I just started a class called the Theology of Work. As I was wrapping my head around the concept of Work and how God views work and how we view God according to work, I came up with a
Before and after the Garden (Michelangelo Sistine)
"flow of consciousness" note. I wrote this after a discussion with a good friend, and I thought these ideas were worth sharing. Adam and Eve in the Garden received the first command and it is the command of work to name the animals and to rule and have dominion of Creation. This is often called the "Creation Mandate." It was a freeing, life giving, partnership with God in the ruling, ordering, and reign of creation. However, after the fall our work was cursed “man will toil by the sweat of his brow” and the woman will "bring forth children in pain in childbirth."
God then sent them out of the garden, and from then on God cursed the ground with thistles and
thorns. Work was no longer a blessing but a curse, and men had to struggle and strive to earn which
"Expulsion from Eden" (Doré)
was the exact opposite of what they had from God previously in the garden. God gave them of every fruit of the trees in the Garden. We see this in the scripture “the wages of sin is death” we earn death through the work of our hand after the fall. So, after the fall, work was no longer a wonderful life giving command from God but rather a curse that brought toil, sweat, striving and difficulty. We see this in such scripture as “if a man does not work he cannot eat.” In this we see that laziness is tied to the curse. It is also tied to our need for sustenance. Our sustenance through food is tied to the curse. What are we now sustained by? Our own toil and effort. We cannot ever really rest. We must keep working to live. We have rests in between, but the commonality between all humans is that we have to work for our sustenance.
Work certainly has hints of the blessing, but also, we sense and see the reality of the curse. We have to work for everything. In this, God sets up our readiness to receive the gospel. God in the gospel has made up for what we lack. He has made up for what we could not, and never will attain in all our striving. We always fall short in our striving which we find in our work. Certainly we achieve things in our work-a-day world. We finish projects, build beautiful structures, help patients, produce beautiful art, and design amazing technology, but our work always falls short. Our work is limited, flawed, never enough. Especially as it pertains to righteousness. We will never be able to do enough to even tip the scales in our direction. The standard for salvation, or to be able to stand before a holy God, would be sinless perfection. Moreover, we would have to be actively completely righteous as Christ was in His active obedience to the Father. But alas, we fall woefully short in our striving. The work of Christ, on the other hand, is plenty. Not just enough, but more than enough.
That is how the writer of Hebrews talks about entering the rest of God. In creation, even God, the creator, worked for six days and on the seventh day he rested. That is why he commanded the seventh day for rest. The writer of Hebrews describes “entering his rest” and that Jesus is our rest. Jesus also describes that he is the “Lord of the Sabbath.” This is fitting. He is not just Lord of the day, but he is also Lord of the rest found on that day. The Sabbath was created so that we could find rest from our constant doing. That complete and final rest was never to be fully found on that day. That day was created for rest so we will one day look to where our true rest comes from. We never find true rest in the 7th day of rest, because the next day we are all back at it again. And the cycle continues. The Sabbath was created for us to build a longing for the true Sabbath. And that true Sabbath is not a day, but rather a person, the creator of days, Jesus Christ himself is the true Sabbath. In Christ we see that he has accomplished our final rest, and "It is Finished” was his cry.
The gospel is the final rest for man. The good news is Christ's cross. When we look at Christ and his work on the cross, upon which he worked on our behalf, to please a God which we could not have pleased, we find rest from our toil. He has pleased a God we could not have pleased, and accomplished a work which we could not have accomplished even if we had had an eternity to do so. God said how pleased he was with his Son, when he said, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” We find our true and final rest in him, because God was finally pleased and propitiated with the work of Christ on the Cross. D.A. Carson wrote in his book Scandalous: The Cross and Resurrection of Jesus, "In pagan propitiation, a human being offers a propitiatory sacrifice to make a god propitious. In Christian propitiation, God the Father sets forth Jesus as the propitiation to make himself propitious; God is both the subject and the object of propitiation. God is the one who provides the sacrifice precisely as a way of turning aside his own wrath. God the Father is thus the propitiator and the propitiated, and God the Son is the propitiation." (see source at end of post).
He has provided an answer to the work that cursed us in the Fall, and by his grace we have and will enter our rest in him. On that day, we must work and toil no more. He will at long last be our final rest!
Is Satan the cause, the initiator, the deliverer, the source of illness, disease, sickness, and disability? Short answer NO! Long answer,
complicated theology. Lately, I have been surrounded by this theological
perspective that Satan is the cause of illness, disease, and disability. Our
daughter Ana has Down syndrome. Recently, Simone (my wife) had someone tell her
that our daughter’s Down syndrome was from Satan. This perspective is
incredibly inaccurate, not to mention how pastorally insensitive and hurtful it
is to say. But I’m not going to let anyone say it to me anymore because it is terribly biblically mistaken.
Discussions are happening almost
consistently around me lately about sickness, disability, and illness, and I hear often
this perspective that people believe that Satan is the source of sickness. I
cannot think of one single biblical instance where Satan was the sole cause and
initiator of some kind of illness, sickness, or disability outside of God's sovereign plan. As a matter of
fact, I can only think of three separate instances where Satan was even the one who "gave" an illness in Job’s case, Paul’s thorn in the flesh (messenger of Satan), and Luke 13 a woman who had been crippled for 18 years by Satan. However, in
these cases God allowed those situations to test both Job and Paul, and in Luke 13 the devil was obviously subject to Jesus authority. From these instances we see that God actually is the initiator. God says, “have you
considered my servant Job” when Satan had not even mentioned Job. In Paul’s
case God had also expressed complete control and sovereignty over Paul’s thorn
to prove to Paul that, “my grace is sufficient for you.” and the keep him from "becoming conceited." However, to say or believe that Satan is the source or initiator of sickness is just not true. Satan is very real and active no doubt, but he is NOT sovereign in or over illness, disease, and disability. God clearly holds complete sovereignty over all things including sickness, and even those rare occasions where he allows the devil to torment people through possession, which is different than sickness, He is still in complete control. As we see in Jesus, he comes to earth to show that the kingdom of God is coming, and Satan is losing his grip on this world.
The roots of this view are
undoubtedly from the Word of Faith movement that says that Christ took our
sickness and illness on himself on the cross. This view that Satan is the cause
of sickness is just a natural out working of the Word of Faith Theology. The
Word of Faith view is profoundly flawed and so no wonder this view developed
into such a troubling theology. I would like to propose a few perspectives on
sickness, illness, and disability.
It is incredibly inaccurate to say that God
never causes sickness, illness, and disability
It is also incredibly inaccurate to say that He
only allows sickness, illness, and disability
It is also unbiblical to say that Jesus paid for
your health on the cross. If he had then Christians would not get sick, or die.
It is rather biblical to say that, God in his
infinite sovereign wisdom sometimes allows, causes, and even plans sickness,
illness, and disability for our good and his ultimate glory.
God in his infinite sovereign wisdom also works
many and varied difficulties to his holy and perfect ends. He often works evil
for good (Romans 8:28).
His ultimate goals for us are salvation and
holiness. Health, if given are only secondary blessings.
These theologies furthermore are part of a new movement called the New
Apostolic Reformation I have written a book recently on the subject called
“Divergent Theology” I would like to add a section of that book that speaks to this issue here...
In my time in California, (as a
youth pastor) I was reintroduced to what is now being called the “Third Wave
Movement” or the “New Apostolic Reformation.” From my previous study of the
WOF, it became apparent how these newer movements are a development of that
same deeply flawed teaching. During our time in California, my wife shared her
testimony in a women’s Bible study. She shared about our journey with our daughter
who has Down Syndrome, and during that particular time, a seizure disorder. My
wife during her testimony shared our struggle with Ana during the time of her
devastating seizures. She had something called Infantile Spasms, which is a
seizure disorder that only occurs in infancy, and can be very devastating.
After sharing her heart in this testimony, a woman approached her and gave her
a CD of teaching by Bill Johnson from Bethel Church in Redding, California. The
sermon went something like this: “God is good; cancer is bad; Satan is bad;
thus, Satan is the source of cancer.” While I cannot find that particular sermon
in their sermon archives, this is how I remember what he said. He equated cancer
with the work of the devil and never a work of, or allowed by God.[1]
This would be no surprise if you have any knowledge of the Word of Faith
Movement. Bill Johnson was quoted in an interview as saying, “You can only give
away what you have. Can God give away sickness? No, He’s not sick. You can’t
give cancer if you don’t have it.”[2]
This is extraordinarily inaccurate. Of course, God can
give away sickness, plague, pestilence, disability, or any other ailment He
wishes. He gave leprosy, killed 14,700 people in Korah’s rebellion by a plague
(Numbers 16), killed Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts
5:1–11), He sent instantaneous blindness to Saul (Acts 9:1–9), Elymas the
magician (Acts 13:9–12), and the Syrian army that came against Elisha (2 Kings
6:16-22). He struck Zechariah the priest dumb until his son John the Baptist was born for his unbelief (Luke 1:20). He struck the firstborn dead when the Angel of the Lord passed
over Egypt (Exodus 12). He allowed Job, who was a righteous man, to be struck
by boils from the top of his head to the bottom of his feet (Job 2). God smote
the evil kings of Israel, and even on occasion freed them of their terrible
judgements. The Lord struck Jeroboam King of Israel and he died (2
Chronicles 13:20). God struck King Jehoram with an incurable bowel disease.
After two years, he became disemboweled because of the disease and he died in
agony (2 Chronicles 21:18- 19). God did that to Him! God likewise afflicted
king Azariah with leprosy until the day he died (2 Chronicles 26:20–21).
These are just a few Old and New Testament instances of how God allowed
or even pronounced illnesses and occasionally even death. When Johnson says,
God can’t give away sickness, he is woefully incorrect. One may say that this
is the age of grace and God would never behave like this anymore. However,
judgement of illness and even death are parsed out like this in the New
Testament often. As the word of God says, “For I the Lord do not change;
therefore you, O Children of Jacob, are not consumed.”[3]
And elsewhere it is written, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and
forever.”[4]Johnson also taught in that same interview:
No. Two
thousand years ago, Jesus made a purchase. He does not decide not to heal
people today. The decision two thousand years ago was to heal. Either the
payment was sufficient for all sin or no sin. Either the payment was sufficient
for all sickness or no sickness ... The brushstroke of God’s redemption
was to wipe out the root of sin, the root of illness and the root of poverty.[5]
This did not surprise me, but it
did once again bring back into my purview how widespread the Word of Faith
Movement had become. Johnson is correct that Jesus sacrifice was truly
sufficient for all sins. That must be true; if there was one sin not
atoned for, then no sins are atoned for. If there is even one sin for which
Jesus did not die, there would be no salvation for anyone. The second
cannot be true. Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient for all sickness, because
if one sickness is not healed, then He did not die for all sickness. All men
die, many from illnesses of one sort or another. Christians still get sick and
still die. The Bible nowhere says unambiguously that Jesus died to heal
all sickness, it is just not there. If even one single person is not healed, in
this line of reasoning, then the atonement is lacking.
People could certainly become discouraged in the Christian
life if they don’t experience healing for some illness or disability if people
held to this teaching. It can cause needless depression and despair. But there
is something more at stake than discouragement here. When healing doesn’t
happen, people might stop seeing themselves as the problem. They might
stop thinking that the lack is with them. What I have witnessed happen with
individuals involved in these movements, is that they will begin to think that
the lack is with the Word of God. That it isn’t real or true, and even
worse, that Christ’s atonement is also insufficient.
If this was not erroneous and
implausible enough, it gets worse. The deficiency of God not healing is
not on God’s end but rather on our end. Bill Johnson writes on his blog:
How can God
choose not to heal someone when He already purchased their healing? Was His
blood enough for all sin, or just certain sins? Were the stripes He bore only
for certain illnesses, or certain seasons of time? When He bore stripes in
His body, He made a payment for our miracle. He already decided to heal. You
can’t decide not to buy something after you’ve already bought it. There
are no deficiencies on His end — neither the covenant is deficient, nor His
compassion or promises. All lack is on our end of the equation.[6]
Healing is up to God, not up to us. Healing is the sovereign
prerogative of God. Many healings that we would have thought should have taken
place in the Bible do not. 2nd Corinthians 12:1-10 describes Paul’s thorn in
the flesh. Most commentators believe it was some problem with his eyes.
Job was physically afflicted by the devil at God’s permission. Timothy had
“frequent illness.” Jesus did not heal everyone (Mark 6:1-6). One thing Jesus
never did was to produce a miracle without faith (Mark 6:2-3), and He did not
produce a “sign from heaven” upon request (Mark 8:11-13), or a miracle that
contradicted God’s plan (Mark 15:29-32).
Other examples of God’s
sovereignty are the Apostles. They were killed ruthlessly. In other
words, God did not deliver them from suffering and death, but rather at his
sovereign command, He permitted their suffering under His gracious hand. Jesus
gave us a command to invite those suffering under the weight of disease and
disability into our homes for feasts, but doesn’t command us in that same
passage to heal those we invite. His hope in the command is rather that we show
kindness, and hospitality to those who are suffering (Luke 14:12-14). God,
speaking to Moses, displays his ultimate sovereignty over illness and
disability when the Lord said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him
mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?””[7]
Another example, Mephibosheth,
the son of Jonathan, in the Old Testament was injured in an accident and
crippled. David took it upon himself after Jonathan’s death to show kindness to
the house of Jonathan and invited Mephibosheth into his home to eat at his
table for the rest of his life (2 Samuel 4 & 9). Leviticus displays to us
that taking care of the disabled, and those who are suffering, has something to
do with our reverence for God, “You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling
block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the Lord.”[8] In
other words, if there is no reverence for God then one might not care for those
suffering under disabilities. If, on the other hand, there is a fear and
reverence for the Lord, then there will be a care for people who are suffering
under these disabilities. Healing, suffering, and diseases are more about God
and his sovereign plan than about our hope for immediate healing.
God, in the Old Testament, often wielded
sickness, ailments, disease, disability, even plagues to His sovereign ends. The rebellion of Korah in the Old Testament, as previously mentioned, is a prime example. God
killed with a plague 14,700 people in one day as a judgement on rebellion
(Numbers 16). God often used these circumstances as judgement on people for
wickedness. However, He also allowed these situations for His glory, for
instance, Naaman in the Old Testament. It says that the Lord had given victory
to Syria because of Naaman and he was a mighty man of valor. He had the favor
of God, but he also had leprosy. Naaman sought healing from Elisha, and God
gave healing, inasmuch as He had allowed the leprosy to begin with. John 9 is
the most stunning instance of God’s sovereignty over disability and illness. The Disciples see a man born blind and ask Jesus “Rabbi, who sinned, this
man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus responds to them, “It was
not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be
displayed in him.”[9]
God had allowed the blindness in this man that he would one day encounter
Jesus, and the works of God would be put on display in and through him.
Additionally, those born with
disabilities are woven together in their mother’s womb by the all-powerful hand
of a good and loving God. Psalm 139 describes a God who “knitted me together in
my mother’s womb.” Everyone, everywhere from Adam to the present who has ever
been born have been God’s wonderful needlework. He has formed each and every
person uniquely in our own individual ways. In the same vein Paul describes
that the body of Christ needs weaker members. 1st Corinthians 12:12–27 says,
“the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indespensable,”[10]which shows us that we need those who are frail to make the body of Christ
whole. Without the weaker parts of the body of Christ the church is not complete.
Healing, health, birth, life, death, suffering, sickness, and disease are all
given or permitted according to the prerogative of an almighty supreme God,
not according to our sufficiency or deficiency.
When and if God chose to heal
people it happened, and continues to happen in response to an effectual faith,
in accordance with His great mercy and kindness. Johnson would have us believe
if people are not healed that the, “lack is on our end of the equation.” If Christ
purchased our atonement on the cross and our sins past, present, and future are
forgiven then our healing ought to have also been accomplished immediately.
Just as our full atonement is consummated upon repentance and faith, so also
should our healing according to this logic. If we were to apply Johnson’s
teaching fully, Christians who have placed their faith in Christ, should never
get sick. In actuality, our full and complete healing will not be achieved
until we receive our incorruptible bodies at the resurrection of the righteous.
The
previous quotation from Johnson is to me a crass reminder of my own experiences
of the control, the hurt, the pain, the guilt, and shame that this cult-like
message from Bethel and Bill Johnson produces. The covenant is not deficient;
all lack is on our end of the equation. If we took Johnson’s teaching at face
value, our daughter is infused with a disease from Satan, and our faith is too
weak to secure her healing. The lack is on our end of the equation, and
that is why she is not healed. It was so offensive and hurtful to us as a
family so many years ago, but our feelings are not the crux of the matter, the
truth is. If this were true, as previously stated, then all believers, as soon
as they put their trust in Christ, would immediately be free from illness,
poverty, and death, because Christ bore our illness and poverty on the cross,
just as He did our sins. If our sins are forgiven and are gone, so also should
all our sickness, disease, torment, and poverty. In actuality, they are not
done away with. The truth is, even the Christian will struggle under these
until we receive our glorified bodies and death is finally done away with.[11]
The
reality is that we die and death is the ultimate illness. About one-third of
people who die daily die of some sort of illness. About two thirds of daily
deaths are people who die naturally of old age (that number is almost 90% in
industrialized countries). The only way that Johnson can get away with
this disconcerting view is that he qualifies it with the phrase “all lack is on
our end of the equation.” If we die of cancer as a Christian, the lack must
have been on the cancer victim’s end. But that is precisely where the
perspective breaks down. We all die at some point. Death is the ultimate
disease, which takes this perplexing theology out of the realm of the logical
and moves it into the realm of the absurd. This view certainly pours on the
guilt, shame, and hurt when God does not heal despite deep faith and hopeful prayers.
Surely God can and does heal us when we pray in faith,[12] but does God do it as a rule? Or is it connected to the forgiveness of our sin?
Is healing bound up into the atonement of Christ? The other possibility
is that of the historic orthodox view of Christianity. In Genesis 3, when sin
entered the world, it affected everything. Death entered the world through one
man’s disobedience as Romans 5:12, 19-21 shows us:
Therefore,
just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so
death spread to all men because all sinned ... For as by the one man’s
disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many
will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where
sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death,
grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through
Jesus Christ our Lord.[13]
We can see here that the obvious
judgment on Adam’s race was death and decay, but on the other hand, by the one
man’s obedience, many will be made righteous. No mention of the restoration of
health, wealth, or prosperity, but rather in verse 21 a righteousness leading
to eternal life. So yes, one day He will restore our lowly bodies at the resurrection
of the righteous,[14]
but until that day, the earth is “groaning with the birth pangs.”[15]
In conclusion, this view is
perilous because it creates an inclusion to the cross of Christ that has not
been historically accepted in any of the manifold views of the atonement. The only verse that could be used, as a proof text, is found in Isaiah
53:5, which says, “ ... and by His wounds we are healed.” The danger here
is to build a whole theology from one isolated text. Take, for example, the
passage in Mark 16:18 that says we will pick up serpents and drink deadly
poison and not be hurt. We cannot build a whole theology and practice off
of one proof text. Unfortunately, many churches do practice snake handling
and drinking poison. Did Mark and Isaiah mean that we ought to practice these
things? We should rather address the “whole counsel of God” when addressing
puzzling passages of Scripture so as to clarify their meanings. The WOF,
TWM, and NAR add the element of health, wealth, and prosperity into the atonement
that has never before been hypothesized, and in so doing, expand the atonement
to unbiblical boundaries.
I always like to close my blogs with a moment for worship. We can know God has our good in mind when we go through various trials because he is good. Be blessed by this song and sing with Shane and Shane "Though you slay me yet I will rejoice."
[1]
“Bill Johnson – God is good, ALL the time,” YouTube video, 07:31, April 6,
2010, posted by “Whizzpopping,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SehJOzfj0Rg,
accessed April 10, 2016
[2]
“Bill Johnson: God Does Not Cause Illness and Never Chooses Not to Heal,” Do
Not Be Surprised, accessed April 10, 2016, http://www.donotbesurprised.com/2013/08/bill-
johnson-god-does-not-cause-illness.html
When I played high school basketball our teammates had a funny phrase that we threw around in pressure situations during a game. We would ask sort of as a motivation, "you gonna be a hero or a goat?" What we were asking each other was, "are you able stop step up and make that crucial free throw, or make that game wining three pointer?" Of course we all wanted to be the hero. No one wants to be the goat! That figure of speech comes from the Old Testament when the priest would place their hands on the head of the scapegoat, recite the sins of the people out loud, and in so doing transferred the sins of the people to the scapegoat. Following the ceremony a person would lead the goat out into the wilderness. It is unclear what exactly happened there. Some believe the term "Azazel" was the name ascribed to the goat, or the place where the goat went into the wilderness, or maybe a demon, spirit, or a god that was allowed by YHWH to destroy the goat after he went into the wilderness.
Angus dei is the theological term for Christ as savior and or usually an image of Christ represented as the lamb of God. I want to propose that Jesus is our "Agnus Dei", and he is also our scapegoat as James Tissot has proposed in his painting. The concept exists quite deeply in this Old Testament practice as a part of the Day of Atonement. Jesus is our scapegoat, and he is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. He also is the scapegoat that has our sins transmitted to him. He does not just take our sins away and throw them into the deepest ocean, they have been transmitted to him so that we can have full expiation. I would like to show how Jesus is a type of the scapegoat, but a much better version.
The Scape Goat was...
...Part of the sin offering on the day of atonement (Lev 16:5,7). On the other hand, Jesus was our sin offering on the day of his atonement (Rom 3:25; Heb 9:5,11-14).
...Chosen by casting lots (Lev 16:8). Likewise, Jesus was chosen before the foundation of the world by the council of the Holy Trinity to take away our sin (1 Pet 1:18-20; Rev 13:8; 1 Cor 2:7-10).
...Transferred the sins of Israel by the High Priest by confessing them with both hands upon its head (Lev 16:21). God transferred our sins to Jesus when we confess Him with our mouth by faith (2 Cor 5:21; Rom 4:22-24, Rom 10:9-10).
...Sent into the wilderness by the hands of a fit person (Lev 16:21,22). Jesus was similarly
THE SCAPEGOAT (WILLIAM HOLMAN HUNT)
driven into the wilderness by the Spirit for temptation, however, he actively obeyed. Whereas the scapegoat was sent in the wilderness to die, Jesus was sent into the wilderness to overcome temptation and engage in his active obedience. His active obedience is as necessary to our propitiation as his avoidance of sin.
...Unclean and communicated it to the high priest (Lev 16:24), and the man who led the scapegoat away (Lev 16:26). Whereas the scapegoat communicated uncleanness to the High Priest and the person who led him away, Jesus on the other hand communicates cleanness and righteousness through his perfect life and expiatory death (2 Cor 5:21).
...An obvious type of Christ (Isa 53:6, 11, 12). We can clearly see Jesus in the scapegoat practice. In Isaiah 53 we see that God laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was the once and for all final scapegoat never more to yearly lay hands on a goat to transmit the sins of the people, we have once and for all laid our hands on Jesus and God has transmitted our sins onto him. He has credited us with his righteousness by grace through faith so that we don't have to rely on the blood of sheep, goats, and bulls, "for it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (Heb 10:4)." Now we can rely on Christ's blood by faith.
So instead of us trying to be our own Goats anymore we have a savior who is the Scape Goat on our behalf so that we can play the hero in God's eyes. When he applies the work of Christ to our account God only sees Christ the hero of all of history, and our heroic victorious Lamb. He is the G.O.A.T. The Greatest Of All Time indeed! Praise the Lord!
The Evangelical Christian landscape
is often influenced by poor theology and sometimes even heretical approaches. Leaders,
teachers, prophets, televangelists, and many other such evangelical leaders
seek often to recycle and repackage past teachings and even maybe unknowingly.
That is why learning from the past can guard a new generation from previous
error. I often feel like the writer of Ecclesiastes when he says:
What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will
be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it
is said, “See, this is new”? It has been already in the ages before us. There
is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later
thingsyet to be among those who come after.[1]
There is nothing new under the sun and that is often how it is
with poor theology in Church history. We repeat our poor views and
understandings of the Scriptures. One of my major callings from God, as of late,
is to try to lift up the truth of the Scriptures and Orthodox Christian
teachings. I believe it is a new calling from God on my life in this current
Christian panorama where Moral Relativism has even taken root in the Church.
A Plumb line is an instrument that has been
used in construction since at least the times of Ancient Egypt and maybe even
before that. It is an instrument that ensures that whatever is being
constructed is plumb or vertical. A plumb line directs the user whether the
thing being constructed is “right” or vertical. In construction, the plumb line
is right and everything else needs to orient itself to that standard. This is a
wonderful illustration for finding what is “plumb” in regards to moral and
ethical orientation. As we approach the study of Orthodoxy the question should first
arise, “What will be our moral and ethical “plumb line” or standard?” The Bible
often uses the plumb line as imagery in measuring Israel to the thing that is God’s
righteous standard, and those things that need to correct themselves to that
standard. The term “plumb line” is used five separate times in the Old
Testament, and all but one of those occurrences is it used in prophetic
judgement. In Amos 7:6-9 God is meting out judgement on Israel and Amos begs
God to relent in a series of judgements. Then the Lord shows Amos something.
God shows him a vision of a wall built with a plumb line and the Lord has the
plumb line in His hand. God says that he is setting a plumb line in the midst
of the people. In so doing, he is bringing swift judgement. God’s plumb line
here is he himself and his word. He then pronounces judgement on the places of
Isaac and the house of Jeroboam for being out of plumb or out of line with
God’s standard. They had moved away from meeting that righteous standard that
God had raised up.
The only four other instances where “plumb
line” is used in the Bible is in prophetic judgement in Isaiah 28:16-17; 2
Kings 21:10-15; Isaiah 34:8-12; and Zechariah 4 in which Zechariah has a vision
of a golden lampstand and the Lord says that Zerubbabel has laid the foundation
of this house and you shall see the plumb line in the hand of Zerubbabel. According
to Matthew Henry:
Christ is our Zerubbabel; mountains of difficulty were in the way
of his undertaking, but before him they are all levelled; nothing it too hard
for his grace to do...his hands shall
also finish it; herein he is a type of Christ, who is both the author and the finisher of our faith; and his being the author of it is an assurance to us that he will be the finisher, for, as for God, his work is perfect; has he begun and shall he not make
an end?[2]
Later on, Zechariah sees in his vision Zerubbabel holding the
plumb line in his hand. He has laid the foundation with the plumb line and his
hands shall also complete it. As Matthew Henry points out Zerubbabel is a type
of Christ, and in a sense, comes to lay the foundation, and build the house of
God. “Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being
joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you are also
being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.”[3]
He himself comes as did Zerubbabel holding the plumb line in his hands. He not
only holds the plumb line, but he himself is the plumb line. He is plumb, and
everything else is a lie. He is building God’s house upon the cornerstone of
himself. Christ uses the standard of his plumb line, which is he himself and
his word. The eternal
Christ is truth incarnate! Everything He said, did, and continues to do, was
and is totally, absolutely, and irrefutably true forever and always. He is, “God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not
made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into
being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.”[4]
In these passages, we
see that God’s plumb line of righteousness reveals Israel’s failure. God also
in these few passages promises to rebuild Israel and they will be built to
God’s plumb righteous standard. As Christians, righteousness, justice, and
Christ himself ought to define what plumb is. Christian Orthodoxy has sought to
bring the Church back to plumb over the years through councils and creeds.
These Orthodox teachings over the centuries have sought to bring Christ the
true plumb into clearer definition.
When we
look at orthodoxy once again, by looking to Christ as our plumb standard, it
will center us in truth. We will not so easily be tossed around by every wave
of doctrine, but rather we will have a steady anchor, namely Christ and his
word. What is orthodoxy anyway? The word “orthodoxy” is derived from two Greek
words meaning “right” and “honor.” Orthodoxy are those doctrines that honor God
by characterizing him correctly. For example, when we build our theologies on
the creeds, and statements of the early Church Councils, we can be sure that we
have relied on a foundation that has stood the test of time. A rather important
part of Christian Orthodoxy is that it claims that it is the only religion to
be absolutely true, and to provide the only way to God (John 14:6; Acts 4:12;
John 3:36; 1 Timothy 2:5). Christian theological orthodoxy represents the
message, identity, and mission of the Church throughout the millennia. It is the
core of the gospel. It does not vary with the tides of change, the whims of
philosophy, or the shifting shadows of time. The timelessness and unchanging
substance of orthodoxy is similar to what James says about our eternal God,
“with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change (James 1:17 ESV).” The
constancy of orthodoxy just reflects the unchanging nature of God. The unity of
Christian Orthodoxy is not about being right or being wrong. Orthodoxy enables
Christians throughout the centuries to have a credible, consistent, and
veracious witness to the gospel of the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of
the world.”
Christian Orthodoxy has given us the
perspective and interpretation of the saints from thousands of years of
Christian history. It is a solid framework for understanding the teachings of
the Bible. Furthermore, it undergirds our faith as Christians. One might have a
hard time understanding the gospel if not for our heritage of orthodox
underpinnings. Why is orthodoxy so pertinent and imperative to Christianity? It
is because the faith of individual Christians, and the teaching toward that
faith is at stake. The diatribe of heresy and orthodoxy has frequently been
used to create an atmosphere of intolerance, persecution, or hate. For that reason,
many do not like to relate in such terminology and jargon. However, that cannot
frighten us away from Orthodox Christianity, because the life and faith of
Christianity hangs in the balance. When right doctrines and orthodox teachings
are propagated, in a spirit of love, it means that the lives of individual
Christians and churches are founded upon the proper fundament, namely the
belief and faith in the right savior, Jesus of Nazareth, Lord of all
creation.
An indication that Orthodox
Christian theology is correct, and not just whim, or fancy, or even the
reaction of a few angry theologians at major councils, is that heresy and these
improper views of Christ persisted. These same theological heresies appear
often in separate ages and totally diverse cultures throughout history. These
errors and misrepresentations of the person and work of Christ resurface
repeatedly from the early councils until about one thousand six hundred years
after Christ. That does not mean however, that they stopped appearing after the
Reformation, but rather they continue to resurface in different forms to this
day. The reason the faithful councils clearly defined orthodoxy with their
creeds and statements is because the message of Christ is the cornerstone to
Christianity. Without a proper belief and knowledge of the person and work of
Jesus, Christianity is relegated to the status of any other world religion
which is based on works (i.e. trying to make ourselves right with God).
Orthodoxy can seem like an
insurmountable problem for pastors, theologians and the average Christian. You
may ask, why should it affect my everyday life? How does it affect my Christian
walk? The fundamental way we live our Christian lives has been based on
orthodoxy, whether we know it or not. Theological orthodoxy is not
overwhelming. I want to propose rather that it is quite an easy chore. When we
re-discover, and refer to the creeds and Ecumenical Councils of antiquity our
minds become illuminated and orthodoxy becomes clear. Many assume or argue that
Christian Orthodoxy is made up of an oppressively long list of doctrines used
to suppress people. However, history confirms that Christian Orthodoxy is most
often expressed in magnificent, concise, and beautifully penned short lists of
beliefs that describe the Holy Trinity, salvation offered in Jesus Christ, his
person, and the meaning of the eternal gospel. The true everlasting gospel of
grace is powerful for transformation. On the other hand, the false gospel can
and has been used as a weapon of destruction.
One of those Un-Orthodox teachings
from Christendom that seems to continue to resurface is Pelagianism. Safeguarding
a generation from theological error is a challenge that I have taken up. I
remember studying Pelagianism in Bible college and seminary. I remember even
saying to myself, “I don’t need to study this stuff. It is totally irrelevant
in ministry.” I was a bit naïve.
Now much older and wiser, I see the tenants of Pelagianism creeping into
current theological and ministry thought. So many years later I see this
teaching sneaking up in the evangelical landscape. I will not take much time in
this paper to describe exactly where I see its effects, but rather describe
what Pelagianism actually is and some of the dangerous implications for its implementation
into our current theological and ministry thinking.
Pelagius was a monk (although there
is some question about that) who lived from ca.
354 - (after) 418. Jerome says he was born in Ireland. These details are vague
probably because of the vigorous stand that Augustine took against him, which
essentially smeared him so much that the records of his existence became more
and more infrequent. At the very least it is thought that he was born in
Britain. He moved to Rome to teach, but upon the invasion of Alaric he fled
from Italy to Carthage, North Africa.[5] Subsequently,
Pelagius and Augustine because of their proximity to one another had quite a strong
clash. It was almost a forgone conclusion that Pelagius intersected with the
teaching of Augustine.[6]
Pelagianism has come to be known as
the teaching that denies original sin, holds that justifying grace is not given
freely, but according to merit, and the assertion that sinless
perfection is possible for the Christian. I do understand what motivated
Pelagius. He was an ascetic moralist who cared for people to live holy and
decent lives. He was quite put out by the lives of Christians that he witnessed
in Rome. He began to see at that time the emphasis on sovereignty and heaviness
of the teaching of human depravity that seemed to work itself out in
eliminating motivation to live a holy good life. I do appreciate his motivation
for people to live a holy life and to look like Christ. However, his
conclusions swung the pendulum to the improper polar extreme. In regards to
human will he emphasized free will and that man is free from
any corruption of the fall, that man’s spirit is individually created by God,
and therefore individually free from any guilt. He held that man had Adam’s
sin not imputed to him, but that his sin was rather only a bad example. So,
Adam was not our “Federal Head,” but rather some sort of poor example.[7]
Furthermore, Pelagius rejected
anything remotely resembling predestination as taught be
Augustine.[8]
For these many reasons Augustine took him on and pressed hard for him to be
condemned as a heretic.[9] To
be fair to Pelagius, ‘Pelagianism,’ as it is named, is a broader theological
divergence which he could not have uniformly united under himself. What is
today known as Pelagianism is too multifaceted and thorough of an aberration
for Pelagius to have facilitated in his lifetime. Pelagianism has developed
over the years to encompass way more than what he originally taught. His
theological inspiration could not and would not have succeeded in his lifetime
to unite and place, what we now know as Pelagianism, into one whole theological
branch.
Despite the lack of unity under the banner of Pelagianism, Pelagius
was however, the seed that planted these divergences into the theological
conscience of the church. He is credited with all theological aberrations that
falls under “Pelagianism” although he did not espouse all theological streams
of “Pelagian” thought. It lasts to this day in modified and tailored views such
as Semi-Pelagianism which can be seen in streams of modern holiness movements. A
friend recently brought up the idea that is often presented in Evangelicalism
that “God is a gentleman” as possibly a form of Semi-Pelagian thought. In
saying that God is a gentleman people mean that God will not “force” you to
believe in him or “coerce” someone that does not want God. This would seem at
first glance to go against most Augustinian, reformed thought. The Carthaginian
Council (418) and even maybe the Ephesian Council (431) also seem to countermand
the idea of God as gentleman.[10] To
clarify and sharpen focus, “The label ‘Pelagian’ is often loosely invoked to
damn any doctrine felt to threaten the primacy of grace, faith
and spiritual
regeneration over human ability, good works and moral
endeavour (emphasis mine).”[11] As
you might clearly deduce from what has been explained of Pelagius’ view, a
salvation by works likewise appears quite feasible.
In opposition to Pelagius, Augustine
held that, “man since the fall is in a state of spiritual death, utterly
disabled and opposite to all good,” and “his restoration to spiritual life was
an act of God’s almighty power; and being an act of omnipotence was
instantaneous, immediate, and irresistible.”[12] I
am not going to argue further on the topic of infant baptism, but this was also
a hot debate within the whole Pelagian controversy. I want to in this paper
focus on the Soteriological[13] elements.
I would like to take the main tenants of Pelagianism and address them
biblically.
The first teaching that is
accredited to Pelagius is the denial of original sin. In fairness, Pelagius did
not deny that Adam sinned in the Garden, but rather he denied that man had
inherited a sin nature from him. He said that man had no ‘imputed’ or ‘inherited’
sin from Adam. So, what is our biblical/theological answer to this position? It
seems trivial to talk about Adam in the garden and what happened, but one major
continual sign of the fall is the curse that man continues to live under as a
result of that sin. Because of one man’s sin, God cursed them both. Adam and
Eve’s curse included for Adam, “toil by the sweat of his brow.” In other words,
man is cursed with the labor to bring forth fruit from the ground. And the
descendants of Eve will have pain in childbirth. These things still exist today
as a reminder that we are still under the curse of sin. We also see death is
the result of breaking the command of God. God said, “but of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it
you shall surely die.”[14] One
of the other main scriptures that we refer to in understanding specifically what
happened when Adam fell is found in Romans 5:12-21. It reads:
Therefore,
just as sin came into the world through
one man, and death through sin,
and so death spread to all menbecause all sinned—for
sin indeed was in the world before the
law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even
over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type
of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if
many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the
free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the
free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but
the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because
of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those
who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in
life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of
righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the
many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made
righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin
increased, grace abounded all the more, so
that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness
leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (emphasis mine).[15]
I do not
aim to exegete this passage thoroughly, but rather to point out a few phrases
that point to sin nature that is inherited from Adam. Sin came into the world through one man, and for the judgment following
one trespass brought condemnation. We also read further in the passage, as one trespass led to condemnation
for all men, and for as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made
sinners. These few phrases and others that I have highlighted in this
passage clearly show that sin is an inheritance from Adam for man and confirmed
“because all sinned.” This passage clearly verifies that we have a sin nature,
not received when we commit our first sin, but rather is confirmed when we commit
our first sin.
Other scriptures that detail our sin
nature are Psalm 51:5, which shows that we are born into sin. Ephesians 2:2-3
states that we are by nature “children of wrath,” and “sons of disobedience.”
Furthermore, the Bible speaks of humans as sinners from infancy. Genesis 8:21
says that the “intentions of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” The Proverbs
also comments on the wicked intentions of the heart of children when he says,
“Folly is bound up in the heart of a child.” Folly is understood by the writer
of Proverbs as sin, wickedness, disobedience, and the like. The red thread that
flows throughout the scriptures is that man is sinful, not that when he sinned
he became sinful, but rather his sin confirms the reality that he is already
sinful, for what man has not sinned? Or in other words we sin because we are
sinners, not we sin then become sinners. Sin belongs to the human condition
because as seen before “Sin came into the world through one man.” Sin is a
property of humanity, and in that same vain we can consider Ephesians 2:1-3:
And you
were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according
to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air,
of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we
too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the
flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.[16]
As we
see here, the situation is dire, in which Paul casts all men, when he says,
“even as the rest.” We (before Christ) were dead in trespasses, and we were
“sons of disobedience.” In that sinful nature, we were “children of wrath.”
That was our position, nature, condition, and situation.
Isaiah also displays the state of
our natures in describing us like sheep who have gone astray, “All of us like
sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the
LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.”[17]
It is obvious from the context here that the writer is talking about sin
because he lays the iniquity of us all on Christ. Romans 3:10-18; 21 also
describes in vivid detail what that sin nature looks like:
as it is
written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for
God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does
good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to
deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of
curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are
ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear
of God before their eyes.”...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of
God[18]
It is
clear to see from this passage Paul puts us all in the same situation no one is
righteous, we all fall short of God’s glorious standard, and no one pleases God.
The writer of Hebrews confirms this holy standard. When we have sinned once we
are guilty of breaking the whole law. One might assume that we are just evil,
vile, wicked people. It is not the case that we are as wicked as we could be,
but that we are thoroughly affected by our sin nature. James, the brother of
Jesus writes, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has
become guilty of all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also
said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have
become a transgressor of the law.”[19]
As James writes you might not have committed adultery, but you might have
murdered, or committed some other sin. When you have committed one, then you
are a lawbreaker, and thus a sinner. You are not necessarily as completely
sinful (in deed) as you could be, but you are however, a comprehensive
lawbreaker. Put this way, we are all thoroughly lost in our sin.
Jeremiah 17:9 also assumes original
sin when he writes, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately
sick; who can understand it?”[20] Most
evangelical theologians confirm the theology of inherited sin. A good
representative or cross-section of Evangelical Theology would be Wayne Grudem.
He confirms the theology of original or inherited sin when he says that, “all members
of the human race were represented by Adam in the time of testing in the Garden
of Eden. As our representative, Adam sinned, and God counted us guilty as well
as Adam.”[21] Grudem also bases his
entire argument in Romans 5. He also displays how Romans 5 indicates that from
Adam to Moses there was no law, nonetheless, people still died as a result of
their sin. The fact that people from Adam to Moses died, demonstrates that God reckoned
man guilty because of Adam’s sin.[22]
My wife brought the question to my
attention, “We did not choose to sin, how can God apply Adam’s guilt to us?” at
this point you might be also asking the same question. “Hey, wait that is not
fair? Is God acting justly by crediting us with Adam’s guilt?” Firstly, none of
us can claim in that question sinlessness. We have all confirmed that we are
Adam’s children by following in his footsteps. These sins will stand as the
sole case against us in the courtroom of his final judgment, apart from the
intervention of a Holy God with a propitiatory sacrifice in our stead. We will all
be judged individually, “according to his works.”[23] Although
a weak argument some argue we would have also sinned had we been Adam. I do not
like to try to help people’s sense of unfairness and justice with “should have,
could have, would have.” But in all likelihood, we would have chosen Adam’s
path also.
Grudem presents the most compelling
argument against protests of unfairness for Adam being our Federal Head. He
says, “if we think it is unfair for us to be represented by Adam, then we
should also think it is unfair for us to be represented by Christ and to have
his righteousness imputed to us by God.”[24]
If it was unfair that Adam is our Federal Head, then it is by that same logic
unfair for Christ to represent us on the cross. Is it fair for “him to be sin
who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”[25] We
are by birthright credited with Adam’s sin, and we received his guilt, and
Christ obeyed God flawlessly and God has credited us with Christ’s record of
perfect righteousness. How is that fair? That is the somewhat upside down mercy
and grace of God. We get what we do not deserve! When we reject Adam’s
headship, in some sense it is also a rejection of Christ’s headship. Jesus
represents us as the second Adam, if we reject the first Adam do we also reject
the second Adam?
Because in Adam we are legally and
effectively guilty we therefore need a legal and efficacious substitute that
stands outside the legal imputation of that guilt. Thus, Christ is our second
Adam. That second Adam must have been free from the corruption of that nature.
We needed one that had no inherited sin nature. Man needs a reparation from one
who stands outside and had no connections to Adam as Federal Head, and thus
free from Adam’s curse of unrighteousness. These requirements are all met in
Christ! His perfect life, his perfect obedience, his freedom from Adam’s
imputed guilt, his penal substitutionary death, his victory over death, and
current reign in heaven, all establish him as our perfect Federal Head by faith.
The next teaching that Pelagianism
espouses is that justifying grace is not given freely, but according to merit.
The very first scripture that comes to mind that soundly rebuts this idea is
Titus 3:4-7. In it Paul writes:
But when
the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy
Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so
that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to
the hope of eternal life (emphasis mine).[26]
This
text is rather clear that justification, and regeneration, is a work of God not
because of works (merit) done by us but rather a grace of God. Another classic
text that speaks against human merit is Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith.
And this is not your own doing; it is
the gift of God, not a result of works, so
that no one may boast (emphasis mine).”
Grudem comments on grace verses
merit by saying:
Grace is
clearly put in contrast to works or merit as the reason why God is willing to
justify us. God did not have any obligation to impute our sin to Christ or to
impute Christ’s righteousness to us; it is only because of his unmerited favor
that he did this.[27]
The reformers (Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli) fought
to bring to the forefront the “Five Solas” of the Reformation. They were Sola
Scriptura; The Bible alone is our highest authority. Sola Fide; which means
that we are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Sola Gratia; which means
we are saved by the grace of God alone. Solus Christus; which means Jesus
Christ alone is our Lord, Savior, and King. And lastly, Soli Deo Gloria; which
means we live for the glory of God alone. One of the great Solas of the
reformation is Sola Gratia in which the reformers sought to distinguish
themselves from the Catholic Church of that time that taught we are justified
by God’s grace plus some merit of our own. As Tullian Tchividjian explained in
his book Jesus + Nothing = Everything
that we cannot add merit or anything to our hopes of salvation. Throughout the
book of Galatians Paul expounds on the idea that the law (i.e. works or merit)
cannot justify us. He rather builds the case that we are justified completely
by faith. At the beginning of his epistle to the Galatians he says that if
anyone should preach another gospel than a gospel of justification by faith,
then they are cursed. The gospel is a gospel of justification by faith through
grace. This cannot be any clearer throughout the entirety of the New
Testament.
The Pelagian error, Jesus plus our
own merit, was carried on from Pelagius’ time until the Reformation. The Catholic
church of the Reformation had interspersed Pelagius thought throughout its
teaching and catechisms. This common theme compelled the reformers to react,
namely the thought that we make ourselves fit to receive the grace of God in justification
by growing in good works. Much of the book of Romans (especially 4 and 5) is a
defense of justification by faith not by works. Likewise, Galatians is a
treatise on the deficiency of the law to justify. Paul argues for the efficacy
of the cross and faith to justify the sinner. James which is often used as a
defense of works is rather the opposite. James is describing the outcome of an
effectual faith. When man has no faith, he will not have works as a result. The
question is what precedes what? James’ argument is that faith precedes works,
but that works of righteousness must accompany faith, or it is not repentant faith
at all. We must also not think that faith somehow earns favor with God. The
Bible never allows for that. His favor and salvation is bestowed upon us out of
his grace and goodness. The merit for our salvation lies squarely on the
shoulders of the magnificent savior on the cross. He met every righteous
requirement at Calvary, and faith is the means of which his merit is
transmitted to us.
I asked myself at this point why
faith? Why not some other attitude? Why would God only allow faith to be our
means of justification before him. Grudem answers this masterfully:
It is
apparently because faith is the one attitude of heart that is the exact
opposite of depending on ourselves. When we come to Christ in faith we
essentially say, “I give up! I will not depend on myself or my own good works
any longer. I know that I can never make myself righteous before God.
Therefore, Jesus, I trust you and depend on you completely to give me righteous
standing before God.”[28]
That
made perfect sense to me. The attitude of faith is the perfect answer to a
salvation that cannot be earned. These Pelagian ideas creep up often in the
church. I have, in my many years of ministry, seen this in evangelism. I would present
Christ to people, and people would often respond with some sort of response
like, “I am not ready.” I would ask, “why?” and they would respond with
something like, “I need to clean my life up before I come to Jesus (or often
Church).” This Pelagian thought is that somehow I must merit Christ’s offer of
salvation. That is why I wanted to write this to correct those errors that we
need to do something before we come to Christ. Either in cleaning ourselves up,
or adding our own merit to his offer of salvation.
The other error I see is that of the
emphasis on good works after turning to Christ. Colossians 2:6 says,
“Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him,” How have we
received Jesus? By grace through faith! So why do we seek to please God by
works? New movements that seek to take root in Evangelical Christianity place a
heavy emphasis on works, and pleasing God through doing great things for him.
The “signs and wonders” camp often leans toward a heavy emphasis on works. We
are not saved by works so why should we seek to please God through them? There
is an imbalance growing. We must not neglect one for the other, because as
James clarifies “faith without works is dead,” but a healthy balance is
necessary. When we start to seek to please God by works we have wandered away
from the way in which we have received Christ Jesus.
The next Pelagian thought that I
want to address is that sinless perfection is possible for
the Christian. This is challenging to rebut because the New Testament only
alludes to it in a few places. One of the easiest references to cite is 1 John
1:8-10
If we
say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we
confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse
us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar,
and his word is not in us.[29]
I
believe that this passage speaks for the sin natures of the pre-converted and
the converted. The reason that we can know this is from what we have previously
established that the “all have sinned.” The pre-Christian is sinful that has
been plainly established. The reason that we know that this passage is also
talking about the converted is the context. In the previous verse, we read, “But
if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one
another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.”[30]
This is describing a person who has received forgiveness of sins and walks in
the light of Christ. I have often heard it said recently that the roots of sin
have been removed once we trusted Christ. Popular teacher and pastor of Bethel
Church in Redding, CA, Bill Johnson has written such in his book When Heaven Invades Earth, “Doesn’t it
seem strange that our whole Christian life should be focused on overcoming
something that has already been defeated? Sin and its nature have been yanked
out by the roots.”[31] This
sounds suspiciously like he means we have no more sin nature. The question then
arises, have we become sinlessly perfect? This idea that the roots of our sin nature
was removed at our conversion is as old as Pelagius himself. But is that true?
Can we become sinlessly perfect?
While I was in Bible college, a
rather well known guest professor, while teaching on sanctification, said that
he had not committed a sin of “commission” against God in thirty years. He
later amended his statement. However, that stood out to me as a perfect example
of the view that sinless perfection is possible. One thing that strikes me in
this view is a certain elitism that there is a specific class of Christian that
can achieve sinless perfection, over and against the carnal Christian that
cannot. Similarly, two mistakes might also occur within the delusion that
sinless perfection is possible. First, man overestimates his moral performance,
and second, that man underestimates the standards of God’s law. For instance,
the standards of the 10 commandments alone would be impossible to achieve
perfectly in this life. Even loving the Lord your God with all your heart,
soul, mind, and strength, and loving your neighbor as yourself seems a far cry
to obey constantly. Jesus point this out to the rich man who goes away sad.
Jesus actually showed that the man who had obeyed the law from birth had not.
In this instance Jesus with one question showed that the man had a greater love
than God and it was money. Romans 7 is the quintessential counterpunch to any
theological system that claims sinless perfection. Many would argue that Paul
in Romans 7 is talking about his life before Christ. But one must do some
impressive exegetical calisthenics to arrive at the place where Paul is not
referring to himself in the present tense. I want to be clear, there is a
tension in the New Testament in which the Christian now has the ability to live in consistent victory
over sin. However, sinless perfection would be an impossibility in this life, as
seen in the previous passages. The tension between me being a complete wretch
of a worm and my sinless perfection is a challenging tension. I think we could
all as evangelicals agree that this Pelagian thought that we could attain
sinless perfection is a theological deviation and not in line with biblical
Christianity.
The next Pelagius view is that man
has free
will and that man is free from any corruption of the fall, that man’s
spirit is individually created by God, and therefore individually free from any guilt.
It is not necessarily my purpose to examine free will vs. predestination, but
rather to deal with guilt and man’s state before God. To this point, man’s guilt
has been thoroughly established, in that we as Adam’s children stand guilty
before a holy God. We are not individually free from any guilt, rather we are
individually and corporately guilty before a holy and perfect God. “We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has
laid on him the iniquity of us all.”[32]
This classic passage of scripture clearly depicts the corporate and individual guilt
and responsibility that man has before God.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate
my purpose of challenging any current evangelical streams of thought that stand
in opposition to salvation by grace, through faith, or that emboldens human
ability, good works and moral endeavor in the achievement of
spiritual
regeneration. Man’s condition is sinful before God, and can only be
justified by faith through the magnificent grace of God, and not through our
own achievement. Man is hopeless to achieve salvation on his own. This is the
glorious gospel. We have done everything worthy of eternal judgement and should
receive the punishment that our sins deserve. However, Christ has done
everything worthy of eternal praise and glory, lived the sinlessly perfect life
in our stead, died a noble death, and was raised from death by the power of
God. Through faith we are credited with his perfect record of righteousness,
his righteousness is imputed to us and our sin is placed upon him. We do
nothing, he does everything. We could not lift ourselves out of the pit of
despair, so he took on our despair. My hope and prayer is that this paper will
help you exalt, cherish, and maybe even receive Jesus by faith for the first
time. He who is our substitute, “the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the
world!”[33]
[4] Schaff, Philip, and David S. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983). Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds. (New York: D. McKay Co., 1972), 215-216.
[5] Erickson, Millard J. (1983). Christian
Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. Print. 632-633.
[6] Ferguson, John. (1956). Pelagius. Cambridge: W.
Heffer. Print. 40
[7] Erickson, Millard J. (1983). Christian
Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. Print. 632.
[9] Pelagius and any followers of Pelagius’ teaching were
condemned as heretics at the Council of Carthage (418) and later confirmed
under pressure by Pope Zosimus. Furthermore, the council of Ephesus (431)
condemned any who shared the views of Celestius, an associate and theological
partner of Pelagius.
