Wouldn’t it be great if everybody put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ and became good Christian citizens? I mean could you imagine what the world would possibly look like. It would be amazing. Unfortunately, that just isn’t the case, but why? Why do so many come to Christ while others do not? Is it because God chose to save some, “the elect” and damn others, “the reprobate”? I think many would be abhorred by such a notion that God chose you but elected to damn your child or friend. So what about the possibility that people have the freedom to choose, but they won’t choose because of certain doctrines or teachings found within the Christian faith? I certainly think that’s a viable option as I would say the two most dominant reasons for disbelief in God and Christianity are (1) the problem of evil and (2) the doctrine of eternal conscious torment a.k.a. hell. In a previous audio blog, I discussed and answered the problem of evil, so I won’t be addressing that here, but I do want to spend some time discussing the doctrine of hell. I plan to do this in multiple stages as this is a lengthy subject with a lot of history. So in this lesson, I will introduce the earliest positions on the doctrine and then add some philosophical arguments as to why I don’t believe hell is eternal conscious punishment (key word conscious) and in another lesson I will layout the biblical case for rejecting eternal conscious torment.
But I want to begin with a few powerful quotes from some spiritual giants affirming eternal conscious torment and doubters about their thoughts on hell, and why some very intellectual people reject Christianity because of eternal conscious torment. I would also caution you to refrain from saying that these people reject Christianity because of the hardness of their hearts or because they simply hate God, unless of course you are a determinist or one that believes God has foreordained these people to hell. There is no doctrine I would more willingly remove from Christianity than hell, if it lay in my power . . .I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully: “All will be saved.”—C.S. Lewis “No Evangelical, I think, need hesitate to admit that in his heart of hearts he would like universalism to be true. Who can take pleasure in the thought of people being eternally lost? If you want to see folk damned, there is something wrong with you.”—J.I. Packer “I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show us that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this doctrine is damnable.”—Charles Darwin Well, eternal conscious torment hasn’t always been the dominant view in the Church. In fact, this doctrine is one of the most debated and unsettled teachings of the Church as it has never gained universal agreement. Going back to the earliest teachings of the Church there was much disagreement regarding the extent of hell and whether or not God would eventually reconcile all mankind back to himself. One of the earliest positions for the traditional view of eternal conscious torment was affirmed by Tertullian of Carthage (155-220). Tertullian had a very peculiar way of discussing this as he imagined the saved person gazing from the precipice of heaven looking down to hell; and upon seeing his family burning, Tertullian cheered on as he was grateful God saved him while having no remorse that his family rejected Christ, as they would be eternally tormented. Another view from the early writings and fathers suggests that those that were not saved were annihilated—ceasing to exist after a certain extent of time. The language in the Shepherd of Hermas (90-110) says, “Sinners shall be consumed because they sinned and did not repent.” Now consumed does not entail eternal conscious punishment, because if something is consumed it ceases to exist. Hermas also spoke of “death” as an end to the sinner’s punishment. These positions also have a basis found in Scripture. For example, Saint Paul says, “The wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23). And in his letter to the Church of Thessalonica, Saint Paul said, “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” (2 Thess. 1:9). So the references to ‘death’ and ‘eternal destruction’ seem to imply non-existence, because when something is destroyed, it no longer exists. A third view that was proposed and believed by perhaps some of the greatest minds of the early Church was, “Universal Reconciliation” or the idea of innate immortality of human beings. Clement of Alexandria was under the belief that the souls lost here on earth could be reformed or purged in hell because of God’s great love. This idea was furthered by Origen who believed that God would eventually save all people. He appealed to Saint Paul’s verse in Philippians 2 where ‘every’ knee will bow and tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, and by ‘every’ This means everybody will worship Jesus as Lord. He also appealed to Jesus’s parable about the hundred sheep and the one that strayed. Jesus taught that if one of those sheep strays, he will do whatever it takes to retrieve that lost sheep and bring him back into the fold. Now don’t misunderstand this to be universalism or the idea that all religions are true and everybody gets to heaven depending on the path they take. These men all affirmed that faith in Christ alone was the only way to eternal salvation, but that reconciliation could be attained in the afterlife. The final view that garnered the most traction after these proposed theories and became the traditionalist view of eternal conscious torment was adopted by Saint Augustine. As mentioned already, there were others whom preceded Saint Augustine that held to this doctrine, but the idea of eternal ongoing torment was really cemented by Saint Augustine. What’s interesting to note, is that although Augustine was adamant about this doctrine, he never regarded those that held to differing views such as, annihilationism or universal reconciliation to be heretical ideas, rather he simply stated that these men just got it wrong. According to Augustine in his great work, the City of God, there were many in his day that held to these views. Saint Augustine said, “I must now, I see, enter the lists of amicable controversy with those tender-hearted Christians who decline to believe that any, or all of those whom the infallibly just Judge may pronounce worthy of the punishment of hell, shall suffer eternally, and who suppose that they shall be delivered after a fixed term of punishment, longer or shorter according to the amount of each man’s sin.” So while admitting the differing views about hell, Augustine did not condemn them as heretics, he simply felt they were in error. Now that we have given a broad overview regarding what the earliest teachers of the Church believed, lets discuss the philosophical component of eternal conscious torment. Perhaps one of the largest stumbling blocks for sensitive unbelievers becoming Christian is the idea of eternal torment for finite sins. For many of these people there is a strong dichotomy between a God that universally loves, and a God that will eternally torment the very creation he loves. I mean what if those who preach eternal torment to unbelievers are actually incorrect regarding their interpretation of Scripture and are causing resistance to people that may otherwise come to Christ. Could it be that we are creating a stumbling block for people? Jesus said it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be cast into the sea than to cause others to stumble (Matt. 18:6). Not to mention that Jesus tells us to love our enemies and do good to them, and to be merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful (Luke 6:35-36). Jesus, the very image of God was also a friend of sinners and tax collectors (Matt. 11:19). And finally, how does punishing someone endlessly resolve the problem of sin? In what manner does casting people into eternal conscious torment for eternity rid the universe from sin if they are constantly sinning and hurling insults towards God. It seems to me, that a just punishment and annihilation would suffice to resolve the problem of sin, or perhaps divine reconciliation. Origen as I spoke about earlier believed Jesus died for everybody, and if Jesus died for everybody, then He should get everybody He died for. But being not everybody believes in Jesus, perhaps when they meet him, they will believe and bow before him. Next time we will examine the texts often cited to support eternal conscious torment and the verses that seem to support annihilation.
1 Comment
A few months back on social media, I posited the question, “Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?” Needless to say, the question was answered by many with a resounding, no! While I understand the knee-jerk reaction to such a question, namely because of the major tensions between these two great monotheistic world religions; and their seemingly irreconcilable differences on major issues such as the Trinity and Jesus as the second person of the Godhead—there are, however, similarities. For example, when one goes back to the original source, or genesis if you will regarding these belief systems; there are as I said, striking similarities between Christianity and Islam. For example, both believe in one supreme God who created all things, both agree he is the uncaused first cause, and that he is the God of Abraham and Moses. Beyond that, Muslims affirm that Jesus was indeed born of a virgin and that He will return a second time to judge the world. These are all important commonalities between these two belief systems. Of course, when one thinks in those terms, Islam sounds more like a Christian heresy like Arianism or Oneness Pentecostalism than a totally different belief system such as Hinduism or Buddhism.
But what if we add a third major monotheistic world religion to the argument, Judaism. If I ask the same question slightly differently, “Do Christians and Jews worship the same God?” I am sure to get a different response, namely, yes! But why? Christianity and Judaism have as much or maybe less commonality than Christianity and Islam. Yes, like Islam, Judaism affirms the oneness of God, that he alone is the creator and sustainer of all things, that God is the un-caused first cause and all other things are contingent. But like Islam, Judaism readily affirms Jesus is not God, he has not eternally existed, the Trinity is false and many other key features. In fact, while Judaism rejects the virgin birth of Jesus and that he will return a second time—Islam affirms this. Now please don’t misunderstand what I am saying here, please. I am not advocating religious relativism or the idea that all three paths provide salvation because they believe in the same God, or that these belief systems are somehow equal. As a Christian that abides by the word of God (the Bible) that would be acting in direct opposition to historic Christianity and deemed heretical. Scripture is unequivocal that salvation is not found apart from Jesus Christ; and any other attempt to circumvent or change that is anathema. So why do this then? I believe, that in order to truly worship God, we must have a correct understanding of him (I’m not referring to trivialities or secondary issues) because within Christianity there is an overlap as you have Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, Open Theists and so on, but we would all agree that while there are big differences, we worship the same God. So when we talk about Islam and Judaism, we have to ask, how much overlap do we share with these of other belief systems; and how can Muslims and Jews be put into a right relationship with God to have eternal life? So I’m talking about major fundamental differences to the faith such as, Jesus as God, rising from the dead, Jesus making propitiation for our sins and the Trinity. And while Judaism and Islam are close to worshiping God as he desires, they hold false ‘beliefs’ about God, thus preventing them from entering the truest sense of worship and denying what God has commanded his creation to do. Allow me to give a few examples of what I mean when I refer to all three world religions worshiping the same God, but some in a false manner. As a young adult, I became fascinated with astronomy and looking deep into the night sky at the planets and galaxies and bright stars. One of the most notable and brightest lights in the sky other than the moon is the planet Venus. If fact, it’s called the morning star because it can be seen as a bright light in the morning sky. But this planet is also visible in the night sky. Perhaps a good comparison to help understand the similarities between Islam and Christianity is to use Venus as an example. Suppose 3500 years ago there was an Egyptian named, Amun. Amun loves looking into the night sky at a particular star that he sees in the morning and in the evening. As Amun studies this star, he comes to belief that the two stars are different because one appears at night and the other in the morning. But the truth is, it’s not even really a star (it’s a planet), and it’s actually the same planet that appears at different times in the sky. The star (planet) is one thing, and even though Amun has different senses about it, the fact is it is the same thing. The same comparison could be said about the great basketball player Kareen Abdul-Jabbar. I remember watching him as a young boy and talking about his great hook shot that I often tried to mimic—it was a great move. But one day on ESPN I was watching a highlight reel of a young guy doing this hook shot that looked similar to Abdul-Jabbar’s, and he looked like him too. The commentator then said it was a man by the name of Lou Alcindor Jr. I later came to find out it was Abdul Jabbar and that he had changed his name when he became a Muslim. So in my mind, I had beliefs about Abdul-Jabbar that were not true of Alcindor Jr., but in reality it was the same person. These two illustrations, while not theological, demonstrate that while Amun and myself had different ‘senses’ about the same thing and were believing at first they were different, they were in fact the same things. The same is true with Islam and Judaism when talking about Christianity. We are talking about the same God, but Muslims and Jews are using different or false reference points about God and his true nature. But there is a counter argument to the points that I just made. If Jews and Muslims believe in the same God as Christians do but reject the message or fundamental truths of God’s progressive revelation (the Trinity and incarnation) then they are rejecting the very nature of God having now been properly informed; so, they actually are not worshiping the same God. There is as Christian philosopher, Jerry Walls who uses the example of the ‘order of being and knowing’ to make this distinction. For example, God has always been triune in his ‘being’ but this was not always known. For example, the Old Testament Jews did not know of the triune nature of God. It was only later ‘known’ through progressive revelation that his being consisted of three persons, the Trinity. Now this is an important distinction and I think the argument for rejecting the Trinity properly understood could be a disqualifier in that Muslims and Jews do not worship the same God, but only if this is made ‘known’ to them. But here’s the problem with that argument. Suppose for a moment that an atheist is watching a video on YouTube about the moral argument and the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God and becomes convinced that there is only one true God. However, later on, he begins watching more videos about Jesus and the resurrection, but is not convinced that these claims are true, while still holding belief in the existence of the one true and almighty God--who is perfect in every way. Now let’s say five years pass by and more convincing evidence is presented to this man about Jesus and the resurrection which in turn convinces him that Jesus really did rise from the dead. The question is, did he believe in a different God or the same God? It would be my understanding that this individual did not change god’s when he first became a theist, rather he had incomplete knowledge about him. The same would be true for Saul of Tarsus prior to meeting the risen Jesus. When Saul met Jesus on the Damascus road it would be false to say that Saul ‘converted’ to Christianity, abandoned Judaism and believed in a different God, rather Saul had a false belief about God that was revealed through Jesus. Now there are several differing views about this subject that Christians debate over. Some Christians believe that Christianity, Judaism and Islam all worship different Gods (which is a viable option). There is also a position that while Christians and Jews worship the same God, Muslims do not on the basis that Jews do not differ substantially. But Islam and Judaism both share false beliefs about God. I personally have a difficult time agreeing with those that believe Christians and Jews worship the same God while Muslims do not. If Muslims are not pagans who worship one God, the God of Abraham and Moses, its makes me wonder why people reject this argument brought forward other than the emotional attachments they may have about Islam. Today we’re going to be discussing a doctrine of Reformed theology known as ‘Perseverance of the Saints’ or perhaps better known by some as eternal security. And before we dive into this discussion, it should be understood that there are two positions or views in which the Protestant Church understands this teaching. And I’m going to briefly present both positions with scriptural citations that are viewed as texts to prove the position being defended, and then I will present the position the Church has historically held. This is only fair because if you listen to 99% of teachers today, or even in the past for that matter, more often than not they will supply you with ‘so-called proof texts’ to better support their position while either ignoring or not addressing the other sides position. So all I ask is that you seriously consider all the passages and arguments being discussed as viable options for what the biblical authors meant when they said these things.
So I mentioned the Church has some derivatives or differing views regarding eternal security. The first of those variations I will address is, once saved always saved (OSAS). This is by far the least popular of the two positions but nonetheless remains to have popularity within certain circles of Christianity. This doctrine teaches that if you make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ at any moment in time and genuinely meant it—you cannot under any circumstance lose that salvation. Even if years later you come to a belief that God does not exist, your salvation will still be preserved. Or suppose your spiritual way of life has so deteriorated that you no longer practice any spiritual disciplines or the sacraments and you walk away from the faith renouncing it—within this theological grid you cannot lose your salvation. Now a lot of folks, particularly parents or perhaps grandparents who are good Christian people have children that were reared in the faith and their children made professions of faith in Jesus but later recanted denying the faith. Many times, these parents have a tendency of clinging to OSAS because of its emotional attachments. In other words, it gives them comfort to know that their loved one cannot lose their gift of salvation. The most prominent proponent of this position is Baptist Pastor, Dr Charles Stanley who has a very large following of people. And Dr Stanley justifies his position that you cannot under any circumstance lose your salvation because God justifies sinners solely by faith, and our moral conduct has absolutely no bearing on our justification. Now, I should qualify that Dr Stanley believes that willful sin and rejection of God is not ‘normative’ behavior for the believer. In other words, the normal Christian will repent and be sorrowful if he/she commits serious sins. But even if they don’t repent and they die, according to Stanley they are still forgiven and saved. Now as a consequence, the believer may lose some rewards, but their salvation is still intact because it cannot be lost. The verse that is often used to support this position is, 2 Timothy 2:13 which says, “If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself.” This is understood to mean that if I lose my faith, God remains faithful and will not forsake me. But I don’t understand the reasoning here because there are millions of people that are faithless, yet God is faithful. I couldn’t understand this in other way to mean if I am faithless, then I am lost. In other words, it isn’t God who dropped the ball rather it was me. And to compound matters, there isn’t one single verse in all of Scripture to support the idea that if we live in sin and die in our sin, even if we made a profession of faith that we will be saved. But as I stated this is somewhat of a minority position, and dare I say a possible heretical position. I say that because of its anti-nomian overtones or a view against the Law that is sadly somewhat prolific in our society in that if I say a prayer and mean it, when I sin it is always forgiven and being that my salvation is a ‘gift’ it cannot be taken away. Now a much more balanced and nuanced view of eternal security that has some commonality with what the Church has historically held to is ‘Perseverance of the Saints’. While this view is rejected by many denominations and the Church historically, it does have some valid points. But before we look at scriptural support for this doctrine, lets give a basic definition. The doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints is part of a larger group of ideas found in Calvinism that believes that once you sincerely put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ you are eternally secure for all time and God will keep you strong to the end. But this doctrine really hinges on other doctrines such as Unconditional-election. This is where I personally get confused with a variety of Protestant camps or certain people that reject specific tenants of Calvinistic teachings but believe in Perseverance of the Saints. In other words, how can you reject Unconditional election or the idea that from the foundation of the world you were ‘elect’ or chosen while others are damned and still cling to Perseverance of the Saints? If you are not ‘chosen or elect’ and have free-will then that would not guarantee that you will persevere to the end in the first place. Thomas Schreiner a prominent scholar at Southern Baptist Seminary and Calvinist said, “If I were not convinced of unconditional election, I would surely be an Arminian. The writing passages are so strong that I can understand why many think believers can lose their salvation. What is interesting to me is that there are so many believers today who reject unconditional election and yet they hold on to eternal security.” This is so true because many, many Protestants today will outright reject the notion that God chooses some and rejects others, all the while ignoring the explicit passages that warn against apostasy, but believing that they themselves cannot lose their salvation—unless of course they’re ‘elect’. So for the five-point Calvinist this is not a problem because God has chosen them so their election is secure. So what scriptural support is there for this position? There are a number of passages that Calvinists will point to in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, but we’ll deal with the most prominent. Philippians 1:6 “Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” 2 Corinthians 1:22 “And who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.” Ephesians 1:13-14 “In him also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” Jude 1:24 “Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy.” 1 John 5:13 “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” John 5:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” John 10:27-28 “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one can snatch them from my hand.” These are some of the more popular and prominently cited passages to support the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. Obviously, there isn’t enough time to thoroughly exegete these passages, but we’ll look at a few and provide a different stream of argumentation with passages that clearly warn about apostasy. In John 10:27-28 Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one can snatch them from my hand.” But its interesting as D.L. Moody pointed out some people read this passage as if it says, “My sheep ‘heard’ my voice, and I ‘knew’ them, and they ‘followed’ me, and I ‘gave’ them eternal life.” But as Moody correctly argues the verbs indicate a continuous ongoing action and not something that happened at a single moment in the past. In the Pauline epistles one must ask, if Saint Paul believed in Perseverance of the Saints then why did he warn against apostasy? Interestingly enough at times in the same letter that Saint Paul seems to advocate for Perseverance of the Saints, he warns his constituents that they must be careful so as to not disqualify themselves from eternal life. In Philippians 1:6 Saint Paul said, “Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” Of course this is a classic verse to support perseverance of the Saints as Saint Paul says God will keep us strong to the end implying that we cannot lose salvation. But the language in the letter also suggests he was directing this to the Philippians. For example, Saint Paul says, he is “sure” or “persuaded” that God will finish his good work in them because of the monetary gifts they provided him with while in prison. Secondly, if Saint Paul is a believer in Perseverance of the Saints why is it that just a chapter later, he warns them to, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Php. 2:12. If one needs to work out their salvation that would be indicative that it can be lost. Finally, in chapter 3 Saint Paul warns them to follow his example and not walk in the pattern as some have which led to their destruction. Lastly in his letter to the Ephesians, Saint Paul says, “In him also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” Eph. 1:13-14. The defender of Perseverance of the Saints assumes that if you are sealed that that seal cannot be broken, but Saint Paul warns them not to grieve the Holy Spirit in Eph. 4:30. Saint Paul also goes on to say in Ephesians 5 that “immoral or impure” men have no inheritance in Christ. The late F.F. Bruce said, “The fact that they have to be warned against such vices shows how strong the pagan environment was, and there was temptation to indulge in them even after conversion.” It seems strange if Jesus, Saint Paul and Saint John were adherents of this doctrine that they would warn of the possibility of apostasy. Again, while there are many passages to cite regarding the potential of apostasy of the believer in Scripture, we will visit a few. In Saint Paul’s letter to the Church in Corinth he says, “No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.” 1 Cor. 9:27. What makes this verse so powerful and persuasive is because the word ‘disqualified’ in Greek is the word reprobate (adokimos). The word reprobate in Calvinism means ‘not elect’ or predestined to damnation. How could Saint Paul be reprobate or possibly reprobate if Perseverance of the Saints is true? In Romans 1:28 Saint Paul says, “God gave them over to a reprobate mind.” again the same word used in 1 Cor. 9:27. Furthermore in 2 Corinthians 13:5 we read, “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Or do you not recognize yourselves that Christ Jesus is in you, unless you are reprobate.” The whole point here is Saint Paul has a desire to finish the race and not become reprobate. This even circles back to the beginning of our conversation when I mentioned unconditional election. How does Saint Paul believe in this teaching if he doesn’t even know if he is part of the so-called elect? Saint Paul speaks directly of people like Hymenaeus and Alexander who shipwrecked their faith 1 Tim. 1:19. He likewise warned the Corinthians to “not be deceived” 1 Cor. 15:33. And that, “neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Cor. 6:9-10. Only at the end of Saint Paul’s life is where he knows his salvation is secure when he says, “The time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight. I have finished the race; I have kept the faith.” 2 Tim. 4:6-7 Martin Luther once said, “Our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so. It does not hurt the sun, because it sends its rays into the sewer.” There is also a legendary story that when Luther said these things, snow began to fall, and the dung disappeared as it was covered by the fresh new snow. Luther allegedly said, “That is how God sees us in His Son, Jesus Christ.” In other words, when God sees us, while we are yet full of sin, (dung) we are clothed in Christ’s righteousness and are therefore acceptable to God.
John Calvin who was also a legendary Reformed thinker said, “Everyone who would obtain the righteousness of Christ must renounce his own.” I get what Calvin is saying here, but I personally have never heard a conversion story of an individual who took credit for their salvation based on their own merit or righteousness. But aside from that, the Reformers taught God covers sins with Christ’s righteousness, and this justification is received by Sola fide or faith alone—which to this day is the rally cry for Protestants. Another important element that needs to be brought up before we proceed is how Protestants describe the act of justification. This is often analogous to a court room setting where the word “forensic” is used to describe the “legal” act of God declaring a sinner to be righteous or not guilty. A key feature when discussing this is to understand that while you are declared righteous, there is no intrinsic transformation that takes place. To go back to Luther’s quote, “The rays of the sun do not change the dung they shine on.” However, they do change the sinner’s position and relationship with God. This is what Protestants refer to as the “imputation” of Christ’s righteousness that again covers sin. We’ll discuss the Orthodox/Catholic and certain Protestant denominations position in more depth in a moment, but we understand that rather than merely being covered, we are infused with or injected like a shot with a needle with Christ’s righteousness that blots out and removes the stain of sin. Now don’t have a knee-jerk reaction and say, are you saying you’re sin free or fully sanctified? No, we’re not saying that. We believe like most Protestants that sanctification or our increasing holiness grows as we develop in our relationship with God. However, we would disagree sharply with people like John MacArthur who say, “Justification is a onetime event; sanctification is an ongoing process. Justification frees us from the guilt of sin, sanctification from the pollution of sin.” The key point of this entire debate is largely based on a misunderstanding by many Protestants. For example, it is not uncommon to hear Protestants say, we believe in justification by faith alone, while Catholics believe in justification based on faith and works, which harkens back to Calvin and his statement that said, “Everyone who would obtain the righteousness of Christ must renounce his own.” This is where some imply that Catholic’s are trying to earn God’s favor while seeking to be justified. However, if you read the magisterial documents such as, The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Council of Trent, the language does not allude to or say Catholics are justified by faith plus works. Rather like the great Protestant scholar NT Wright says, we must look closely at what justification and sanctification mean and distinguish that initial moment between the two. For Catholics/ Orthodox and some Protestants we look at the process of justification as a process that continues throughout our lives, and this is where works do become important. Catholic apologist Trent Horn gives a fantastic analogy regarding how this works. Imagine a group of malnourished, fifthly street kids who are one day approached by a wealthy person and given the opportunity to be adopted into the family. Some of the children reject this offer on the basis that they don’t want to abandon their current lifestyle and conditions they’ve grown accustomed to. Others, however, accept this offer and are then adopted into the persons family. The person takes these children home and washes them clean from the filth of their former way of life. He then instructs them on how to live and become good citizens. The children who rejected the wealthy persons gift would be likened to people who reject God’s offer and gift of forgiveness and are never justified. In contrast, the children who accept the persons offer would be like believers who accept God’s free gift of salvation accept it, and are then (cleaned) baptized so they can live out their new life in Christ. Notice the children did nothing to earn any of this person’s free gift of adoption, rather they chose to accept it, and embrace it or reject it. The children that said, yes, obeyed the person in accordance with the free gift of adoption. So now that we made a plausible argument for the Catholic/Orthodox and some Protestant positions regarding justification, what did Jesus say? In Matthew 12:36-37 we read, “On the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Cleary Jesus knows of a justification that will take place on the day of judgment and all people will be justified based on their works vis-à-vis and their eternal destiny. Again, Jesus says in Revelation 2:23, I am He who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each as your works deserve.” Clearly Jesus looks at both mind and heart as a basis for salvation. But what about the Pharisee and the Tax collector in Luke 18. John Calvin absolutely loved this parable seizing upon it as a fatal blow to anyone who sought to undermine justification by faith alone. If you’re not familiar with this parable there are two individuals involved a Pharisee and a tax collector total opposite ends of the socio and spiritual spectrum. The Pharisee while having a good prayer of things he has done, is clearly not humble, rather is boastful. While the tax collector (a despised citizen) beats his breast begging for God to have mercy on him went home justified. Protestant scholar and expert on Luke/Acts Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary sees this not as a basis to justify the tax collector in the sense that he is now saved—where is there any faith in Jesus? Rather, Bock contends that in a Jewish setting, this man’s sins we forgiven and he was justified that day—not in an eternal sense. But even if that’s not true, when Jesus explains the meaning of this, he says, “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” This indicates the humility of the tax collector that all people should exercise. Also, in the following chapter we read about Zacchaeus another tax collector who repents and declares he will pay back everyone he defrauded. To which Jesus replies, “Today salvation has come to this house.” Luke 19:9. One final example is the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:6 who approaches Jesus seeking what he must do to inherit eternal salvation. Jesus replies, if you want to inherit eternal life, keep the commandments. This doesn’t mean Jesus denied faith and the part it plays in our justification. Many more examples could be given, but the point is faith and works act together synergistically and justification isn’t a single act, rather it is faith co-operating with works. So Catholics/Orthodox and some Protestants believe that, while yes, God does declare us to be righteous, justification is not a single legal act, rather we are restored and empowered to works of faith, love and charity which cannot be done unless you are justified. Pope Benedict XVI said, Luther’s phrase faith alone is true so long as it is not opposed to faith in charity and love. |
|