Skip to content

Category Archives for The Gospel Uncensored

Did Jesus “Raise the Bar” in the Sermon on the Mount? – Law 2

In my last post, I began talking about Jesus’ teachings on the Law (the Old Testament Law of Moses, not necessarily Roman or other statutes).  As I stated there, it appears from the context and his statements that he is speaking primarily to the “teachers of the Law,” who were seemingly obsessed with who was or wasn’t doing what. But Jesus is also talking to those “poor in spirit” that he mentioned at the beginning of Matthew 5, those who were burdened under the religious teaching of the day.

Obviously, Jesus drew some attention from both sides, with both leaders and common-folk seeing Jesus as one of many revolutionaries that came and went. Jesus is quick to clarify that he is not anti-law; in fact, he supports the entirety of the Law, and that he doesn’t want one iota taken from the Law until it is “accomplished.”

Furthermore, he makes it clear that “ordinary” righteousness is not enough, and neither is that of the scribes and Pharisees. Connecting the dots between Jesus’ statements, he is saying that to be “poor in spirit” (theirs is the Kingdom) is to be more righteous than those who claim to keep the law.

Matthew 5:21-48

Now he starts giving examples, the “You have heard it said … but I say …” series of statements found in Chapter 5 verses 21-48 (quote from the ESV):

Anger

21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.

Lust

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Divorce

31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Oaths

33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

Retaliation

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Love Your Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

This, of course, presents an interesting twist on the teaching of the Law. Up until this point, presumably, the thinking was that literal keeping of the Law was what mattered. After all, you can only regulate behavior, not intent or emotion. Unless, of course, you’re God who can see into the hearts of men.

Let’s take anger as an example. There are laws about killing and intentionally causing bodily injury to one another, but no one would even conceive of a law against hate. Sure there are “hate crime” laws, but even so, these laws apply a presumed intent after the fact of an actual injury. If you hate but do nothing about it, there’s really nothing anyone can do, and you’ve broken no laws.

Obviously, when Jesus taught this, he didn’t realize the stresses of driving in traffic, or he would have made some allowance for momentary urges to kill. Is anyone out there not guilty of at least wanting to inflict some sort of pain on someone else?  And what’s more, now we’re supposed to love them, not just avoid hating them.

Jesus seems to be making a couple of things clear. First, even if you could do a cursory job of keeping the written Law, these internal laws are beyond the realm of possibility. Find someone who claims to be free from all evil intent, and I’ll show you a liar or a sociopath. Second, righteousness is not a matter of the written Law; we’ve moved beyond the reach of Law into an area that no one has yet considered.

Chances are, everyone in the crowd is thinking the same thing we are: We’re toast. If God—who can see into our hearts—expects us to really be perfect (as He is perfect), we’re all dead men walking. (And yes, this is precisely the point Paul will make a few years later.)

Unless…

What if there was a means to righteousness that was beyond keeping the law? If the sin is beyond reach of the Law, then it logically follows that the righteousness is also beyond the Law.

New Laws, anyone?

It has been suggested that Jesus brought a new, much more stringent law than that which came through Moses, and there is some support for this thought; certainly he is talking about a higher standard. However, thinking of this standard in the same vein as the Law of Moses doesn’t mesh with the discussion of the New Covenant Law in Jeremiah 31, the goal of which is not to create a higher standard for sin:

31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”  (ESV)

So trying once again to connect the dots, we have:

  1. The Law of Moses, which is to remain in force until such time as it is fully “accomplished.”
  2. A new standard for righteousness that is even more unattainable, except to be “poor in spirit.”
  3. A new covenant law, written on our hearts, by which we will know God (as opposed to knowing rules) and which brings forgiveness where God will no longer remember our sin.

Are not hating, not lusting, and loving our enemies the heart of God?  Of course. Jesus makes it quite clear, that the goal is for us to be “perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” And if unattainable by keeping rules, then how?

That, of course, is where Jesus is taking this discussion.

About this study

While I have a certain understanding of what is called “Law and Gospel” in Lutheran circles, I have no agenda here but to work my way through some key passages discussing the Law and how we are to see it from a New Covenant perspective. This is really my own personal Bible Study, worked out as I write.

Feel free to jump in with comments and questions, as long as they are in the spirit of Bible study.

 

Written on 31 January 2012 by me under Law & Gospel with 2 Comments

New Covenant Law – 1

This is hopefully the first in a series of posts talking about a New Covenant perspective of the Law; that is to say, what the New Testament and Paul in particular say about the Law. When I talk about the Law, I’m talking about the Law of Moses, that which the Jewish people were expected to keep up until the time of Christ.  I’m not talking about speed laws, anti-trust regulations or taxation. These two concepts get confused by many people, but they really shouldn’t.  There are rules put in place by men, with penalties established by men. Then there are rules given by God and… well, you get the idea. To keep things clearer, I will try to always capitalize when talking about the Law of Moses.

Matthew 5

Now, while I was specifically planning on looking at Paul’s view of the Law, I really should start with Jesus, since that’s what I always tell other people to do.  The first—and perhaps the most crucial—teaching of Jesus on the Law is found in what we know as the Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew Chapter 5, starting with verse 17:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Wow… and this is just the beginning. But let’s take a look at what Jesus is saying.

The SOTM (Sermon On The Mount)  begins with the Beatitudes (aka the “blesseds”), then the “salt and light” teaching. So far, Jesus seems to be addressing two groups of people: First, there are those, the poor and the persecuted, who need the Kingdom of God. Then, Jesus turns to Israel and Jerusalem in particular (the city set on a hill), who have failed to be the conduit for the blessings of God to the rest of the world. This was Israel’s assignment as the Chosen People—to be the means through which God would bless the whole world. But, rather than be that, the Jewish leadership has tried to keep the blessings to themselves, missing the point about why they were chosen. And, it seems from the comments throughout the Gospels that the Jewish establishment is trying to keep the blessings for those who keep the Law.

So, Jesus now seems to be addressing those who may be seeing Jesus as a counter-establishment revolutionary, who dares to ignore the Law (an accusation made a few times throughout the Gospels). He makes it clear that he is no such radical. He has not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it—to bring it to completion, to see it all “accomplished.” To do away with the Law undermines what Jesus has come to do. He has not come to fulfill any less than the absolute entirety of the Law, every iota, dot and tittle. And get this, the Pharisees aren’t doing it good enough.

But then he lays it out: “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Is this really a mandate to keep the whole Old Testament Law (and just wait for what’s coming next)? There are, in fact, those claiming to be Christians who teach just that. Is Paul in disagreement with Jesus when he said it was impossible to be saved through the Law (Gal 2:16)? Was Peter merely dreaming when he had the vision telling him he could eat pork? Or, is Jesus trying to make a different point here?

We need to keep in mind exactly what we are talking about. If, in fact, Jesus means that righteousness depends upon keeping every iota of the law, then no Christian is doing it, no matter how legalistic they may be, and I mean no one. For one thing, Paul assures us that law makes sin increase, by design, so the Law is in fact self-defeating. It’s got failure built right into it.  Jesus’ words seem to be dooming us to failure, and the next section (the “You have heard it said, but…” teachings) makes it more clear. So what is Jesus actually saying in these verses?

Stay tuned, and we’ll look into this further next time.

 

 

Written on 30 January 2012 by me under Law & Gospel with 2 Comments

Uses of the Law

Although I spent the first 20+ years of my life as a Lutheran and have continued to hold true to many Lutheran ideals (including the benefits of folk music, beer, and the love of a good woman), I’ve only recently become aware of the dispute about the valid uses of the Law (that would be the old Jewish Law of Moses, including all 10 commandments and whichever other laws people tend to think are important at the time).

Lutheran (Formula of Concord)

The Lutheran document “The Formula of Concord” enumerates three uses in Article VI, saying that the “Law was given to men for three reasons…”  These are that:

1. “thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men”

2. “men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins”

and the infamous 3rd use:

3. “after they are regenerate … they might … have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life.”

Now, the Formula of Concord was developed several years after Luther died, at the direction of Elector August of Saxony. Luther himself never taught 3 uses of the law, and probably would have thrown a fit over number three, which is clearly outside of and contrary to anything Paul taught about the law (the law causes sin to increase, the written code kills, yada, yada).   But, we’ll come back to this.

Calvin

Calvin, who in my opinion tried as best as he could to undo the essence of the Lutheran reformation, also taught 3 uses of the law, pedagogical, civil, and didactic.  His three uses, however, seem to misconstrue the essence of Paul.  His first use, pedagogical or “to tutor,” is of course straight from Paul, but he seems to miss the point. The civil use, to keep people from sinning, also shows a clear misunderstanding of Paul, who as I’ve already pointed out clearly said that the law causes sin to increase. By the 3rd use, didactic, Calvin meant that the Mosaic law can be used to teach and provoke people to good works. This concept, of course, is not found in the New Testament either.  So, I’ll just ignore Calvin for the remainder of my thinking about uses of the law (it is my blog, after all).

 Back to Luther(an)

While most Lutherans (especially those liberal ones) only recognize the first two uses of the law as found in the “Formula,” some such as the Missouri Synod are champions of the 3rd use of the law, at times seemingly in preference to the other two. Now I’d be happy for some wise MS Lutheran to show me I’m wrong on this, but this is what I’ve seemed to find among the Concordia crowd.

The Real  3rd Use of the Law

Now, I’m going to get a touch sarcastic here, but I really don’t mean to offend anyone. I’m just trying to raise an issue and make a point.  It seems to me that among some 3rd Users, the real 3rd use of the law is to be able to hammer it over the head of someone else.  Seriously, I’ve seen some of the most vile, judgmental, and downright mean comments on the internet coming from these nice, grace-loving Lutherans who just love to be able to say “I’m not as sinful as you.”

What’s up with that?

I’ve thought about this for months, and keep seeing it again and again, and it really, really bothers me.  This kind of attitude is no different than what Jesus talked about in Luke 18:10-14. Is grace just for us, or should we perhaps spread it around just a bit?  Or is grace only good for polite or socially-acceptable sins?

It is, okay, by the way, to disagree with other Christians, even to say, “I’m sorry, but I believe you’re a heretic.” Paul himself set an example for this. However, ad hominem, dehumanizing attacks are a different story. As the great doctor once said, “a person’s a person, no matter how small.”

What Paul Didn’t Teach

Paul never taught that the Law was an acceptable tool to use to pronounce judgment on others, and Jesus certainly didn’t.  Paul also didn’t teach that being justified by grace made us better than anyone else.

So What Did Paul Teach About the Law?

That’s a very good question.  In my mind (an often scary place), neither of the above lists really hits the mark. For one thing, I don’t think Paul ever meant for there to be such a list. Paul used examples to make points, like Jesus did with his parables and sayings. One day Jesus would say, “The Kingdom is like this” and another day he would say, “the kingdom is like that.”  They aren’t competing ideas, and they aren’t mutually exclusive or definitive. They’re examples. I don’t think Paul ever intended his letters to be seen as an exhaustive, definitive analysis of the law; however, taken as a whole, I think we can come up with a pretty good picture of Paul’s thinking.

My Plan

So, I am seriously considering going through Paul’s letters and discussing his various comments about the law. I may get sidetracked or bushwhacked, but at the moment this is my plan.  It could be interesting. Really.

 

 

Written on 11 January 2012 by me under Law & Gospel, The Gospel Uncensored, Theological Musings with 2 Comments

The “Jesus-plus” Gospel

I don’t know who Kevin DeYoung is, or why I’ve run across him so many times in recent weeks. He blogs at a place called “The Gospel Coalition,” and the masthead identifies him as “DeYoung, restless and reformed.” However, he appears to be preaching what the Apostle Paul referred to as “another gospel, which is no gospel at all” (Gal 1:6-7).

In his current post, “Gospel-driven effort,” he writes

Last week I wrote a piece about the role of effort in the Christian life. It was born out of concern that in our passion for glorying in the indicatives of the gospel (something I have gladly advocated many times) that we are in danger of giving short shrift to the necessity of obeying biblical imperatives. My worry is that we are afraid to exhort each other, as Scripture does, to strive, fight, mortify, vivify, and make every effort for godliness.

He goes on to explain that this post responds in part to that of Tullian Tchividjian, which I wrote about a couple of weeks ago.  His was a marvelous essay on the power of grace to transform us.

The Jesus-plus “gospel”

DeYoung, however, doesn’t seem to trust either grace or the Holy Spirit, at least not completely. He quotes Martin Lloyd-Jones:

The New Testament calls upon us to take action; it does not tell us that the work of sanctification is going to be done for us. . . .We are in the ‘good fight of faith’, and we have to do the fighting. But, thank God, we are enabled to do it; for the moment we believe, and are justified by faith, and are born again of the Spirit of God, we have the ability. So the New Testament method of sanctification is to remind us of that; and having reminded us of it, it says, ‘Now then, go and do it’. (178, emphasis mine)

Remember the gospel indicatives. Then give full throat to the gospel imperatives.

If we have any doubt as to what DeYoung is meaning, he concludes with,

We all need God’s grace to believe what is true and do what is right. We died to sin in the death of Christ. Now we must put to death the deeds of the flesh.

Notice how the emphasis shifts from being saved by grace (Jesus-plus-nothing) to  “now we must” (Jesus-plus-human effort).  As Paul said, “Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?” (Gal 3:3).

Much ado about something

Am I making too much of this?  Is a little bit of human effort added to the gospel not anything to worry about?

This “little bit of human effort” thing is insidious; pastors can still preach what seems to be grace, but as Paul indicates in Galatians, to add just a little bit of anything to the pure Gospel of Christ is to lose it completely. And, Paul was not talking about justification; no one in Galatia was questioning salvation by grace alone. Paul was specifically talking about the teaching that something must be added to grace in order to live the Christian life. Circumcision. Eating Kosher. Just a little bit of striving.

It’s all Jesus, or it’s nothing.

Piper, too.

Justin Taylor (who also writes at The Gospel Coalition and who became famous by being the first to rip Rob Bell to shreds) quotes John Piper about being “more than conquerors:”

You must not be separated from the love of Jesus Christ. The aim of the attacker is to destroy you, and cut you off from Christ, and bring you to final ruin without God. You are a conqueror if you defeat this aim and remain in the love of Christ. God has promised that this will happen. Trusting this, we risk.

Notice the emphasis here. You must not.  If you defeat and remain. God has promised what? I think Piper needs to read Romans 8 again—Paul clearly states that we are more than conquerors through Christ, and that we can never be separated from the love of Christ. Not through our effort, but because of the unfailing love of Christ.

The Gospel Uncensored

There is an alternate gospel being preached, and it’s still quite popular. It’s also evil.  It’s robbing people of grace and freedom as they are conned into striving for something that has already been given them.

Do we have to strive?  As Jesus said, “The work of God is to believe in the one he has sent” (John 6:29). And as Tullian Tchividjian said,

Christian growth does not happen by working hard to get something you don’t have. Rather, Christian growth happens by working hard to daily swim in the reality of what you do have. Believing again and again the gospel of God’s free, justifying grace everyday is the hard work we’re called to.

I strive, not to become holy or sanctified, but to proclaim the good news that is the gospel. This is why Ken and I wrote The Gospel Uncensored. In the book, I quoted from Martin Luther’s introduction to his Galatians Commentary:

The devil, our adversary, who continually seeks to devour us, is not dead; likewise our flesh and old man is yet alive. Besides this, all kinds of temptations vex and oppress us on every side. So this doctrine can never be taught, urged, and repeated enough. If this doctrine is lost, then is also the whole knowledge of the truth, life and salvation lost. If this doctrine flourishes, then all good things flourish.

I have nothing against Piper, Taylor, or DeYoung personally; I’m sure they are nice folks, and sincere. However, I think they are sincerely wrong about what they are teaching. As I mentioned above, it seems that the root of this teaching is a lack of faith in the power of Christ to transform lives; that grace and the Holy Spirit aren’t quite up to the job.

I think they are.

Written on 14 June 2011 by me under Good News, The Gospel Uncensored with 8 Comments

Cross theology (vs everything else)

Martin Luther wrote about what he saw were the two predominant theologies that existed, the theology of glory and the theology of the cross. At the risk of over-simplification, the theology of glory includes the belief that our own works contribute to either our salvation (as in our determination to repent) or our sanctification; that we can work our way “from glory to glory.”

The theology of the Cross keeps people coming back to the finished work of Christ for everything.

There’s an interesting group of folks who call themselves “Resurgence,” who are dedicating to bringing the gospel back into evangelicalism. Most of them seem to be Calvinists, but they are really into Martin Luther. (I think some of them like to think Luther was really a Calvinist, but he wasn’t.)  They have an interesting website, if you can get past the extra-large print and graphics they use. I don’t really know what they are thinking… but that’s beside the point.

In looking at Luther’s 1518 Disputation, Matt Johnson writes a nice little post entitled Why your failures are a blessing.  It’s worth reading. Of note is the following quote from another interesting blog called Mockingbird:

“Theologians of the Cross take great comfort in the thought that, when they are suffering, encountering difficulties of every kind, it is not a sign of God’s abandonment or displeasure, but is, in fact, a mark of His presence and work in our lives…Of course, the problem is, none of us actually believes this…” – via R-J HEIJMEN at Mockingbird

In case you don’t go read the whole post, here’s Matt’s conclusion:

The cross shows us that we are powerless in our ideas of self-salvation. The cross also reminds us that God’s purposes are accomplished even amidst suffering. And sometimes, especially in suffering. Knowing this may not help us feel better when things are going poorly or always give us clarity when bad things happen. But what we do know is this: God deals with sin once and for all at the cross.

 

Written on 04 June 2011 by me under Good News with 1 Comment

Tullian Tchividjian rethinks spiritual growth

Rethinking spiritual growth

Tullian Tchividjian is Billy Graham’s grandson, and pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (founded by the late James Kennedy). A couple of years ago, he discovered that the Gospel is not just for justification. In his article (reprinted from his own blog) Rethinking Spiritual Growth, he discusses “what it means to ‘work out our salvation with fear and trembling.’” He writes,

In his 2008 movie The Happening, writer, producer, and director M. Night Shyamalan unfolds a freaky plot about a mysterious, invisible toxin that causes anyone exposed to it to commit suicide. One of the first signs that the unaware victim has breathed in this self-destructing toxin is that they begin walking backwards—signaling that every natural instinct to go on living and to fight for survival has been reversed. The victim’s default survival mechanism is turned upside down.

This, in a sense, is what needs to happen to us when it comes to the way we think about progress in the Christian life. When breathed in, the radical, unconditional, free grace of God reverses every natural instinct regarding what it means to spiritually “survive and thrive.” Only the “toxin” of God’s grace can reverse the way we typically think about Christian growth.

The counter-intuitive, external Gospel

As I’ve said before, we need to be constantly evangelizing each other, to counter our natural inclinations to be performance-driven. The Gospel is counter-intuitive, which is one reason why we can rely on it. It is so counter-intuitive that men were not likely to have invented it. It does not arise naturally from within us; it needs to come at us externally.

Humans are created to work; it’s one way we gain our self-esteem. However, it is not how we get saved, healed, better, free, or more holy. At least, not by work in the sense we usually think of it.

Tchividjian continues,

Christian growth does not happen by working hard to get something you don’t have. Rather, Christian growth happens by working hard to daily swim in the reality of what you do have. Believing again and again the gospel of God’s free, justifying grace everyday is the hard work we’re called to.

In John chapter 6, the disciples asked Jesus about the work that he talked about. Here’s the exchange:

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” (NIV)

The hard work of Christianity is to contend for the Gospel—to continuously preach to ourselves and to each other the counter-intuitive truth that, to quote myself, “only grace leads to freedom.” Any other work leads to bondage.

Shameless plug

This is a great place to tell you about my book, co-authored with Dr. Ken Blue (Healing Spiritual Abuse). The Gospel Uncensored: How Only Grace Leads to Freedom, which has been described as “a primer on grace.” We examine grace not only as it applies to salvation/justification, but how it is also the key to living the Christian life. Buy it today—you’ll be glad you did. Seriously.

Written on 02 June 2011 by me under Good News, The Gospel Uncensored with No Comments

The Heresy of Charles Finney

Among American evangelicals, Finney stands as something of an icon—a paragon of modern evangelism, a hero to folks like Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham. While I am by no means an expert on Finney or early American revivals (I was raised Lutheran, after all), it has been my impression that Finney actually contributed to the loss of the real gospel (Gal 1:6,7) among many protestant groups.

And yes, I’ve never been one to avoid controversy.

Finney is probably the best-known figure of the 2nd “Great Awakening” (the 1st GA featured folks like Jonathan Edwards, who I’ll save for a future post).  Finney was a Presbyterian, though very much a non-Calvinist (this is probably due in part to the influence of the 1st Great Awakening, with its emphasis on free will).

Finney’s theology appears to have been all over the place, but he was definitely in the Arminian camp, and possibly even Pelagian, holding that man had total control to choose good or evil. Furthermore, sin caused man to lose his justification, resulting in what I call “eternal insecurity”:

“Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned; he must incur the penalty of the law of God … The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys or Antinomianism is true … In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground (p. 46, Systematic Theology).”

While Finney claimed to believe in justification by faith, faith for Finney seemed to be a human work. So according to Finney, whether or not you were “saved” appears to depend upon whether you had just sinned or not, or if you repented, whether you had repented sincerely enough.

Dr. Michael Horton, a Presbyterian (and, I believe, a Calvinist), has written a critical analysis of Finney in The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney. He points out that Finney didn’t believe in original sin (and therefore Total Depravity was out of the question), and then discusses Finney’s unorthodox views of the atonement:

The first thing we must note about the atonement, Finney says, is that Christ could not have died for anyone else’s sins than his own. His obedience to the law and his perfect righteousness were sufficient to save him, but could not legally be accepted on behalf of others. That Finney’s whole theology is driven by a passion for moral improvement is seen on this very point: “If he [Christ] had obeyed the Law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation” (p.206)? In other words, why would God insist that we save ourselves by our own obedience if Christ’s work was sufficient? The reader should recall the words of St. Paul in this regard, “I do not nullify the grace of God’, for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.” It would seem that Finney’s reply is one of agreement. The difference is, he has no difficulty believing both of those premises.

That is not entirely fair, of course, because Finney did believe that Christ died for something—not for someone, but for something. In other words, he died for a purpose, but not for people. The purpose of that death was to reassert God’s moral government and to lead us to eternal life by example, as Adam’s example excited us to sin. Why did Christ die? God knew that “The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted … If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless” (p.209). Therefore, we are not helpless sinners who need to be redeemed, but wayward sinners who need a demonstration of selflessness so moving that we will be excited to leave off selfishness.

Not only did Finney believe that the “moral influence” theory of the atonement was the chief way of understanding the cross; he explicitly denied the substitutionary atonement, which

“assumes that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt, which we have seen does not consist with the nature of the atonement … It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one” (p.217).

Then there is the matter of applying redemption. Throwing off Reformation orthodoxy, Finney argued strenuously against the belief that the new birth is a divine gift, insisting that “regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence,” as moved by the moral influence of Christ’s moving example (p.224). “Original sin, physical regeneration, and all their kindred and resulting dogmas, are alike subversive of the gospel, and repulsive to the human intelligence” (p.236).
[bold type mine]

While I disagree on points with Horton (as I am not a Calvinist), I do respect him as a theologian and have benefited from his thinking. Finney raises a few points which may have some merit, such as questioning the penal substitution theory or the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance. However, Finney’s theology—such as placing our salvation in our own hands rather than in God’s—is clearly heretical.

Then, there is Finney’s emphasis on personal experience rather than on objective truth (the Word of God), etc. Someday it may prove to be an interesting analysis. But, not today. However, if someone has a contrary point of view, I’d be happy to consider it.

 

Written on 14 May 2011 by me under Good News, The Gospel Uncensored, Theological Musings with 7 Comments

Book review: Unconditional?

I just finished reading Brian Zahnd’s new book, Unconditional?: The call of Jesus to radical forgiveness. Overall, it’s pretty awesome. If I were to come up with a “Top Ten” list of Christian books, this would definitely be included.

The topic of forgiveness is one that I’ve thought about a lot over the last 30 or so years; my fascination, if you will, with forgiveness began when I realized that “Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us” actually puts our forgiving others first. It’s not, “because we’ve been forgiven, we’ll try to forgive others.” Shocking, I know. So, when I heard this book was coming out, I was quite excited (as I was when I saw it on the New Releases shelf at the local Borders; yes, I actually bought it from a brick-and-mortar store, although I did have a coupon…).

Zahnd lays out his thesis on page 2:

If we enter the Christian life to find forgiveness, we must continue in the faith to become forgiving people, because to be an authentic follower of Christ we must embrace the centrality of forgiveness.

Grace?

There are those who may question how this mandate to forgive correlates to grace; Zahnd does a pretty good job of doing that. Within a few pages he hits this question head-on, explaining that (in my words) forgiveness is grace in action. The work of Christ on the cross was one of grace and forgiveness, and we are called to take up our cross daily and do the same thing:

But Christians are not just recipients of forgiving grace; we are also called to be those who extend the grace of forgiveness to others.

Overall, I thought he kept his discussion within the realm of grace, although I know some will feel that he steps over into works. But, if we accuse Zahnd of crossing over into works, I think we’d have to accuse Paul of the same thing. Essentially, Zahnd is saying, “Have the same mindset of Jesus…” (Phil 2:5). Living a life of grace is living a life of forgiveness; if we fail to extend grace to others, it shows we simply don’t believe in grace.

Zahnd explains quite well how unforgiveness is a trap which keeps people in bondage, and prevents them from experiencing grace and their own forgiveness. If we want to truly be free, we must decide to forgive those who have wronged us.

Ken Blue and I deal with this topic ourselves in The Gospel Uncensored:

Unforgiveness places us in a prison of our own making. When we fail to forgive, we do not just withhold forgiveness from others; we prevent ourselves from experiencing forgiveness ourselves.

Prose and cons

(No, I didn’t misspell “pros.”)

Unconditional? is a fairly short (220 pages), very easy to read book. In it, Zahnd discusses the concept of forgiveness in several different contexts, such as how forgiveness impacts justice and the way of forgiveness being the way through the Narrow Gate. He will perhaps shock some with his idea that true forgiveness does not necessarily forget. Overall, he brings out many good points and challenges many American attitudes, not that they are necessarily limited to Americans.

Throughout the book I saw many hints of NT Wright, which is not a bad thing. But, I often thought I was reading a rewrite of some of Wright’s thoughts from works like Evil and the Justice of God and Simply Christian (again, not a bad thing, I just noticed it). For those who haven’t read Wright, Unconditional? will present some new thoughts.

I was impressed that while he addresses politics and world affairs, he doesn’t go off topic with discussions of pacifism and the like, which seem to be in vogue these days. Some, of course, will wish that he had gone further in these directions—but I think he does well to raise issues while staying on course.

I had a few complaints about the book, though not with the message. For one, in my opinion he tended to beat his examples to death and seemed to repeat himself unnecessarily. Just when you thought he had moved on, he’d resurrect an analogy.  In a sermon context, repetition is good and necessary; in a book, it’s not. However, I realize that some will love this about the book.

And, I thought the last couple of chapters were tangential at best, perhaps an attempt to extend the book past 200 pages. What he had to say wasn’t bad, I just thought he drifted too far off topic. Again, others will, no doubt, disagree with me.

My main disappointment with the book was that he didn’t deal more in depth with the issue I mentioned earlier, that our own forgiveness seems tied to our choice to forgive others. While he touches on the topic, he doesn’t really give it the attention I would have liked to have seen.

I highly recommend this book

In spite of the few issues I had, I would still list this in my current Top Ten list of books. Many, many people are held captive by their own unforgiveness of others, and I think this is one of the major barriers keeping people from experiencing their own grace and forgiveness. I hope this book does well, and finds its way into the hands of those who need it.

Forgiveness is healing; as Zahnd says, it changes everything.

Written on 23 February 2011 by me under Good News, Reviews with 1 Comment

So, what do you want from Christianity?

Here’s an interesting question: What do you want from Christianity?

A long time ago I heard someone describing becoming a Christian as an act of “enlightened self-interest,” where we are motivated by what we hope to get out of it rather than a commitment to serve God and others. Looking at the Gospels, it seems that Jesus never turned people away for wanting something from him; in fact, it was those who didn’t want anything from him that he turned away. Even Peter’s great statement of faith, “where else would we go? Only you have the words of life” (John 6:68), speaks of Peter’s need for these words of life. So, this enlightened self-interest does not appear to be a bad thing.

Considering this, plus the fact that Christianity has, at least for many people in the west, become a consumerist endeavor—one in which we pick churches and even religions on what we perceive we need—then the obvious question becomes, “what do you want from Christianity?”

In answering this question, we could go a number of different ways. However, reflecting on Paul’s letter to the Galatians, there are two primary responses: a life under the law, with a list of requirements to fulfill, or a life of freedom. Many people, for a number of different psychological and bad theological reasons, choose a life under the law. A relative few, it seems, choose a life of freedom.

Two Gates

In Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus says

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

Almost never do you hear this verse taught in the larger context of what Jesus is saying in Matthew chapter 7. He starts off by saying, “Don’t judge others.” Then, he speaks of the Father giving his children good gifts, merely for the asking, and teaches them what we know as the Golden Rule: treat others like you’d like to be treated back “for this sums up the law.” Immediately following verses 13 & 14, Jesus talks about false prophets, and how to recognize them by their fruit.

It seems here that Jesus is trying to teach his disciples a different way from that of the law; we don’t get by working, we get by asking. Good trees naturally produce good fruit. Take the narrow road, not the widely traveled one.

Works, or grace?

I’ve always heard the explanation of the two paths as “choose holiness, not sin,” and yes, there’s something to be said for that, even though this does not seem to be Jesus’ emphasis here. Paul says we were set free not to sin, but to live in freedom, which is not to sin.

But, which gate leads to a life of works-righteousness, and which is the gateway to freedom and grace? Is it possible that we’ve confused our gates?

If Paul’s thinking accurately represents the Gospel as Jesus intended it (which I believe it does), then what leads to destruction is relying on ourselves, and what leads to live is receiving grace as a gift—which seems to follow Jesus’ line of thinking in the prior verses.

The Question

So, the question remains: What really do you want from Christianity, a life of self-reliance and works-righteousness, or a life of freedom that comes from grace?

Written on 08 February 2011 by me under Good News with 2 Comments
Tagged with , , , , , ,

Good News for Anxious Christians pt 4

The church, when it’s not seduced by consumerist spirituality, is in the business of cultivating ordinary Christians.

This is perhaps my favorite quote in the book I’ve been reviewing, Good News for Anxious Christians. This is not, however, the focus of contemporary evangelicalism. Who wants to be ordinary? “Come join us—be ordinary!” is not something you’re going to find on many (or any) church signs or websites.

In the remaining 1/2 of the book, Cary addresses cultural elements which have found their way into evangelicalism, such as emphasizing our motivations rather than our actions, separating “head” from “heart,” and especially consumerism. In adopting a marketing approach to spirituality—which is based on creating a need to fit in, or even be special—the church has lost any sense of true spirituality (becoming “ordinary” Christians).

The point of consumerism is to make you feel like you’re missing something, so you keep coming back. This requires that you stop thinking, and respond emotionally to the message. As Cary writes,

The new evangelical theology, like all forms of consumerist religion, really does need to keep you from thinking too much. It requires you to be afraid of engaging in critical thought, so that you’re easily manipulated and easily pressured into wanting to feel what everyone else feels.

Cary includes a chapter on why practical sermons are so boring (as we all know they are). The need to be practical and “relevant” shifts the focus from the Gospel (what Christ has done for us) to what we can do for ourselves (or for the church).

The last couple of chapters are perhaps the most important in the book, as he explains how this shift from a focus on external truth to one of internal experience is a step away from orthodox Christianity, and which will lead to a post-Christian future.

In closing, he tells us why the gospel is simply good for us, and why it should be preached as often as possible.

As I mentioned at the outset of this series, Good News for Anxious Christians is a great companion to my book The Gospel Uncensored, as it deals with many of the same attitudes, however from a different perspective. If church makes you feel anxious in the least, I highly recommend reading both of these (mind first, of course…).

Written on 01 February 2011 by me under Good News, Reviews with No Comments
Tagged with , ,