Due to some recent remarks I am going to write a short preface to the profile. I originally started blogging on my space to write down my beliefs and comment on the main doctrines of a reformational theological tradition that I deemed essential to my faith (as I understood it) so that my kids could reference them if they were so inclined.
Reformation theology is on a collision course with most of mainstream evangelicalism (Ian Murray's book "Evangelicalism Divided" documents the schism's and their historical sources and development). The Apostle Paul and most reformation theologians would call much of mainstream evangelicalism another gospel and speak against it.
It always has to be remembered that Luther fought for the Reformation of the Church because what he discovered in his studies of the scriptures and some theologians (mostly Augustine) was a different doctrine than what was popular in his day. He based his doctrine on a theology of grace (Luther called it a theology of the cross which is in opposition to a theology of glory or works) apart from any kind of works we could generate within ourselves. The only thing we bring to the table in our salvation from the wrath of God is our sin. The salvation based on a theology of the cross hinges on what Christ did for us in his life, death on the cross and resurrection from the dead. This was radical in Luther's day and it is radical again in our day. Many theologians today are calling for a "modern reformation" because of a misunderstanding of some of the essential elements of the Gospel (see above video's on "Imputation- The Heart of the Gospel" and "What is the Gospel?"). The Michael Horton interview with R.C. Sproul explains the type of "Christless Christianity" which permeates a lot of Churches these days and dominates much of the so-called "spirituality" in the culture. Martin Luther said in one of his writings during the middle of his reformational battles the following: "If I profess with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle wages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."
I call mainstream evangelicalism those Church's and movements which are the historical products of Revivalist, Arminian and Dispensational theological traditions (we are so theologically ignorant these days that we do not know the differences between Reformational Christianity, Catholocism, and mainstream Protestantism which is characterized by a revivalist, Arminian and a dispensational theological system- this is why David Wells wrote his 4 books dealing with the American Church and its engagement with the surrounding culture- because of our theological ignorance and the Church conforming to the culture rather than engaging it with the transcendent truths from the sciptures- hence the title "No Place for Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology"). We are ignorant of the different theological systems because we do not think theology and doctrine are important matters. Most of American culture functions under a pragmatic philosophy. We want to know practical steps we can take to make our lives more enjoyable and successful. Theology does not fit very well into this type of practicality. However, that is a completely wrong conception. Theology hones in our real needs which we often are unaware of. Americans are more concerned about felt needs rather than real needs. Theology opens up our eyes to what our real needs are. Mainly, forgiveness for our falleness. Theological terms then need to be defined and understood to get to the heart of the matter. Faith always needs an element of understanding in it in order for us to grasp what faith is.
I am speaking in general terms here and all of those who attend the following Church's would not agree that they are Revivalist, Arminian and Dispensational but the backround of the Church's are from this tradition. This would include the Church Growth movement Church's, which started at Willow Creek (and the Willow Creek Association Church's) in the Chicago area, Rick Warren's "The Purpose Driven Life" type Church's (although Rick Warren would refute this), most of the Emerging Church movement (which has serious "issues" with many Reformational Theologians), The Word/Faith movements of Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyers, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, etc.,(these people are more motivational speakers then theologians and pastors) and the Charismatic movement. Many of these Churches have an affinity and somewhat of a relationship with Fuller Theological Seminary in California and Dallas Theological Seminary.
If you read the books of Acts, Galatians, Romans and the history of the Reformation you will see that the conflicting views of the Gospel often came into confrontation with each other. Paul had numerous battles with those who were teaching false doctrine and Paul sought to unify the Church through proper teaching of the Gospel and "doctrine." He states in the book of Corinthians (where schism's and divisions abounded) the following, "I appeal to you, brothers......that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought."
During the reformation Martin Luther battled with the Catholics, the Anabaptists, Thomas Muntzer and the peasants (it was Luther's debating with the Catholic theologians, his doctrine of justification by faith alone and his reform of the medieval sacramental system that liberated the peasants yet they wanted bloodshed against the oppressors -those in the Catholic Church who were abusing their power and not proclaiming the Gospel accurately-which Luther would have nothing to do with and caused him to resist the peasants and their uprisings against the established order of things; Luther's original hope was for a slower and more manageable reform of all of medieval culture- some historians believe that Luther naively thought that if people hear the Gospel properly expounded they would have no problem with reforming the Church-this did not happen like he imagined), the Zwinglians, Carlsdadt and Erasmus (the result of which was Luther's book "The Bondage of the Will").
The debates often got heated and at times downright nasty. The history of the Church also reveals this truth. Calvin battled with the Catholics and had numerous confrontations in Geneva, Switzerland. John Knox had numerous battles to fight in Scotland with the powers that were back then. Augustine battled Pelagious and the Donatist's etc., etc. This offends many people who see constructive debate as "mean spirited". The debates can become mean spirited but you have to understand that eternal and critical issues are at stake here and we are still sinful human beings. Most people would just like to resign religion and discussions of politics and theology to a private realm. The problem with this is that these two institutions (along with our educational institutions) effect our lives more profoundly than any other institutions. The stakes and consequences are critical so the debate is often going to get heated. We also have an aversion to fight for critical issues- this is usually not culturally acceptable so you have to become counter-cultural in order to express your views of truth.
Basically, all I wanted to do was leave a legacy for my kids to read and hopefully consider for their own faith in progress. That was my sole intention when I started blogging. I was not writing to gain a audience or start any type of controversy. I simply wanted to see if I could articulate what I believed and why I believed it. However, I found that others besides my kids were viewing my blogs. When I post a new blog I usually get around 60 or 70 new hits on my site. So, someone besides my kids are reading my blogs.
I have only gotten a few responses from others though. The last one I got was a rather nasty one saying such things as I am full of myself, mean-spirited, and that what I write about is not Christianity. She had been doing a study of I Corinthians chapter 13 and stating how Christians fall so short in doing the faith and that people without faith hate Christians not because of what they believe but because of their hypocrisy. My comment had something to do with the fact that anyone who believes that they are actually doing the "law of love" as described in chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians is either deceived or lying to themselves and that Christ is the only one who did this perfectly. The fact that people without faith hate Christians because of their hypocrisy (or their falling short of living up to the standard laws written in the scriptures or, in her case, not being as loving as we should be-which we all fall short of-hypocrisy is claiming to live up to the standards when we really are not) is just an excuse for them not having to take the claims of Christ seriously. It makes them believe that it gets them off the hook without having to look at themselves (we have an aversion to actually believing and admitting that we are sinners in dire need of God's grace- it is hard to look at ourselves in this light-especially if we have not committed any so called grievous sins which usually are more of a cultural norm than a biblical norm- I mean to really believe this in the fiber of our being- the psychological professions and the whole health care industry say that it is psychologically unhealthy to believe this about yourself so they opt out for self-esteem model rather than the theological model- this undermines theological categories and replaces it with psychological categories which are culturally influencing the Church- when you do not believe that you are a sinner in need of God's grace then there is really no reason for you to go to Church- just rely on motivational speakers to "pump you up" when needed-much of the Church has bought in to this mentality because it draws people) so we just play into their hands when we agree with them.
I have come to believe that much of the failure we experience in our Christian lives is meant to drive this point home to us (that we are sinners in dire need of God's grace). Obviously, she did not agree with me in regards to my beliefs about my faith and what I said about 1Corinthians chapter 13.
Another point this person made was that I did not separate my paragraphs properly in my profile (I think I have written too much here- I am constantly revising and adding to what I write in my profile as I do further research and gain more knowledge and insight-this is a continuous work in progress). And, when I made that comment on her site about 1 Cor. 13 my paragraphs were not separated properly again. Little did she know that I did it on purpose to bait her (I let my fallen nature get the best of me). So, this is the reason I am writing this preface. I have tried to correct the paragraph separation problem in my profile but it does not separate them. It keeps one block of writing which I know makes it difficult to read. But, my daughter just helped me to correct the problem with the use of html codes.
My comment about this to her was that this is the internet and blogging- I am not careful about my grammar, etc., because it is not a formal paper. I am just trying to get my thoughts out before worrying about grammar, etc. If you are going to make a comment about what I write about judge the content of what I say and determine if it is faithful to what the scriptures actually say. If you do not know what the scriptures say then say that and judge the content as best you can (if you do not agree that the scriptures should be our standard for judging Church doctrine and practice then say that also upfront so I know where you are coming from and then tell me what should be the standard). I will listen to comments like that. Do not judge my grammar (I am not an English major- although if you do correct my grammar I would appreciate it because grammar can effect the clarity of our writing) or any perceived character flaws which you think I might have (which are numerous by the way). It's not that I think character flaws are unimportant but my purpose for writing my blogs is to get at the truth of Christianity and compare it with how people think in our surrounding culture (both in the various denominations and factions in the Church and in the "world"- much of the "world" has permeated the Church and we are often unaware of it).
If you do not think it is possible to come to clear truth in regards (or, if you do not think it that important to come to clear truth regarding our eternal salvation) to how God reconciled Himself to the world through Christ and that all religions are really the same then what I write about will probably anger you. This needs to be commented on further. This thought causes much confusion in the world and in the Church. One of the main teachings of Romans chapters 1-3 is that God implanted His moral law in each of our consciences and as Romans chapter 2 teaches us that it is possible that some follow this moral law better than others. However, Romans 3 clearly reveals to us than none of us follow this moral law perfectly. For, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." "None are righteous no not one." God condemns all of humanity with these statements. Our following of the moral law does not put us in right standing with God because we do not do it perfectly in thought, word and deed. Therefore, it condemns us all. The Gospel explains to us that Christ did follow the moral law perfectly and therefore he won our salvation for us by the works he performed in His life on earth for us. This is what makes Christianity unique in the world's religions and it causes much controversy. God upholds His Son as the Prophet, Priest and King of humanity because of his life, death and resurrection. Christ's resurrection from the dead put the stamp of approval of the supernatural aspect of redemption on Christ and conquered the death sentence for humanity because of our fall from grace and our inability to follow God's moral law perfectly.
I do enjoy comments from others who disagree with me so please voice your views if you want to. I have spent a lot of time trying to defend my faith and giving reasons for the hope that lies within me (Peter suggests, or perhaps commands is a better word, us to do this in 1Peter 3:16).
This person who wrote me the nasty note also stated that I hide behind the "big words and terms" I use. All the "big" words I use to explain my faith are either bible words, theological words and terms, or philosophical words and terms that are necessary to understand to get the meaning in the scriptures (I approach my faith with the faith seeking understanding model). I read somewhere that learning the reality portrayed in the scriptures is like learning a foreign language. You have to understand the words and terms used to get the message in a more clear and insightful way. I use these words (which I always try to define when I use them) because they help explain the scriptures better not in order to hide behind or impress others with.
One last point that needs to be considered- she stated that Christians can be delivered from their behavioral and sin problems and that what I write often gives the impression that I do not believe this. That I tolerate sin and believe that we cannot overcome it or be delivered from its power. This is not so, I do believe that we can be delivered from our besetting sins and the power of sin but that this can often be a slow process (most contemporary Churches want quick fixes to our sin problem because they see sin as something easily overcome or do not really believe they are that much in need of being delivered from their sin so they either try to cast out demons or else their Church's become like a big motivational gathering for living the victorious Christian life- the reality is is that there are no quick fixes to this huge problem- Church is more like a hospital for sick and wounded people who constantly need to hear a remedy for their sin problem rather than a gymnasium meant to "pump you up" which is what Church has become in today's cultural environment) and it often seems to us that we are not making much progress in our efforts at moral improvement.
The truth from a biblical perspective is that our human efforts at moral improvement only leads to what the Reformers called a civic type of righteousness. This has usefulness in maintaining order in society but does nothing in regards to our relationship with God. God demands perfection in our obedience and Christ was the only one who could fulfill this. We attach to this with our faith in what Christ did for us. Only making diligent use of the means of God's grace (hearing and reading God's written Word and growing in our understanding of it and partaking of the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper- which means, much to the chagrin of fallen natures, that we have to faithfully attend an "institutional" Church to hear the Word of God proclaimed to us and be served by Christ in receiving communion and then interacting with other fallen human beings) brings growth in the sanctification process. This has been my experience in my Christian life and from what I observe is also the experience of many. I try to give hope to us struggling Christian types and those who know they are not quite as holy or sanctified as they should be.
All the blogs that I write go further into the topics introduced in my profile. So, with that being said let me explain my headline. Unpretentious: Basically, I believe that most of us have a higher opinion of ourselves then we should (see Rom 12:1-8 and John Calvin's opening few pages in his "Institutes of the Christian Religion"-true Christianity cuts away at our inherent narcissism and our delusions about our abilities to overcome our problems -esp. the sin problem- without the grace of God). Before you react to this please follow my train of thought. The whole concept of self-esteem (and the emphasis of it in our culture) misguides us into thinking that we are OK (the only bumper sticker I would ever put on my car is one I saw awhile ago- it stated the following: "If I'm OK and your OK then why did Christ have to hang on a cross?") and makes it difficult for us to comprehend that we need God's grace in order to come into a right relationship with Him.
We are preaching the gospel to the already righteous and good in our postmodern culture. Or, more accurately, there are no clear and defined categories of good and evil anymore (due to the dearth of biblical knowledge, biblical law and a biblical view of reality). It is considered irrelevant to modern and postmodern culture and by the avant garde, the elitists (although I believe there is room for elitists in the Christian faith but their purpose is to use the superior talents God has graced them with to serve humanity not to arrogantly thumb their nose at everything that is sacred according to biblical tradition and do whatever they please- Christopher Lasch's "The Revolt of the Elites" and David Brooks "Bobo's in Paradise" are scathing critiques of the elitists and their rebellion in this regard), the gnostics and those who cater to the hip and cool. Along with this our proud Adamic natures keep telling us we are OK.
Human existence is subject to futility and absurdity without the grace of God. When Eve ate the fruit and Adam complied human nature became corrupt and preferred distractions and lesser things over the reality of fellowship with the truth and presence of God. Life became enclosed only to the here and now. Our concerns became more earthly centered then heavenly centered. God became far away and the only way we know Him in our fallen state is through the Law of God still written in our consciences. This gets muddled and suppressed however because we only know of God's demands and wrath in our fallen state and not in His gospel of grace.
We no longer have access to the presence of God except through Christ. Truth comes to us through the Word of God and God the Son. Sin is that power in us that suppresses the truth of God and suppresses how corrupt our moral natures really are even as we continue to look away at our increasing corruption. We need God to enlighten us to how corrupt we are before we can do anything about this major problem of man- the sin problem. This occurs when the Word of God is taught and proclaimed accurately and powerfully into our lives.
We do not realize how corrupt our moral natures really are. When we prefer anything over God than we are showing who we really are and agreeing with the testimony of what the Word of God tells us- that we are wrapped up within ourselves and our own little interests without any connection to the transcendent God. We have nowhere to turn and can only be rescued by God's grace.
Nature also became subject to futility (see Gen. chapter 3) after the fall of man and as a result rivers overflow, volcanoes erupt, tornadoes wreck havoc, hurricanes destroy cities, and Tsunami's wipe out hundreds of thousands of people. All of these natural disasters are God's graphic way of showing humanity what sin has caused in our lives both individually and collectively. It is a sober reminder of who we are and what we have become. Global warming may also be the result of natures subjection to futility due to mankind's sin (although this is debatable- there is still a lot of unproven assumptions in this debate and for the government to pour trillions of dollars into "fixing" the problem may be unfounded and unwise- this is more of a problem for God than for our finite minds which are easily swayed by political agenda's).
We are so fallen and so ignorant of a biblical view of reality that we fail to even see this connection in our fallen state. We complain to God and blame God for all the suffering and pain in life but do not realize that we are to blame for the condition we are in. This is the starting point of accepting God's view of reality.
God, in His Grace, has given us a way out of our impossible predicament. This type of biblical view of reality would curb our lust for power, entertainment and distractions and put a halt to much nonsense in the culture. Instead, by God's grace, we would busy ourselves with the reconciliation program of God's redemptive plan in Christ. This redemptive plan was foreshadowed in the Old Testament and came to fulfillment with the life, death on the cross and resurrection of Christ.
Christians need to influence the arts once again. We need those who are inspired by the Holy Spirit with talent to communicate God's truth to the culture once again. Get out of politics and get into the arts. Politics is a legitimate Christian calling but we need strong statesman (who have a principled agenda and are honest with what they are going to try to do and then stick to it through all the temptations for an easier politically driven solution which is really centered in a lust for power-this agenda should revolve around a family based economic policy much like some of the European Christian political parties of the past- they were very much anti-big business. Big business is causing many of our major problems today) not compromised Christians who are not well versed in the historical Christian faith. We have weak evangelicals in politics not strong Christian statesmen (like Abraham Kuyper or Winston Churchill) You have got to know what you are doing in the political realm or the wolves will eat you for lunch. Many of these political wolves just use Christians to gain votes. Besides, fallen man has more of a vested interest in political solutions to its problems. They often come up with better policies to fix many of the problems that face us in the political realm. They ignore the sin problem though and therefore devise differing solutions to its main problems.
We have allowed those steeped in Modern and Postmodern views of reality to dominate the arts- as Reformed and Lutheran theology makes its comeback so will those talented artists (through the doctrine of vocation) who view reality biblically make a comeback (all by the grace of God). So, the gospel falls on deaf ears. It will not connect if you already think there is nothing innately wrong with you. I hear all the time from people that their hearts and motives are pure and good. This is our biggest deception and a major obstacle in our accepting the gospel and God's redemptive plan for us. We do not realize the perfection of obedience that God demands and which Christ could only perform.
Christ shows humanity up on all moral and spiritual levels and only our faith in what He accomplished for us will save us. It saves us from God's wrath which is graphically shown to us in all natural disasters and wars and 9/11 occurances when morally depraved people steer large planes into big buildings with lots of people in them. It is a screwed up world we live in and all of us with our sin problem contribute to it. The only solution is God's solution. Those "humanists" and "rationalists" among us who disregard God's solution may be well intentioned but when you ignore the spiritual reality of what the scriptures tell us you are "pissing in the wind."
Fallen man is much better in the political realm than regenerate man is. Like I said before, they have more of a vested interest in this world because they believe that this is all there is. They do not have much tolerance for Christians in politics because they have such differing views of reality. These views will never be reconciled and will grow together until Christ comes back to finally establish His Kingdom in the new heavens and the new earth. This earth is fleeting and will eventually be destroyed and then made new again.
How we live in the world but not of the world is a constant point of tension for the Christian. How much to be involved in the affairs and political solutions of this world is a constant question we have to face. We serve our neighbors as best we can in our vocations and callings and try to persuade them of the truth of the Gospel- but that is as far as we can go. The sin problem is not their main concern until God opens their eyes and ears to hear the gospel. The purpose of the Sermon on the Mount (Chapters 5-7 in the gospel of Matthew)- is to reveal to us the demands of the Law of God. Christ- who was God- made it clear that it was not only external obeying of the Law but even our thoughts, motivations and words had to conform to the Law of God. He made the requirements of the Law even more difficult than Moses did- so, there was no question that we were not doing the Law and only He could fulfill the Law for us (this is called the doctrine of imputation of Christ's righteousness to us). Just as Adam and Eve's sin was imputed to all of humanity (they were God's representatives for Man as a whole) so Christ's righteousness is imputed to those who believe in God's redemptive plan. This is not something mankind would think up in our autonomous minds but something that God reveals to us.
I am not saying self-esteem is a bad thing- I think what I am trying to say is that it is not a top priority because of what the Bible tells us is the nature of the fall of man. When we pursue self-esteem apart from our relationship with Christ it becomes a source of pride for us and makes us look down on others as unworthy. It is a form of self-salvation which gives us a false sense of security and it has a tendency to make us lie to ourselves about what we know is true of us but which we suppress.
(see my blog on the fall of man in blog archives)
We can only get the information about the fall of man from the scriptures. It is the reality that God tells us not the reality that our autonomous and subjective minds might tell us. It is here where the battle of our subjective and autonomous reason (without the revelation of the bible) and faith comes into conflict with one another. We would not think this up on our own- although I believe our collective history makes this point abundantly clear (our inherited sinfulness from Adam). It is God telling us what our situation really is.
When you lose trust in the scriptures as the source of truth for God communicating to us (and not adding any human tradition- which is different than biblical tradition. Human tradition allows man some glory and some credit for his relationship with God- biblical tradition does not), you lose the gospel. How you gain trust in the Scriptures is the task of apologetics or a rational defense of the faith.
Christianity is the only religion which invites unbelievers to question the essential beliefs of the faith and try to disprove them rationally- not with just unproved assertions and rhetoric. Most modern Critics of Christianity just make assertions without any backup evidence for what they are claiming. They call Christianity irrational or a big fable or something that evolved because it gives us comfort in this chaotic and dangerous world we live in. Or, it is just something we hope is true without any evidence for its "actual" truth (The great theologian Francis Schaeffer called Christianity true truth- to emphasize the fact in this relativistic and nihilistic culture we live in today).
Postmodern critics of Christianity regard any concept of truth as dangerous and only a ploy to gain power over others. Any form of nationalism or patriotism or imperialism is looked upon with disdain by post modernists. And they have good historical reasons for doing so. Unfortunately, they throw the baby out with the bathwater. You cannot have any kind of dialog about truth without using reason and rationality as a common ground for the dialog. The apologetical quest of Christianity has to be centered in a dialog using reason, rationality and logic as the medium for discussion. Without this there is no basis for discussing various truth claims and no fruitful discussion can ensue. Any one's claim is as good as anyone else's. This is where we are at in our postmodern culture. Various groups of people have as much legitimacy to truth claims as anyone else. So, just leave each other alone and don't bother each other with each others ways to arriving at truth.
There have been various approaches to aplogetics in the reformational side of Christianity. The Classical approach, the presuppositional approach and the evidentialist approach. The defense of Christianity from the evidentialist approach centers on the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Are the New Testament writings reliable history? That is the question you have to answer to gain trust in them. You have to go about answering that question like a lawyer seeks for evidence for his case or a scientist who seeks to prove his hypothesis. Were there witnesses who saw Christ after he died? Or, was the faith in Christ's resurrection a big lie which was perpetrated on the public from those who knew him? How good is the evidence that he actually died on the cross and rose from the dead? This has all been documented and proven. Go ahead and check out the literature on the matter-try to honestly disprove it. If your eternal destiny is really at stake here (which is what Christianity forcefully claims) then I would think it would be a top priority in all our lives. However, we are so fallen that we often think it is no big deal to get the gospel right.
Why did the Christian religion take off with such power after Christ died? It expanding rapidly throughout the Roman Empire after his death. How do you explain that historically? How could something that was based on a lie expand and create such passion in people? Now this fact does not prove that Christ rose from the dead. Other religions have expanded also- like Islam- and Christians claim Islam is a false religion. It is not a rational religion and Allah is not the same God as the God that is revealed to us in the Christian scriptures. Allah is an arbitrary God who dispenses wrath or mercy according to His whims- there is no coherent redemptive plan in the Islamic religion- just blind submission to the will of Allah. It is a very dangerous religion. We believe very different things. All religions are not the same.
There are good historians and bad historians like there are good lawyers and bad lawyers or good scientists and bad scientists or good theologians and bad theologians. Those who make their cases with supporting evidence that is hard to refute are the best. As you find answers to these questions your faith in Christ grows and your trust in the scriptures grows. That is what biblical faith in Christ is. Faith that is based on evidence of the historicity of Christianity which makes the other things in God's Word more believable to us.
Christ Himself, in the New Testament spoke of the validity and actual historicity of Adam and Eve (they were not just mythical figures telling humanity a story about its origins), Noah and the ark, and the historical story of Jonah and the whale thus verifying the validity of the Old Testament scriptures and the actual historicity of these Old Testament individuals.
If Christ did not rise from the dead then there is no way for us to conquer our sin or trust anything we read about him in the Word of God and the whole Christian faith falls apart- let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die. Or, if Christ did not rise from the dead you might as well become a hedonist- or an adherent of the philosophy of Nietzsche. The main assumption in Nietzsche's thought was the "death of God" and he sought to teach others how to live with this assumption. Freud, Sarte, Heidegger, Darwin and Marx did the same. They were all influenced by Nietzsche by the way (except Marx).
John Calvin once said to a Cardinal he was debating that he did not truly understand what he was talking about because he never read the scriptures thoroughly and tried to understand what they were all about- therefore, he never really struggled with his own sin and became deeply aware of it. Believe me, if you try to understand and then live out God's Word you will realize how impossible (Pelagius disagreed with this- so did Charles Finney) it is to actually do and it will make you more appreciative of what Christ actually accomplished for us. You will then become aware of how deep our sinful natures really are which in turn will cause you to turn to Christ for deliverance from yourself.
God's grace is summed up in his redemptive plan of sending His Son (Christ) to the earth (God in the flesh-truth comes down to us objectively-from outside of us- truth is not subjective, intuitive or inside of us (this is really very profound whether you realize it or not especially if you have studied any philosophy)-however, Scripture does talk about Christ or the Spirit dwelling in us after regeneration (biblically this is where gnosticism and postmodern spirituality differs from historic Christianity- they believe that we all, at our creation, possess God inside us-it is our responsibility to somehow tap into and develop this "higher self" which all humans possess- and herein lies much confusion) and Calvin speaks often of the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit as a witness to the truth for us after regeneration- this is something that somewhat still puzzles me-what exactly happens inwardly during regeneration is a mystery to me and I do not think Scripture is clear on this (it is referred to as a supernatural redemption by the theologians who believe in regeneration or being "born again" as described in John's gospel the 3rd chapter- even though I hate that term)-what I do know is that before regeneration I had no interest in Scripture or Christ but after regeneration I had a hunger and desire to know the Scriptures and Christ better- truth is revealed to us by Christ in the flesh and by the testimony of the Word of God- this is what Christians understand as truth (this is metaphysical truth not empirical truth, however, empirical evidence of Christ's life, death on the cross and resurrection from the dead is integral to accepting this metaphysical truth)- or for the more philosophically minded the noumenal breaks through to the phenomenal-the noumenal consists of God, the self and the thing in itself or the essence of things- the phenomenal consists of that which we can perceive with our 5 senses or what we can know empirically- Kant should have known better, he was raised a Lutheran pietist (it was the pietism that confused him)-the main assumption in his thought was that the phenomenal could not know the nomenal- here we have God (the noumenal) coming in the flesh (the phenomenal) to make himself known more clearly to us (the noumenal enclosed in the phenomenal) than merely in His Word-it is as up close and personal as you can get- Christ is the Word made flesh-He is the Word and the Word testifies of Him).
So those who say that God is silent know not what they are talking about. What they mean is that they do not like the way that God has chosen to reveal himself to us (through Christ and His redemptive plan as revealed to us in His Word). However, nowadays, much of our postmodern culture believes that we all possess part of God within us- from the day we are born- and God communicates to us all subjectively (the scriptures are not necessary and are part of "organized oppressive religion"- the new four letter word- not spirituality).
Religion is oppressive when we think we can follow the moral law implanted in our natures and when external authorities coerce us and punish us to do this. However, God solved the problem for us by Christ's life, death and resurrection. True religion is not all about law-keeping it is about grace (although an aspect of this grace is to give us power to take steps towards better law keeping- although how much we are able to obey is still controversial in various theological perspectives). It is also not about following the moral law within-if we are honest with ourselves we do not follow this law consistently either. That is what Romans chapter 2 and 3 is about.
What we often do not take into consideration is the fact that God requires total obedience to His Law in order for us to be justified before Him. This obedience involves our thoughts, words and deeds. If even our thoughts wander and stray from His law we can be condemned and judged justly.
Only Christ followed God's Law perfectly and won our salvation. Gnosticism does not have this understanding. This is an extremely important notion in understanding the surrounding culture. This is the main competitor to Christianity in America today. We have to learn how to communicate the historical Christian faith to those who are much more attracted to gnostic spirituality than they are to organized religion. And we have to know the reasons why they are attracted to it and unattracted to the historical faith.
First of all, we are by our fallen nature, indifferent and hostile towards a God who is much superior to us in intelligence, power and character. God in His fullness is incomprehensible to us. The Scriptures paint a word picture of God that is very intimidating. Perfection and Goodness is much more intimidating than evil. However, scripture also contains evidence of a promised Saviour who would deal with the barrier between ourselves in the empirical realm and this God in the metaphysical realm. God is Holy (or perfect in character and behavior) and we are not. God sent His Son to the Earth in order that he might live a life of perfect adherence to God's Law (as revealed to Moses- and lived out with perfect thoughts, perfect intention, perfect words and in perfect deeds) which would reverse the effects of the fall of Adam and Eve and then offered his life as a sacrifice to God in order that our lack of adherence to the law may be covered by his perfection (please read Anselm's-a medieval theologian- Why the God Man? for a detailed explanation of Why Christ needed to die on the cross. This is the best explanation I have ever read on the subject- you can get it on google-Anselm-Why God became Man? all 61 pages of it).
To be fair there are other theories of the atonement (Christ's death on the cross and what this accomplished and meant for humanity) which have floated around the Church for many centuries- the moral influence theory, the governmental theory, the penal substitution theory, the Christus Victor theory, Anselm's satisfaction theory, and the Incarnational theory. All point to some aspect of Christ's reasons for dying on the cross- so taken together they paint an overall description and color the meaning in different ways. Most reformed and lutheran theologians adhere to Anselm's view and the penal substitution view but many now are seeing some element of truth in the other theories. They all, taken together paint a better overall meaning of Christ's death on the cross.
All of the Scriptures are about the promise God makes to humanity of this redemptive plan. The promise was made first to Adam and Eve(after the fall), then to Abraham (Isaac and Jacob) and finally to David and Solomon (in covenental form). All of Scripture speaks of this promise and all has reference to Christ. Only by having faith in this promise and trusting in the work of Christ can we come into a relationship with a Holy and Perfect God (the just shall live by faith). This Holy and Perfect God is a threat to us because we know we are not holy and perfect, in fact, we are considered highly immoral and radically corrupt by the biblical writers (see Romans chapter 1 through 3).
This is where the confessional creed types like myself differ from the mainstream evangelicals (or the types that emphasize deeds not creeds-the 40 days of purpose types, the Church Growth Movement types, the recent Emerging Church types, Charles Finney and the adherents of the 2nd Great Awakening in America, Rousas John Rushdoony and the Christian Reconstructionsists, those who believe in cultural transformation rather than engagement with the culture by the Word of God, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyers and the Word/Faith types). We believe that the fall effected our natures to a much more radical depth and extent than the mainstream evangelicals do. In fact, our wills are hopelessly in bondage to sin in regards to the kingdom of God and doing the will of God-not in regards to the daily activities we perform in the course of our days here on earth- (see my blog on Two kingdom theology, free will and original sin)unless God graciously opens our eyes and convinces us of Christ's work for us (read Luther's "The Bondage of the Will" or Jonathan Edwards "The Freedom of the Will" or R.C. Sproul's "Willing to Believe" for a more detailed explanation of mankind's bondage of the will and what this exactly means) Without this happening first we would never believe in Christ. Hence, we give all the glory to the Godhead and we can take no credit for ourselves. The only thing we contribute to our salvation is our sin. God declares us radically corrupt and fallen after the fall (see Genesis Chapters 1 through 3 and my blog on the fall of man for a more detailed explanation of what happened to us after the fall). However, He always promised a way out- this is the definition of His love and grace. This is not a sentimental emotion but an act worked out in history as His redemptive plan. This is our only way out of our predicament.
All religions are predicated on the assumption that we can do things that appease us to our Creator or bring us into His favor (a theology of glory in that we get the credit and glory as opossed to a theology of the cross where Christ gets the glory). Christianty, properly understood, is all about Christ doing this for us. We are made right with God by having faith in what He (Christ) did for us. Nothing we can do will appease God- only what Christ has done is acceptable to God. The best illustration I have heard of this concept is that our morality is like God dropping us in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and us swimming frantically to try to get to the shore 5000 miles away- in other words, our morality, no matter how refined we think it is, will never be acceptable to God. Christ walked on the water for 5000 miles while he performed the works necessary to redeem us. We are saved by works but they are not our works-they are Christ's works. We are only benefactors because of our faith and attachment to Christ. We can never follow God's laws perfectly- Christ is the only one who did. This is why Christianity emphasizes the exclusivity of Christ as the only means of approaching God. It also nullifies the validity of other religions as "a path to God."
So, if you want to compare your morality with someone compare it with Christ's. If you did what he did then you will have no trouble getting into God's kingdom. This is a fool's errand folks. Do not be so foolish to think you can do what Jesus did. Also, do not compare your morality with others, it will only give you false hope and turn you into a Pharisee.
Only our faith breaks down the barrier between us and God. Our sin is no longer a barrier and the acts we have committed are all forgiven and forgotten because of our faith in Christ. Once we accept Gods plan of redemption we (out of gratitude for what He has done for us) naturally seek to live a life that is pleasing to Him. And herein begins the trouble.
The gospel is often presented in a way where all are troubles will be gone once we give up (or should I say once the Holy Spirit convinces us to give up) on self-salvation and trust Christ and his redemptive work for us. However, I've found my problems have escalated since I truly accepted this way of coming into a relationship with God. When you speak of this faith others ignore you and ostracize you, you get laughed at, you are tempted to do things you have never been tempted to do before in your life and you may sometimes fall into some serious sins. In other words, your life gets much more complicated and you become much more aware of how sinful you actually are.
We are not OK and never will be until we die and God transforms the natures of those who have faith in Christ into a nature that will never sin again(see 1 Cor. 15). Until that time we are commanded to try and fight against our sinful natures (with limited success I might add) and recognize that the way to fight is through the means of Grace that He has provided for us while on the earth (or trusting in Christ and the Holy Spirit to fight through you through the means of grace). We will have more failure than success in our struggles against our sinful natures (or we will lower the standards of God's law and develop our own "blue laws" which are much less demanding than God's laws and easier to keep and therefore we are better than those other guys and worthy of a relationship with God- we are not bad people (or maybe a better way to put it is we are not in need of a Saviour)we continue to tell ourselves and therefore continue the myth of a moral approach to God- this does not get lodged out of our minds easily) because we still want to rely on our will power rather than learn how to trust in the means of grace (see Romans chapter 7-may your pipe dreams of the "victorious Christian life" be buried forever) but we are promised that God will one day wipe every tear from our eyes and end the struggle for us by transforming our natures and placing us in an environment of constant energy and eternal bliss (heaven). Our sinfulness will no longer be experienced and have to be fought against. This is the great news of the gospel and our hope for the future life.
So, keep up the fight and keep seeking the means of grace (more importantly trust and know the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone on the account of Christ alone- Luther's "commentary on Galatians" articulates this doctrine with force and clarity-get it and read it-I am working through my 5th time right now) because He can still mightily inspire us and provide the means we need to overcome the world, the flesh and the devil (Christ already did it for us- we just have to learn how to trust that more deeply). We cannot do it on our own. Our pride makes us think we can (or that there is no world or culture in conflict with God's redemptive plan or there is no flesh that still seeks to destroy our new found life and wages war with the spirit in us that wants to do right or there is no devil or adversary who is working counter to God's plan and who has a deceptive and subtle redemptive plan of his own centered in the self and its own glory-which very much appeals to our ego's).
We need to follow God's plan of redemption for humanity- this plan is clearly laid out in the Scriptures when they are properly understood- He who has ears to hear, let him hear. If you have not been regenerated by the monergistic work of the Holy Spirit what I am saying will be nonsense to you. Only Christ and the Holy Spirit can open your eyes (if you find yourself asking God to open your eyes the Holy Spirit is moving you in the right direction). Our failures and sins need only make us more appreciative of the magnitude of what Christ actually accomplished while He walked on the earth- we are all sinners indeed and do not come close to doing and accomplishing what Christ accomplished while on the earth(so get rid of your WWJD- What would Jesus Do- bumper stickers and bling). To think that we can do what Jesus did borders on blasphemous even though we are commanded to try to live by Gods law (with God's knowledge that we will not- remember the purpose of the law is to show us our sin).
This is my passion and my strong conviction about life and reality. To Christ be all the glory- sola Christos, sola scriptura, sola gratios, sola fide and sola Dei gloria (to God be all the glory).
Again, I am not a mainstream evangelical. Many mainstream evangelicals will be offended by what I have written (if you find yourself saying that is too good to be true then you are saying the right thing- remember the gospel means good news. It is good news to us sinners but the religious Pharisee's who want to add things that we have to do to the gospel will react against it).
My beliefs stem from how the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and the Confessing Lutherans interpret the Word of God. Or, at least, how I interpret they interpret the Word of God- any errors are ,of course, my own. I am more Lutheran than Reformed in my beliefs. The Reformed are more confident in man's ability to follow God's Law after their conversion. Perhaps the law has a role in curbing the power of the flesh. To me this is not clear in Scripture. Luther did claim this role for the law in his commentary on Galatians. I concentrate on loving God, serving my neighbor and trying to excel in my career- following God's Law is an unconscious endeavor. The less I am aware of it the better. I take this from the parable Jesus tells of the people who gave him water,drink etc., or when you did it to the least of these you did it to me- and the ones he allowed into His kingdom. The ones who were allowed were those who were unaware of the good works they were performing- in fact, they even asked Jesus when did we do these things. The ones who claimed they were doing these things were rejected (do not ever hold up your resume to the Godhead- your righteousness and works are like filthy rags to them-Christ's perfect righteousnees is the only thing God accepts). Or, I have done this from my youth as the rich young ruler said. Sadly, he walked away from Jesus after his idolotry was exposed- he loved his money and possessions more than he loved Jesus (please read Dueteronomy Chapters 1-10 or the whole book for that matter).Self-righteousness is a subtle and powerful force and to me one of the greatest enemies of the "successful" Christian. It is a work of the strong armed flesh.
The devil comes clothed in attractive garments(could he possible be the first cross dresser?)- he/she also puts on an heir of holiness and righteousness. If he/she did not he/she (the androgenous devil-he/she goes both ways) could not deceive us so easily-his sole intention is to keep us in the dark about Christ and what He accomplished for us. The devil resists Christ and is the motivation, inspiration and source of the Anti-Christ spirit in the culture. The devil can redefine Christ and portray him as a great moral teacher and other such stuff but not as the one who defeated him and died for our sins as a substitute. Christ died for sinners- that is the gospel and it is this which the devil resists. The devil is a slippery, cunning and deceptive con artist- much more intelligent (and apparently and deceptively moral) then you or I. Luther often made comments like this in his writings. Not the androgenous stuff- the stuff about attractive garments and the heir of holiness and righteousness.
