Tuesday, June 25, 2013
The Judgment of God According to Works and Justification by Faith
Thursday, July 21, 2011
The Irony of Christian Radio
For example, many Evangelicals believe in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, but not in its inerrancy. Secondly, the citation of Acts 4:12, John 14:6 and other texts does not resolve the issue of the exclusivity of Christ and the eternal state of those who never made a conscious "decision" to follow Jesus, for the main reason that many Evangelicals assert the nature and existence of the Triune God and still hold for a wider mercy beyond those who have never heard a preacher of the gospel (which view, I think, lacks exegetical warrant, but there are some strong cases for the view). Third, while it is obvious that one's view on the nature and reality of Hell commands one's world and life view, grabbing texts out of context without dealing with the exegetical, theological and philosophical issues --at least at a surface level on a radio show with limited time--is a disservice to the listening audience. But the main point here is that the talk show hosts, for all their bolstering and boldness about the authority of the Bible "It means what it says, and it says what it means," and for all their guffaws against pandering pastors behind pansy pulpits (pansies are actually a resilient flower, but you get the idea), and for all their galloping charges declaring the glorious gospel, they fell short by succumbing to their own tradition.
Which tradition? The following: "You have to accept Him," and "You need to accept Jesus as your personal Lord n' Savior, and "You need to accept Christ" and "You need to accept what He did for you (dying on the cross for your sins)", etc. This is a mere tradition speaking, and not the Holy Scripture. One does not find this kind of language in the Bible when the gospel is preached by John the Baptist, Jesus, or the Apostles in the gospels, in Acts, or in the epistles. Such language of "accepting Jesus" is just not there. The men on this radio show want to hold forth the inerrancy of Scripture, but when it comes to preaching its most important message--the gospel--they don't do it. So, what should they be telling their listening audience then?
For some readers here, the answer will be obvious, but it's not beyond warrant to repeat what Scripture lays down with absolute clarity: repentance and faith. Here is just the book of Luke-Acts from Bible gateway.
1. Luke 3:3
And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Luke 3:2-4 (in Context) Luke 3 (Whole Chapter)
2. Luke 3:8
Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.
Luke 3:7-9 (in Context) Luke 3 (Whole Chapter)
3. Luke 5:32
I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."
Luke 5:31-33 (in Context) Luke 5 (Whole Chapter)
4. Luke 10:13
[ Woe to Unrepentant Cities ] "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
Luke 10:12-14 (in Context) Luke 10 (Whole Chapter)
5. Luke 11:32
The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.
Luke 11:31-33 (in Context) Luke 11 (Whole Chapter)
6. Luke 13:1
[ Repent or Perish ] There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
Luke 13:1-3 (in Context) Luke 13 (Whole Chapter)
7. Luke 13:3
No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Luke 13:2-4 (in Context) Luke 13 (Whole Chapter)
8. Luke 13:5
No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."
Luke 13:4-6 (in Context) Luke 13 (Whole Chapter)
9. Luke 15:7
Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
Luke 15:6-8 (in Context) Luke 15 (Whole Chapter)
10. Luke 15:10
Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents."
Luke 15:9-11 (in Context) Luke 15 (Whole Chapter)
11. Luke 16:30
And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
Luke 16:29-31 (in Context) Luke 16 (Whole Chapter)
12. Luke 17:3
Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him,
Luke 17:2-4 (in Context) Luke 17 (Whole Chapter)
13. Luke 17:4
and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him."
Luke 17:3-5 (in Context) Luke 17 (Whole Chapter)
14. Luke 24:47
and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luke 24:46-48 (in Context) Luke 24 (Whole Chapter)
15. Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:37-39 (in Context) Acts 2 (Whole Chapter)
16. Acts 3:19
Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out,
Acts 3:18-20 (in Context) Acts 3 (Whole Chapter)
17. Acts 5:31
God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.
Acts 5:30-32 (in Context) Acts 5 (Whole Chapter)
18. Acts 8:22
Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.
Acts 8:21-23 (in Context) Acts 8 (Whole Chapter)
19. Acts 11:18
When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life."
Acts 11:17-19 (in Context) Acts 11 (Whole Chapter)
20. Acts 13:24
Before his coming, John had proclaimed a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
Acts 13:23-25 (in Context) Acts 13 (Whole Chapter)
21. Acts 17:30
The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,
Acts 17:29-31 (in Context) Acts 17 (Whole Chapter)
22. Acts 19:4
And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."
Acts 19:3-5 (in Context) Acts 19 (Whole Chapter)
23. Acts 20:21
testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Acts 20:20-22 (in Context) Acts 20 (Whole Chapter)
24. Acts 26:20
but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.
Acts 26:19-21 (in Context) Acts 26 (Whole Chapter)
So, that is twenty-four uses of the word "repentance" in Luke/Acts. The concept of repentance is laid bare to the Apostle Paul by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself in a personal revelation on the road to Damascus that Paul retells to King Agrippa. Paul explains that Jesus says to him regarding his ministry to the Gentiles,
"'I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me,'" (Acts 26:16-18). Notice that Jesus tells Paul that the Gentiles must "turn" from darkness and the devil to light and to God? This is what "repent" means: it means to turn from sin and start living for God in newness of life in righteousness and holiness. Turn away from sin, turn to God, be forgiven, and live a new life. It all happens at once, by God's grace, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit; but it is we who are commanded to turn from sin and live a new life by faith in Jesus. Did you see anything about "receiving Jesus" or "accepting Him" here? "Receiving" and "accepting" are passive, whereas repentance is active. Human beings are commanded to act, and the act is repentance and faith. Anything less than that empties the commands of God of their power and authority!
Moreover, a close look at Acts 20:21 shows that faith and repentance are conjoined in one act. "Testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." Also, try to find where John the Baptist, Jesus or the Apostles speak of "accepting Jesus as your personal Savior" and such traditional phrases. Not found in Scripture! Rather, the message of the New Testament is that God commands all people everywhere to repent and turn from sin and place faith in Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and the right to eternal life.
Perhaps the reason why the radio talk show hosts don't preach repentance is because it doesn't fit with their theology of "faith alone" where "faith" is either 1) an intellectual assent, or 2) some passive "acceptance" of facts about what God has done in Christ, or 3) some kind of emotional state of being where we "let Jesus into our hearts." But such notions are completely foreign to the Bible, and they don't accomplish the command of God, which is that people turn from their wicked ways, stop living lives of sin, and start living lives of righteousness. It seems to me that the reason these men don't even mention repentance and a new life in godliness is that it doesn't fit their theology of faith and works. "We are saved by faith," they may say, and works come afterward. But the message of the New Testament is contrary to their teaching: we must turn to God in repentance, and place faith in Jesus Christ, and prove our repentance by our good deeds. This, dear reader, is the message. Place no trust in the message of "accepting Him," as such a message is not found anywhere in the text of the New Testament, and it sure isn't found in the Old Testament, either. "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age," (Titus 2:12).
If you want to preach the gospel, tell people they must repent of their sins and place faith in Jesus Christ, proving it by their good deeds. But enough of this "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord n' Savior" stuff. Stick with the clear message of Scripture!
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Book Review: Trust and Obey: Norman Shepherd & The Justification Controversy at Westminster Theological Seminary
Hewitson, Ian. Trust and Obey: Norman Shepherd and the Justification Controversy at Westminster Theological Seminary. Minneapolis MN, NextStep Resources, 2011, Pp. 277. $25.00
Do you know how faith and works fit together? If we are saved from our sins by faith, then why all the commands to do good works? Why does Paul say we are justified by faith, but James says, "you see that a man is not justified by faith alone, but by his works," (2:24)? How can we express the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and yet find any congruence with what James says?
In the late 1970's and early 1980's, the doctrine of justification by "faith alone" came under scrutiny at Westminster Theological Seminary. One of the reasons that precipitated a long, drawn-out, and painful controversy there is because the Rev. Norman Shepherd sought to do faithful exegesis of the text of Scripture in comparing the so-called contradictory pronouncements on justification between Paul and James. He did so while staying faithful to his Reformed tradition as expressed in the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms). While Shepherd came to question Luther's statement of "justification by faith alone," he wondered why exegetical theology could not express itself in terms of the simpler, and more biblical, "justification by faith." It was, after all, Martin Luther who added the gloss "alone" (glauben allein) into the text of Romans 3:28, which is not in the Greek text.
Ian Hewitson, Ph.D. University of Aberdeen, reveals in his clear, erudite dissertation, that at the crux of the debate over Shepherd's teachings was the Lutheran-Calvinist distinction in what constitutes justifying faith. For Luther, the faith that justifies is "alone." That is, faith is an entity that exists all by itself, is "alone," and is devoid of any and all good works. In this sense "justification by faith alone" uses "alone" as an adjective. What kind of faith is it that justifies? It is an "alone" faith. It is faith in abstraction from all else. That is the adjectival use of the word "alone" in "justification by faith alone."
The Calvinist understanding, however was comfortable with the notion of justifying faith as a living, active, obedient faith. The (Calvinist) Westminster Confession of Faith states, "Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love" (Chapter 10, Section 2). The Calvinist understanding of "justification by faith alone" uses "alone" in the adverbial sense. That is, faith is an adverb. Adverbs modify verbs. Hence, we ask the question this time: how is a person justified? The answer is, "the only way of salvation is by Jesus Christ and by His work on our behalf. Those who trust in Him alone with a living and active faith will be justified" (Hewitson, 26 emphasis added).
The distinction between faith and works is important for those of the Protestant Reformation, but--the Lutherans and Calvinists expressed that difference in pedantic, yet ponderous ways. Hewitson adds excellent detail and documentation to this discussion in the opening of the book, which sets the stage for the reader to understand the base assumptions of the controversy in these historical terms.
Of important note in this book is Hewitson's discussion of the temporal versus the logical distinction between justification and sanctification. The difference here is expressed in the fact that both sides on the controversy believe there should be a distinction between justification (legal declaration of the forgiveness of sins) on the one hand, and sanctification (growing in grace, holiness, and Christ-likeness), on the other. The desire to draw the distinction between justification and sanctification is not only understandable, but absolutely necessary, because otherwise justification would be a process. If justification is a process, then believers have no comfort of the total forgiveness of sins, because they remain sinners. This would put people in jeopardy of submitting to a system of cleansing that provides no assurance and is based on works. Shepherd's opponents, however, insisted on a temporal distinction between justification and sanctification, and a temporal distinction here does not leave room for language that describes saving faith as "living, active and obedient," while a logical distinction does. A logical distinction merely discusses the differences between justification and sanctification in the essence of their respective imports, but that does not mean that they cannot happen at the same time. In fact, the Westminster Standards speak of justification and sanctification as "inseparably joined," yet distinct (Larger Catechism, Q. 77). Oddly enough, some reformed pastors today want to speak of a "nanosecond" that exists between justification and sanctification, in order to rescue the doctrine of "justification by faith alone." Thus, the commitment to a temporal distinction results in extra-biblical terminology that has no basis in Scripture, confuses people, and wreaks of scholasticism. The logical distinction holds true to the Larger Catechism, the message of Scripture and the idea that one is justified by a living, active, obedient faith.
One of the major components of the controversy was Shepherd's understanding of the "covenant dynamic" with respect to election. Shepherd taught that with respect to election, Christians must not look to the doctrine of the divine decrees in order to know if someone or one's self is elect, because Christians do not have access to that information: only God does. But what do Christians have access to? Well, that would be the Scriptures, and human experience. Shepherd therefore taught that election (and other doctrines) may be understood from two perspectives: God's and man's. For election to be understood from the perspective of the covenant sounded too much like Roman Catholic or Arminian theology to Shepherd's opponents, and even though he was exonerated time and again by the seminary, his opponents did not give up. However, Hewitson shows with remarkable clarity, skill and research that Shepherd was supported by Scripture, Reformed tradition in the Standards and in the writings of the Reformers themselves, as well as Faculty at the seminary.
Hewitson provides a good sketch of Shepherd's bi-perspectival approach, or what is called his "covenant dynamic." The covenant dynamic seeks to express the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. One asks, "If the elect can never fall away, then how do we make sense of the warning passages that warn God's people to persevere in the faith in order to avoid eternal judgment?" The covenant dynamic speaks to the issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility with respect to this issue (and others) by means of the dynamic of two perspectives: God's and man's. For example, from God's perspective, there is divine election. Corresponding to this is man's perspective, which is membership in the church. Now, Shepherd's opponents could not (or would not?) understand this paradigm, and accused Shepherd of teaching that membership in the church meant a person was elect--in term's of God's perspective, that is. But Shepherd made himself very clear, as Hewitson shows in his documentation, that he meant a person may be considered elect by virtue of their membership in the church, not because anyone has access to God's divine decree (the book of Life), but because one has access to the standards of the covenant (revealed in Scripture, the covenant document), and the standards of the covenant are that one belongs to the church (marked by baptism). From man's perspective, one can say a certain member in the church is elect, because that person confesses Jesus Christ as Lord, is baptized, and lives a life that expresses obedience to Him (not sinless obedience, you understand). But that person, according to the divine decree may not be elect--they may not really believe at all, and may prove this by falling away from the faith some day and never coming back. So, they apostatize. In this sense (man's perspective here), their status as "elect" was not irrevocable. However, on the opposite end, in terms of the divine decree and God's perspective, they never actually were elect, and they have proven this by their confession and/or lifestyle (or both). But from man's perspective, there was--at one time--every reason to believe they were elect.
Time after time, Shepherd was exonerated from Westminster Theological Seminary. He was never found guilty of error. He was never found guilty of heresy. Ever. In fact, he has to this day to receive a letter of dismissal from WTS. Readers will find this book not a little damning toward those who opposed him. Hewitson even indulges readers with personal interviews and letters of Shepherd's main protractors.
Believing that Norman Shepherd is heterodox, unorthodox, or a heretic is impossible after reading this book. That is, unless the evidence is dismissed, disbelieved, or counted as insufficient. But the evidence that Ian Hewitson provides in this tome is overwhelming. First, Hewitson reveals with meticulous detail, the history behind the justification controversy at Westminster Theological Seminary in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The amount of documentation from various meetings (Board of Trustees, Faculty and other committees) is as high and interminable as a WWII pillbox on Omaha beach. Second, Hewitson covers the theological debate in a clear, outlined format that shows exactly what the controversy covered concerning Shepherd’s views, namely on covenant, election, baptism, and justification (with a discussion on the phrase, “justification by faith alone”). He shows from Shepherd's own writings, those of the Westminster Standards, and of the Reformers as well, that Shepherd's theological thought was well within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy, and in fact reflected much of it, including the likes of Calvin, Turretin, Bavinck, and John Murray, Shepherd's predecessor.
Hewitson’s chief aim in this book is to “rise to the defense of a man [he] had come to believe was being unjustly slandered” (p.15). After reading the story of what happened to Shepherd, and how a few, bold, men opposed him—after reading the account of the witch hunt that went secretly behind the authority of the seminary—after reading the personal letters of those who opposed and supported him, it is difficult to read the book without gasping at the activity of Christian men who sought the destruction of a brother after being exonerated by the seminary countless times. Of course, Hewitson is so fair-minded in his history, and so objective in his retelling, that one reads this story from the perspective of receiving just the facts. But, as John Frame tells in the forward, that fact is this—that after all the controversy, the seminary came to an impasse: Shepherd’s opponents were causing a stir that was “injuring the seminary’s reputation, enrollment, and financial stability…. There is no way in which the seminary could have silenced Shepherd’s critics; it had to choose between Shepherd and them. And so they perpetrated an injustice” (p.11).
