for those who will believe in me through their

message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you”(Jn.17:20,21).

Through this prayer, Jesus reveals a God-centered reason for the church's unity. The church is to

reflect God's unity. Jesus was one with the Father and the Spirit, they share perfect community of love and

mutual service. It is mutual service derived from love that forms the unifying bond for God. Jesus came to

serve the Father's will, the Father served Jesus in working for His glory. The Spirit bore witness to the

mutual love between Father and Son and is love personified. Here is why the church's unity is of such

importance, the church is to be the embodiment or manifestation of God's unity. We might say a corporate

image of God. Believers are to be one, just as the Father and Son are one. This is why the unity of the

church is a key witness that the Father sent the Son. Again, Jesus prayed,

“May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved

them even as you have loved me”(17:23).

The church in unity bears witness to God. Verse 23 also reveals that the church's love shows that

believers have been brought into God's unity, or fellowship with God. And just as God as a triune Being is

a God of love which results in mutual service so is the church to be characterized by love and mutual

service. This is to be central aspect to bearing witness to who God is. This helps us to see why this was so

important for the apostle Paul. This focus is reflected clearly in his letter to the church in Ephesus. In this

letter, the first three chapters focus on what God has done for His people. When we come to chapter 4,

Paul shifts the focus from what God has done for us to our mandate as His people. The emphasis here on

to the end is how we are to live in light of God's work on our behalf. Notice the very first thing Paul

focuses on,

“As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received.

Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep

the unity of the Spirit, through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were

called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all,

who is over all and through all and in all”(Eph.4:1-6).

Notice here how Paul exhorts behaviors that create peace with others in the church. He exhorts

humility, gentleness, patience, and these are the ways in which we are able to “bear with one another in

love.” Paul is a realist. He knows that differences between people will create tense and difficult situations

and relationships that must be borne with. He exhorts the church to take on relational attitudes and ways

of being that preserve unity and create “bonds of peace.” It is interesting to note, that Jesus, who is the

Son of God, who described Himself as “gentle and humble at heart” and for this reason with him we can

find “rest for our souls”(Matt.11:28,29). Likewise, the church is to strive to be a place where humans can

find relational rest and peace. It is not to be a place where there is contention, and bickering and gossip

and selfish ambition that creates animosity. Just as in God none of those things exist. God is a relational

paradise. The church is to seek to emulate that, to be a relational paradise where people can find rest as a

witness to God.

Despite what is stated above, someone will think, “Yes, and that is precisely why I don't belong to

a church, because it is not the relational paradise it is supposed to be.” What must be emphasized is that

this objection entirely misses the point. Paul fully recognized the reality of the human situation. He

knows sin is alive and well and the peace that God calls us to, with each other, will not be passively

realized. This is why Ephesians 4:1-6 needed to be written and then read over and over again. These are

things we are to strive for and fight for, because bearing with others will not come naturally. In fact, the

bitter fruit of contention and strife is what comes naturally to us all. We naturally, according to our sinful

nature, want to take offense and get away from others when we feel slighted or in any way uncomfortable.

We must not let the weeds take over the garden. Just as persistently as the crab grass sprouts up, from

morning to morning, it must be rooted out so the good fruit of peace can grow. The tragic irony is the

person leaves the church because there are people there who must be borne with! This is like the gardner

who sees the weeds and drops the hoe and walks away. It is the leaving that reveals, pride, impatience

and intolerance which breaks the bonds of peace in separation. Paul knew full well that loving the

brotherhood of believers would be a cross-bearing service to others, just as others loving him would be a

service to him. The church is the first place where the cross is to be borne. Jesus died for us so that we

would die for our brothers and sisters in Christ.

“Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if

you do what I command...This is my command: Love each other”(John 15:13,14,17).

So we are to love each other by laying down our lives, by giving up petty preferences, by being

willing to associate with all kinds of people. In this age, this means forgiving one another, and at times

mercifully confronting(rather than back-biting) one another so we can forgive and maintain the “bond of

peace.” This is how we manifest the relational paradise of God, while sin is in the world and in our hearts.

We don't give up on the garden because of weeds, and we don't give up on each other and cut each other

off. Just as a good friend or a spouse will see us at our best and worst and still maintain the relationship,

so we are to do that for each other. In that way we are a relational resting place. Through this we reflect

who God is for us as our merciful Lord. We show forth God's humility, patience, gentleness, mercy and

compassion as we exhibit those things for one another. And this may be why Paul talked about those

things alot more than he talked about talking to others about Jesus. Talk can be cheap, but the reality that

God brings about through His gospel is priceless, and enables the talk to mean something. As he said, “the

kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power”(1 Cor.4:20). The gospel is not just to be spoken but

embodied by the Body of Christ. This is why church unity matters...alot.

Martin Luther’s Minimalist Gospel

It has been asserted since Martin Luther that the gospel is singularly

the message of the cross. He distinguished between a "theology of glory" and

a "theology of the cross." A theology of glory is one that teaches man "to do"

or obey commands in order to be accepted by God. It is a theology of glory

because "to do" glorifies man before God as being worthy of meriting

salvation on the basis of obedience. Luther understood Roman Catholicism

and certain reformers as well to be putting forth a "theology of glory" which

can only lead to judgment and condemnation.1 In contrast, Luther understood

the biblical gospel to be not about our "doing" at all, but totally about God’s

doing for us. The gospel, for Luther, was a message that was not to be

obeyed, it was a message to be believed. The gospel is a message of God’s

saving action at the cross. It is a message of the penal substitutionary

atonement of Jesus Christ. Jesus died in behalf of our sins and we benefit

from His death by faith in His sacrifice for us and in His resurrection from that

death on the third day. This, for Luther, is a scandal to man’s pride who wants

to achieve his own redemption. The scandal of the cross is that there is

nothing at all for us to do, but believe. We are saved by "faith alone."

This view of Luther’s is elucidated clearly in his writings. In his short

treatise, A Brief Instruction on What to Look for in the Gospels, Luther writes,

"So you see that the gospel is really not a book of laws and commands which

require deeds of us, but a book of divine promises in which God promises, offers, and

gives all his possessions and benefits in Christ."

In his polemic work, Answer to the Hyperchristian, Hyperspiritual,

and Hyperlearned Book by Goat Emser in Leipzig - Including Some Thoughts

Regarding his Companion, the Fool Murner, Luther writes,

"Thus we see in a masterful way St. Paul teaches us how to understand

Christ, God’s grace, and the New Testament correctly - namely, that it is nothing but

[the story] of how Christ stepped into our sins, carried them on the cross in his flesh,

and destroyed them, so that all who believe in him are set free from sin through him

and receive the grace to enable them from now on the satisfy the law of God and the

letter that kills, and to live in eternity..............Now we see that all commandments are

deadly, since divine commandments are also deadly."

In Luther’s Preface to the New Testament he writes,

"The gospel, then, is nothing but the preaching about Christ, Son of God and

of David, true God and man, who by his death and resurrection has overcome for us

the sin, death, and hell of all men who believe in him.........See to it, therefore, that

you do not make a Moses out of Christ, or a book of laws and doctrines out of the

gospel......."

For Luther, the gospel is "nothing but" grace understood as unconditional

promise. Requirements and demands are not and cannot be part of the gospel

message. Luther scholar Paul Althaus describes Luther’s perspective,

"Law and gospel have completely different and even opposite functions. The

law demands that something be done or not be done; it accuses and condemns us

because we have acted or failed to act in a way contrary to its demands. The gospel

contains God’s promise in Christ. It proclaims that all the laws demands have been

met in Jesus Christ, that is, it preaches the forgiveness of sins."

It is this understanding of the gospel that shapes contemporary

evangelicalism. Our evangelistic efforts reflect Luther’s understanding of the

gospel. When "the gospel" is preached, sin is presented as the real problem

we all possess and the solution to that problem is faith in the death and

resurrection of Jesus Christ on our behalf. The "good news" is that Jesus died

for our sins, God is offering us the free gift of salvation and all we have to do

is believe. God has done it all in Christ, we just have to receive the free gift.

Once we believe, we then receive God’s gift of forgiveness and we have

assurance of our salvation. We are saved and assured of heaven in a moment.

On this understanding, the gospel is "good news" because there is nothing we

have "to do" but believe in what God has done. Typically, a person is then

strongly encouraged to read the Bible and attend a Bible-believing church.

However, they are not to do these things in order to be saved because,

according to this version of the gospel, reading the Bible and belonging to a

church are activities that are not necessary for salvation. To say that would be

a denial the gospel. Historically, this is where evangelicalism finds its

unifying center.

However, on the point of the importance of obedience, fellowship,

and the spiritual disciplines such as prayer and Bible reading following

salvation, evangelicalism splinters off into different viewpoints. For those

most concerned with protecting the purity of the "freeness" of the gospel, the

word "necessity" is never used. For them, nothing is needful but faith in

Jesus’ death in resurrection. Anything we do beyond that is pursuing "God’s

best" for us in this life and rewards in the next, but salvation itself is no longer

a concern. For this group it is possible to be a "carnal Christian," that is, to be

held captive by sin and still be considered a Christian, because after all, being

a Christian is fundamentally not about doing anything, but believing. For

them, to talk of the "need" for obedience, prayer, church attendance and Bible

reading is to compromise the purity of the gospel.

For other evangelicals, there is a desire to honor the parts of the Bible that seem to place obedience, fellowship, prayer

and Bible reading in very high regard. This group teaches that, while these

things are not necessary for salvation, they are necessary to prove that you are,

in fact, saved. So the emphasis is more pronounced on the necessity of

discipleship, not in order to be accepted, but to show that you have been

accepted. For a person to lack in obedience, Bible reading, prayer and church

attendance calls into question the validity of their faith.

The presentation of the gospel for both groups would be very similar

and reflects our reformation heritage from Martin Luther. The gospel is the

message of God’s gift of forgiveness in Christ to be received by faith alone.

The "good news" is not about Bible reading, obedience or church attendance,

because these are things we "do." This conception of the gospel is what unifies

all branches of evangelicalism. Evangelicalism has been faithful to Luther’s

conception of the gospel.

But was Luther correct about the gospel as it is

biblically defined? Is it true that the gospel is about, as he says, "nothing but"

God’s promise in Christ? To answer this question, we must go to the

Scriptures. What follows is a survey of key texts that employ the term

"gospel." What we must evaluate is how the biblical writers used the term

and what they meant by it. This is the surest way for us to determine if we are

using it in a way that corresponds to their understanding of the gospel

message. The first concern cannot be whether we are faithful to Luther or our

reformation heritage, as important as that may be, but whether we are faithful

to God in following Luther’s understanding, as our Lord reveals His will in

the Scriptures.

The Gospel According to Isaiah

We first see the use of the word "gospel" or "good news" in the Old

Testament. Isaiah 40:10 is part of a prophetic announcement concerning a

person who would come in the future and announce the gospel. What would

that "good news" be? It would be the announcement of the coming of the

Lord and all that the coming of the Lord would mean,

".....say to the towns ofJudah, ‘Here is your God!’ See the Lord comes with power and his arm rules

for him. See his reward is with him......."

Here we read that the "good news"

is the message of God’s future rule and the blessings that come with it.

The next place we read of the "gospel" is in Isaiah 52:7,

"How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who

proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to

Zion, ‘Your God reigns!’

The future prophet will bring the good news that

"Your God reigns." Once again we see that the lordship of God as the One

who reigns is synonymous with the "good news." We also see that God’s rule

will result in peace and salvation.

The next place we read of the "gospel" is in Isaiah 61:1,

"The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me, because the Lord has anointed me to preach

good news to the poor."

Once again, the future reign of God is in view and

this time the future blessings of God’s reign is emphasized. This future reign

will set captives free and punish the wicked with vengeance. The good news

is the glad tidings of God’s lordship and all the benefits His lordship brings to

His people. What we have seen thus far is that the gospel as understood by Isaiah

consisted in the proclamation of God’s lordship. "Your God reigns!" is the

gospel according to Isaiah, because it is God’s future rule that will bring with

it the blessings of salvation for His people and the punishment of all the

wicked. Of course this message of "good news" is elaborated on throughout

Isaiah. Isaiah’s prophecy is full of descriptions regarding what this future rule

would entail. Following Isaiah 52's explicit mention of "the gospel" you have

Isaiah 53 which prophecies a future suffering servant who would take upon

himself the sins of God’s people. Nowhere in Isaiah’s description of the

"suffering servant" is the word gospel used. However, it is clear that what we

have in Isaiah 53 is greater detail of how God’s future reign would bring

forgiveness of sins. So we can understand Isaiah 53 to be describing how it is

that God’s coming to His people is, in fact, "good news." It is good news

because the Lord will reveal Himself as a gracious, merciful and forgiving

God who will be able to "pass over" the sins of His people because of His

sacrificial atonement.

But that is not all. The gospel or good news of God’s future reign

also entails the giving of commands, of righteous laws given anew. This we

see in Isaiah 51:4,

"Listen to me, my people; hear me, my nation: The law will

go out from me; my justice will become a light to the nations."

In this passage we read that the law is understood to work "salvation" for God’s people.

"My righteousness draws near speedily, my salvation is on the way, and my arm

will bring justice to the nations."

In Isaiah 51:4 "the law" is announced as

God’s justice and is depicted as "going out" from God. The very next

verse follows this flow of thought and describes God’s righteousness as

drawing near speedily. So the law, or God’s justice goes out from God, which

is God’s righteousness drawing near to men and bringing salvation. As with

Isaiah 53, we do not see the word "gospel" used. But just as with Isaiah 53,

there is no reason to not see that in Isaiah 51 is the unpacking of what the gospel

is. So from Isaiah, we see that the gospel or "good news" is the message of

God’s lordship which brings with it salvation for God’s people. This salvation

is accomplished through the forgiveness of sins and the giving of God’s law as

a light to the nations. The important point for our consideration here, is that

the giving of commands as a light to the nations is to be understood as part of

the gospel, or "good news," of God’s future reign announced by Isaiah.

The Gospel According to John, Jesus and the Disciples

In the Gospels we read of John the Baptist’s proclamation of the "good

news." His preaching is described as a proclamation of the "gospel" in Luke

3:18, "And with many other words John exhorted the people and preached the

good news to them." We read that John’s preaching consisted in "proclaiming

a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."(Lk.3:3) In Matthew’s

Gospel, John’s proclamation is described as commanding repentance on the

basis of the fact that the kingdom of heaven is drawing near to them. "Repent,

for the kingdom of heaven is near."(Mt.3:2) John himself describes his own

ministry in which he "baptizes with water for repentance."(Mt.3:11) We get a

sense of how this was happening from Matthew 3:6, "Confessing their sins,

they were baptized by him in the Jordan river." So John was proclaiming the

"good news" of the coming kingdom and this proclamation demanded

repentance from God’s people. A public confession of sins and water baptism

was the public recognition of their need for forgiveness. This coincides with

the promised blessing announced by Isaiah in Isaiah 53. However, repentance

also includes a resolve to turn from sinful rebellion to doing God’s will. The

Old Testament backdrop, which prophesied this preaching of repentance is

found in Deuteronomy 30:1-3,

"....and when you return to the Lord your God

and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to

everything I command you today, then the Lord your God will restore your

fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the

nations where he scattered you."

Notice "returning to the Lord" means a new

resolve to obey him, to reject idolatry and sinful ways and to turn again to

God’s ways, then and only then will they find God’s compassion. This is

fleshed out in John’s ministry. John came preaching "repentance for the

forgiveness of sins." For John, and consistent with Deuteronomy, a renewed

resolve to obey God preceded the assurance of sins forgiven.

With Jesus we see this even more clearly laid out. The proclamation of

the Lord’s coming rule and reign, or the Kingdom, is equated with "the good

news."

"After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming

the good news of God. ‘The time has come,’ he said, ‘The kingdom of God is

near. Repent and believe the good news!’"(Mk.1:14,15)

Here we see the similarity with John’s preaching. The gospel or the "good news" is the

message of God’s coming rule or reign, or in short, his kingdom. Part of the

good news is the granting of the opportunity for repentance. Both John and

Jesus represent the gospel as consisting in the promise of compassion and the

demand for repentance, and it is equally clear that compassion would not be

found where repentance did not exist. The consistency with Isaiah’s message

is obvious and Jesus explicitly aligns himself as the subject of Isaiah’s

message.(Lk.4:14-21) Isaiah’s prophecy of the future proclamation of "good

news" included forgiveness of sins (Isaiah 53), but also with it is the

proclamation of God’s law being proclaimed as a "light to the nations."(Isaiah

51) John and Jesus’ "good news" of the kingdom included the promise of the

forgiveness of sins, but also required repentance and the production of the fruit

of obedience to God’s commands in keeping with it. The blessings of peace

with God would not be found apart from the demand to repent.

Jesus commissions the disciples to preach this "good news of God" as

well. He told them,

"As you go, preach this message: the kingdom of heaven

is near.’"(Mt.10:7) Luke adds, "So they set out and went from village to

village, preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere." (Lk.9:6)

What is remarkable in these passages is that the "gospel" is being proclaimed prior

to there being any knowledge of Jesus’ death and resurrection for the

forgiveness of sins. The way of God’s forgiveness had yet to be revealed.

This is clearly the case, as Luke describes the same gospel preaching disciples

being totally mystified by what Jesus meant concerning the prediction of his

coming death in Luke 18:31-34,

"The disciples did not understand any of

this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was

talking about."

How could they preach "the gospel" when they had no

conception of what Jesus’s impending death and resurrection was all about?

How could Jesus and John preach "the gospel" when Jesus’ substitutionary

atonement was not at all present in the message? They could if "the gospel"

is not limited to a message about Jesus’ death and resurrection for the

forgiveness of sins but also includes a more expansive proclamation of God’s

rule or reign in Christ, or in other words, about the Kingdom of God.

The post-resurrection preaching of the disciples is remarkably, but not

surprisingly, consistent with John and Jesus before them. We find this, among

other places, in Acts2:38 where Peter indicts his fellow Jews of being guilty of

killing the Messiah himself and they are "cut to the heart." They plead with

Peter for a solution in light of this tragic situation. As Luke describes it,

"Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ

for the forgiveness of your sins.’"

Once again, Peter commands repentance,

which is a turning from sinful rebellion and to allegiance to the Lord "for the

forgiveness of sins." From these events, and in Peter’s preaching, we are able

to discern the major elements of Deuteronomy 30:1-3. The comparisons

below makes this clear:

Dt.30:1, "When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come

upon you and you take them to heart....."

Acts 2:37, "And when the people heard this, they were cut to the heart..."

Dt.30:2, ".....and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and

obey him with all your heart.."

Acts 2:38, "repent, and be baptized..."

Dt.30:3, ".....then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have

compassion on you and gather you from all the nations where he scattered

you. Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the

heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back."

Acts 2:38,39, "...for the forgiveness of sins. And you will receive the gift of

the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are

far off- for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Through the post-resurrection preaching of the apostles, it becomes

clear how God can forgive our rebellion. He is able through the cross of

Christ. But it is equally clear that repentance, or renewed resolve to live by

God’s ways, is the means by which we gain from Christ’s substitutionary

atonement. In other words, the gospel proclaimed by Jesus, John and the

apostles included the demand for repentance, which means turning from sin

to God’s ways as expressed by His commands. This was the way God’s

people could be assured of receiving the blessings of God’s forgiveness.

So far, we can discern a consistent biblical witness that the good news

consists in the promise of the forgiveness of sins to be sure, but it also consists

in the "granting of" the demand for a whole hearted turning to the Lord’s

ways.

The Gospel According to Paul

The first words of the first chapter of Paul’s magnum opus, the letter to

the church in Rome, Paul describes his purpose as an apostle of Jesus Christ.

The proclamation of the gospel is his purpose. Paul begins this letter

introducing himself as "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an

apostle, set apart for the gospel of God which he promised beforehand

through his prophets in the holy scriptures..."(Rom.1:1,2). Paul sees himself

as continuing where Isaiah and others had left off. Or maybe it is better to say,

that Paul saw himself as one of those Isaiah was talking about who would

come in the future and proclaim, "Your God reigns!" Paul has been "set apart

for the gospel." He goes on to say in verse three that this gospel is

"concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his

resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord."

In this shorthand description of Jesus as the focus of the gospel the crucifixion is passed over

and he goes right to the resurrection as the crucial element which "designates"

Jesus as the Son of God. His final description reveals the reason why, as Paul

describes Jesus as "Jesus Christ our Lord." He is presently our Lord, and it is

the resurrection which uniquely makes this possible. Crucifixion alone cannot

make this possible. At best crucifixion without resurrection makes Jesus a

martyr for God, but in no way could he be considered as Lord. Resurrection,

however, establishes the fact of Christ’s present and very real lordship. This

connects Paul very nicely with Isaiah’s foretelling of the announcement, "Your

God reigns," but now filling it out with specific content with the risen Christ.

Paul now goes further and describes this risen Christ as the one through whom

the apostles have received their commission,

"through whom we have received

grace and apostleship for the obedience of faith for the sake of his name

among all nations."(v.5)

A mutually interpreting parallel statements become

evident as can be seen below:

Romans 1:1, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ set apart for the gospel of

God......."

Romans 1:5, through whom we have received grace and apostleship for the

obedience of faith......"

This helps us to discern what Paul understood to be the task and goal

of gospel proclamation. It is to bring the nations into obedience to the risen

Christ who is in fact Lord. The good news is that God himself, the risen Lord,

is calling all nations to Himself. As we saw in Isaiah 53, this good news

includes how it is God can receive rebels and enemies without destroying

them. It is because He Himself becomes the "once for all" sacrifice of

atonement.(Rom.6:10; Heb.7:27; 1 Pet.3:18) But this good news also includes

obedience to God’s law as a light to the nations. God provides the way back,

but He also provides a way of being in coming back or "returning" as

Deuteronomy describes it. This way of being is also "good news" as it is a call

of grace and freedom from sin’s power and a call to righteousness.

This makes sense of Paul’s desire to preach "the gospel" to the

believers in Rome. Paul is not saying he plans on preaching Christ’s

substitutionary atonement over and over and nothing else, as crucial and

central as this part of the gospel is. This makes Paul’s letter as a whole a

Gospel letter. It is the gospel according to Paul, just as Mark’s record of

Christ’s life and teaching is a Gospel book.(Mark 1:1, "The beginning of the

gospel about Jesus Christ..." ) He wants to preach the gospel to believers, not

just to remind them of the necessity of Christ’s death, although surely he did

that, but also preach the commands of God that brings about the obedience of

faith as a "light to the nations" for the glory of God.(Isaiah 51:4)

The Deficiency of Luther’s Understanding

From this survey of biblical texts having to do with "the good news of

the kingdom," it becomes clear that Luther’s view is deficient at key points.

Luther failed to grasp the biblical fact that "the good news" of the kingdom

included the commands of God that were to be done by faith.

(Rom.1:5;16:25,26) This failure to see this led Luther to make the false claim

that the "gospel" was "nothing but" a message of promise in Christ. He failed

to appreciate the fact that the gospel of the kingdom is a "light to the nations"

not only in what it provides by way of promise(Isaiah 53), but also what it

requires by way of commands.(Isaiah 51/ Mt.5-7) These commands in Christ

are just as much "the righteousness of God in the gospel"(Rom.1:16/ Isaiah

51) as the promised provision of Christ’s atonement. This biblical reality has

been appreciated more recently by such writers as Herman Ridderbos who can

say,

"In Jesus’ commandments, also, it is God himself who sanctifies his name

and saves his people. Good works issue from his sovereign fatherly decree and from

his powerfully effective fatherly communion. The radical demand, the positing of

conditions, the promise of reward, proceed from the Father’s will of salvation and are

borne by it. In the form which these things are included in the gospel they belong to

the new covenant that has begun with the coming of Christ, to the gift of sonship in

the kingdom of heaven."

Likewise, Dietrich Bonhoeffer breaks with his Lutheran tradition with

these assertions;

"Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift

which we must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is

costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus

Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives man

a man his only true life."

Bonhoeffer asserts that "the gospel" is costly grace, a grace that calls

us to follow Jesus Christ. The grace of the gospel is, in fact, the

commandment of Jesus to follow in his ways. From the above statements, it

seems quite clear, that both Ridderbos and Bonhoeffer make decisive breaks

with their own reformation heritage from Luther, who taught that the grace of

the gospel can be "nothing but" the promise of God held out at the cross.

From the biblical evidence it seems equally clear that both of these men have

views that more accurately reflect the biblical view of the gospel.

Of course, the ramifications of this observation is both striking and far-

reaching for evangelical theology and in consequence, for it’s evangelistic

proclamation of the gospel. If this view of the gospel is correct, then it must

be concluded that evangelical proclamation of the gospel which understands

faithful "gospel" preaching to be "nothing but" a message of God’s promised

mercy at the cross is a serious distortion of the truth. What has been

characterized as "faithful preaching" has been a tragic misrepresentation of

God’s will in the proclamation of His gospel. The great fear in evangelicalism

since Luther is that we "add to the gospel." This, of course, we must never

do. However, it must be considered with sober biblical reflection whether

evangelicalism in its zeal to not add to the message, has in fact suppressed

crucial elements of it. This was the claim of Dr. C van der Waal,

"To say that the new covenant knows no conditions, is to rob the gospel of its

obligatory character. In the established churches as well as on the mission field, this

antinomianism has caused great harm. An easygoing Christianity has evolved, which

has never learned to come to terms with life, since salvation is a fact anyway. The

indicative has become vague and therefore there no ears are left to hear the

imperative."

It is certain that we must fear adding to what God has said. This cannot be

disputed and must be a constant warning to the church. It is also easy to show,

though beyond the purpose of this paper, that Roman Catholicism is guilty of

this charge in quite radical ways. Clearly, however, this is not the only danger

to the church. The apostle John’s warning to his readers reflects this reality;

"I warn everyone who hears the words of prophecy of this book: If anyone

adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And

of anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from

him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book"

(Rev.22:18,19)

John’s immediate concern is for his composition, the book of

Revelation, as it has been given by God. But if John was instructed to issue

this warning concerning one book in the canon, is it not reasonable to

conclude that the warning extends to the gospel message as it is revealed

through the entire canonical witness? From Paul, this seems very reasonable,

who states,

".......even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel

other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned"

(Gal.1:8)!

If this view is correct, that the gospel consists in the giving of

commands as well as the promise of forgiveness, then we must reconsider

what it is we present to the world as the gospel. We must follow faithfully in

the footsteps of Isaiah, John, the apostles and Jesus Christ Himself. It is safe

to say, that if we cannot bring ourselves to say what they said then in our

"gospel preaching" now, then we may be in step with contemporary

evangelicalism, but we are out of step "with the Spirit" and the very Scriptures

we claim to be faithful to. This is relatively easy to show. In contemporary

preaching it is common-place to offer the forgiveness of God won by Jesus at

the cross by believing Jesus "died for you" on the cross. The good news is

presented as consisting in the freeness of the gift, as understood to be that all

you have to do is believe you are sinner and Jesus died for you. Some

traditions have you come forward to the front of the "gospel meeting" and

others see themselves as trusting the Spirit to work as they let you go your

way to deal with God in your own way and "as He leads." But the unifying

center in both traditions considers it central to the gospel that the offer is free

of all conditions but believing. It is by "faith alone" that the benefits of

Christ’s atonement are gained.

But what would it sound like to stand in front of our "gospel meetings"

and preach like the apostle Peter? We certainly need to do what he did, and

chronicle the guilt of mankind against God. Sin is the issue, we have indeed

gone our own way. God’s judgment is certain and He has resolved to wipe

from the face of the earth all those who continue to rebel against Him in sin.

Hell is the future for all those who continue to go their own way. Everyone

stands in agreement here. Let’s imagine that people, by the grace of God are

"cut to the heart" and afraid for their lives. Now comes the crucial moment of

presenting God’s solution. We now stand as the people Isaiah prophesied

about who would announce "good news" to the world. Here is the crucial

question that determines our faithfulness. Would we be able to say with

Peter, "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins!" In other words,

would we be able to say what follows? -

"Turn now from your rebellious ways and to the ways of God. Take

yourself off the throne of your life, and recognize Jesus as your one and only

Lord. Show your resolve through baptism, enter the waters of baptism to show

your need for God and His ways. This is what God Himself commands for the

forgiveness of your sins. If you do this, if you resolve to leave the ways of sin

and rebellion, and follow the ways of the Lord all the days of your life, then

and only then will you be freed from the destructive tyranny of sin which

promises only death, and then and only then will you stand forgiven of your

rebellion and sin, you will be showered with the blessing of God’s mercy.

Jesus’ own blood will cover you from His sacrificial death at the cross. No

longer will God find you guilty of your sins, but innocent because of His death

for you. Not only will you find forgiveness today, but you will find His mercy

new everyday as you continue to turn from sin to His gracious ways- this

promise is for you and your children and all whom the Lord our God will

call. Will you serve the ways of sin that lead to death and eternal destruction,

or the ways of life, the way of the Lord that leads to life? Jesus Himself said,

‘I am the way and the truth and life, no one comes to the Father but by me."

Decide now who it is you will serve!"

My hunch is that contemporary evangelicals would take offense at

many aspects of the above presentation of the gospel. But the objections

would not be because the above statement is out of step with Peter, or Jesus, or

John, or Isaiah. What is written above is simply an unpacking of what Peter

himself preached. It is an exposition of what Peter meant by "repent" and

"baptism" as the means by which the benefits of Christ’s cross for

the"forgiveness of sins" is obtained. Of course, someone can object that this is

simply my interpretation of what Peter meant. This objection can be tested

biblically by simply asking what the biblical writers meant by "repent." If it is

shown that "repent" means turning from our sinful ways to God’s righteous

ways, then the above statement is shown to be quite accurate in its exposition

of Peter’s preaching. The fact is, "repent" is commonly recognized by

evangelicals themselves as meaning precisely that. The biblical witness is

quite explicit in the regard and only a desire to escape this predicament can

lead to any other conclusion. This of course paints them into a corner. If this

is what repentance means, then objections to the above interpretation

evaporate. The question now becomes one of humility. Are we willing to

question the way things have been done in the past? Do we fear the Lord

more than the difficulties to be faced as a result of embracing the biblical

understanding of the gospel? It seems that this has always been the crucial

question for God’s people. It becomes a question of repentance and the

willingness to do so. Will we leave our "own ways" in order to follow His in

the proclamation of His truth?

May our Lord bless His church and His gospel through serious, earnest

and sober reflection on His truth as revealed by His Word. May God humble

His servants and give eyes to see and ears to hear His Word in all its clarity

and truth.

1Luther rejected Zwingli because the Swiss reformer’s understanding

of the Lord’s Supper involved notions of covenantal fidelity to Jesus. This, for

Luther, compromised the purity of the gospel as God’s action for us and

nothing else. The Supper is the Gospel made visible. This was why breaking

fellowship with Zwingli over the Supper was not understood as trifling over

details, but about the gospel itself.

2Ed.Timothy Lull, Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings. p.107

3

Italics are mine

4

Ibid. p.84

5

Ibid. p.115

6Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther. p.256

7This is not an exhaustive survey analyzing every occurrence of the

word, though that would be a fascinating study. This is not necessary to get at

the intended meaning. I have chosen important passages in Isaiah, the

Gospels, and from Paul’s letter to the Romans. These passages are important

because in each instance the word "gospel" is used to describe God’s

covenantal relationship to His people.

8The reformed tradition has wrestled with how to think about repentance given their

commitment to "faith alone." One of the first confessions, the Lutheran Augsburg Confession

of 1530, understands repentance to consist in contrition and faith as follows, "Now repentance

consisteth properly of two parts: One is contrition, or terrors stricken into the conscience

through the acknowledgment of sin; the other is faith, which is conceived by the Gospel, or

absolution, and doth believe that for Christ’s sake sins be forgiven, and comforteth the

conscience, and freeth it from terrors. Then should follow good works, which are fruits of

repentance." Here repentance is understood as a product of faith, just as it is a product of fear.

This seems to be an accurate representation of the biblical testimony. However, Lutheran

tradition, presumably recognizing the danger this understanding poses to "faith alone," begins

to state its case differently with the Formula of Concord of 1576 as follows: "We believe,

teach, and confess that, although antecedent contrition and subsequent new obedience do not

appertain to the article of justification before God, yet we are not to imagine any such

justifying faith as can exist and abide with a purpose of evil, to wit; of sinning and acting

contrary to conscience." (Article 3 part 8) With this understanding, faith no longer comes

under the heading of repentance (antecedent contrition) as with Augsburg, but stands apart

from faith as a separate entity which coincides with the "new obedience." In other words,

here, "antecedent contrition" does not "consist in" faith as with Augsburg, but is a necessary

appendage to it. The reformed Westminster Confession of 1647 uses very similar language as

follows: "Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached

by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ."(Ch.15 part 1) "Although

repentance be not rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of this pardon thereof,

which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ, yet is it of such necessity to all sinners that none

may expect pardon without it."(Ch.15 part3) Once again, repentance is partitioned from

justification as it is deemed an "evangelical grace" (a post-conversion grace) and asserted as

not "any cause of this pardon thereof." The important point for this paper, is that Peter’s

statement, "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins" is rendered confessionally

inaccurate because "antecedent contrition....does not appertain to the article of justification

before God" and the Formula of Concord in its rejection of false dogma makes the assertion

that justification appertains to "nothing but" the forgiveness of sins!(Article 3 part 3 under

antithesis) So Peter’s statement, "Repent (have antecedent contrition) "for the forgiveness of

sins"(justification) is confessionally wrong. This progressive move to isolate faith in Christ’s

satisfaction of God’s justice at the cross, and not in a change of life(repentance) for the

forgiveness of sins (justification) would appear to have moved us confessionally away from

apostolic preaching of the gospel.

9How this phrase is to be taken is greatly contested. It could be understood either as

"the obedience which is faith or as "the obedience which derives from faith." The first

identifies faith as the obedience required(a genitive of apposition), the second understands

faith to be the source of consequent obedience. (a genitive of source) As always, we must

suppress the urge to quickly choose the option that best supports our theology and let context

lead us to the best option. I prefer the second option due to Paul’s very similar statement in

Romans 15:18. "For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has

accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience - by word and deed...." Prior to

this statement, Paul describes this as "the priestly service of the gospel."(v.16) After this

statement Paul states that this "fulfills the ministry of the gospel."(v.19) Paul describes

bringing the Gentiles to obedience as making the Gentiles an "acceptable offering, sanctified

by the Holy Spirit."(v.16) Paul then concludes his letter by stating, "but now has been

disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations (Gentiles),

according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith"-

(Rom.16:26). When all the evidence is gathered, the most likely conclusion is that Paul sees

the gospel as that which "sanctifies" the nations (Gentiles), or leads them to be obedient to

God- an obedience derived from faith. This aligns with Paul’s similar, yet more obvious, use

of the genitive of source elsewhere.( 1 Thess. 1:2 - "work of faith and labor of love and

steadfastness of hope..") Interestingly, Thom Schreiner argues for a "both/and" understanding

of Paul’s statement. He argues that Paul means both obedience as faith, and obedience

derived from it.

10Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom p.252

11C van der Waal, The Covenantal Gospel. p.103

Becoming a Christian

The decision to become a Christian is the most important one a person can make. In becoming a

Christian, you go from having God against you because of the guilt of your sins to having God for you

because your sins are forgiven. You go from entering each day full of uncertainty about your life, to being

full of certainty that whatever happens God himself has prearranged it for your good and ultimate

happiness. You go from confusion about what is right and what is wrong and even despairing that there

are such things, to being endowed with wisdom from God himself about the true

nature of good and evil. You go from dreading a future in which death is certain and God's hot anger is

poured out on you forever, to a future full of the joy of God's pleasure. In short, to become a Christian is to

emerge from the oppressive darkness and corruption of this world, and enter into the light and purity of

God's holiness and goodness. To become a Christian is to step into another world.

God, through Jesus Christ his son, is calling those who are lost in darkness to follow him. However, you

must be warned that this will not be an easy thing. God offers forgiveness of all your sins and the promise

of an eternal future in his glorious new world. The offer is astounding in its magnitude. However, God

requires that you learn how to live in his way. You are to no longer do what is right in your own eyes. God

requires that you submit to his will in every aspect of your life. Of course, to do this you must believe that

God has revealed his way of life through Jesus Christ his son and nowhere else. You must also understand

that this is not a bad thing, that God is the designer and creator of human life, so he knows what is best for

you. In following Jesus Christ, you have God as your Father in heaven, and Jesus is now your King. In

following the ways of God, you have God as your friend and ally. Because of your commitment to honor

God with your life, God promises to honor you. Like a good friend, He will forgive sins as you are

honest with him and admit faults and resolve to pursue his ways. God is gracious with honest and humble

people, but severe and angered by the dishonest and fake.

This call to follow Christ will not be easy, because deep inside you want to be your own master. You will

have to contend against your own desires for ways that are not God's ways. This will require a firm belief

that God is one who can be trusted with your life. This call will not be easy, because you will be

surrounded by people who will think you are foolish to believe in Jesus Christ, that he is your King and

God is your Father in heaven. They will ridicule you for not sinning in the ways they are accustomed to.

Jesus was ridiculed, and promised that those who followed him would be too.

The adversarial power of your own heart and the opposition of people will have to be overcome. Holiness

means war as long as sin and evil exists. But God promises to be with you through it all as you remain

faithful to him. He promises his presence by his Spirit to give you strength to press on. To those who

press on in faithfulness to God, God himself promises life everlasting in His glorious new world free of

sin and evil and death.

How do you begin this journey? The first thing to do is commit to God to turn from sinful ways and turn

to God's ways through repentance. Then you must find a faithful church, a group of believers to join up

and follow Christ with. Through the church you must be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. This stands

as a public sign of God's forgiveness for you and your commitment to him. Then you must begin to learn

about God's will for your life through the teachings of Jesus Christ. You must study and pray and draw

near to God. He will now be your strength and protector as you seek his ways.

May God bless you as you hear his call and follow!

A Pietist’s Very Holy Ode to Uno

Uno, Uno that Innocent game,

We take cards away but it is a game just the same,

To play and to win is the point of it all,

It is one small step to a gigantic fall,

To “Skip” and to “Reverse” is mean so they say,

But isn't it mean to play rather than pray?

The time spent in frivolity is lost forever,

Scripture not memorized is tragically gone, time to be recovered- NEVER!

Teaching minds while they are young,

That time can be wasted with frivolous fun,

Better to burn those death dealing cards,

Than play rather than pray- and become spiritual retards,

Uno, Uno, that Innocent game,

So says the devil with a very sly grin,

Better to go all the way and drink a bottle of gin,

Because sin is sin and it is all just the same,

Innocence lost through a devious death dealing game,

First comes Uno, its no problem they say,

Then comes Blackjack, My Hope is for 21 today,

Then comes Poker, its all in good fun,

Then its to the bus for Foxwoods my feet will surely run!

Uno, Uno that Innocent game,

I would rather see you burn,

Than take my death dealing turn,

Oh, those poor wretched deceived wicked debauched wanton lazy frivolous slackers,

Wanting to play rather than pray- what odious spiritual hackers!

Oh, that the children would rise up,

and rebuke Mom and Dad,

Who would incite such ruin,

and go to bed glad,

It is time to crusade, and hit the floor running,

Storm the Walmarts, Targets, those dealing consumers this death wielding game,

As the devil would treat us lets treat them the same,

Lets burn and pillage and show them our zeal,

Our Innocence, and Religious superiority, You will not steal!

If you love god, you will hear our call,

Uno, Uno, that worm eaten game,

Your time has come, incur your blame,

I hate you, I hate you, in a high holy way,

Into ashes you will go, and plead to god you will stay,

So light up the matches,

there is no time to lose,

Wake up the lost from their play drunk snooze,

Offer to god a sacrifice of praise,

As we smell the plastic smoke,

and peer through the haze,

What Liberty! What joy! What high holy fun!

In circles we will dance, to our grim god we will run,

What could be better,

Than to take such a stand,

A world rid of Uno, now THAT will be grand!

By,

Mark( the humblest sinner that I personally know of) Skillin

Following Jesus Means Joining a Local Church

I was reading Ephesians this morning in my personal devotions, what an amazing letter this is, and

for so many reasons! But what struck me this morning was the culmination of Paul's prayer for the saints

in Ephesus, that they “may know him better (1:17).” Not that there is anything wrong, in particular, but

that the Christian life is one of progressing in our understanding of God and the “the riches of his glorious

inheritance in the saints.” Then Paul concludes this section by proclaiming God's ability to answer this

prayer for the saints according to His previous work in exhalting Christ “above all rule and authority,

power and dominion, and every title that can be given.” He further states, as a way to boost our

confidence in God, that “God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over

everything for the church” (1:22). This is the part that that amazes me. Jesus is exhalted over everything

for the good of His people, the church. He rules over everything, and so everything must in some way,

serve the purpose of building up His Body. There is much that could be said about this, but what I want to

focus on here is God's exaltation of the church. The church is central to God's work in Christ.

If the church is so central to God's work in Christ, then it has to be asked why the church has

become so marginalized in the mind of many evangelicals today. The church has become an after-thought.

For many, what really matters is personal devotions and a heart-felt commitment to Christ, not

membership in a local church. This can even be a point of spiritual pride. A person can feel so “liberated”

in Jesus, so “awakened” by God's free grace, that they are beyond any “guilt trip” about joining a local

church. I would propose on the basis of the apostolic authority of Paul's letter to Ephesus, that heart-felt

and mind-filled commitment to Christ includes a commitment to a local church, as a visible manifestation

of the universal Body of Christ. I would propose that Christ has freed us from sin, but has made us “slaves

of righteousness” and that it is a righteous thing to love His Body, the church. Paul rejoices over the

church in Ephesus because of their “love for all the saints”(1:15).

The first thing to note about Paul's letter, is that it is written “to the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ

Jesus”(1:1). This is not a letter written first and foremost for personal devotions. This was written for

public reading in the gathering of believers. The saints in Ephesus were not just a collection of individuals

scattered throughout the city worshiping God in their own way. They were individuals who expressed

their love for Christ in many ways, certainly in personal devotions, but also by gathering together as a

collective, to serve one another and to hear apostolic words.

Secondly, the idea of a collective is contained in the word “church” itself. The “church” did not begin

with the calling of Jesus' disciples, the word “church” comes from the Greek word ecclesia. That word

occurs throughout the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) in reference to the public gathering of God's

people. It was impossible to consider yourself part of the people of the covenant, yet refuse to attend

her public gatherings. Of course, with the New Covenant, the church consists of people from every tribe

and nation. We must also think of the church in a universal sense. However, it is a biblical impossiblity to

think of yourself as part of the universal church, while willfully neglecting a commitment to her local

manifestation. We cannot say we are part of the universal church, while refusing to participate in her

local and physical presence. This is like saying “I love God” while hating your brother. As the apostle

John wrote, “For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he

has not seen”(1 John 4:18). Whoever does not love the local body of Christ, which he has seen, cannot

love the universal body of Christ, which he has not seen.

This supposed love for the universal Body of Christ, while remaining aloof and uncaring about the local

Body of Christ is a fiction, a dream. It is a love for your own imagination about an ideal community of

your own creation. This spiritual dream does not require anything from you, you don't need to “bear with

each other” or “forgive grievances you may have against one another” or “carry each others burdens, and

in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.” How many people have turned away from a local Body of

Christ because of its troubles? Because to belong to her, they would have to do the very things Paul

commands us to? The church has never been a dream, an ideal invention of the human imagination. The

church has always been a real gathering of people with real problems, and real sin to overcome. No one

knew this better than the apostle Paul, but even the disciples, while following Jesus Himself, argued

among themselves about who would be the greatest. Would we dare turn away in disgust, feeling

ourselves to be in some way superior?

There will be some who contend that they do meet with Christian friends for Bible study and prayer on a

periodic basis, and this satisfies the biblical mandate for gathering as the church. Meeting with friends for

Bible study and prayer is a good thing, as are personal devotions, but it is not what Paul means by the

gathering of the church. This is another sort of “dream” community. This community has no elders or

deacons, it has no authority that the apostles mandate for the building up of the church. Paul is clear that

these servants are a necessary component of the local church. In these informal and ad hoc communities,

there is no one to require biblical fidelity of another, there is no authority to whom we must submit. To the

free spirit, this is all well and good, but it is not the church. These ad hoc communities do not require of

us what the gathering of people from all walks of life requires of us. Elders and deacons may not be our

friends, they have their own personality quirks that need to be borne with. They are not what we imagine

in our dreams. For this it is easy to click on YouTube sermons from gifted orators of our own choosing.

These are not bad things, but it is not ths same thing as submitting to eldership in a local Body. The

teaching elder may be more or less gifted in his oratory or have a more or less likeable personality. For

Paul, this was not the central thing. Neither should it be for us.

For God, the church is central, because it is the manifestation of Christ on earth. God exhalts the church

accordingly, and we should as well. To follow Jesus Christ is to have personal devotions, to meet with

friends for prayer and Bible study and last but by no means least, bind ourselves to a local Body of Christ

as an expression of our commitment to Him. Let us not despise what our Lord exhalts! So let's grow and

in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, and commit to a local church.

A Letter To A Roman Catholic Teacher

I have written this response to your lectures. It was good for me, as an evangelical, to sit under a faithful

representation of Roman Catholic belief. I salute your integrity as a Catholic, being true to what you

espouse. You are a well-prepared and gifted teacher and it was a pleasure to listen to you. However, there

are some points I would like to raise with you for further discussion. I was hoping there would be an

open-ended meeting for question-answer, but maybe a personal conference would be better. After you

have a chance to review these points, I would like to get together to discuss them if you are able.

First, it is worth noting that there were significant parts of your lectures, such as Session 1 in which we

would be in total agreement. Who Christ was and is, is an issue that is not in dispute. However, significant

disagreement enters the scene when you discuss how it is we now relate to this Christ. This, of course, is

just as crucial as the doctrine of Christ's person. Because as Jesus Himself says, many will say to him

“Lord, Lord,” but will not have related to Him in the way He himself has proscribed. Secondly, and as

you have been able to tell from our website, we have no dispute with “justification by works” as do many

of our fellow evangelicals. So, once again, we would be in substantial agreement on that point. However,

the issue then becomes what works are to be done in faithfulness to Jesus Christ our divide

becomes apparent.

1. Peter as the Rock: First, I(and many evangelicals) have no dispute with Jesus calling Peter the rock on

whom the church is to be built. This is clearly Jesus' intent as He talks to “Peter” which means “rock.”

Only reactionary evangelicals would deny this. I have run into this myself, when one baptist deacon

suspected me of compromise with Catholicism because of my interpretation! However, we must

remember that it is not insignificant that it is in response to Peter's confession that Jesus attributes Peter's

significance for the future of the church. A short time later Jesus would call Peter “Satan”, once again in

response to his confession, this time a false one (“Never Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to

you!”). We must hold the two together--evangelicals emphasize the confession aspect of Peter's

significance, and Catholics the person/office aspect. A larger view of biblical context shows that Peter's

person/office significance rests on his fidelity regarding his confession. In other words, Jesus never

conceives of Peter being “the rock” on which the church is built regardless of his fidelity to the truth. It is

in response to Peter's faithful confession that Jesus elevates Peter. And it is in response to Peter's infidelity

in which he declares him in league with the one who seeks to destroy the church, namely Satan.

As you have acknowledged, and history clearly shows, there are many popes who have had no regard for

the truth of Christ. There have been infamously ungodly men who have sat “in the chair of Peter.”

Because the Catholic church emphasizes the person/office of Peter over the confession, you would still

recognize these evil men (in league with Satan) in the line of Peter who has legitimate jurisdiction over

the church of Christ. This, we would say, is way beyond the scope of what Jesus meant in Matthew 16.

What Jesus clearly meant was that Peter, as he faithfully follows Christ, will be “the rock” on whom the

church is built. Evangelicals are correct to join the confession with the person. This passage is also

prophetic, in that Jesus in effect states that Peter will be faithful to Christ (and not a greedy and lustful

man) and so be the type of man the church can be built on.

Biblical history shows that the early church regarded Peter to be respected only in so far as he was faithful

to Christ. As I mentioned in one meeting, the manner in which Paul confronted “the rock” is only

conceivable if Paul himself understood Peter's confession to be central in fulfilling his role. It is quite

clear, that Paul was willing to part with Peter himself if Paul found him, “the rock”, to be unfaithful to

Christ's gospel. If Peter possessed the role of being “the rock” regardless of his confession but simply by

his person/office, then Paul's attitude toward Peter is inconceivable. Galatians 1 and 2 reveals an apostle

who regarded himself to not be dependent on Peter in any way. In fact, that is one of the purposes of

Paul's writing. To show that “I did not receive the gospel from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I

received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”(1:11,12) What he received, he did not receive from Peter. In

fact, he makes a special point to write that when he received the gospel he “did not consult with any man,

not did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was...”(1:16). He makes a special

point to let churches know that he did not consult Peter and the others! In fact, he singles out Peter as one

he met 3 years after receiving this revelation from Christ and that meeting was for only 15 days. Why

would he mention the 15 day period? The whole context shows Paul's concern to demonstrate his lack of

dependance on “any man”- including Peter “the rock.” Fifteen days are mentioned to show that this

period was inconsequential for what Paul has come to know regarding the gospel. This sets up Paul's

willingness to confront Peter and the other apostles regarding faithfulness to the confession of Christ in

chapter 2. Paul is quite forward on this when he states that he went to Jerusalem “to set before them the

gospel I preach among the Gentiles.” Who is “them?” It becomes clear “they” are the apostles Peter and

the rest. He goes on, “But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was

running or had run my race in vain.”(2:2) Those who “seemed to be leaders” are the same ones who are

“reputed to be pillars” in 2:9, namely James, Peter and John. Paul was going to Jerusalem quite prepared

to dress down “those who were apostles before he was” and on whom he had absolutely no dependance in

regard to gospel he preached. In fact, he was concerned that “those who were apostles before he was,

those who seemed to be important, and reputed to be pillars,” would be the very ones to undermine Paul's

faithful preaching and so cause his ministry to be in vain! It is in this context that Paul writes to the many

churches in Galatia and reports how he did in fact publicly confront “the rock” on whom they were built.

“When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong”

(2:11). “In the wrong” is a soft interpretation of the Greek. Several translations record this as “because he

stood condemned.” This represents the force of this word in the Greek. “When I saw that they were not

acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said the Peter in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live

like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish

customs?'”(2:14)

Clearly, Paul did not conceive of Peter's calling as “the rock” to consist in his person/office regardless of

his confession. Paul's attitude toward Peter is inconceivable if this was the case. He clearly felt no need to

get advice from or seek direction from Peter in any way. This whole scenario is at odds with Roman

Catholic conceptions of papal authority and jurisdiction. Even though Jesus said what he said to Peter in

Matthew 16, Paul's mindset reveals that this meant that his vocation as “the rock” was dependent on

Peter's fidelity. It also shows that Paul, part of the church, did not conceive of himself as subject to Peter

as vicar of Christ in the Roman Catholic sense. Important to note is that Paul wrote the letter to the

Galatians, which was sent to a whole province of churches who were tempted to be deceived in the same

way Peter was, so he writes publicly of Peter's error. This reveals that Paul did not conceive of the church

as a whole being under the jurisdiction of Peter as vicar of Christ in the Roman Catholic sense. What this

shows is that Matthew 16 and biblical history is a consistent witness that Peter's vocation as “the rock”

was tied to his faithfulness in confessing Christ through a faithful living and confessing of the gospel of

Christ.

Another place where Peter's place as “the rock” appears out of step with Roman Catholic views is the

council in Jerusalem, not Rome. The bishop of that church was James, not Peter. How the whole thing

was carried out is quite of step with Roman Catholic conception. Peter appears at the council as an

apostolic/missionary witness to the Jews along with Paul, who was an apostolic/missionary witness to the Gentiles.

They appear at the council to bear witness to “the apostles and elders”, of God's work among the Gentiles.

The council convenes to decide how proceed with evangelization of the Gentiles and then issues a statement through James, the bishop of

Jerusalem. Here is the order of events as recorded in Acts 15:

1. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed the council with his testimony (15:7-11).

2. After Peter, Paul and Barnabas addressed the council with their testimony (15:12).

3. “When they finished, James spoke up, 'Brothers listen to me. Simon has described to us how

God at first showed......(then he concludes). “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not

make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.” Then James makes a concluding

statement about what they should decree concerning the Gentiles “coming in” to the church.

If they understood Peter's call as “the rock” to mean he has final authority and jurisdiction, does it make

sense that this council would follow this procedure? Would Peter speak first or last? Once again, it seems

inconceivable that this meeting would be carried out in this way, with James hearing all witnesses,

including Peter as one of them, and then make a pronouncement saying “It is my judgment, therefore...”

You must admit, that if Peter and James were depicted in reverse roles in this biblical record, it would

bear more consistent witness to your Roman Catholic views. In fact, it would line up much better with

how the Magisterium works, with the pope hearing all witnesses and then making his pronouncement, “It

is my judgment, therefore...” as a papal bull given for the direction of the church. This is not how things

functioned in Acts 15.

These biblical events make better sense, if Peter's significance as “the rock” is borne out in biblical

history as it was actually recorded. In other words, Jesus meant in Matthew 16 what actually happened

in biblical history. It is quite clear that Peter was the first among equals in the early chapters of Acts. He

was the leader of the twelve and the early small band of disciples, and contributed to the early growth of

the church through his preaching. There is no need to create something more than what actually was the

case, historically. However, as I have shown, to create something more is to put yourself out of step with

biblical history. Not only that, it is to put you out of step with the earliest church fathers and bishops as I

will show.

2. The Claim: The Early Fathers were Roman Catholic: In a lecture you quoted the early church

fathers as being clear and unequivocal witnesses of Roman authority and jurisdiction. For the sake of

time, I will focus on the one father, Cyprian, as being the clearest witness of all of them all. You quoted

him extensively, and this makes sense, since he seems to say the most. This seemed to be the highlight of

your lecture. I have read the earliest fathers fairly thoroughly in my research on another subject.

However, I have always heard that Cyprian was the most clear on unity with Rome. I began reading his

treatises, and found the section you quoted and looked more into the historical context of that quotation.

The section you quoted, as far as I can tell, comes from Cyprian's treatise concerning the Novatian schism

in Rome:

“If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments.

There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, ‘I say unto

thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail

against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on

earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’

And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ And although to all the apostles,

after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, ‘As the Father hath sent me, even so send I

you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whosoever

sins ye retain, they shall be retained;’ yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the

origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was

Peter, endowed with alike partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.

(Treatise #1)

Interesting to note is that Cyprian is encountering and writing against a schism that took place within the

church at Rome. A presbyter in that church, Novatian, had broken with the bishop over a disagreement on

how to receive lapsed Christians back into the church. Novatian favored a more rigorous approach while

the bishop favored a more lenient approach. A sharp dispute developed and Novatian along with other

presbyters broke with the Roman church and began their own church. This Cyprian rejects in the strongest

terms and appeals for unity, with unity originating from Peter and the apostles. At first glance, it seems

that Cyprian was an advocate of your understanding of visible church unity- that is, loyalty and

submission to the Roman bishop. “He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning

from one.” I, like you, take Cyprian to mean Peter.

However, when we take a broader view of Cyprian, it becomes clear he is speaking of unity within a local

congregation. It is also true that Cyprian cannot be used as a support for universal Roman jurisdiction.

This is not what he was advocating by his statement of Peter as the “origin of unity.” How do we know this?

We know this from another dispute that took place, this time not within the Roman church, but with the

Roman church and her bishop. This is discerned from the seventh council of Carthage, which was formed by no less than 87 African

bishops representing their respective churches in response to Stephen the bishop in Rome. The dispute

arose over whether or not to recognize the baptism of someone coming into the church who had

previously been baptized in an heretical communion. The church in Rome was advocating not requiring a

re-baptism, and was insisting other churches follow her lead. In other words, the bishop of Rome was

operating on the premise that he had authority and jurisdiction over the other churches. This is what

Cyprian and the other 87 bishops objected to in the strongest terms. Here are some quotes from

statements made at this council;

“Cyprian said: ‘You have heard, my dearly beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus our co-bishop has written

to me, taking counsel of my poor intelligence concerning the unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, as

well as what I wrote in answer to him, decreeing, to wit, what we have once and again and frequently

determined, that heretics who come to the Church must be baptized and sanctified by the baptism of the

Church. Moreover, another letter of Jubaianus has also been read to you, wherein, replying, in

accordance with his sincere and religious devotion, to my letter, he not only acquiesced in what I had

said, but, confessing that he had been instructed thereby, he returned thanks for it. It remains, that upon

this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one

from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself

up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does compel his colleague to the necessity of

obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper

right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all

wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring

us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.”

Clearly, Cyprian is referring to Roman incursion. Of special note is his statement, “Neither does any of us

set himself up as bishop of bishops.” This is precisely what the Roman bishop was trying to do, and what

the Roman Catholic church insists he has the divine right to do. The following are testimonies of bishops

who submitted their written opinion to the council in response to the church in Rome.

Januarius of Lambesis wrote: “According to the authority of the HolyScriptures, I decree that all heretics

must be baptized, and so admitted into the holy Church.”

Castus of Sicca wrote: “He who with contempt of the truth presumes to follow custom, is either envious and

malignant in respect of his brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or is ungrateful in respect of God, by

whose inspiration His Church is instructed.”

Euchratius of Thence wrote: “God and our Lord Jesus Christ, teaching the apostles with His own mouth,

has entirely completed our faith, and the grace of baptism, and the rule of the ecclesiastical law, saying:

‘Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,

and of the Holy Ghost.’ Thus the false and wicked baptism of heretics must be rejected by us, and refuted

with all detestation, from whose month is expressed poison, not life, not celestial grace, but blasphemy of

the Trinity. And therefore it is manifest that heretics who come to the Church ought to be baptized with the

sound and Catholic baptism, in order that, being purified from the blasphemy of their presumption, they

may be reformed by the grace of the Holy Spirit.”

Libosus of Vaga wrote: “In the Gospel the Lord says, ‘I am the truth.’ He said not, ‘I am the custom.’

Therefore the truth being manifest, let custom yield to truth; so that, although for the past any one was not

in the habit of baptizing heretics in the Church, let him now begin to baptize them.”

Zosimus of Tharassa wrote: “When a revelation of the truth is made, let error give place to truth; because

Peter also, who previously circumcised, yielded to Paul when he preached the truth.”

Felix of Bussacene wrote: “In the matter of receiving heretics without the baptism of the

Church, let no one prefer custom to reason and truth, because reason and truth always exclude custom.”

Cyprian of Carthage wrote: “The letter which was written to our colleague Jubaianus very fully expresses

my opinion, that, according to evangelical and apostolic testimony, heretics, who are called adversaries

of Christ and Antichrists, when they come to the Church, must be baptized with the one

baptism of the Church, that they may be made of adversaries, friends, and of Antichrists, Christians.”

Epistle 69 section 3 Written by Cyprian concerning the controversy over baptizing heretics: “Neither must

we prescribe this from custom, but overcome opposite custom by reason. For neither did Peter, whom first

the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him afterward about

circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything; so as to say that he

held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those lately come. Nor did he

despise Paul because he had previously been a persecutor of the Church, but

admitted the counsel of truth, and easily yielded to the lawful reason which Paul asserted, furnishing thus

an illustration to us both of concord and of patience, that we should not obstinately love our own

opinions, but should rather adopt as our own those which at any time are usefully and wholesomely

suggested by our brethren and colleagues, if they be true and lawful.”

In all of these writings, it is pertinent to note the consistent theme with these bishops. They consistently

put forward the necessity of following truth or what is “lawful.” This, for them, was not defined by

Roman authority, but by the Scriptures. In fact, they cite the Scriptures over and against the Roman

bishop. It is apparent that the Roman bishop was claiming some unique authority for himself, because

Cyprian found it necessary to point out that there is no “bishop of bishops.” Also, the rejection of

“custom” as a valid claim for a practice is pronounced, once again, pointing to the fact that the Roman

bishop was attempting to do just that. This is strikingly represented by the bishop Libosus of Vaga who

wrote, “In the Gospel the Lord says, 'I am the truth', he said not, 'I am the custom.' Therefore, the truth

being manifest, let custom yield to truth.”

It appears then, that the environment of the early church was not one in which the kind of Roman

authority put forward by the Roman Catholic church existed. Also, while Cyprian had an evident concern

for unity, with the one church coming from Peter and the original apostles (this is not disputed by

evangelicals), it is not at all clear Cyprian would have been an advocate of the kind of papal rule that the

Catholic church asserts today. Nor would they have been receptive to an appeal to “sacred custom” has an

equal authority to Holy Scripture. The evidence is to the contrary.

3. Caricatures; Visibility and Unity: I understand the need to expose straw men and that evangelicals

are more than able to caricature Catholics. But it seems Catholics are able to do the same. You

characterized evangelicals as not believing in a “visible church.” This is not correct. Evangelicals make a

distinction between what is visible and what is invisible. They do not deny a visible communion, they just

assert that not all who visibly bind themselves to the visible church through baptism are part of the

invisible church. We believe that there are those who falsely profess Christ, and yet are members of a

visible communion. It appears to me you do the same. Do you believe that all those who are baptized and

take the mass are true Catholics? You seemed to deny this in your lectures. Not only that, holding that

Protestants are truly Catholic, though not in visible communion creates the category of an invisible

spiritual communion. I am not sure your visible church is any more visible than the Protestant church.

Another caricature that needs revisiting, and is related to the previous discussion is the insistence of

Catholic superiority due to the obedience as a unified communion. This seems to be a superficial claim.

You overemphasized Catholic unity by highlighting evangelical disunity with the repeated statement of the

existence of 35,000 or so denominations being a ridiculous phenomenon given Jesus' prayer for unity.

Your point was simple: this can't be what Jesus meant and the Roman Catholic unity is what Jesus meant.

While the point is simple, it is also simplistic. It is what Jesus would call a “judgment by mere

appearances.” The reality is, the Catholic church is made up of sharp divisions of competing factions, all vying for

influence. You have Trent Catholics, and modernist Catholics, you have Vatican II Catholics, you have

charismatic Catholics, and revivalistic Catholics and Traditional Catholics. You have intense debates and

real substantive disagreement between Catholics (i.e. Hans Kung - still an ordained priest, vs. the present

pope). A person can open up the phone book and look for a charismatic Catholic church, because that is

your personal preference. Or another Catholic can look for a Traditional Catholic church because they feel

in touch with the historic church through the Latin Mass. This is not all that different from evangelical

choosing a communion from various evangelical churches based on a certain personal preference.

The reality is, the evangelical world is unified in transcendent confessional ways just as Catholicism is

unified in transcendent confessional ways. Examples of this evangelical unity abound. I graduated from a

seminary that served several dozen denominations at least. All the students would gather together and

hear messages and worship the Lord with one voice. Promise Keepers is a para-church ministry where

hundreds of thousands of Christians would gather in visible unity. Denominations, some argue, has

preserved unity by enabling specific convictions to be expressed within a local communion while living at

peace (in unity) with others. Just because they are in different communions, doesn't mean there is not an

overarching unity. I mention this, not to assert that denominations are the ideal. In some sense they are the result of our

fallen condition, and serve a good purpose until Christ comes. But you would need to say the same thing.

Does internal division and strife and debate and the pressing of competing agendas within the Catholic

communion represent Christ's ideal? Is this the type of unity for which Christ prayed? I hope not! I do not

believe we will be debating or competing in heaven.

4. The Eucharist- You made a significant comment, deriding the view of the elements of the Eucharist as

symbolic by flatly stating that “symbols don't save us.” But surely you don't mean that. You yourself

taught that the priest and the pope are representatives of Christ. They are symbolic of the Christ who is

visibly absent. Yet, according to you we cannot be saved apart from their ministry. Let's think about the

Old Testament Temple. Wouldn't you grant that the temple was symbolic of the heavenly temple as

recorded in Hebrews 9? Or that the spotless lamb brought for sacrifice was symbolic of the spotless

Lamb, Jesus Christ? Or that the high priest was a shadow, a type, a symbol of the true High Priest, who is

Jesus? And isn't it true that the faithful Israelite was saved and accepted through the ministrations of these

symbolic elements commanded by God? In your zeal to promote Roman Catholic Eucharistic belief, you

have denounced as ineffective the way God has always used symbols to save His people. Let's consider

baptism. Why would John baptize in the Jordan River? Isn't it clear that baptism (which means

immersion) is symbolic of being buried in death and rising again from the grave? (Romans 6) Given our

Lord's great propensity to use symbols to save his people, we should not be predisposed to reject the

Eucharist as a symbolic event by an assertion that “symbols don't save.”

Before we get to Jesus' much analyzed words, “This is my body” - let's consider the Passover. We know

this celebration is rooted in an event that occurred in Egypt when God struck the Egyptians with a curse,

the death of the firstborn. The Passover involved the death of a sacrificial victim and the spreading of

blood in order that God would “pass over” the Israelites and strike the Egyptians. That lamb of course was

symbolic and represented a future sacrificial Passover lamb who would save His people. But you would

not deny that that symbol sacrificed in Egypt saved the faithful Israelite. Of course, ultimately God saved

the Israelites, but he decreed that through the death of a symbolic lamb he would save them. In fact, he

then decreed that the Israelites were to “celebrate” that historic Passover event, in which the people were

redeemed from Egyptian slavery. So every year they were to sacrifice another lamb, symbolic now in two

directions. First, the Passover looked back on God's redemption of Israel, and the lamb sacrificed much

later, while living in Canaan, was a symbolic lamb that reminded the people of God's faithfulness in the

past. Nobody believed that lamb was miraculously and mysteriously transformed into the original lamb

sacrificed in Egypt. Nor would anyone find this necessary, because it was at heart a “celebration” of the

God who saved them from Egypt. It was through the Passover they would “remember” God's covenant

faithfulness. However, what they were less cognizant of, was the fact that all future lambs sacrificed “in

remembrance” of the Passover, would also symbolically point forward the the great sacrifice to come, the

true Spotless Lamb Jesus. However, you would not claim that God would not continue to save and uphold

Israel as they continued to faithfully observe the Passover year after year as one of God's central

stipulations. Symbols have always been used by God in His saving plan. We should not find this strange.

So now we come to that great moment in the upper room. We must remember what this meal was first and

foremost. It was a Passover celebration. it is amazing to me how this crucial point has been ignored by

Catholics and evangelicals. The biblical account could not be more clear:

On the the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover

lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, 'Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the

Passover?' So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, 'God into the city, and a man carrying a jar of

water will meet you. Follow him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, “The Teacher asks: Where is my

guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?” He will show you a large upper room,

furnished and made ready. Make preparations for us there.' The disciples left, went into the city and found

things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover” (Matthew 14:12-16).

Our terminology can serve to obscure this Passover reality. I understand why the term Eucharist is used.

Whatever term we use, we must “remember” the meal was understood by Jesus and his disciples to be a

Passover celebration. So Jesus in taking the bread and cup, took elements that had been commonly used

in the Old Covenant Passover. But in his teaching he clearly invests those elements with new meaning.

The focus moves from unleavened bread as a remembrance of the hurried escape from Egypt, to bread

being a remembrance of his body as the new covenant sacrificial lamb. The cup of blessing moves from

being a cup celebrating God's blessing of Israel, to a cup which celebrates “the blood of the new

covenant.” Both elements would be consumed, as Jesus Himself put it, “in remembrance of me.” Here is

the consistency of terminology with the Old Covenant Passover. Jesus is giving them a new Passover

meal in which the symbol of the Old Covenant lamb finds its fulfillment in Him, in his death, which will

come about shortly at the cross. However, the language reveals that the function of the New Covenant

Passover remains identical to the function of the Old Covenant Passover. Just as the Old Covenant

Passover was a “celebration” of what God did in Egypt, so the New Covenant Passover would be a

celebration of what Jesus would do at the cross. Just as the Old Covenant Passover “reminded” God's

people of His covenant faithfulness, so the Eucharist, or the New Covenant Passover, would be done “in

remembrance” of God's redemption through Christ at the cross. The Passover function is firmly reflected

in Passover language.

The crucial historic moment celebrated by Israel, was God's redeeming work to deliver Israel from Egypt.

No Israelite would ever conceive of the Passover “celebration” as a literal repetition of those actual

events. In fact, this would serve to undermine the very purpose of the Passover as given by God as a

celebration of those profound events. Likewise, there is no reason to suppose that Jesus did not intend the

same signification by instituting a New Covenant Passover. When he says “eat this in remembrance of

me,” we have to ask, “In remembrance of what?” Is it not the singular and profound event of His death on

the cross? The breaking of His body and the shedding of His blood? That historic event that set us free

from slavery to to sin and death, just as God set Israel free from Egypt? An event to not meant to be

repeated-- but remembered. The Old Covenant remembrance took place through eating and drinking, and

so does the New Covenant remembrance. The Israelites ate the sacrificial lamb that saved them at the

actual Passover. Future Israelites were to eat a sacrificial lamb that represented that lamb in the past. They

were to eat in remembrance. Doesn't it make good Passover sense that Jesus would raise unleavened

bread and say to his disciples, “This is my body broken for you, eat in remembrance of me”? However,

Passover logic would lead us to believe that Jesus never meant to imply that they should think they would

be actually eating his body as they ate the unleavened bread. Just as the Israelites would have no

conception of eating the actual lamb sacrificed in Egypt. To think this would result in a denial of its God-

given function, as not a repetition of the saving event itself, but a celebration of the One and Only historic

saving moment.

You must grant that when we read the words, “this is my body” we have a couple of options for

interpretation. Just because Jesus equates the bread with his body with a predicate nominative does not

prove he meant to be taken either literally or symbolically. This simple phrase needs context for

interpretation. If this was in fact a Passover meal, wouldn't it be wise to recognize that as our wider

context that helps us understand what Jesus meant?

It may be objected that Jesus taught in John 6 that we must eat his body and drink his blood. It is

sometimes treated in a cavalier way that this is obviously evidence for the Catholic understanding of the

Eucharist (Passover!). If it is granted that Jesus was referring to a future eating of the New Covenant

Passover, then all we have to do is go back to the Passover and see what occurred. The Passover sacrifice

was to be eaten in its entirety with nothing left. True enough. But, once again, we must not forget, that the

eating of the Passover meal was a “celebration” of a past event-- not a repeating of that original event.

The future Passover lambs were symbolic of the original Passover, God's redemption of Israel from

slavery. Likewise, our eating of Jesus' body and the drinking of his blood, is not a repeating of the original

event of God's redemption, but a celebration, as Jesus Himself said-- “a remembrance.”

This passage, like Jesus' words, “This is my body,” could be taken in various ways. Ironically, the most

literal interpretation was apparently the understanding of his hearers in John 6. They went away from him

because of the graphic description of eating flesh and drinking blood. They supposed he was advocating

cannibalism. Even you would not be that literal in your interpretation. Even good Catholics would not

suppose he was offering his left calf for a good hearty lunch, or that he was about to slit his wrists to

provide a drink! You would suppose he was speaking cryptically of a future Eucharistic meal in which

bread and wine would be transubstantiated into His actual body and blood, though in appearance, or

“accidentally” bread and wine. As I am sure you are aware, these categories of “substance” and

“accidence” are philosophical categories of the philosopher Aristotle adopted by Aquinas to explain what

he thought Jesus meant. This was a tragic mistake that did not take the Passover into consideration. We

don't need a pagan philosopher (Aristotle) to help us understand the Eucharist, all we need is biblical

theological history (God's Holy Scripture).

Of course, this transubstantiation understanding is a possible interpretation, just as the most literal one

already mentioned (eating Jesus' left calf for lunch). Or Jesus could be referring to a future Passover meal

in which his body and blood is symbolically consumed just like all Passover meals. That he was referring

to Himself as the once for all time Passover sacrifice, who would need to be consumed, just like the Old

Covenant Passover sacrifice needed to be consumed in its entirety. Literalism is not required by John 6,

nor does it make the best possible sense given all of the the contextual factors involved which I have

already brought forth. Rather, a literal eating of Jesus' body as a Passover meal is a foreign element, not at

all required to make the best sense of what occurred in the upper room, and in fact, serves to obscure and

pervert the purpose of the Eucharist. How the Eucharist is perverted by the interpretational literalism can

be seen in the holding back of the cup from the laity, because it was seen as too holy to be served (don't

spill the real and holy blood of Jesus!!). The church feared the literal blood would be spilled and

desecration would occur. This is only one example of many that could be brought forth that shows the

literalistic practice perverts the original intent.

5. The Canon and Catholic Tradition: You made the point that Protestants actually have a faith founded

on Catholic tradition, because we hold to a canon which was established through an ecumenical council.

Therefore, you believe this council to be evidence that “sacred tradition” is shown to be on a par with

“sacred Scripture” because it is the church tradition from this council that establishes what “sacred

Scripture” actually is. So I would take you to mean that “sacred tradition” authoritatively establishes

“sacred Scripture.” In other words, the Scriptures are what they are on the basis of “sacred tradition.” To

put it another way, the church is God's vehicle of authority which decrees the parameters of God's

authoritative texts.

It seems to me, from the above rationale, that you actually have understated your case. If I understand you

correctly, the church, or “sacred tradition,” actually has primacy or authority over “sacred Scripture.” The

church has God-given authority to determine what sacred Scripture is. If a person is to ask, “How am I to

know where it is I hear the word of God?” We are to seek this answer from the church. We are told by the

church, “It is from these written books.” So the Word of God - to the church- (sacred tradition) tells the

people what sacred Scripture is. The church determines Scripture. So we need the church before Scripture.

Of course, this logic seems to be followed consistently by Roman Catholic teaching. Not only do we need

the church to know what Scripture is, we also need the church to know what Scripture means. Once again,

the primacy seems to be sacred tradition. Sacred tradition stands as the foundation and source of the

identity of sacred texts, and the understanding of what sacred texts are saying to the church.

This dynamic is reflected in the language Our Sunday Visitor's Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine

concerning “sacred tradition”: “Tradition is the means by which Revelation and grace are mediated. The

term refers to the concrete, historical, and personal means by which Revelation is taught, internalized,

and lived out.” And again, “Sacred Tradition carries, transmits, hands on, or mediates Divine

Revelation.” And again, “It expresses Revelation from on high, suitable for transforming life here

below...”(p.603). Being the “mediator” by which Revelation is made “suitable for ...life here below” it

becomes clear that tradition is the true touchstone for Revelation. Tradition becomes the place in which

people live, as mediated by the church (tradition).

This is no minor point, and it is my belief that it is on this hinge that the whole Roman Catholic system

swings. This is why practices and beliefs in the Catholic church have multiplied over the years which

have either no relation to sacred texts or a strained one, at best (the perpetual virginity of Mary, celibacy

of the priesthood, the proliferation of sacraments, etc.). This can happen because sacred tradition holds

primacy, and sacred texts are made to fit through contorted and strained interpretation, or the vaguest

allusions. Of course, if we grant sacred tradition its primacy, then there is no legitimate critique. Charges

of “strained and contorted interpretations” are made from unbelief. To be unsatisfied with the “vaguest

allusions” to sacred text for a church practice has to come from a vantage point other than the Catholic

system. On the other hand, for these things to cause no qualms of conscience is to show that the primacy

of sacred tradition holds sway. This must be why many Catholics in defense of their practice will be

content to state, “The church says...” or “Church teaching is...” as if this closes the case.

The development of the canon in church history is a fascinating study, with lots of twists and turns along

the way. However, it seems this issue comes down to an understanding of what is taking place when

people embrace a writing as sacred Scripture. Or if we push back further, when God's Word encounters

men. Of course, Jesus Christ is “the Word” in human flesh. Then the Scriptures are God's Word in written

form. I think you would agree, both are God's authoritative Word for men.

When Jesus, (the Word made flesh) asked Peter, “Who do you say I am?” and Peter responded, “You are

the Christ, the Son of the living God,” was Peter making an authoritative pronouncement that established

Jesus as the Christ, or was he recognizing the already established fact? The whole exchange reveals quite

clearly that Jesus was the Christ by virtue of who He was irrespective of what Peter said about Him. In

other words, Peter did not determine who Jesus was, he simply recognized who Jesus was and is. This

does not render Peter's confession as unimportant, but puts it in proper perspective. Jesus, the Word of

God made flesh had primacy over Peter. Peter would be judged correct or incorrect by his recognition or

failure to recognize Christ.

If we carry this through to the written Word of God, the same logic follows. The history of canon

formation is marked by ongoing recognition of an authoritative Word of God to men. This has not been

without its struggles and debates (before and after the council). But the struggle and debate has been

about what to recognize as the Word of God. What has God sent to us to be received and submitted to?

What has primacy, the church or the Word of God? What is the dynamic that establishes the church? From

the first it was the Word made flesh calling out to men, and men recognized Him and followed. It was the

recognition of the Word that established the church.

The apostles then went around and preached the good news, the Word of God made flesh, and in

recognition of this Word, churches were formed in various places. The Word of God proclaimed preceded

and established the church. The spoken and written Word of God (1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, etc.)

established the faith and practice of the church through the apostles. When the Word was believed in a

particular place, a church was formed. This is the order we see from Christ and the apostles.

So the Word of God creates and establishes the church, even before a completed canon had been

recognized.

Even when the apostles were preaching and teaching, there was a need to exhort gathered believers to

read their words as the Word of God. Already there were authoritative texts to be circulated by which the

church was to be ordered and spiritually nourished.

The council was not the first place and time when an authoritative canon was recognized by the church.

This council was necessary because of the proliferation of pseudo- gospels and epistles. And this council

was not one in which people understood the church to establish a canon, but was one in which texts

which had established and guided the church were officially recognized for what they had been all along.

The council was the church recognizing the sacred Scripture, the Word of God written, that had

established and nourished her and had been her authority for faith and practice.

As a matter of historical fact, the canon, even before the council of Carthage, was called “Recognized

Books.” The following comes from Bishop Eusebius' ancient church history, ( he lived from 260-339

AD):

“It will be well at this point, to classify the New Testament writings already referred to. We must, of

course, put first the holy quartet of the gospels, followed by the book of Acts of the Apostles. The next

place in the list goes to Paul's epistles, and after them we must recognize the epistle called 1 John;

likewise 1 Peter. To these may be added, if it is thought proper, the Revelation of John, the arguments

about which I will set out when the time comes. These are classified as Recognized Books.”

(p.88)

It becomes clear, then, that this council should in no way be understood as a foundation for a “sacred

tradition” which in practice, holds primacy to “sacred Scripture.” The church did not create a canon, but

recognized the canon that had created and sustained her, just as Peter recognized Christ for who He was.

For this reason, evangelicals stand with the men of the ancient council, appealing to a canon of sacred

texts as the authoritative body of writings to which the church alone submits.

The issue of who determines the canon reveals a tragic circumventing of the relation God is to have with

His people, as a people who hear His Word and thereby know Him. You ask the question, “Who says the

Bible is God's Word?” You answer: the church says and apart from the church you would have no way of

knowing whether the Bible was the Word of God or the Boston Globe. This is tragic. It is like Peter

standing up feeling the need to give credibility to Jesus. As if Peter could add something that would make

Jesus more believable. The Word of God in the flesh needs no human agency for his credibility. The Word

of God written needs no human agency, for its credibility either. Man stands or falls in response to the

Word of revelation. The Word of revelation does not stand or fall by man's testimony. Your Catechism

teaches this unholy dependance of God's Word upon men:

“It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise

arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so

connected and associated that one cannot stand without the others.”

So, in a nutshell, the Word of God cannot stand without the Magisterium, the teaching office of men. This

is the tragically wrong (and even blasphemous) move that leads to a hundreds other wrongs and

blasphemies. When the foundation is flawed the whole building becomes warped.

When Jesus told the parable of the sower, he presented a picture in which the Word of God proclaimed

encountered men. Men would be judged in response to that Word. It is critically wrong to suppose the no

one would know the Bible is God's written Word apart from the verification of men. (i.e. “It is the word of

God because we say so”). What happened to the Holy Spirit creating new life and confirming in the hearts

of men the credibility of Jesus? The church is the effect or fruit of the Holy Spirit giving life to the Word

of revelation in the hearts of men. You are in danger of putting the church in the place of God--of doing

the truly heinous thing of making the church an idolatrous institution in which it becomes the object of

faith rather than Christ. This I believe is accomplished by asserting the “infallibility of the Church as a

whole.” It is taught that,

“Christ sustains the infallibility of the Church by having endowed her pastors and official teachers with

the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. These 'shepherds' of the Church - that is, the

Pope and the bishops in communion with him - are called the Magisterium.”(Encyclopedia of Catholic

Doctrine, p.233)

From the Catechism:

“Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the

truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of

infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms: 'The Roman

Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility by virtue of his office...The infallibility

promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they

exercise the supreme Magisterium,' above all in an Ecumenical Council.” (CCC 890-891)

The apostles obviously were not infallible, though their inspired Writings were. On this, it seems you

must agree. So how could the church, which is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets be so?

In short, it is our belief that God is infallible, and the church is not God. This is the danger of the “implicit

faith” teaching of Catholicism. To have faith in what the church says, is to have implicit faith in Christ.

We could also say this means, faith in the church, rather than faith in Christ, because the church (“the

Pope and the bishops in communion with him”) now stands between Christ and His people. The people

are no longer encouraged to “hear Christ” apart from the teaching office of the church, simply because it

is considered impossible to do so.

“The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of

the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.” (Catechism p.35)

Yet the Scriptures testify for hearing God through His Word as the infallible knowledge needed for

salvation, and in so doing we become the church: “All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for

teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly

equipped for every good work.” - The Apostle Paul (2 Timothy 3:16). The verses prior reveal that

Timothy had been brought up in the teaching of the “holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for

salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim.3:15) Who brought Timothy up in this knowledge? His

grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice (see 2 Tim.1:5).

Note that being completely equipped to serve God is accomplished through understanding the Word of

God. This is what Paul was instructing Timothy to instruct the Church.

This direct connection for God's people to His written Word has been required from the Old Covenant

forward:

Deuteronomy 5:22, “These are the commandments the Lord proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole

assembly there on the mountain...”

Isaiah 66:2, “This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word.”

John 14:21, “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me.”

When Paul, an apostle on whom the church is built, was preaching to the Bereans, Luke reports in Acts

that the Bereans confirmed the truthfulness of Paul's preaching by going to the Old Covenant texts. “Now

the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonicans, for they received the message with

great joy and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11).

According to your perspective, it is hard to see how the Bereans could be attributed for having noble

character. It seems your perspective is-- “this is true because we (the teaching office of the church) say

so” is the bedrock foundation of truth, while the non-apostolic, non-Magisterial Berean laity checked the

validity of an apostle's interpretation and preaching by their own reading of the sacred text! This is no

small point. According to you, their judgment in this matter, positive or negative, would have no validity

at all. However, this is evidence for a direct engagement with God through His Word as valid and

righteous and expected. This was evidence of the Bereans' faithfulness to God, not insolence.

The Apostolic assumption was that the local leadership and laity were capable to properly comprehend

the sacred Scripture. This is why the letters of the apostles were distributed the way they were. The

apostles did not write their theological opinions to be submitted to an apostolic council with Peter

presiding at the head of the table, and then their interpretation of these writings sent out to local churches

as Papal bulls or the decrees of a council. Given Roman Catholic views it seems this would be the

expected procedure. If this was the procedure, wouldn't this stand as irrefutable proof of your views?

Wouldn't that be a highlight of your lectures? However, the reality is, and as you well know, several of

these inspired writings were sent directly to local churches and it was assumed they were fully capable to

grasp their meaning. Note Paul's statement to the church in Corinth,

“For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand”(2 Cor.1:13).

The “we” here means the apostles, and the “you” refers to the church in Corinth. Letters like the one

written to Colosse were meant to be circulated and read in churches.

“After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you

in turn read the letter from Laodicea”(Col.4:16).

This reveals an apostolic assumption that the church would have an unmediated relationship to Holy

Scripture, and that the people of God, no doubt with the aid of local leadership would be able to

understand what was being written. The Scriptures are not esoteric and mysterious writings needing a

specialized and exalted order of interpreters. The evidence is to the contrary.

No doubt we live at an historical distance form the early church. We have to work harder to understand

things like historical and literary context in order to understand the sacred writings. But this is no

mysterious and esoteric exercise given for a spiritual few. These are common sense principles that come

into play in understanding any ancient writing. Today training is important, but not because the laity are

inherently unable to understand apart from a special caste of bishops, or a “supreme” order of men, but

because education provides to tools to help us grasp what is accessible to all people.

Ministers of the Gospel are to stand as conduits to the sacred Word for God's people. Not as infallible

interpreters, but as men who work hard (using the tools of biblical languages and education in biblical

history, etc.) to understand the Scriptures and then explain the meaning of the text to God's people.

However, the people have the responsibility to engage with the Word themselves and can even bring

correction to those ordained to serve them. It is possible, even for the theologically trained, to have a bias

that runs counter to the intent of the original authors. It is the responsibility of the shepherd to

communicate the original intent of the apostles, and not to displace it. This is because the Word itself

stands as the infallible witness and expression of God's will. As an example of this, Timothy had been

ordained by the apostles to be a minister of the Word for the church, yet Timothy had to:

“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed

and who correctly handles to word of truth”(2 Timothy 2:15).

Timothy's value to the church before God was in how he interpreted “the word of truth.” Paul would also

instruct him not to “let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the

believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. Until I come devote yourself to the public

reading of the Scriptures, to preaching and to teaching.” (1 Timothy 4:12,13) Timothy's credibility did not

rest upon his ordination, but on faithful living and teaching. Paul recognized that if he was to be of

service to the church, they must esteem him as a faithful minister. This implies that Timothy stood as one

accountable to the church.

It is important to note that this does not lead to the conclusion that everyone has equal ability to interpret

God's Word. Ministers of God should have a comprehension and an ability to expound the sacred text.

This is what the process of ordination is designed to promote, as well as candidacy for serving a local

church. It is not quite as chaotic a picture as you present. Neither is the unity of the Catholic communion

quite as unified as you present. Many Catholics could care less what your Magisterium decrees about

birth control. They will argue just as freely for their views as an evangelical will for his over and against

another evangelicals. How many Democrat Catholics take a stand against abortion? There will always be

prideful resistance to the will of God. You can point to it in the evangelical world and denounce our view

of direct engagement to the Word of God. But the one does not follow from the other, just as the existence

of abortion-supporting Catholics is no argument against the validity of an infallible Magisterium. That

type of argumentation may work for public consumption as a rhetorical device, but it is not coherent.

It seems as well that the prior discussion concerning Cyprian and the protest against Roman incursion into

the affairs of other churches shows that the early church has this conception of the role of ordained

ministry as servants of God's infallible Word. They were to stand as men faithful to the truth revealed in

the text over and against “custom” when custom perverts God's will revealed in his Word. How could

infallibility be attributed to the Roman bishop and his fellow bishops if widespread protest against their

interpretation was an historical reality? Cyprian himself pointed out that even Peter was willing to

change when shown he was out of step with Holy Scripture.

The notion of “infallibility” of the Magisterium in conjunction with the Roman bishop, in reality, puts you

in a difficult spot. How do you account for obvious discrepancies between The “infallible decrees” of the

Ecumenical Council of Trent and the Ecumenical Council of Vatican II? The shift of attitude toward

Protestants is nothing short of a radical turn of events. In effect, Protestants have gone from being

“cursed” (anathematized) by the decrees of Trent to blessed by the irenic and friendly affirmations of

Vatican II. Many welcome this as a positive change/transition/growth in understanding, but few seem to

understand, or have closed their eyes to how this undermines claims to “infallibility.” Men and women

who were grimly consigned to hell from 1563 to 1965 are now welcomed by smiling Catholic faces.

Note the following “unerring” decrees of the sole interpreters of God's holy will:

Concerning Baptism: Canon 3 of the Council of Trent- “If anyone saith, that in the Roman Church, which

is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of

baptism: let him be anathema (cursed).”

So here is the teaching of “the church.” May all who deny Catholic baptism as valid be cursed by God.

However, this what many Protestant denominations would even now say about Catholic baptism. Yet

Vatican II teaches:

Chapter 1 Section 15; “The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being

baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do

not preserve the unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred

Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show sincere zeal.”

It must be pointed out, that it would be from taking sacred Scripture as “a norm and pattern of life” which

would lead many Protestants to reject Catholic baptism as valid. Does the curse of Trent still stand in light

of Vatican II? How does the “blessing” of Vatican II harmonize with “the curse” of Trent without

acknowledging a real change in dogmatic stance? And if this is a change in dogmatic stance, then how

can it be true that the church's teaching is where you unerringly find the truth of God? How many older

Roman Catholic priests who have “faithfully” taught Protestants they cannot be saved according to the

Church's teaching have felt this “growth” in understanding as what it truly is?

Much is made by you and others of the many different opinions within Protestantism. But you do not

acknowledge the many different opinions through the history of the Catholic church which are

substantively extremely significant for the spiritual life of God's people. What of the view during the time

of Wycliffe that the Word of God in “vulgar speech” (any non-Latin language) was a blasphemous idea

and that Latin was a sacred language? Catholics of today who read their Bibles in English would have

been brought up on charges of heresy by Catholics in England of yesterday upon the approval of the

Supreme Pontiff. As late as 1816 Pope Pius VII would denounce Bible Societies who sought to translate

the Bible into languages people could understand as “fiendish institutions for the undermining of the

foundation of religion.” Are these small things that have no bearing on the “unerring and sole ability” of

the Pope and his colleagues? How is this not a change of an “infallible” decree (that has to do with faith

and morals)? I hasten to add that it will be humbly stated that, “the church is not perfect and has made

mistakes just like all churches even Protestant ones.” But that is a protest that must not be made by a

Catholic, whose church claims “infallible interpretation” via papal decree and Ecumenical Council.

Unfortunately, “infallibility” is by definition perfection and leaves no room for human error. This is why

Protestants wisely and humbly leave this for God alone.

6. Forgiveness Confusion: Of all that I heard in these lectures, the teaching that there is no forgiveness

for mortal sins outside of oral confession to an ordained priest was the most shocking. I admit up front,

that just because I was alarmed by this, is no argument that it is not true. Surely, truth can be shocking.

But it is with this statement, and others connected to forgiveness, and how it is obtained that reveals a

deep divide. The confusion sets in, however, when I am told, in light of Vatican II, that I am actually a

Roman Catholic and accepted as a saved and forgiven member of Christ's body, even though I have never

confessed to an ordained priest, nor do I ever plan to do so. This is exacerbated, I presume, by the fact that

I have heard this teaching loud and clear and consciously reject it as evil. Am I still an invisible Catholic?

I reject it as evil because of the teaching of sacred Scripture. When Jesus taught the disciples how to pray

when they pray he taught them to say,

“Our Father (meaning God the Father) who is in heaven, hallowed

be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven, give us this day our

daily bread, and forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us....”

I anticipate you explaining that this is what Jesus taught his disciples, not future believers to pray. But if

you say this, why does the Catholic church teach its laity to pray the “ Our Fathers”? There is no reason to

believe that Jesus was not teaching his disciples, and all future believers to pray in this way- presumably,

this is why Catholics are instructed to do so. There are many times Jesus taught his disciples to do things

and to think in certain ways, and we take him to mean all those who would follow him as well as the

disciples in front of him. When we come to the epistles, it is clear we are to approach our Father in heaven with Christ as our

sacrificial mediator.

1 John 1:9, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins....If anyone does sin, we

have one who speaks to the Father in our defense - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.”

There is no mention in 1 John of confessing to a priest, so it is very reasonable to assume, John means

what Jesus meant. When we pray, we pray, “Our Father, who is in heaven...”

Hebrews 10:19-22, “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the

blood of Christ, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we

have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance

of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience...”

The writer is writing to the church, referring to “brothers.” Note the special access we all have as a “royal

priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9). According to Peter, all believers are now priests who enter the Most Holy

Place. Jesus now serves as the “great priest over the house of God” who, as we saw in 1 John “speaks to

the Father in our defense.” It is in this way we all are beckoned to “draw near to God.” There is no human

mediator necessary in the new covenant. Jesus is the “great priest” and we are all priests invited to enter

into God's Holy Presence.

I could cite many other texts, but this will have to suffice for now. There is no question we are exhorted to

confess sins to one another as well. For example James 5:16, “Therefore confess your sins to one another

and pray for each other so that you may be healed.”

But James is far from advocating a formal human and exclusive priesthood that becomes a necessary

means by which we receive forgiveness from the Father. Rather, sacred Scripture shows the new covenant

to be one in which all believers are a part of the “royal priesthood”as a fulfillment of the Levitical

priesthood of the old covenant:

Isaiah 61:6, “And you will be called priests of the Lord, you will be named ministers of our God.”

Revelation 1:6, “...and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father- to him be

glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.”

Revelation 20:6, “...they will be priests of God and of Christ and reign with him for a thousand years.”

Nowhere in the pastoral epistles do we have any instructions about instituting a special priestly class by

which forgiveness is obtained. Isn't this a glaring absence given the importance placed on just such a

ministry by the Roman Catholic church? Can this be explained by appeal to “sacred tradition”, and if so,

can't any deviation from sacred Scripture be justified? This seems to be the case.

To conclude, the consistent strand that runs through, the above analysis, is that the institutional church

becomes the object of faith, rather than God who is known through His Word. This expresses itself most

fundamentally through the teaching arm of the church (the Magisterium) viewing itself as the sole

unerring interpreter of God's Word. This logically leads to a dependence on Catechisms and Councils

which is the unerring teaching of the church. In this regard, “the church teaching” effectively displaces

the role God's Word is to play for the benefit of God's people. It cannot be denied that this has been the

evidence of history. Indifference to translations of the Bible into the common language which was

initiated by Protestants has only reluctantly embraced by pragmatic response of the Catholic church. It is

a matter of historical fact that the Bible had not been translated into English until Wycliff, and had not

been translated into German until Luther while Catholicism had previously held sway in these countries

for hundreds of years. Bible study, as an activity of the laity, is a recent development in Catholic history.

Even Catholics today remember a time when opening the Bible in a home without a priest present was

unthinkable. Given Catholic views of authority and the remote role the Scriptures are to play in the

church, this makes sense.

Connected with this, the church comes between God and His people in regard to reconciliation. To teach

that forgiveness of sins (mortal or not) cannot be found apart from the ministrations of the Roman

Catholic church when God's Word teaches the contrary is clearly evidence of this.

These two points reveal that “the Church” and its so-called and self-titled “Supreme” ministrations

actually stand in the very place that God our Father through Jesus Christ has appointed for Himself and

Himself alone. Since the Catholic institution takes on the role and sole right of God, it in effect becomes

by implication a surrogate deity, a golden calf in the supposed absence of Christ. This, while claiming

divine right to do so. Jesus has returned to His Father on the Mountain of God, and some have risen up

and claimed divine right to set up a new order of worship in his absence. It is a familiar theme.

(As an important caveat to say, my intention is not to be offensive, but candid regarding an evaluation of

the spiritual condition of Catholicism based on this analysis. Candidness is kindness when it comes to our

relation with a holy God. Also, it is important to note, because I believe the Catholic church to be

idolatrous, does not mean every person within the Catholic communion is an idolater. It is to say the

Catholic system is idolatrous in that the church displaces God in her formal dogma, but there are

undoubtedly men and women within that communion who follow Christ faithfully in spite of Catholic

dogma. In this case, ignorance may be bliss!)

We live in an irenic and soft age in which it is deemed bigoted and arrogant to criticize another's religious

convictions. However, as we know, biblical Christianity is serious and candid, because truth is life. I

respect your candor as a Catholic, but to this point I cannot respect your Catholicism. Again, this does not

mean there aren't true believers within the Catholic church. It does mean, that those who have a true and

saving faith, do so in spite of their church's teachings and tolerances. My hope is that this response to your

lectures will bear good fruit, as we, by God's grace continue this important discussion. I look forward to

being corrected concerning any misconceptions I may have.

Sincerely,

Mark Skillin

Teaching Elder- Christ Covenant Church

A Really Bad Chapter in an Otherwise Excellent Book by Tim Keller

I have really enjoyed Tim Keller's book, The Reason for God. He argues so persuasively and

eloquently for the reality of the God of the Bible. I was first exposed to this book in a book study with

other people who were, and to my knowledge remain to be, avowed atheists. While we were not able to

persuade them concerning the existence of God, they had a better appreciation for serious Christian

thinking. We owe Tim Keller a debt of gratitude for making this possible.

That being said, it is important to air an “in-house” grievance. Recently, I sat down to re-read

chapter 11, which is entitled Religion and the Gospel, and have come to the conclusion it is so poorly

thought out that I had to write about it to relieve my agitation. This is my therapeutic reason. The other,

and more substantial reason, and why it is published here is to be faithful to Keller's God. This chapter shows that Tim Keller has his God's gospel all

muddled and discombobulated. Tim Keller is a pastor and a very popular writer who influences many

people. Of course this is a blessing when God is being truly represented, but a great curse when He is not.

A biblical scholar once related to me that getting published is both exciting and scary at the same time. It

is a blessing because many people will be influenced by your writing, and it is scary for the same reason.

Once a book is in print, it is not so easy to go back and fix things. And there is arguably nothing worse to

misrepresent than the gospel of the kingdom of our Christ.

It must be said from the outset that this chapter in Tim Keller's book is not meant to be an exhaustive treatment

of the gospel of our Lord. It is written to persuade the unbeliever and the skeptic of the superiority of the

Christian message in comparison to other religions. The value of a chapter like this, is that the message of

Christianity is understood to be distilled to its essence. Tim Keller, in one brief chapter, seeks to bring to

the unbelieving world, what he sees as “the good news” of the message of Christianity. Tim Keller is not

plowing any new ground here. This is not a scholarly biblical theology that claims to bring new insights.

Tim Keller's genius is not in generating new insights as an original thinker. Rather, his expertise lies in

explaining with fresh vigor and what has been said a thousand times before.

Tim Keller's central thesis in the chapter is that Christianity differs from all other religions ,

because other religions present a teaching, that if followed, will enable a person to make their way to

God. With other religions you are given things to do that enable you to earn your way to heaven. This is

what Keller calls “salvation by moral effort.” The good news of Christianity is that God has come to us in

Christ, not to show us a moral pathway to heaven, but to provide the gift of heaven through faith in

Christ. Keller writes, “Only Jesus claimed to be the way of salvation himself.” He explains that this fact is

the “great difference” between religions and the Christian faith. He draws out the distinction by

explaining that people in other religions are motivated in “living morally” for what they stand to gain in

the future. He explains, “Religion operates on the principle 'I obey - therefore I am accepted by God.' But

the operating principle of the gospel is 'I am accepted by God through what Christ has done - therefore I

obey.'”(p.186) From this formula, Keller explains that gratitude is the motivating principle of the

Christian faith. According to him, there is “no coercion or sense of obligation” or “fear” of a future

judgment, but only a profound experience of joy and gratitude for what God has done for you through

Christ.

Given this understanding of the gospel, Keller describes Jesus as not so much a teacher as He was

a Savior. In his own words, “The founders of every other major religion essentially came as teachers, not

as saviors. They came to say, 'Do this and you will find the divine.' But Jesus came essentially as a savior

rather than a teacher (though he was a teacher as well). Jesus says: 'I am the divine come to you, to do

what you could not do for yourselves.' The Christian message is that we are saved not by our record, but

by Christ's record.”(p.192). In trying to present Jesus in contrast to other religions, Tim Keller manages to cut Jesus and the

gospel in half. He presents only half of what the Bible describes as the message of Christianity. Of course

Jesus is the divine who has come to us a savior, and it is gloriously true that no other religion claims this

of their leaders. Yes, Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world and made atonement for our sins in a way

that no other religious leader has or even could do. It is true, joy and gratitude ought to be a motivating

emotion in response the greatness of what Christ has done for us. At the cross, Jesus has done for us what

we could never have done for ourselves. Only a sinless One can surrender His life in behalf of sinners,

and only a Divine sinless One's death can have infinite worth before the Father and be sufficient for the

lives of all people. All this is true, and gloriously true!

But this is not the whole story. It is true, Jesus is the Savior, but He was not “a savior rather than a

teacher.” His death on the cross in behalf of mankind cannot be isolated from His teaching ministry. Jesus'

role as our Savior is not distinct from His role as a teacher. In fact, His teaching was given to save us just

as much as His body was given to save us. Recently, I had the opportunity to teach from Luke 13:22-30.

This passage describes Jesus' journey to Jerusalem where He would give His body for the sins of the

world. “Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem.” He spent

over three years constantly teaching. Time and again in the gospel record He was referred to as “Teacher.”

In Luke alone he is referred to as “Teacher” at least fourteen times by various people. We should not let

the desire to distance ourselves from other religions obscure this fact. It would be better to say that Jesus

was a “saving teacher.” This is true because Jesus set out to save His people with both His body and His

saving words.

Let me show you what I mean. In Luke 13:23 Jesus is asked an important question.

“Someone asked him, 'Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?'” Next comes the words of the

teaching Savior. “He said to them, 'Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I

tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to'”(v.24). He essentially answers that they will need to work

hard at being saved. The Greek word the NIV translates as “make every effort” is the word for athletic

striving. What does this mean? In this encounter, Jesus gives us a clue as he goes on teach that those who

just knew Jesus by association but were “evildoers” would not be saved. He taught that many would

come to Him, “But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all of you

evildoers'”(v.27). So, it stands to reason that the few that will enter the narrow door will be the few good

doers, in contrast to the many “evildoers.” Of course, this is rather awkward for Tim Keller's gospel

formulation. It appears that Jesus is giving a “moral effort” teaching. Not only that, He is giving a moral

effort teaching as the way in which a person will gain an entrance through the narrow door which is given

as an answer to a question about being “saved.” This awkwardness is not lost on many commentators who

operate within Keller's gospel formula. They are quick to assure us, that despite appearances Jesus is not

encouraging “moral effort” for acceptance. Darrell Bock responds, “The idea is not to work one's way to

God, but to labor hard at listening and responding to the message.” What is “the message” we are to

“make every effort” to listen and respond to? He explains that the message is “repentance and

submission.” At this point I am made to wonder what the difference is between “repentance and

submission” and “moral effort.” However, we need not wonder. Bock explains that “repentance and

submission simply means coming to Jesus for the forgiveness of sins.” His explanation amounts to a

hasty reassurance, it is as if he is saying,“Yes, things got awkward, but I am here to reassure you, Jesus is

a Savior and not a teacher of moral effort.” What amazes me is that no commentary I referenced in my

study (and I only have few Luke commentaries) tried to get at what Jesus meant by “striving” by going to

Jesus' teaching in other places in the gospels. The most obvious, of course, would be Matthew 7 where Jesus

similarly teaches about a narrow and wide gate.

Matthew records Jesus' extensive teaching on a mountain in Galilee from Matthew chapter 5 to 7.

Toward the conclusion of this teaching Jesus exhorts his listeners to “enter through the narrow gate.” He

goes on to warn them that “small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it”

(v.14).This is very similar to Luke 13's exhortation. Remember, it was the “evildoer” who would not enter

through the narrow door in Luke's gospel. In Matthew, Jesus describes those who enter the narrow gate as

those “do the will of my Father who is in heaven”(v.21). But what does it mean to do the will of His

Father who is in heaven? At this point many, including Darrell Bock and Tim Keller, would say, “Those

who work hard at listening to and holding to the message of forgiveness.” But what would Jesus Himself

say? Jesus, the saving teacher, goes on in Matthew 7 to explain what it means to “do the Father's will.” He

said, “Therefore, everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man

who built his house on rock”(v.24). This is “the house” that is not destroyed. What “words of mine” is

Jesus referring to? These could only be the words of the teaching of Matthew 5 through 7. These are “the

words” he had just been teaching in the sermon on the mountain in Galilee. Jesus taught about all kinds of

good things his people were to do in order to enter the small gate and narrow road “that leads to life.”

Jesus seems to be doing the very thing that Tim Keller says Jesus doesn't do, because in this teaching He

is presenting a pathway of “moral effort” in order to gain life. Tim Keller never explains in this

short chapter how Jesus can teach like this and not be like the teachers of all those other religions. That

is not his purpose. In his book he is working from the full blown evangelical assumption that Jesus was

not so much a teacher of “moral effort” as He was a Savior from moral effort.

Of course, Jesus was radically different from all other major religious leaders. But His difference

from them was not because didn't teach a way of behavior for salvation. The difference was in what He

taught as a moral way of being. Jesus' moral teaching “saves” us from the moral corruption of the world.

The sermon in Galilee, recorded in Matthew, was and is a saving teaching. This is how Peter can say,

before he had any understanding of Jesus' sacrificial atonement, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have

the words of eternal life”(Jn.6:68). This is the part of the gospel that gets cut out and left behind. In fact,

doing what Jesus says in order to find life becomes “sin” according to Keller's gospel formula. Keller

writes, “If you are avoiding sin and living morally so that God will have to bless and save you, then

ironically, you may be looking to Jesus as a teacher, model, and helper, but you are avoiding him as a

Savior. You are trusting in your own goodness rather than in Jesus for your standing with God. You are

trying to save yourself by following Jesus.”(p.183) Here again, Tim Keller pits having “Jesus as a teacher,

model, and helper” against having Jesus as a Savior. However, Jesus puts Himself forward as our teacher,

model, helper and Savior. Jesus said, “You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord', and rightly so, for that is what I

am”(Jn.13:13). He is to be our “model” or example, “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed

your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have

done for you”(Jn.13:14). Jesus promises to be our helper through His Spirit (Jn.16:5-15) so we can say,

“The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid”(Heb.13:6). Are we to shun these gracious truths because

Jesus is our Savior? May it never be! In fact, these are all ways in which Jesus is our Savior.

Keller makes the profoundly tragic claim, that to embrace Jesus as teacher, model and helper is trust in yourself rather

than Jesus. How can this be? If Jesus Christ is the one who says in essence “The one who hears my words

and does them finds life”, then to take Jesus at his word means I believe I will be rewarded with life upon

doing what he says. This is to trust in Jesus, not my own goodness. According to Keller's logic even faith

must become a form of self-dependence. He would grant we must have faith to be saved, therefore according to his rationale to

have faith in order to be blessed with life means you are trusting in your faith, not Jesus.

By his own faulty reasoning he inadvertently undermines his own gospel formula.

Jesus was radically different from all other religious leaders because of what He taught and who

He was. He was God incarnate. And because He was God incarnate He could die a death that has

sufficient value to atone for the sins of the whole world. Jesus knew that in our striving to avoid sin and

follow Jesus' example, we would struggle and at times stumble. James wrote, “We all stumble in many

ways”(Ja 3:2). John wrote,”If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in

us”(1 Jn1:8). Jesus' death is not just for unbelievers, but for believers striving for the Kingdom. John

wrote to the church, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and purify us

from all unrighteousness”(1 Jn1:9). Paul wrote to Christians in Rome that “Christ Jesus...is at the right

hand of God and is also interceding for us”(Rom 8:34). God's mercies, in Christ, are new every morning

for God's people. This mercy does not free us from striving for the Kingdom as we follow Christ's

example. The Cross is God's merciful provision for us as we strive for the Kingdom by following Jesus'

teaching. It was never meant to be held up as a reason not to strive as Jesus told us to do. That is the real

tragedy of Keller's gospel formula. He finds himself working against Jesus' teaching as he tries to win

others to Jesus.

Tim Keller admits that his gospel formula “from the outside” could be understood to mean that a

person could theoretically say, “'Nice deal!' they may say, 'If that is Christianity, all I have to do is get a

personal relationship to God and then do anything I want!'” There is nothing inherent with Keller's gospel

that would prevent this. Remember, he advocates Jesus as Savior through His work on the cross and not

as a teacher of moral effort. However, he goes on to describe how this libertine thinking is not possible

from what he describes as “the inside.” What he means by this is that the person who truly embraces the

gracious message of the cross will not want to do what they are theoretically allowed to do. He describes

this amazing grace of the gospel as a “threatening grace.” Keller explains that the person who knows she

is “a sinner saved by grace, she was (if anything) more subject to the sovereign Lordship of God. She

knew that if Jesus really had done all this for her, she would not be her own. She would joyfully and

gratefully belong to Jesus, who provided all this for her at an infinite cost to himself.”(p.190) So for

Keller, what propels obedience to Jesus is only gratitude and the joy gratitude produces. “There is no

sense of obligation” in our relationship to Jesus. A person is not motivated by what he or she stands to

gain in the future, but only by what Jesus has done on the cross in the past.

There are several problems with this perspective. First, however, it is important to note that Keller

is quite right to point out that gratitude or thanksgiving and the joy that produces is to be a motivating

factor in the Christian life. Paul writes, “For Christ's love compels us, for we are convinced that one died

for all, and therefore all died”(2Cor.5:14). One glaring problem is that Keller's teaching, while explicitly

denying “obligation,” seems to slip it in through the backdoor. He teaches that it really is not possible

“from the inside” to have a relationship to Jesus and “do whatever you want” because if you truly receive

the message you must have such a sense of gratitude that you will want to follow Jesus' teaching. In other

words, because of the great gift you are in fact obligated to have the emotional response (joy, gratitude)

that would propel you to live for Jesus. While Tim Keller does not want to say you are obligated to Jesus

for anything, because of his gospel formula, he actually teaches that you do owe Jesus, you are in fact

“more subject to the sovereign Lordship of God.” This seems to be a form of bait and switch. On the one

hand it is all free and there is no moral obligation, yet the fine print of Keller's teaching reveals the

opposite.

Better than Tim Keller here is the apostle Paul who was not bashful at all about proclaiming the debt

or obligation of faithfulness that we owe to God in response to Christ's sacrifice for us. He saw no

contradiction between Christ dying for our sins, and that great gift at the very same time creating a great

obligation to our Savior. Paul in Romans 8:1-11 describes the greatness of God's blessing in Christ which

includes Him as our “sin offering” and the gift of His Spirit which raises us from the dead. Then in

response to all this he writes, “Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation - but it is not to the sinful

nature, to live according to it”(8:12). What is our obligation? To live according to the Spirit , and by the

Spirit “we put to death the misdeeds of the body”(v.13). A parallel verse is found in Romans 6:11. Once

again, Paul describes all that God has done for us through Christ in Romans 6:1-10, then Paul writes, “In

the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign

in your mortal body, so that you obey its evil desires”(Rom.6:11,12). What Tim Keller slips in through the

back door the apostle Paul proclaims openly. The great blessing of Christ's

death creates obligation to the One who died for us. Not only that, what motivated the apostle Paul was

not just the gratitude for what Jesus did for him, but also what he stood to personally gain in following

Jesus' ways: “No not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to

please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from

the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will

reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people,

especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” (Galatians 6:7-10)

So we are in fact motivated toward moral effort from God’s saving work of the past and by God’s promise for the future. We are pushed by our realization of all that God has done for us, and pulled by our faith in what God promises to do for us. So much of this

gets deleted by Tim Keller's gospel formula. His formula becomes the interpretational grid that obscures

and misrepresents the gospel itself. It is the Procrustean bed that shaves off and obscures biblical teaching

that does not conform to the formula. So “make every effort” now means “listen real hard” and “no

obligation” hides and obscures a backdoor obligation. It is gloriously true that Jesus is infinitely superior

to all other religious leaders, just not for Keller's reasons.

The First Letter to a Friend Who is Questioning The Reality of Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Well, here are some initial thoughts about penal substitution. It was good for me to go back and re-think this doctrine, and these thoughts are just a sketch of what I have been reading. As I mentioned when we got together, I am not at all against re-thinking and looking even at doctrines that have been considered central to the Christian faith, because what is essential I believe can bear the test of scrutiny. The Scriptures are the ultimate arbiter, as we would both agree, so I will spare you the “the church has believed this for centuries” approach. While not unimportant, and to be taken seriously, this is simply not determinative. 

The first thing I would say by way of preface, is that I do believe “the message of the cross” has taken on a way more central part of the gospel than the Scriptures themselves bear witness to. It is clear that the main point of Christ’s ministry was the raising up of new creatures to bear His image in the world, and the cross was a crucial means to that end; the cross was never meant to be the be-all and end-all of God’s saving work. We were never meant to just “sit at the foot of the cross” and contemplate our sins and Christ’s mercy, as Luther would seem to have it. It is striking that the presentation of the gospel in the book of Acts never, to my knowledge, involves a detailed discussion of how Jesus paid for our sins by the washing of His blood (though that would be fleshed out in later reflections such as Hebrews.) Plus in at least three notable places when the gospel is summarized, it is resurrection and new life that is the undeniable focus and emphasis. (Such as Romans 1:1-4 [where the cross isn’t even mentioned]; or 1 Peter 2:24; or 2 Timothy 2:8; Rom.8:3,4) Even Paul’s extended discussion in 1 Cor.15 he describes Christ dying for sins as of “first importance,” and he then goes on for the rest of the chapter expounding resurrection. So clearly, the cross is essential if not the end-all and be-all of gospel teaching. As a preacher, I can’t resist an illustration (forgive me!): a hole in the ground in which the foundation is placed is essential for a house, but the point of the hole is the safe and comfortable shelter above. So I am, at least, sympathetic to a critique of contemporary evangelical “gospel teaching” when the Scriptures serve as a guide to something more faithful. 

I will cut to the chase, and after reviewing the three texts that follow, I still at this point see the scripture teaching that Jesus’ paid the penalty of our sins in our place. I just wanted to get that up front. BUT, at the same time I really want to hear your response to my understanding of these texts. So I somewhat casually ran into 3 main texts that I would like to get your thoughts on. Basically I sat down and thought, “Hmmm, now, where is penal substitution explicitly taught in the scriptures?”  Of course, you and I would agree we don’t need to see the words “penal substitution" in the Bible for it to be taught there. Just the clear meaning of the text being that Jesus took the punishment (penal) for our sins (substitute).

The first text is Galatians 3:10-14. Here Paul writes that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’” Here Paul describes Jesus as “becoming a curse for us.” Which is a good rendering of the Greek, as far as I can tell. Penal seems to be evident in that Jesus “became a curse.” What does that mean? Using Paul’s quotation in Deuteronomy 21:23, where the subject of capital punishment is described, “Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse.” (NIV) and “cursed by God” is the ESV. So put this together and it would seem that Paul is teaching that Jesus’ redeeming death was a bearing of God’s curse in our place. Again, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse (penal) for us…” (substitute). Summary: He suffered the capital punishment (Dt.21:23) that God renders on behalf of the guilty. (For the wages of sin is death)This redeems us or sets us free from the guilt and punishment our capital offense of sinful rebellion deserves. 

This seems to be prophesied by Isaiah 53, “Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him and afflicted”(v.4). 

The second passage is Romans 3:21-26, with a focus on 23-26. This is an amazing passage for sure; loaded with significance. I definitely favor the translation, “This righteousness of God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe (v.22).” This is controversial, but grammatically accurate as is the traditional translation, “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.” The second reinforces the imputation view, and so favored by reformed teachers. It struggles though in its redundancy; repeating twice that “righteousness” comes to those “through faith” and “to all who believe.” This is possible but is also very awkward. Rather, Jesus as an expression of God’s faithfulness (righteousness) to keep His promise to redeem Jew and Gentile (God’s promise to bless the nations through Abraham) that is provided to Jew and Gentiles who believe fits very well with Paul’s thought in Romans 3 and 4. This also is congruent to Paul’s statement in Romans 1:17, “For in the gospel a righteousness of God is revealed, a righteousness from faith to faith…” So here Paul is linking Jesus to God’s promise to bless through Abraham, then moves on to pull Gentile and Jew into this blessing. “There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”(v.23). All share the common problem, Jew as well as Gentile. “...and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus”(v.24). Paul now pulls in the exodus language of “redemption” which he continues to allude to in what follows. But before that, the temple sacrifice is also incorporated, “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood.” Jesus’ death, then, is a fulfilled temple sacrifice. “He did this to demonstrate his righteousness (justice), because in his forbearance he left the sins committed beforehand unpunished, he did this to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time”(v.25 NIV). The ESV reads, “because in his divine forbearance he passed over the former sins” which appears to be the more literal. The ESV captures the allusion to the exodus and passover. God passed over the Israelites to punish Egypt and “redeem” Israel from evil. It is hard not to see the Egyptian plagues as a punishment for their tyrannical and evil lordship. The firstborn were executed for the sins of Pharoah and the Egyptian rulers. The analogy is profound if not exact. God has “passed over” the sins of the all, even the faithful Jew, because animal sacrifices were insufficient, and Jesus as the firstborn and passover lamb has taken on the punishment due to all. In this Jesus “redeems” by becoming the victim; by being punished. It is interesting that the NIV translates the passage; “he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.” While this is for sure an interpretive translation; this seems like an accurate interpretation. If God did not “pass over” sins in the sense of not punishing them, then it begs the question, in what sense were they passed over? It seems to make the most contextual sense, when considering the exodus and temple sacrifice as the backdrop, that, while God really forgave the repentant and faithful Jew, his sins weren’t actually atoned for/punished until Jesus’ sacrifice of atonement. God has passed over sins in the punishment of Jesus (a penal substitute).

This appears to be prophesied by Isaiah, “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him…”(Isaiah 53:5). 

This is a very dense and complicated passage, so I am looking forward to hearing you on this for sure. This will at least be a start. 

The third passage and maybe the most compelling of the three is found in Romans 8:1-4. “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus…For what the law was powerless to do…God did by sending his own son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man…”(NIV). Here Paul describes our freedom from condemnation, in part, to be the result of Jesus experiencing God’s condemnation of sinful man; even though He was not a sinner. Jesus came in the “likeness” of sinful man and the cross is a striking and graphic punishment of “the condemned.” On Jesus “he condemned sin in sinful man” which is one reason (also we now do the “righteous requirements of the law”) “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” So here we have Jesus suffering the penalty (condemnation for sin) as a substitute “in the likeness of sinful man.” I would be very interested to hear how this could be understood differently. 

Once again, this appears to be prophesied in Isaiah 53:10, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.” 

Interestingly, Romans 8:1-4 seems to be a re-statement of Isaiah 53:10,11. “And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature(flesh) but according to the Spirit.”

After looking at these passages it occurred to me that the idea of “sacrifice” is also used as a term of judgment and punishment against God’s enemies. This is initially used in Deuteronomy as the Lord commands the annihilation of an idolatrous Israelite town. Deuteronomy 13:12-16; “If you hear it is said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’....And of it is true…you must certainly put the sword to all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God.’” The destruction of the unfaithful town is called a “whole burnt offering to the Lord your God.” This idea of sacrificial vengeance occurs in the prophets as they look forward to “the day of the Lord” as follows:

Isaiah 34:1-7; “For the Lord has a sacrifice in Bozrah and a great slaughter in Edom…”

Jer. 46:8-12; “The sword will devour till it is satisfied, till it has quenched its thirst for blood. For the Lord, the Lord almighty will offer sacrifice in the land of the north by the river Euphrates…”

Ezekiel 39:17-20, “Assemble and come together from all around to the sacrifice I am preparing for you…There you will eat flesh and drink blood…” 

Zephaniah 1:4-9; “The Lord has prepared a sacrifice, he has consecrated those he has invited. On the day of the Lord’s sacrifice I will punish the princes, and the king’s sons…On that day I will punish…” 

And the final, Day of the Lord judgment, is one of fire in which everything is burned up. “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved by fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up” (2 Peter 3:10). This brings to mind the sin and guilt offering, which was to be to be burned up completely with nothing left. The fat would be burned on the altar of burnt offering with organs, the rest of the bull would be taken outside the camp to be burned.(Lev. 4:1-12) 

When taken together, it would appear that sacrifice is essentially an instrument of judgment and of wrath. Destruction and blood and fire is crucial for the sin offering. Likewise, in the end, sinners will be “cut down,” their blood will be spilled and then they will be burned. As the guilty person lays his hand on the bull before killing it, it is appropriate because it is for the sin of the person that the bull must die. For the guilty, the sacrifice is a merciful provision that enables the one offering the sacrifice to escape the great sacrifice and fire on the day of the Lord. 

Coming back to Jesus, it is interesting (at least!) that the phenomena that happens at the time of crucifixion, are the phenomena that occurs in God’s judgment in the Old Testament judgment event over Egypt and prophesied in Revelation(Ex.10/Rev.6). “From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land”(Mt.27:45). This is when Jesus cries the cry of dereliction, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Of course, this is quoting Psalm 22. In that Psalm the subject never considers God to be his enemy, but it is a cry of innocence at being “forsaken” into the hands of evil men. It is in the end God’s doing, or the cry makes no sense. Interestingly, the plague of darkness is right before the killing of the firstborn in Exodus 10,11; with Jesus we have 3 hours of darkness before The Firstborn “gave up his spirit”(Mt.27:50). Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not! After darkness comes the earthquake(Ex.19/Rev.11). “The earth shook and the rocks split”(Mt.27:51). So darkness and earthquakes are emblematic of God’s wrath and judgment. With darkness and the earthquake Jesus’ sacrifice is consistent with “sacrifice” as a place of God’s judgment and covenant vengeance. 

In writing the letter, refreshed to me from the Scriptures was this idea of “sacrifice” as God’s “vengeance.” I would encourage you to read the Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Zephaniah passages in full that I took excerpts from above. It is hard to nor hear Revelation 19:11-21; where the Rider on the white horse who “with justice, he judges and makes war” and “treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.” 

So it would seem to me, that on the cross, an instrument of capital punishment and torture, Jesus was cursed by God, condemned, and took the punishment we are guilty of committing. God is “passing over” us and striking down the “firstborn” so that we can go free. To this point this seems like the most reasonable reading of Scripture. But I do look forward to your response, and am open to critique, or another way of thinking of these texts. I know this is a lot, so feel free to interact with as much or as little as you are able.