As usual I have reworked the questions a bit but essentially
I was asked the following. If God has made the distinctions between the Kingdom
and the World with such lucidity and clarity, why then do I argue that issues
like Justification are so nuanced? Why would God present something as critical
as what it takes to be made right with Him, what it takes to possess eternal
salvation... in terms that seem so unclear? Isn't Sola Fide, the question of
justification the primary focus of Scripture from beginning to end?
It's a very interesting way of framing the question to be
sure and one I've not encountered before.
On one level I could simply say, I don't know. That's just
how the Scriptures present it and leave it at that.
On another level I could say that perhaps the clarity with
regard to the Kingdom is something I've hammered out and emphasised at the
expense of other areas of doctrine.
But the truth is I have an answer, but it's not likely to be
one that the person who asked the question is going to like.
Once again the phraseology and concept of Sola Fide is a
valid one but I take exception to how it is commonly understood. We are saved
by Faith and it is fully of grace and therefore it is in that sense alone.
Although the 'Sola' element of the doctrine as it has been incorporated into a
larger post-Reformation theological structure is scripturally wanting. The
famous phrase is of course born of Luther's tinkering with the text of Romans
3.
Paul saw no conflict in teaching salvation is by grace
through faith and not of works with a constant reiteration of faith as being
akin to obedience. The textual evidence for this is fairly overwhelming. A
blatant contradiction, right?
Rather, I would argue that faith in the New Testament is
primarily focused on the concept of trust. Yes, knowledge and assent play a
part but those things alone are not saving faith, not even close. I think James
makes that clear on multiple fronts.
Trust is at the heart of what it means to be in Christ, union
being the primary doctrinal framing of Biblical salvation. Union has many
facets and manifestations such as justification, sanctification, regeneration,
adoption and the like. These facets are often presented synecdochically, each
being taken as representative of the entire packaged concept. I would also
argue they're all presented in terms of already and not yet and that none of
these subsets (of the larger Union in Christ concept) should be systematically
prioritised. They're certainly not presented that way in the New Testament
itself.
In some texts such as Romans 3, Justification is made the
focus of particular attention. In other passages the focus is on regeneration,
in others the focus is on election. Some are reckoned in terms of chronological
outworking. This can manifest itself in terms of temporal succession or in
terms of temporality vis-à-vis eschatology. Other times they are framed by
human experience, and in other cases they are spoken of in decretal terms. Frequently
the presentation is less than systematic, often occasional, which in itself is
interesting and ought to inform how we proceed theologically.
So then am I arguing that New Testament soteriology is
something of a muddle? No. I would argue the gospel is complex and perhaps
infinitely wondrous and yet on a simple basic level it comes down to trust in the
person and work of Christ which is why even the most simple and basic thinking
folks can understand it.
How then can I say that faith is akin to obedience? I realise
this makes many people cringe and I have even heard criticisms from some
circles of the well known 19th century hymn Trust and Obey.
I would be unwilling to say that salvation is a result of
obedience. That would be putting the cart before the horse to be sure and risks
generating a dangerous confusion. And yet trust always implies obedience. Is
that trust or obedience perfect? By no means. Does God lower the standard of
righteousness in accepting our imperfect trust and obedience? No, because our
trust and obedience are Spirit wrought and though imperfect, flawed and
corrupted fruits on the tree, they are pleasing expressions of faith demonstrating
that we are in Christ. Ultimately it is His Person and Work that save us. We
can claim no credit. We can pass through the valleys of death and climb the
mountains of affliction and yet when we look back, we realise it was not us
that persevered but Christ through the Holy Spirit. I would at this point
appeal to Hebrews 11as a means to define faith... it's defined as hope and
conviction but exemplified by works of obedience. Were those works perfect?
Hardly. Indeed some of the names on that august list surprise us and yet they
are praised for their faith.
There is no works salvation but at the same time the often
notitia/assensus focus of common Sola Fide frameworks is misleading and can
lead to a dead faith (as James points out) and certainly runs the risk (as has
so often been demonstrated) of unnecessarily separating the various
soteriological facets and thus destroying the unified picture of salvation and
Kingdom life. Not all forms of Sola Fide are as guilty of this but some forms
(as most readers will probably acknowledge) are especially egregious.
I would encourage readers to pour through the New Testament
with unbiased and factionally uncommitted eyes. It's fairly staggering. I am
putting together some rather extensive lists of verses and I hope in the not too
distant future to present the data in article form. From the warnings and calls
to perseverance to the repeated equation of faith with obedience the actual New
Testament picture of gospel saving faith is in sharp contrast with Evangelical
norms.
So have I abandoned the Reformation altogether? No. And
despite the repeated accusations of some I am not teaching works salvation. But
I am saying that saving faith as defined in the New Testament requires a more
robust understanding of just what faith is. I think the older theologians
possessed something much closer to this. I think modern readers struggle with
Calvin and even the Puritans as their framing does not often reconcile with
contemporary notions of Evangelical faith. Even modern Calvinism's Once Saved Always Saved doctrine does
not accurately reflect the older understanding of Perseverance. The old
teaching when presented in our own day is often decried as heretical and
dangerous, an assault of free grace.
The Scriptures are not presented in a systematic format and
if Sola Fide (as it is often understood) were indeed so central then I can
argue just as strongly... why didn't God make it even more clear? Why are there
literally dozens and scores of passages that seem to belie the claims and
structure of the Sola Fide paradigm?
Does it come down to logical prioritisation? If so, then what
really needs to be discussed is in the realm of prolegomena. How are we to
understand and frame Biblical doctrine? And what are the models for doing this?
We could equally say... why then is the Incarnation so
complex? The Trinity? Aren't these central permeating doctrines and yet are
they easily grasped or explained? Again, yes and no. While some are quick to
turn to logical prioritisation when it comes to the question of Sola Fide and
the larger category of soteriology, I must ask... would you do the same with
regard to the Trinity or Incarnation? If the answer is no, they why not?
I will put some of my cards on the table. I argue that part
of the difficulty here is found (and perhaps on one level resolved) in the
Person of Christ Himself. The duality found in the Incarnate Christ, the
tensions between the eternal and temporal, the Divine and human certainly
inform this central question regarding His work and its application. It informs
all of theology.
I fully realise that many readers will not agree with what
I've said here (and elsewhere) on these matters. Some have even clearly
indicated they think I'm a lost heretic. So be it. Others will see that these
issues are on the one hand so very simple and yet on the other hand are a
source of wonder, even to the angels.
I've probably shared the story before but while at seminary I
had a roommate who was of a decidedly different theological stripe. At one
point a friend of mine was in town and we sat at the kitchen table for hours
and hours (late into the night) pouring over the question of Justification. My
roommate would walk through on occasion and seem baffled that we were still at
it. Finally on (I think it was) day two he came through and said something to
the effect of "You guys are still at it! You can't figure out
Justification?" He was incredulous. It was almost like the issue was so
simple to him that we must be dense or something. My friend and I have often
shared a laugh when recalling the episode.
My roommate being a full blown Theonomic Reconstructionist
already had bigger problems when it came to understanding Bible basics.*
Like so many Biblical doctrines, salvation is extremely
simple but on the other hand it is infinitely complex, nuanced, multifaceted,
intricate and even labyrinthine. But that shouldn't surprise us. I am reticent
to focus on one aspect and shape it into a Centraldogma
which dominates a system and then essentially impose it in a state of dominance
over the rest of the text and the rich array of teachings found therein. Once
again questions of logical prioritisation hark back to prolegomena and
questions of ultimate authority.
I personally don't think I'm guilty of denying Sola Fide but
I will admit my understanding of the concept is far more expansive than many
would be comfortable with. We haven't even talked about sacraments and the
dynamics of Covenant. My understanding of these issues only adds fuel to the
fire.
Others will say I have emphatically and categorically denied
Sola Fide with prejudice and all further discussions and explanations are
futile.
While I will admit that I am certainly on the fringes of the
Reformation consensus (which I think to be broader than many will admit), I
reject those who argue that my view is somehow congruous with Roman Catholic
soteriology. There are some in Reformed circles who present anything other than
Sola Fide as 'undoing' the Reformation or swimming the Tiber. This is
misleading to say the least and ties in with what I have elsewhere called the
Tridentine Argument or Fallacy. Rome had buried the primitive gospel under
superstitions, idolatries, false and contrived doctrines, rituals and a host of
manmade innovations and philosophical falsehoods. To simply equate any hint or
discussion of 'works' or 'obedience' automatically and in toto with Roman Catholic soteriology is ignorant, specious and
in some cases clearly malicious.
The Roman Catholic system is an abomination but that doesn't
mean that Luther's pendulum swing was completely right either. In many respects
neither he nor the other Magisterial Reformers went far enough. Nor does it
follow that today's Protestants and Evangelicals are perfectly echoing or
representing these doctrinal questions in the same way that Luther and Calvin
did, let alone their descendants in the 17th and 18th
century. There are also historical theological elements to these questions and as
many are already aware, they are highly politicised. I would argue a philosophical-theological
shift took place in the 17th century and another in the 19th
century, and another is underway in our own day. But for those committed to a
certain narrative, such discussions are often out of bounds.
As far as fitting in with the mainstream of the Magisterial
Reformation it should be clear that's not really my concern. I would hope to
spur and stoke movement beyond that model... meaning a more robust and
deliberate return to the text, one that exceeds the admirable but sometimes
paltry attempts by the Reformers, an impulse that was lost and in some cases
abandoned by their descendants.
Finally there is the question of assurance. For many this is
an essential issue and there's the famous quote from Bellarmine that said
Protestantism's greatest heresy was this very doctrine, one absent from Roman
Catholicism. Of course we might ask if that's really true. Rome's doctrine of
baptism seems to indicate that ultimately all Catholics do have a degree of
assurance, post Purgatory anyway. And while their system was and is poison, the
Protestant understanding is not as clear cut as some would have it. The
Lutheran belief is quite different from the Reformed and both differ from the later
Wesleyan teaching. And once again modern Calvinism's understanding of Eternal
Security is quite different from the old Puritan-Confessional concept of
Perseverance.
I strongly and firmly believe in perseverance but I do not
equate the doctrine with Eternal Security... which I believe to be dangerous
and potentially heretical. As one who believes in the Scriptural teaching
regarding election on one level I can say 'of course I believe in Eternal
Security'. If you're elect, then you most certainly are heaven bound. But to
use that doctrine functionally in terms of church life and discipline is to
misuse and abuse it. It's a comfort to be sure but it's not meant to provide a
cover for ethics or a poorly wrought or lacking faith. Nor is it meant to trump
or overrule the rest of what the Scriptures say.
Apart from specific persons mentioned in the text we don't
know who is elect. The term is often applied in a visible covenantal sense to
congregations, to the Church at large. And yet it also has more restricted
individualised uses. Once again the issue is both simple and complex.
If you're walking in the faith you have no reason to doubt
your assurance. Today if you will hear His voice, harden not your heart. Today
is the day of salvation. God isn't playing games with us. I know one woman who
is tormented by the thought that she will spend her life walking with God only
to find out that she wasn't elect. Matthew 7 presents a real warning but those
people are the presumptuous ones, not the folks who wrestled with sin and
salvation. Sadly the doctrine of Eternal Security often breeds such
presumption. The wrestlers, those in the struggle have little to fear. The
Spirit is working on them. But if they do have a fear it's this... it's right
to have a conscience, to be burdened by sin but ultimately if you focus too
much on yourself and your own conduct you run the risk of not trusting fully in
Christ. Stop and focus on Him. One of my daughters has struggled with this. I
have no worries with regard to her status or salvation but I fear that if she
feeds that beast of doubt and despair it will lead her down bad roads. And
unlike the advocates of Eternal Security I believe those roads and dangers are
very real. I believe (like Calvin) in Temporary Faith and that it's possible to
fall away. I think the Scriptures are quite clear on this. The problem is
people don't want to hear it and... it doesn't fit in with a system built
around Sola Fide.**
I've known many who were fully assured of their salvation and
yet their worldly lives and attitudes, their lack of conscience, their barely
casual interest in things spiritual has caused me to tremble for them. They
have their fire insurance but I'm not sure they have saving faith. And in some
cases over the decades I've watched them slip further and further away. I'm not
sure how their story is going to end. I doubt they will out-and-out apostatise,
(though I've seen that too) but it's clear they're not walking with Christ. And
sadly a false teaching has lulled them to sleep.
Trust in Christ. It is salvation. It's very simple and such
definitions would seemingly have the potential to include Roman Catholics and
even a good many theological liberals. Maybe so but then we must ask, what is
trust? Who is Christ? What is salvation? How is salvation tied to Christ? And perhaps
most importantly, how do we know these things? What's the authority we turn to
in order to answer them? And immediately what is on the one hand so very simple
immediately becomes a little more complicated.
*Interestingly when the Federal Vision controversy exploded
about 4-5 years later, he called me out of the blue. I at least give him credit
that he recognised that some of what I had been saying years earlier resonated
with many of the teachings produced by the movement.
For those familiar with the Federal Vision controversy they
won't be surprised to learn my ex-roommate had aligned with the Joe Morecraft
faction.
**Some will find it ironic but it was actually through the
study of Calvin back in the mid-1990's that I started down this road. And
though he would reject and repudiate my views, Iain Murray's works on the
Spurgeon controversies also played a role in stoking the fire. The Forgotten Spurgeon generated many
wonderful discussions and even though I found many of Murray's comments and
observations to be in error, as well as Spurgeon's understanding of Baptism,
the book was tremendously profitable.
And well do I recall the release of his work on Spurgeon and
Hyper-Calvinism and the many long musings and discussions it generated with good
friends... including the one who visited me and discussed Justification. True,
we ranged far beyond Murray and perhaps even Calvin but as one who at that time
was on the verge of embracing Hyper-Calvinism and all its rationalistic traps,
the discovery of Scripture's internal Incarnational logic rooted not in
induction, deduction or coherence but in analogy and contextual occasion was
and still is a glorious wonder.