But again, isn't certainty eliminated? By no means. Does it
become all but impossible to form creedal statements and confessions? Not in
the least, but of course I question the motives behind this impulse. The
statements will out of necessity become broader and thus more inclusive. Once
again at this point I will be accused of being an ecumenicist, a liberal, one
whose doctrinal sea is a mile wide but an inch deep.
This is not the case but I will grant that my reading of the
New Testament has instilled different impulses within me... I am motivated by
concerns quite different than the all but political factions that are ecclesiastical
denominations. I believe these institutions and the motivations behind them to
be all too often sinful. Carnal is how Paul referred to them. While men are on
the hand motivated by a concern for orthodoxy and doctrinal purity, I would not
agree that's all that motivates them... especially after a given amount of time
has passed and institutionalisation sets in.
This 'broadness' in no way opens doors to Rome or Theological
Liberalism. If anything it further shuts them out because the only broadness
that's being spoken of is based on the Apostolic text of Scripture. As such the
authority claims of both Rome and the various manifestations of Liberal
theology are wholly rejected. While there is at least ostensibly a basis for
reaching out to professing Bible believers, there's really nothing to say to
those of Romish and Liberal persuasions but a calling to repentance and faith.
Rather it is the systematician that comes over time to
appreciate the philosophical connections of historical theology and the
contribution of Romish thought. He sees himself in a continuity with the
theologians he has built upon and interacted with... and with the philosophical
and theological academies. He may disagree with their conclusions but instead
finds a camaraderie and brotherhood with them . This does not automatically
translate into ecumenicity but it can, and certainly has.
If you grasp what is being said then the next statement will
not sound prima facie outlandish or
ludicrous.
The Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide, salvation by Faith
Alone is true but the way in which it
has been understood is reductionist and therefore represents a teaching less
than faithful to what the New Testament teaches.
The doctrine as popularly understood grasps a portion of the New Testament doctrine
but it's also guilty of distortion in that it prioritizes but one doctrinal
head of New Testament Soteriology and further prioritizes one aspect of that doctrine.
Contemporary understandings of Justification by Faith Alone
restrict the doctrine to a temporal moment in which a person is declared
righteous. It's a one-time event and unchangeable. The unchangeableness is
rooted in different concepts by different camps.
But the New Testament actually presents a different picture.
Justification is presented as something that occurred in a moment, is permanent
and fixed, and is thus complete. Additionally Justification and indeed
Salvation as a whole are also presented as something ongoing, in-process and
probationary. It's something possessed and yet also future waiting to be
possessed.
In the near term (as time permits) I plan to begin presenting
some tracts which will demonstrate in a fairly comprehensive manner that this
is what the New Testament actually teaches.
But this is equivocation and contradiction some will surely
protest. This is to cast Scripture as nonsensical. Such a paradox presentation
and an array of unresolved tensions are counter to every impulse of logic and
defy any ability to systematise. This is why systematics is important. Terms
and doctrines must be isolated and precisely defined. We must not confuse
Justification and Sanctification.
The precise relationship between Justification and
Sanctification is not something I'm going to probe here and yet it can be
safely said that the Apostles do not employ these terms in the airtight manner
of the systematician. They're quite fluid in their use and at times they use
them interchangeably. I realise this is upsetting to the Magisterial/Confessionalist
narrative and tradition but in the end, what are we really concerned with? Are
we here to glorify the Luther legend or understand Scripture? Even Luther would
have argued for the latter.
While I'm not going to necessarily probe the verses that deal
with Sanctification, what I hope to make clear is that Justification and indeed
Salvation itself is something more profound and complex (and yet not
necessarily confusing) than what is being presented by the community I have
labeled as Hypersolafideist. I label them thus because they have taken
something true and yet framed and applied it in a way as to actually distort
the teaching. They have overemphasised an aspect of doctrine to the point they
have actually abused Scripture and have all but negated large portions of what
it teaches. While I don't believe they have necessarily lost the Gospel, they
have placed it in peril. Time has proven that both descendant and divergent segments
of the Protestant Churches have built atop the error and in many cases have
indeed undermined the Gospel. For several generations a Gospel has been taught
that not only cheapens grace but presents a false understanding of faith and
the Christian life.
So how then are we to understand the tensions and seeming
contradictions? Once again we could speak of dialectic or dynamic principles at
work in the doctrine (theology) of the New Testament. But of course such terms
generate more problems than they solve. While dialectics can refer to
unresolvable tensions it can also remind readers of Barth and Neo-Orthodoxy, a
school of thought that must be rejected by all believers in the sufficiency and
authority of Scripture. It will remind others of Scholasticism and the process
by which conclusions are teased out. That also represents a school of thought
and method serious students of the Bible need to reject and is actually more or
less akin to the Systematic method being critiqued here. Dynamism implies
instability. If I were to use it I would mean it in the sense of flexibility
and the ability to alternate but for others that will simply indicate wavering
and instability. Undoubtedly they'll think of the verse in Ephesians 4 that
speaks of being blown about by every wind of doctrine, thinking that such a
passage vindicates the seemingly rock solid foundation of systematics.
In reality the well known and oft-quoted verse is within the
context of Paul's condemnation of sectarianism, and a plea for unity.
Undoubtedly this unity will never be attained in an outward form this side of
glory. The True Church experiences a
unity in the Spirit but this cannot be attained by sectarian political maneuverings
governed by the tyranny of man-made forms (such as Confessions and Canon Law or
BCO's) imposed on the flock. In other words it's not brought about by factional
denominations exercising power through oaths to man-made creeds, confessions and
systems of polity.
And yet these very forms that are supposed to engender unity are
used to exclude believers with credible professions. Acknowledged believers and
yet unable to agree with the totality of doctrine or polity of the given sect are
consequently barred from fellowship and communion. What a mockery of the unity
Paul speaks of! What a travesty in that they would seek to do the work of the
Spirit through a man-made form, one never ordained by God, one based on human
reason and criteria. They in actuality are governed by the same sort of
exclusive spirit Paul was condemning. In their zeal to construct a solid
foundation, they instead resort to craftiness and the same kind of 'childish'
and ultimately sinful sectarianism condemned in 1 Corinthians 3. Even while
they reject you and turn you away, they pretend to still call you brethren. In
truth their actions and exclusivity are proclamations of excommunication. If
you're not part of their sect, you are outside the fellowship, you are unworthy
of communion in the Body of Christ. They play fast and loose with their canon law/BCO
definitions of excommunication but that's really what they're doing. Whether
they 'formally' send you to hell through a proclamation they de facto have done so in their exclusion
from fellowship. In the end it must be declared (though surely with burdened
sorrow) that they are schismatics to the
extreme... and they base it on the fallacy of dogma cast in and based on
the form of systematics.
In reality systematics as the basis of theology and the formulation
of confessions is a foundation of sand, one that is never settled as every
question is subject to further inquiry, elucidation and re-framing and since
the system is rooted in philosophical principles, these will be constantly
re-defined and challenged by the culture and trends within the academy. They
have tried to concretise the form by way of Confession but history demonstrates
that subsequent generations will change the terms and parameters, even while
professing perfect accord with their theological progenitors. So it is with the
doctrine of Sola Fide, but again that's a topic for a subsequent essay.
The dynamism, indeed the oscillating or even resonating
principle I speak of is rooted in the Scripture and when defined by itself and
on its own terms, it is essentially exempt from the dictates of the
philosophical tradition. It is faith-based and revelatory and being supra- or trans-logical it is not dependent on or subject to man-referencing
and dependent categories of coherence.
Scriptural doctrine is supernatural and thus its dynamism is
not a symptom of incoherence, equivocation or a lack of commitment. Rather it
is acknowledgement of the divine and heavenly mystery at the heart of what the
Scriptures are and how we apprehend them. This is mystery without succumbing to
mysticism.
The dynamism in this case actually represents a form of
stability in that it is exempt from challenges coming from the academy and the
schools of philosophy. They will declare it incoherent foolishness, nonsensical
dogma and fallacious wishful thinking. Let them think so! The answer Peter exhorts
us to give (1 Pet 3.15) is not to answer philosophy with philosophy but to
preach Christ, the hope within us.
Some of us may indeed work on demolishing their systems of
thought, not to replace them with another philosophy... but to destroy all
philosophy and break the minds and hearts of men and the paper castles they
would build. When they're on their knees, maybe then they will with broken
hearts come to Christ.
If the Scriptures speak of salvation in terms of union with
Christ, and a component, facet or microcosm of that truth, is that faith is
accounted as righteousness, then we say 'amen'. Let us avoid getting entangled
in questions of basis and means unless the Scriptures do. An
examination will discover once again a lack of precision when it comes to these
points. But to continue, if righteousness is also presented as something
future, something to be attained, something to be pursued then we can also say
'amen'. There is no contradiction, at least as far as Scripture is concerned.
Do the Scriptures teach this?
Even as Paul is establishing guilt in Romans 2, he suggests
in verses 6-11 that saving faith is tied to patient continuance in well doing
and good works. Amazingly the language suggests this is a future reward. While
he doesn't deny a present reality (an earnest), the language and framing points
to a future reckoning (according to their deeds) when glory, honour,
immortality and eternal life are realised.
The doers of the law are justified (v13) and this is
specifically applied to the Gentiles. He goes so far in discounting Jewish
covenant membership and heritage that he has to return to the question twice,
at the beginnings of chapters 3 and 9. There he has to point out that despite
all he's said covenant status still has meaning and importance. But divorced
from substance... saving faith in Christ... it becomes empty and condemnatory.
Paul seems to be concerned in Romans14 that we must be
careful in how we conduct ourselves as we all must give account at the
Judgment. Typically this passage is downplayed by the suggesting that the
judgment only pertains to rewards, but the strong language of destruction (v15)
seems to suggest otherwise.
Speaking of rewards the passage most commonly appealed to is
that of 1 Corinthians 3 where Paul ties labour with reward in verse 8. However
a closer reading reveals he's talking about something more. Verse 17 makes
clear that one's works determine not only reward but can also reveal deception,
the presence of a wolf within the flock. There are those that will come in and
defile the temple with false works, with the wisdom of this world, with man's
glory and power... those that work these types of works and defile the
temple... suggesting these are people within the temple/Kingdom/covenant
framework... God will destroy them (v17) at the Judgment. These are not the hay
and stubble builders whose work will be exposed as waste and yet they're still
saved. No, these workers brought insult to the Holy Spirit and helped lead the
Church astray. Thus Paul launches into his subsequent warning. Contrary to the
assertions of some it's not hypothetical. It echoes Christ's teaching in
Matthew 7.
2 Corinthians 5.10 contains a similar warning. Reminding them
of the fact that we must appear before the Judgment he contrasts the fruits of
a true disciple versus the false apostles who glory in appearance (worldly
wisdom and power). The heart-changed true disciple no longer serves the flesh
but lives anew. He beseeches them not receive the grace of God in vain. That's
quite a statement. He exhorts them to newness in life 'now', 'today'. This
applies every day for the believer. Every day is a calling to repentance and
faith. These are never 'one-time' events but newness of life. After vindicating
his Apostleship (versus the false apostles) through a testimony of suffering he
calls them to antithesis, to reject fellowship with the world. The covenant
promise is reiterated and attached to a condition... separation. And on the
basis of our separation he will receive us. Of course that separation is a fruit
of saving faith, itself a work of the Spirit. In light of this Paul goes on to
exhort the Corinthians to cleanse themselves of all filthiness and to perfect
holiness.
Paul is preaching a gospel of grace, a message of salvation
by faith but it's not the message we hear in Evangelical Churches or among most
of the modern Confessionalists. His language is not that of the systematician.
To modern Evangelical and Scholastic ears, he's teaching works-contingent
salvation...at least in these passages.
After casting salvation in conditional terms in Colossians
1.23, Paul concludes chapter 3 by speaking again of 'reward' but this time of
inheritance, another term for heaven and salvation itself. Amazingly bad faith
is cast (v25) in terms of doing wrong/not serving rightly (v24) the Lord
Christ. This person did not labour 'unto the Lord' and receives 'for the
wrong'. By implication they do not receive the inheritance.
Paul is not bound by the precise terms and airtight
categories of systematic theology. He does not employ their methods in either
arranging or explaining the faith.
We could appeal to the many parables from the Gospels but
given that most have misunderstood what the parables are and how they function
the time would probably be wasted.
Matthew 5 speaks of a required righteousness which exceeds
that of the Scribes and Pharisees. Now that verse could quickly be marshalled
into the 'alien' righteousness of Christ argument, which we do not wish to deny
for a moment. Yet, the context is that of Kingdom ethics and Kingdom life. The
point of the verse is to emphasize the calling to which Christ's disciples are
called. An exhortation to righteous living that exceeds the ethics of the
Pharisees would not be tolerated in today's Evangelical pulpits.
Matthew 7 of course is a warning which we discussed
previously. Matthew 12.33-37 is built on top of a warning regarding Satan and
the nature of his house. It's a warning regarding the words which expose what
is in the heart. The passage implies our words alone could provide a basis
(perhaps not 'the' basis) for Judgment. They testify to whether or not we walk
by the Spirit or blaspheme Him and His works. It's not our words which would
'save' us but they evidence a deeper reality. You can tell what type of tree
you're looking at by its fruit. You need not study the trunk, bark and roots to
tell of its nature. The fruit it produces will tell you. The fruit is what the
world sees and repeatedly this is described as the basis for Judgment.
Matthew 16 equates faith with taking up the cross and
actively following Christ. Our works (v27) testify to whether or not we have
done this, whether we have hearts in which we have given up our lives, our
desires etc. This is reminiscent of Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the
Mount.
In Matthew 24.14 the saving is by no means a deliverance from
tribulation but is rather a solemn warning and call to perseverance. Our faith
will be tried and tested. It will be as if the elect could be deceived. We are
exhorted to faithfulness and obedience and warned that if we lose sight of the
goal, if we fail to 'endure' and our love grows cold and we become like the
world, smiting servants and eating and drinking with the drunken, then we will
be 'cut asunder' and sent to Hell, the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 25. 29-30 teaches that the unprofitable servant, the
one who was in covenant with God but did not produce fruit will be cast into
Hell, again the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth.
In the Judgment passage of vs. 31-46 the basis for separating
the sheep from the goats is works. The sheep did works that demonstrated they
were God's people. That's the nature of saving faith.
Luke 3 speaks of fruits of repentance and immediately ties
this to a series of works-based exhortations. Some will say this exchange antedates
the 'formal' gospel and thus will discount it and yet they cannot on the basis
of their systematic method. There's plenty to say about the passage and there
are a few controversial points but one thing is clear... New Testament
repentance, the μετάνοια (metanoia) or change of mind is
something more than just an intellectual exercise. Mind implies will and thus
life, character, disposition and more.
Luke 12.47-48 is particularly interesting and reminds us of
both Matthew 12 and Paul's contrast in 1 Corinthians 3. Here there's a servant
who beats servants, eats and drinks with the drunken and is cut asunder and
note... appointed a portion with the
unbelievers.
This was a servant, a professing
believer who was judged according to his works and found wanting. Now was
it that he hadn't earned enough merit or compiled enough points? That's the
wrong way of thinking as Paul points out in Romans 4. This person's disobedient
works demonstrated they lacked sufficient saving faith. Why? We're not told
here and that's not the context of the passage. Luke isn't talking about
election, decrees, sola fide or the ordo salutis. He's saying this man's life
demonstrated that he did not believe properly, he did not stay faithful to the covenant.
Subsequently there are servants who are judged, suffer
various degrees of rebuke and reward and enter into heaven.
John 4.36 speaks of wages and gathering fruit toward eternal
life.
John 5.28-29 speaks of a general resurrection and describes
it in very plain terms. The saved are spoken of as those that have done good
and are contrasted with the lost who are described as those that have done
evil.
Obviously it's not the cut and dry. Unbelievers will grossly
misunderstand such a passage. The good is obviously in Christ (vv24-25). But
note hearing Christ and believing in Him and on the Father is in verse 29 simply
described as having 'done good'. Believing translates into doing.
We can turn to the well known passage in James 2 but of
course that passage has been subjected to some rather impressive hermeneutical
gymnastics. Words can indeed mean different things in different contexts but James
quotes the same passages as Paul and is building on the same concept. Is there
a contradiction? Not at all! Paul no more supports the hypersolafideist cheap
grace understanding of Justification than does James. James, in keeping with
his style is simply more blunt and rather than contradict Paul, he is actually elaborating
upon the nature of Abraham's saving faith. The problem isn't 'Justification'...
the problem is how faith is defined. Look at the famous Hebrews 11 passage.
Faith is defined as hope and yet that hope is living and is demonstrated in the
lives and deeds of the many examples in the chapter. The author demonstrates
what faith is by appealing to what?... their lives, works and obedience.
Protestant Hypersolafideism has lost this.
1 Peter 1.17 ties in the judgment according to works with a
warning. Pass the time of your sojourning, your pilgrimage in fear. He calls
them to obedience (v14) and holiness (vv15-16). Their hope (v13) must endure
'to the end'. And what are they hoping for? 'The grace that is to be brought
unto you' is cast in future terms as something we don't yet possess. And not
only that, our possession of it is contingent on our continuing hope. It is
provisioned on obedience, holiness and thus can Peter say... pass the time of
your sojourning in fear.
Born again (v.23) is described as 'being', the perfect participle
implies a continuation... of what? Belief in v.21 is tied to being purified
v.22 and obedience. Peter's words and framing are rather stunning and quite at
odds with Protestant solafideist orthodoxy. Clearly it's not a one-time event on
the calendar that you write down in the front of your Bible. There's no Carnal
Christianity to be found here. There's no putting your faith in your faith.
1 John 4.17 implies that faith is described as 'dwelling' in
Him. This dwelling implies and could even be translated as continuing,
enduring, remaining or standing. Please note it is on this basis that we come
with boldness to the Day of Judgment.
And yet nowhere does Scripture suggest that we have
self-righteousness or should exhibit or feel any sense of pride. The dichotomy
cast by many within solafideist academia seems to be false. For they suggest
that any tie of salvation to works smacks of Phariseeism and Legalism.
Apparently they have missed something. Again what they've missed is what saving
faith actually is.
Finally Revelation 2.23 warns against apostasy. There are those
that have been seduced and they will be judged by their works... and the
faithful by theirs. Chapter 20, another well known passage, speaks of being
judged according to works. Of course Revelation 3.5 speaks of overcoming in order to not be removed from the Book
of Life and 22.12 speaks of Christ's reward given according to works, a
reference to salvation yet to be given. Verse 19 contains an ominous warning
for those who would take away parts of the book of prophecy... they who were
once in the Book of Life will be blotted out of it.
These are literally but a handful of verses that speak to
this issue. I have pages of notes and in future I hope (as time allows) to
publish them as a convenience for readers who wish to study this issue in more
depth.
Salvation is by grace through faith and not of our works and
yet at the same time we will be judged according to our works. Somehow in the
mystery that surrounds the question of monergism and free will our free choices
are predestined by God. Our works are done according to our will and effort and
yet the will and effort is actually the work of the Spirit. There is no merit,
no debt or obligation owed on the part of God. They are ultimately His works or
more properly Christ's. The works themselves (it would seem) are the outward
manifestation of the inward reality. We can be judged by the inward reality but
in terms of the Judgment that is made before all the nations and peoples of the
world... our imperfect and flawed works nevertheless testify to the saving
faith we possess and the reality of our Union with Christ. The works in that
context, in that sense, can be said to 'save' us. The works in terms of the
final judgment are the final declaration of our righteousness and the basis for
the reward of heaven as well as any supplementary rewards.
This is not works salvation. This is grace through faith
built on the work of Christ, but faith is clearly something more and indeed
Justification and salvation itself are something much more than conventional presentations of Sola Fide.
In addition to Salvation being tied to a future judgment
based on works, it is also presented in already-not yet form, in others words
as something possessed and yet still future.
Consider the following examples:
We've already looked at Romans 2.13 but note the language.
They shall (or will) be justified. It
is yet future. It is common to find treatments of this passage that relegate Paul's
words to the errors of Jewish legalism which indeed he does deal with in the passage,
but not in the way they would have it. Verse 7 as well as the chapter's
conclusion cast v.13 in a different light. The point here is that an aspect of
salvation is yet future.
Romans 3.30, 5.9 and 10.9ff present salvation as a surety but
in part something not yet fully attained. Romans 8.9-14 speaks not only of
works but casts salvation in provisional terms as something (as life) not yet
fully experienced. Verse 23 expands on this as even though we are adopted (v15)
we are not yet adopted or fully
redeemed. We have the firstfruits but not the harvest. Interestingly the
completion is repeatedly cast in terms of our fruit, works, perseverance,
endurance etc.
Romans 13.11 speaks of salvation as yet future.
Galatians 5.5 speaks of righteousness as being something we
do not yet possess. Once again it can be safely said we possess it in part but
Justification, the declared righteousness imputed to us, is not yet fully our
possession. Note the context. This is Galatians, the epistle apart from Romans that is appealed to for the doctrine
of Sola Fide. In light of that read Galatians 6.7-9 where Paul, even while combating
the Judaizers and their legalistic gospel, exhorts the Galatians to understand
that we reap what we sow. If we sow to the Spirit we will reap life
everlasting. We need to pursue well doing (or works) and if we faint not, if we
endure, we shall enjoy the harvest, the fruits of salvation. Note that in
addition to Paul's soteriology which is at odds with most Solafideist
constructions he also presents salvation as something future.
Philippians 1 presents salvation as something that comes at
the Day of Jesus Christ. In chapter 3 Paul presses toward the mark of salvation
as something he does not yet possess. Salvation is described as a walk.
1 Corinthians 1.18 reads 'saved' in the King James but the
Greek grammar implies 'being' saved. This is but one of many places that speaks
in terms of a process yet to be completed. In 2 Timothy 4, Paul speaks of
salvation coming at 'that day'. Until then he does not fully possess the
declaration of righteousness. This is all tied in with language of running the
race, keeping the faith and fighting the good fight.
Once again these are but a handful of passages dealing with
this topic. The comprehensive list is pretty overwhelming.
At this point it needs to be reiterated. This reality does not negate sola
fide but instead expands it. The doctrine is true but the way in which
it is taught so misrepresents the Faith Alone of the New Testament as to render
it erroneous. I will deal with the historical-theological aspects and issues
elsewhere.
Even though this essay has only scratched the surface I hope
a quick survey of these verses makes something clear. Rather than a tight
system we are presented a completely different model. Christ and His Apostles
are not concerned with presenting the faith in a fixed, precise systematic
form. It is philosophy not the epistemology of the New Testament that has
driven men to this end.
See also: