Shepherds' Fellowship

(by Kelly Wright)

God’s wrath permeates the pages of Scripture. Its presence cannot be overlooked. The presence of wrath in the Bible has led one author to conclude that:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 31)

Another author has asked the question, “Who – except for an ancient priest seeking to exert power by the tried and tested means of fear – could possibly wish that this hopelessly knotted skein of fable [The Old Testament] had any veracity?” (Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great, 103). The author of that question was not able to come to terms with his observations of anger displayed by God towards the Israelites and other nations. He was also disturbed by the seemingly inhumane laws given to the people through Moses, “The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre...” (Ibid., 102). These authors believe that the Bible, and so all contained within it, is a myth. This is a convenient way for them to dismiss any of what the Bible claims, including the description of God’s wrath. 

These authors expose the difficulty of understanding the wrath of God. Misconceptions concerning God’s character and His relationship to the world are prevalent. Students of God’s Word must be ready to address the issue of God’s supposed character as a ‘capriciously malevolent bully.’ Scripture does not shy away from revealing the wrath of God but it would seem that many Christians do. “It is sad indeed to find so many professing Christians who appear to regard the wrath of God as something for which they need to make an apology, or who at least wish there were no such thing" (Arthur W. Pink, The Attributes of God, 82).

Do we worship a bully? In the Old Testament we read of a global flood that kills everyone except one family. Then we stumble upon the ten plagues sent by God against Egypt. Later, Israel is punished for believing the report of the ten fearful spies and are sent to wander in the wilderness for forty years until every person over the age of twenty dies (except Moses, Caleb, and Joshua).

The New Testament records the gruesome death of the innocent God-man, Jesus Christ. He lived righteously and never sinned, yet, God put Him to death on the cross. Isaiah 53:10 records, “Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him.” Acts 2:23 states that Jesus was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” It was God’s will to crush His son. The death of Jesus Christ was a defined plan of God. Do these realities make God a bully?

It is important that we remind ourselves of who God reveals Himself to be in Scripture. The Bible is our source of understanding concerning the nature of God. Three reminders of God’s essence aid us in answering the question about whom we worship.

First, God is holy. God’s holiness entails both the aspect of being set-apart as well as being morally pure. Isaiah’s vision of the seraphim reveals that “Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD of Hosts, the whole earth is filled with His glory” (Isaiah 6:3).  This song of the seraphim speaks of God’s otherness. God is set-apart from His creation.

Isaiah’s vision also reveals God’s moral purity. In v. 5 Isaiah cries out, “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” God’s moral purity is also declared by John, “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). God has not sinned, cannot sin, and will not sin. In fact, it is God’s holiness which causes Him to react strongly against sin.

Second, God is just. Everything God does is right. No action of His could ever be wrong. Job 37:23, “The Almighty – we cannot find him; he is great in power; justice and abundant righteousness he will not violate.” God cannot violate the rules that He has established. God’s holiness necessitates that He do what is right, always.

God’s justice applies to punishing offenders. God’s law can be summarized this way, “Live holy for I am holy.” Anyone who does not live holy (Romans 3:23 exposes that this is everyone) has earned punishment. Romans 6:23 teaches us that the wages of sin is death. This means that all offenders to God’s law, which is everyone, are deserving of death. Consequence for sin is just. God is as fair for punishing law breakers as human judges are for punishing criminals.

Third, God is love. God’s love is one of choice, commitment, and action. Scripture reveals that it is God who first loved us. Love is better appreciated against the reality that we are unlovable. We are rebels, enemies, corpses, and children of wrath; yet God still chose to love us.

First John 3:16 teaches us that we know love because Jesus sacrificed His life for us. Jesus was the substitute for us on the cross. He suffered the just reward of our sin, God’s wrath. The death of God’s Son was not an act of bullying, but rather was a sweet display of His sacrificial love.

God in His holiness hates sin. God in His justice punishes sin. God in His love settles our sinful debt through the death of His Son. We do not worship a bully. We worship a holy, just, and loving God. Amen and Amen.

(By John MacArthur)

Note: Today's post is adapted from a Q&A session that John did at Grace Church several years ago.

Question: A Mormon asked me this question a number of years ago, and through the years here at church, I’ve asked a number of people this question, and I wanted to get your opinion. Can you become a Christian if you deny the Trinity?

Answer:

I would answer, "No." If you don’t believe in the Trinity, then you don’t understand who God is. You may say the word “God” but you don’t understand His nature. Second, you couldn’t possibly understand who Christ is--that He is God in human flesh. The Incarnation of Christ is an essential component of the biblical gospel, as John 1:1-14 and many other biblical passages make clear. To deny the Trinity is to deny the Incarnation. And to deny the Incarnation is to wrongly understand the true gospel.

In saying that, I realize that such an answer is going to not only impact people that you may have witnessed to (like Mormons), but it also applies to some in the broader Pentecostal movement, called United Pentecostals or "Jesus-Only" Pentecostals. Such individuals hold to a kind of modalism, where God is sometimes in the mode of the Father or the mode of the Son or the mode of the Spirit, but He’s never all three at the same time. That too is a deficient and heretical view of the Trinity. It denies the distinct Personhood of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The same question sometimes arises about the Virgin Birth. I think it is possible for a person to become a Christian before learning about the details of the Virgin Birth, though that person would certainly assume that Jesus Christ must have had a unique birth since He is both God and man. But, if someone knows about the Virgin Birth and says, “I deny the Virgin Birth,” then he is simultaneously denying the deity of Christ, and also the Trinity. Such a person betrays the fact that they do not understand the gospel, and therefore cannot have truly been saved.

 (By John MacArthur)

Today's post is adapted from John's new book, The Jesus You Can't Ignore.

To acknowledge that the church often needs to fight for truth is not to suggest that the gospel--our one message to a lost world--is somehow a declaration of war. It most certainly is not; it is a manifesto of peace and a plea for reconciliation with God (2 Corinthains 5:18-20). Conversely, those who are not reconciled to God are at war with Him all the time, and the gospel is a message about the only way to end that war. So ironically, the war to uphold the truth is the only hope of peace for the enemies of God.

I do agree that usually it is far better to be gentle than to be harsh. Peacefulness is a blessed quality (Matthew 5:9); pugnaciousness is a disqualifying character flaw (Titus 1:7). Patience is indeed a sweet virture, even in the face of unbelief and persecution (Luke 21:19). We always ought to listen sufficiently before we react (Proverbs 18:13). A kind word can usually do far more good than a curt reaction, because "a soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger" (Proverbs 15:1)--and any person who delights to stir up strife is a fool (v. 8).

Furthermore, the fruit of the Spirit is a catalog of antitheses to a bellicose, aggressive, warlike attitude: "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control" (Galatians 5:22-23). So our first inclination when we encounter someone in error ought to be the very same kind of tender meekness prescribed for anyone in any kind of sin in Galatians 6:1: "If a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted." It is the duty of every Christian "to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men. For we oursleves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another" (Titus 3:2-3). And that attitude is a particular duty for those in spiritual leadership. Brawlers aren't qualified to serve as elders in the church (1 Timothy 3:3). Because " a servant of the Lord must not quarrell but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth" (2 Timothy 2:24-25).

All those principles should indeed dominate our dealings with others and our handling of disagreements. And if those were the only verses in Scripture that told us how to deal with error, we might be justified in thinking those principles are absolute, inviolable, and applicable to every kind of opposition or unbelief we encounter.

But that's not the case. We are instructed to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3). Immediately after the apostle urged Timothy to "pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness" (1 Timothy 6:11), he exhorted him to "fight the good fight of faith" (v. 12), and to guard what had been committed to his trust (v. 20).

The love promoted by the New Testament is not a free-styled, all-embracing, blind acceptance of every wind of doctrine for the sake of conversation. It is, in fact, just the opposite. Biblical love always goes hand in hand with truth. That's why false doctrines and those who teach them are condemned in no uncertain terms.

Jesus said: Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

Paul said: If any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Peter said: It has happened to them [false teachers] according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

John said: If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Jude said: But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed.

(By John MacArthur)

Today's post comes from John's new book, The Jesus You Can't Ignore.

No idea is more politically incorrect among today's new-style evangelicals than the old fundamentalist notion that truth is worth fighting for--including the essential propositions of Christian doctrine. In fact, many believe that arguments over religious beliefs are the most pointless and arrogant of all conflicts. That can be true--and is true in cases where human opinions are the only thing at stake. But where God's Word speaks clearly, we have a duty to obey, defend, and proclaim the truth He has given us, and we should do that with an authority that reflects our conviction that God has spoken with clarity and finality. This is particularly curcial in contexts where cardinal doctrines of biblical Christianity are under attack.

Incidentally, the core truths of Scripture are always under attack. Scripture itself clearly teaches that the main battleground where Satan wages his cosmic struggle against God is ideological. In other words, the spiritual warfare every Christian is engaged in is first of all a conflict between truth and error, not merely a competition between good and wicked deeds. The chief aim of Satan's strategy is to confuse, deny, and corrupt the truth with as much fallacy as possible, and that means the battle for truth is very serious. Being able to distinguish between sound doctrine and error should be one of the highest priorities for every Christian--as should defending the truth against false teaching.

Take such a stand today, however, and you will be scolded by a cacophony of voices telling you that you are out of line and you need to be quiet. The "war" metaphor simply doesn't work in a postmodern culture, they insist. Postmodern epistemologies start and end with the presupposition that any question of what's true or false is merely academic. Our differences are ultimately trivial. Only the tone of our discussion is not trivial. Every hint of militancy is considered inappropriate in these sophisticated times.

Taking a stand for the truth was equally unpopular in the first century. But that didn't stop the apostles from confronting error head on.

Take the apostle Paul for example. Paul was certainly fair with his opponents in the sense that he never misrepresented what they taught or told lies about them. But Paul plainly recognized their errors for what they were and labeled them appropriately. He spoke the truth. In his everyday teaching style, Paul spoke the truth gently and with the patience of a tender father. But when circumstances warranted a stronger type of candor, Paul could speak very bluntly--sometimes even with raw sarcasm (1 Corinthians 4:8-10). Like Elijah (1 Kings 18:27), John the Baptist (Matthew 3:7-10), and even Jesus (Matthew 23:24), he could also employ derision effectively and appropriately, to highlight the ridiculousness of serious error (Galatians 5:12). He was a sacred-cow tipper in the mold of Moses or Nehemiah.

Paul didn't seem to suffer from the same overscrupulous angst that causes so many people today to whitewash every error as much as language permits; to grant even the grossest of false teachers the benefit of every doubt; and to impute the best possible intentions even to the rankest of heretics. The apostle's idea of "gentleness" was not the sort of faux benevolence and artificial politeness people today sometimes think is the true essence of charity. We never once see him inviting false teachers or casual dabblers in religious error to dialogue, nor did he approve of that strategy even when someone of Peter's stature succumbed to the fear of what others might think and showed undue deference to false teachers (Galatians 2:11-14).

Paul understood that truth is worth fighting for. He stood for the truth even when it was unpopular to do so.

(By John MacArthur)

Today’s post comes from John’s new book, The Jesus You Can’t Ignore.

There’s nothing wrong with asking, “What would Jesus do?” That’s a fine question. For our purposes, we might ask, "What would Jesus do in response to the contemporary evangelical landscape."

How would He react to the post-evangelical goulash of opinions represented in Christian magazines, in the Emerging blogosphere, or in the trendy evangelical megachurches that have held the evangelical movement in thrall for the past few decades? Would He affirm the current mainstream of evangelical apathy toward truth and authentic biblical unity? Would He approve of those who, confronted with a plethora of contradictions and doctrinal novelties, simply celebrate their movement’s “diversity” while trying to avoid all controversy, embracing every theological renegade, and elevating orthopraxy over orthodoxy? Was Jesus’ meek-and-gentle mildness of that sort?

I’m convinced we can answer those questions with confidence if we first ask a slightly different question: What did Jesus do? How did He deal with the false teachers, religious hypocrites, and theological miscreants of His time? Did He favor the approach of friendly dialogue and collegial disagreement, or did He in fact adopt a militant stance against every form of false religion?

Anyone even superficially familiar with the gospel accounts ought to know the answer to that question, because there is no shortage of data on the matter. Jesus’ interaction with the Scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites of His culture was full of conflict from the start of His earthly ministry to the end. Sometimes the Pharisees provoked the conflict; more often than not, Jesus did. Hostile is not too strong a word to describe His attitude toward the religious system they represented, and that was evident in all His dealings with them.

Jesus never suffered professional hypocrites or false teachers gladly. He never shied away from conflict. He never softened His message to please genteel tastes or priggish scruples. He never suppressed any truth in order to accommodate someone’s artificial notion of dignity. He never bowed to the intimidation of scholars or paid homage to their institutions.

And He never, never, never treated the vital distinction between truth and error as a merely academic question.

(By John MacArthur)

Today’s post comes from John’s new book, The Jesus You Can’t Ignore.

The Great Shepherd Himself was never far from open controversy with the most conspicuously religious inhabitants in all of Israel. Almost every chapter of the Gospels makes some reference to His running battle with the chief hypocrites of His day, and He made no effort whatsoever to be winsome in His encounters with them. He did not invite them to dialogue or engage in a friendly exchange of ideas.

Jesus’ public ministry was barely underway when He invaded what they thought was their turf—the temple grounds in Jerusalem—and went on a righteous rampage against their mercenary control of Israel’s worship. He did the same things again during the final week before His crucifixion, immediately after His triumphal entry into the city. One of His last major public discourses was the solemn pronunciation of seven woes agains the scribes and Pharisees. These were formal curses against them. That sermon was the farthest thing from a friendly dialogue. But it is a perfect summary of Jesus’ dealings with the Pharisees. It is blistering denunciation—a candid diatribe about the seriousness of their error. There is no conversatsion, no collegiality, no dialogue, and no cooperation. Only confrontation, condemnation, and (as Matthew 23 records) curses against them.

Jesus’ compassion is certainly evident in two facts that bracket this declamation. First, Luke says that as He drew near the city and observed its full panorama for this final time, He paused and wept over it (Luke 19:41-44). And second, Matthew records a similar lament at the end of the seven woes (23:37). So we can be absolutely certain that as Jesus delivered this diatribe, His heart was full of compassion.

Yet that compassion is directed at the victims of the false teaching, not the false teachers themselves. There is no hint of sympathy, no proposal of clemency, no trace of kindness, no effort on Jesus’ part to be “nice” toward the Pharisees. Indeed, with these words Jesus formally and resoundingly pronounced their doom and then held them up publicly as a warning to others.

This is the polar opposite of any invitation to dialogue. He doesn’t say, “They’re basically good guys. They have pious intentions. They have some valid spiritual insights. Let’s have a conversation with them.” Instead, He says, “Keep your distance. Be on guard against their lifestyle and their influence. Follow them, and you are headed for the same condemnation they are.”

This approach would surely have earned Jesus a resounding outpouring of loud disapproval from today’s guardians of evangelical protocol. In fact, His approach to the Pharisees utterly debunks the cardinal points of conventional wisdom among modern and post-modern evangelicals—the neoevangelical fondness for eternal collegiality, and the Emerging infatuation with engaging all points of view in endless conversation. By today’s standards, Jesus’ words about the Pharisees and His treatement of them are breathtakingly severe.

(By Nathan Busenitz)

In our previous post, we considered a lengthy list of quotes from early Christian leaders regarding their view of justification by faith apart from works.

But, as we stated yesterday, the principle of sola fide is not established in history, but rather in the Scriptures. This is the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura – namely, that the Bible, as the inspired Word of God, is our final and solely infallible authority for faith and practice.

Sola fide and sola Scriptura are generally considered the two core principles of the Reformation, because the other three (sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria) are rooted in them and flow out of them.

Yesterday, we demonstrated that the principle of sola fide has a history that goes back long before the Reformers. Today, we have again included a list of quotes from early Christian leaders. This time, however, the content focuses on the principle of sola Scriptura. As you will see from this list, the early church fathers considered the Word of God to be their final authority.

* * * * *

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

2. Hippolytus (c. 170–c. 236): There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Sacred Scriptures. For as he, who would profess the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise attain it, unless he read the doctrines of the philosophers; so whosoever will exercise piety towards God, can learn it nowhere but from the Holy Scriptures.

3. Tertullian (c. 160–235): The Scriptures . . . indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith. 

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

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

6. Athanasius (c. 296–393): In the Holy Scriptures alone is the instruction of religion announced—to which let no man add, from which let no man detract—which are sufficient in themselves for the enunciation of the truth.

7. Athanasius (again): The holy and divinely inspired writings are sufficient of themselves alone to make known the truth.

8. Athanasius (again): For the true and pious faith in the Lord has become manifest to all, being both ‘known and read’ from the Divine Scriptures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. Augustine (again): Let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other not from divine canonical books but from elsewhere.  . . . I do not want the holy church proved by human documents but by divine oracles.

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

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

(By Nathan Busenitz)

The Protestant doctrine of sola fide is, of course, established in the teaching of the New Testament. Our authority in all matters is solely found in the Scriptures (hence, the Reformation principle of sola scriptura). Thus, we are convinced that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone because that is precisely what the Bible teaches.

But is there a witness to the great Reformed principle of sola fide in early church history? OR was Martin Luther the first to introduce the idea in the early 1500s (as many Roman Catholics claim)?

In order to answer those questions, we have listed twenty-one quotes from early Christian leaders below. Such a list (though not authoritative) is nonetheless confirming for those who embrace a Reformed soteriology. 

* * * * *

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

2. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50–115): His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments [legal titles]; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified.

3. Polycarp (c. 69–155): I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ.

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

5. Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398): This does not mean that works can be put before faith, because a person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith.

6. Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67): Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the justification of faith.

7. Athanasius (295–375): By surrendering to death the body which He [Jesus Christ] had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, He immediately abolished death for His human brothers by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Logos of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled by death all that was required.

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

9. Ambrose (339–97): Therefore let no one boast of his works, because no one can be justified by his works; but he who is just receives it as a gift, because he is justified by the washing of regeneration. It is faith, therefore, which delivers us by the blood of Christ, because blessed is he whose sins are forgiven, and to whom pardon is granted.

10. Jerome (347-420) on Romans 10:3: God justifies by faith alone.

11. Jerome (again): He who with all his spirit has placed his faith in Christ, even if he die in sin, shall by his faith live forever.

12. Chrysostom (349–407): But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.

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

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

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

16. Ambrosiaster (c. 366-384): God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins.

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

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

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

20. Cyril of Alexandria (again): For truly the compassion from beside the Father is Christ, as he takes away the sins, dismisses the charges and justifies by faith, and recovers the lost and makes [them] stronger than death. . . . For by him and in him we have known the Father, and we have become rich in the justification by faith.

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

(By Nathan Busenitz)

When it comes to an understanding of the gospel, the critical difference between the Reformed view and the Roman Catholic view centers on the role that good works play in the sinner's justification.

The Reformers taught that justification is by "faith alone" (hence, the Reformation principle of sola fide). By this, they meant that the believer's righteous standing before God is based solely on the imputed righteousness of Christ; and that salvation is received by grace alone through faith apart from any human effort or merit. This is not to say that good works were unimportant to the Reformers. But they saw good works as the fruit of justification, and not as a basis for it or a contributor to it.

By contrast, the Roman Catholic church teaches that good works participate in and contribute to the sinner's justification. As a result, the believer's righteous standing before God is largely based on his or her own good works (in addition to Christ's work on the Cross). Thus, from the Roman Catholic perspective, justification is not by faith alone, but rather by "faith co-operating with works" (to borrow a phrase from the Council of Trent). 

That is a major distinction. So, is salvation by grace alone through faith apart from works? Or is eternal life is gained through faith PLUS good works?

According to Rome, the answer is faith PLUS works. Thus, the Catholic Catechism states:

The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them [fn, Cf. DS 1569-1570]; the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, succors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments" (P 2068; ellipsis in original).

Notice how "Baptism and the observance of the Commandments" (in context, the Ten Commandments) have been added to "faith" for what is required to "attain salvation."

Along these same lines, The Catholic Answers website notes that “good works are meritorious,” stating that “our obedience and love, combined with our faith, will be rewarded with eternal life.” The Catholic Encyclopedia (in an article entitled “Sanctifying Grace”) further states that the sinner “is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness.” The article adds that “over and above faith other acts are necessary for justification” including fear, hope, charity, penance with contrition, and almsgiving.

Such sources help provide context for the words of Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott:

The Council of Trent teaches that for the justified eternal life is both a gift of grace promised by God and a reward for his own good works and merits. As God's grace is the presupposition and foundation of good works, by which man merits eternal life, so salutary works are, at the same time gifts of God and meritorious acts of man. . . . Blessedness in heaven is the reward for good works performed on this earth, and rewards and merit are correlative concepts. . . . A just man merits for himself through each good work . . . eternal life (if he dies in a state of grace). (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 264, 267)

On the one hand, Ott wants us to believe that "eternal life is . . . a gift of grace." But on the other hand, it is also "a reward for his [the sinner's] own good works and merits." This, then, underscores the inherent contradiction in Roman Catholic soteriology. On the one hand, salvation is by grace. On the other hand, salvation is by works (as faith co-operates with good deeds to merit eternal life).

But, biblically speaking, both cannot be true. As the apostle Paul explains in Romans 11:6, "If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

The New Testament gospel stresses the fact that "by grace you have been saved, through faith, it is the gift of God, not a result of works" (Ephesians 2:8-9); and that salvation is received "not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy" (Titus 3:5).

When we compare the gospel according to Rome with the gospel of the New Testament we quickly find that the two are not compatible. By adding works into the equation, the Roman Catholic Church nullifies true grace. 

(By Nathan Busenitz)

We should begin by noting that it's good to be back online here at Pulpit. It took us a couple weeks longer than we had originally expected. But now we're ready with a steady stream of new content for the Fall.

So, where to begin? How about all the way back at the Reformation.

This past week I spent some time interacting with a Roman Catholic doctoral student who is studying at the University of Dallas. His name is Taylor Marshall and he has a blog called Canterbury Tales. He claims, as is typical for Roman Catholics, that neither the apostles or the early church fathers taught sola fide (justification by faith alone). In fact, Taylor asserts that Martin Luther essentially invented the idea of sola fide, and that no one in church history taught it before the Reformers.

Of course, such a claim is entirely untrue. The principle of sola fide was established long before Luther or any of the sixteenth-century Protestants. It is not only clearly established by the New Testament; it can also be traced through church history.

So, for the rest of this week, we will draw on our interaction with Taylor as we consider some of the key differences between the Reformed understanding of salvation and the Roman Catholic view of the same. In the process we will compare both views to the teaching of the apostles and the church fathers.

I think you'll be encouraged as we start at the Reformation and go back to the first-century -- examining the history and veracity of the evangelical gospel in contrast to the teachings of Rome.

(By John MacArthur)

When Martin Luther was summoned to the Diet of Worms in 1521 and asked to recant his teaching, he replied, “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.”

Luther’s well-known formulation, “Scripture and plain reason,” is the only basis on which we can properly ground true spiritual discernment.

Scripture isn’t antithetical to sound, rational wisdom, though many today imagine otherwise. Reason is no substitute for Scripture, of course, but when good reason and sound logic are kept subject to the authority of Scripture, they are in no way a threat to the truth. On the contrary, the application of sound, logical thinking to the truth of Scripture is a key aspect of the formula for discernment.

Contrary to what a lot of people these days assume, discernment is not a mystical or intuitive ability to know the truth as if by magic. It is the skill of understanding, interpreting, and applying truth accurately. Discernment is a cognitive act. Therefore no one who spurns right doctrine or sound reason can be truly discerning.

Authentic spiritual discernment must begin with Scripture-revealed truth. Without a firm grounding in divine revelation, human reason always degenerates into skepticism (a denial that anything can be known for certain), rationalism (the theory that reason is a source of truth), secularism (an approach to life that purposely excludes God), or any number of other anti-Christian philosophies.

When Scripture condemns human wisdom (1 Cor. 3:19), it is not denouncing logic and reason per se, but humanistic ideology divorced from the divinely-revealed truth of God’s Word. In other words, reason apart from the Word of God leads inevitably to unsound ideas, but reason subjected to the Word of God is at the heart of wise spiritual discernment.