Chief of Sinners Though I Be

The first stanza to one of my favorite hymns:

Chief of sinners though I be,
Jesus shed His blood for me;
Died that I might live on high,
Died that I might never die;
As the branch is to the vine,
I am His, and He is mine.

Feeding the Sheep? Or Amusing the Goats?

From Charles Spurgeon:

An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross in its impudence, that the most short-sighted can hardly fail to notice it. During the past few years it has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil. It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the Church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them. From speaking out as the Puritans did, the Church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses.

My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the Church. If it is a Christian work why did not Christ speak of it? “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” That is clear enough. So it would have been if he had added, “and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel.” No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to him . . . .

Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all his apostles. What was the attitude of the Church to the world? “Ye are the salt,” not the sugar candy — something the world will spit out, not swallow . . . . I do not hear [Jesus] say, “Run after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it.

Be quick, Peter, we must get the people somehow!” Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them. In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of the gospel of amusement . . . .

Lastly, the mission of amusement fails to effect the end desired. It works havoc among young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God because the Church met them half-way, speak and testify. Let the heavy laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment had been God’s link in the chain of their conversion, stand up! There are none to answer. The mission of amusement produces no converts. The need of the hour for today’s ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire.

Baptism - Is it necessary? Does it save?

For the purpose of preserving a comment I sent to Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries regarding baptism and whether or not it is necessary and whether or not it saves:

From: Andrew
To: apprising@hughes.net
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 12:17 PM
Subject: roman catholicism and baptism -- Apprising Ministries contact form

Ken,

Great website! I read as often as I can. Thank you for taking Scripture
so seriously.

I do have to take issue with one thing in your entry about baptism. I am
not Catholic, so I don't mean to defend their doctrine. But I do think
your analysis of 1 Corinthians 1:14 is incorrect, or at least your
interpretation mistaken. I think this is due to the fact that you've
forgotten the context of the verse. Starting at verse 10, and running
through at least verse 17, if not to the end of the chapter, we see that
Paul is speaking about divisions in the church at Corinth. This idea -
divisions - provides the necessary context:

11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are
quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow
Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still
another, "I follow Christ."
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into
the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you
except....

Paul says he is thankful that he did not baptize very many because he was
concerned that the people in the church would claim "I follow Paul"! He
was concerned that his baptizing would lead to further division, because
the church was misunderstanding that ALL baptism was done in one name: God!
(Well, three names in unity, of course)

So it is really quite clear that Paul was NOT talking about whether baptism
is necessary for salvation or not necessary for salvation. I'm not even
addressing that question. What I'm saying is that this verse is
inappropriate to make the point you're trying to make. According to your
logic ("Paul, arguably the greatest evangelist after Christ Jesus Himself,
doesn’t seem to place much importance on baptism"; "Paul wasn’t sent to
baptize"), no one need be baptized, whether infant or adult. If Paul didn't
come to baptize, why should anyone be baptized?

I'm sure you don't agree that no one should be baptized. The text doesn't
mean to say that, nor does Paul ever hint at that elsewhere. Paul wasn't
even addressing the question of whether baptism was necessary. He was
merely using baptism as an example of the divisions within the church!
And without going into the issue of infant baptism (b/c that's not my point
here), your logic leads to your example of the thief on the cross, which is
a really poor choice of argument. The thief on the cross had no
opportunity to be baptized - regardless of whether baptism is necessary or
not, regardless of whether infants or only adults. He was forgiven by
Christ Himself, who I trust can allow that the man hadn't been baptized.
Using the thief to argue that baptism isn't necessary is a poor choice.

On the notion that Paul didn't "seem to place much importance on baptism",
it's clear from the context of this passage that he isn't even speaking
about baptism itself. But what does Paul ahve to say about baptism when he
is actually speaking about it?
- Acts 19:1-5 (Paul discusses & instructs disciples in Ephesus on the
meaning of baptism)
- Acts 18:7-8
- Romans 6:3-4 (Paul sure seems to think baptism is important here - it is
the key to understanding that we are no longer slaves to sin but are alive
in Christ, and sin no longer reigns over us: "We were therefore buried with
him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from
the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life")
- Ephesians 4:4-5
- Colossians 2:11-12

So Paul clearly placed great importance on baptism. Using the verse you
did, out of context, to attempt to prove that baptism isn't necessary for
salvation is mistaken, and I think even a bit irresponsible. Without
context, it becomes a prooftext for a pretext. Walter Martin recognized
that and he was right!

Anyway, I hope you understand that I do not mean to attack you in any way.
I think you are doing great work and I appreciate the time and effort you
put into this site. I value the resource and I know you are extremely
knowledgeable about these matters. I simply mean to clear up what I think
is a weak argument and a misuse of Scripture (which i'm sure wasn't
intentional).

In Christ,

Andrew

And his response:

fromApprising Ministries
toAndrew

dateMon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:59 AM
subjectRe: roman catholicism and baptism -- Apprising Ministries contact form

Hello Andrew,

Thank you for contacting Apprising Ministries. Rest assured there was nothing I found offensive in the way you wrote or within what you said. I appreciate your concern that I misunderstood the context of what God is saying through Paul in the verses I cited.

Where you might have gotten confused is I'm simply speaking of a spiritual application also taught by this passage of Scripture where you are speaking of the other side of the double-edged Sword of the Spirit in it's historical-grammatical setting.

Please keep in mind that I am wrote the article with the idea that it will be read by Roman Catholics who believe in unbiblical baptismal regeneration and am employing a mild form of sarcasm in my saying, "Paul didn't seem to place much importance on baptism." This is not then to say there is no importance in baptism.

The post in question wasn't meant as an exegesis of that passage of Scripture. I pray this helps.

Sincerely,

Pastor Ken Silva
President
Apprising Ministries
http://apprising.org/
Ezekiel 3:7-14

General Editor
Christian Research Net
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/
2 Corinthians 11:12-15

Regarding whether baptism is necessary and whether it saves, what Mr. Silva calls "unbiblical baptismal regeneration", read this great summary by Extreme Theology.
Also, here is a fantastic and basic step-by-step look at God's promises in baptism.
On the issue of infant baptism, though not really part of the above discussion but certainly relevant, see this list of Scriptures.
Last, but certainly not least, is the treatment of baptism in Luther's Small Catechism.

Quote of the Day

"The time has come to take off the velvet glove with these jokers, and tell people what they are really up to, and this is what they are up to: They are up to the perversion of the text of the Holy Scriptures.

"We are more concerned in the United States about the rights of homosexuals than we are about Who Jesus Christ is and what He did. We’re more concerned with social issues in the United States in the Christian church denominationally than we are with those who are dying in their sins without the Gospel. We are very concerned about everything except the things that really matter.

"…the only way you can deal with this is to bring it out in the open and let people see it for what it really is: It’s filth, because it is attacking at the very core the character and nature of holy Scripture, and making the Scripture say what the Scripture does not say…"

- Walter Martin

More Miller Mish-Mash

I hadn't intended on posting a second entry on Donald Miller but after visiting his website I can't not discuss him. The only reason I even thought of him in the first place is because I read an excellent article earlier today by Richard Nathan, called Green Like Envy: An Ex-pagan Looks at Blue Like Jazz.

Miller's website has a section for his different books. As I mentioned in the previous post, I was given and read Searching For God Knows What. The website description for this book, which was presumably written by Miller himself, reads [emphasis mine, grammar and spelling his]:

I wrapped this book up in a bar on Hawthorne and that night I felt like I was losing it a bit. Essentially, I had begun to wonder if had misunderstood the gospel of Jesus, thinking of it in propositional terms rather than relational dynamics. The latter seemed too poetic to be true, but the former had been killing my soul for years and was simply illogical. If we hold that Jesus wanted us to "believe" certain ideas or "do" certain things in order to be a Christian, we are holding to heresy. In that bar on Hawthorne, I finished the last paragraph and felt a kind of sickness at the thought of whether or not I was telling the truth. But after further consideration, and after rewriting the book, I realized the formulaic version of Christianity was irrational, and for that matter, unbiblical. True Christian spirituality mirrors relational dynammics more than the workings of a free-market economy. This seemed to open up an entire new world to me, a world where every thought and feeling operates as a kind of living metaphor for the workings of the Godhead.

As a year has passed since the release of the book, I've seen more and more how, in my own life and in the lives of the Christians around me, we subscribe to false gospels that are troubling our souls. Because we live in a constant sales enviornment where we are told a certain car will make us sexy or a certain dishwashing detergent will be a miracle for our dishes, we assume the gospel of Jesus works the same way, that is, if we invest something, we get something more back. But this is not the case. To understand what the Bible explains Jesus' gospel to be, we must look to each other, to the way a father interacts with a child, a bride to a bridegroom, a doctor to a patient. When we let go of the idea of Jesus as a product and embrace Him as a being, our path to spiritual maturity begins.

Honestly, the more I read by this guy, the more I realize that he really has no understanding of what the Bible says or means. That entire book left me feeling, even on a page-by-page basis, that he was 'making it up as he went along' - not only the book (which rambles and jumps around in nauseating fashion), but his own version of what Christianity is or what he wants it to be. Everything this guy says reflects that he does everything to meet his own felt needs, including how he formulates the 'gospel of Jesus'.

Miller says, "If we hold that Jesus wanted us to "believe" certain ideas or "do" certain things in order to be a Christian, we are holding to heresy." He doesn't provide any support or authority of any kind for such a statement, and I don't remember seeing any in the book itself either. So what did Jesus want, if he didn't want us to 'believe' or 'do'? Let's see what his word says, shall we?

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

(Matthew 21:32)

Miller says Jesus did not want us to "'believe' certain ideas or 'do' certain things". According to Miller, that is heresy. But Jesus clearly had a different idea. That's right, JESUS HIMSELF. Jesus faults the chief priests and the Pharisees for failing to believe John the Baptist. He tells them that the tax collectors and prostitutes would enter heaven before them. Why? Because they believed! In other words, their belief was a condition to entering the kingdom of God. Without belief, no entry. Then, in case there was any doubt about what Jesus was saying, he criticizes them again! Why? Because they did not "repent and believe"! It sounds a lot like Jesus DID want them "to 'believe' certain ideas and 'do' certain things (e.g. repent).

Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

(Mark 16:14-16)

Again, God's Word is crystal clear. Jesus rebukes his disciples for refusing to...believe! Why? Because he told them repeatedly that he had to die and would rise again. Then, he commissions them to go into the world and preach the gospel, the good news of Christ's resurrection and victory over death and sin. What is the point of the disciples' preaching? What is the reaction that should be found to the good news? Belief! What happens to those who will not believe? They are condemned. Clearly, Jesus desired that the world believe.
How Miller can miss this is beyond me - unless he misses it on purpose because it doesn't fit his needs.

Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

(John 14:11)

This passage is particularly instructive here. Jesus answers Philip's request to show them the Father by instructing them on his relationship to his Father. Jesus explains that he is in the Father and vice-versa, and tells the disciples that the miracles they have witnessed are evidence of his unity with the Father. Attention Donald Miller: this is doctrine! This is theology, and Jesus is giving it to us! And when he does, he tells us to 'believe' and 'do'.

But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Simon himself believed and was baptized

. (Acts 8:12-13)

This one sums up perfectly what we're talking about. Donald Miller says that Jesus did not want us to "'believe' certain ideas or 'do certain things". But here, as his disciple proclaims the good news, the hearers ignore Donald Miller: "they believed" and "they were baptized". Just as Christ instructed Philip, so Philip instructs them: believe and do.

Here are a few (of many) more passages worth reading: Mark 5:36; Luke 8:50; John 3:16-21; John 20:31; Romans 10:9.

Miller's little book description goes on: "I realized the formulaic version of Christianity was irrational, and for that matter, unbiblical." Again, no support for this statement. Nothing from the Bible to show us that this idea is unbiblical. What Miller calls "formulaic" and "irrational" winds up being those things about the Bible and Christianity he just doesn't like, isn't comfortable with, and doesn't want to bother with. In other words, if it meets his needs, it's rational and Biblical. If not, toss it out. This sounds like one of those "Choose Your Own Adventure" books I used to read as a kid. Sadly, it isn't confined to Miller alone, but many, many people in evangelicalism and emergent-ism who glom onto his books.

Miller concludes by saying that true chistian spirituality is "a world where every thought and feeling operates as a kind of living metaphor for the workings of the Godhead." Wow. I sure don't remember reading ANYTHING like that in my Bible. Maybe Miller is reading a different version. My Bible says,

All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

(Isaiah 64:6)

And,

"There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God."

(Romans 3:10-11)

And,

Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge. Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

(Psalm 51:4-5)

And especially,

I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

(Romans 7:14-20)

It seems pretty clear from the above passages that we are infected completely throughout with sin. From the moment of conception, we are sinful creatures who do not seek God. We are slaves to sin, and nothing good lives in us. Do we really agree, with Miller, that this is a "living metaphor for the workings of the Godhead"? No, and neither does the Bible. I don't have any confidence that Miller even understands the Godhead at all, and this is evidence of that. Contrary to Miller's mistaken musings, our every thought and feeling are hostile to God and filled with sin. Thankfully, by God's unlimited love and mercy, he forgives us of that evil through the sacrifice of His Son. That is, through Jesus' death and resurrection we are spared the just punishment for our sinfulness and are then transformed by His Spirit to live a life pleasing to God. Only through God's grace are we saved and made holy in His sight. This is made even more certain when we understand that Paul was writing that last passage as a Christian! Even as a redeemed sinner, saved through Christ's shed blood, Paul knew that he was a wretched sinner without Christ.

Donald Miller strikes me as a very sincere and very honest man. Everything I have read by him shows me that he is not afraid to bare his soul to the world. But sadly, he has completely forgotten what lies within our souls without the true Jesus Christ of the Bible - it is unclean and unwilling to seek God. No amount of fighting against injustice will do it, as "all our righteous acts are like filthy rags". Only the true Christ and His true gospel will suffice. Until Donald Miller is willing to dispense with his superficial felt needs, get over his hang-ups with "formula", and stop trying to shape 'christian spirituality' to meet his idea of what it is and what he wants, he will be the one who "subscribes to a false gospel". Miller thinks that "to understand what the Bible explains Jesus' gospel to be, we must look to each other". You're wrong, Mr. Miller, and you need to hear it. Don't look to others. As Paul lamented, "I know that nothing good lives in me. ... What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?" Is that really the one you think you should look to? No, Paul answers. Look to CHRIST - "Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

Donald Miller's "Prayer" at the Democratic National Convention

Donald Miller, author of the popular best-seller Blue Like Jazz, was invited to give the closing prayer, or invocation, at the Democratic National Convention last night. I was exposed to Miller about two years ago when a friend gave me a copy of one of Miller's other books, Searching For God Knows What. I won't review the book here, but suffice it to say that Miller has a very confused and extremely problematic understanding of Christianity and the Bible.

Anyway, he gave the prayer last night at the DNC. His acceptance of the offer does raise serious questions about his approval of the Democratic Party's pro-abortion and pro-gay agendas (both of which he refuses to condemn, in this interview). But leaving all that, what a wonderful opportunity this was for him to share the gospel with so many people. What a great chance for him to send out the message of God's transforming love through the death of His Son, Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sin. Did he take that opportunity? Did he talk about Jesus? See for yourself (beginning with his introduction to the prayer, from his website):

I was honored to deliver the closing prayer at the DNC on Monday night. Evangelical voices have been scarce within this party, perhaps since the Carter administration. But as strides are being made on key issues of sanctity of life and social justice, as well as peaceful solutions to world conflicts, more and more evangelicals are taking a closer look at options certain members of the Democratic Party are beginning to deliver. There is a long way to go, but sending a message to Washington that no single party has the Christian community in their pocket, thus causing each party to carefully consider the issues most important to us, is, in my opinion, a positive evolution. I am glad that, for the most part, the dialogue has been constructive and positive. Will you join me in keeping the conversation thoughtful and not reactionary?

That said, I was honored to speak to, and especially pray with and for, the DNC. Here is the full text of the prayer:

"Father God,

This week, as the world looks on, help the leaders in this room create a civil dialogue about our future.

We need you, God, as individuals and also as a nation.

We need you to protect us from our enemies, but also from ourselves, because we are easily tempted toward apathy.

Give us a passion to advance opportunities for the least of these, for widows and orphans, for single moms and children whose fathers have left.

Give us the eyes to see them, and the ears to hear them, and hands willing to serve them.

Help us serve people, not just causes. And stand up to specific injustices rather than vague notions.

Give those in this room who have power, along with those who will meet next week, the courage to work together to finally provide health care to those who don’t have any, and a living wage so families can thrive rather than struggle.

Hep us figure out how to pay teachers what they deserve and give children an equal opportunity to get a college education.

Help us figure out the balance between economic opportunity and corporate gluttony.

We have tried to solve these problems ourselves but they are still there. We need your help.

Father, will you restore our moral standing in the world.

A lot of people don’t like us but that’s because they don’t know the heart of the average American.

Will you give us favor and forgiveness, along with our allies around the world.

Help us be an example of humility and strength once again.

Lastly, father, unify us.

Even in our diversity help us see how much we have in common.

And unify us not just in our ideas and in our sentiments—but in our actions, as we look around and figure out something we can do to help create an America even greater than the one we have come to cherish.

God we know that you are good.

Thank you for blessing us in so many ways as Americans.

I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who gave his own life against the forces of injustice.

Let Him be our example.

Amen."

That was pretty sad. A lot of stuff gone wrong there, but here is the main problem: "I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who gave his own life against the forces of injustice." This is the oh-so-popular-nowadays 'social gospel' at work. Jesus the fighter of social injustice. The problem is that we don't see that Jesus in the Bible, or in any other account of him for that matter. The Bible doesn't say anything about a Jesus who gave his own life 'against the forces of injustice'; the Bible says he gave his own life against the forces of Hell! He gave his life in our place, to forgive our sin! WE deserved to die for our sin, and Christ was crucified IN OUR PLACE. That is why we hear that he gave his life as a 'ransom' for many - because he stepped in and accepted the punishment that we justly deserved. This Jesus who gave his own life against the vague forces of injustice is a work of pure fiction. And he certainly isn't what Miller and the social gospel-ites think he is: comforting. Jesus the fighter of injustice is comforting because he makes me feel good about myself when I "follow Jesus' example", when I give the beggar a dollar, when I attempt to feed the poor and pray for health care and college for the kids. But that comfort is short-lived, and that false Jesus brings absolutely NO comfort when the real issue sinks in: I am a miserable sinner, and all my meager attempts to be a fighter of injustice get me nowhere when it comes time to be judged. And remember who's going to do the judging: Christ! Are we really so naive and self-involved to think that we can one day stand before Christ and say, "I followed your example! I fought injustice!"?

Donald Miller hasn't said anything new. J. Gresham Machen combatted this nonsense in the 1920s. So when, in 2008, Donald Miller says, "Let Him be our example", Machen says, in 1923,

"Why then did the early Christians call themselves disciples of Jesus, why did they connect themselves with His name? The answer is not difficult. They connected themselves with His name not because He was their example in their ridding themselves of sin, but because their method of ridding themselves of sin was by means of Him. It was what Jesus did for them, and not primarily the example of His own life, which made them Christians.

But the example of Jesus is a perfect example only if He was justified in what He offered to men. And He offered, not primarily guidance, but salvation; He presented Himself as the object of men's faith. That offer is rejected by modern liberalism, but it is accepted by Christian men.

There is a profound difference, then, in the attitude assumed by modern liberalism and by Christianity toward Jesus the Lord. Liberalism regards Him as an Example and Guide; Christianity, as a Savior: liberalism makes Him an example for faith; Christianity, the object of faith."

Quote of the Day

“I believe that the Bible was sent not to teach me history, but to teach me grace—not to give me a system of philosophy, but to give me a system of divinity—not to teach worldly wisdom, but spiritual wisdom. Hence I hold all preaching of philosophy and science in the pulpit to be altogether out of place. I would check no man’s liberty in this matter, for God only is the Judge of man’s conscience; but it is my firm opinion that if we profess to be Christians, we are bound to keep to Christianity; if we profess to be Christian ministers, we drivel away the Sabbath-day, we mock our hearers, we insult God, if we deliver lectures upon botany, or geology, instead of delivering sermons on salvation. He who does not always preach the gospel, ought not to be accounted a true-called minister of God.”
- Charles Spurgeon

Quote of the Day

We have nowadays around us a class of men who preach Christ, and even preach the gospel; but then they preach a great deal else which is not true, and thus they destroy the good of all that they deliver, and lure men to error. They would be styled "evangelical" and yet be of the school which is really anti-evangelical. Look well to these gentlemen. I have heard that a fox, when close hunted by the dogs, will pretend to be one of them, and run with the pack. That is what certain are aiming at just now: the foxes would seem to be dogs. But in the case of the fox, his strong scent betrays him, and the dogs soon find him out; and even so, the scent of false doctrine is not easily concealed, and the game does not answer for long.

- Charles Spurgeon, "Evangelicals Who Are Really Anti-evangelical", respectfully borrowed from Puritan Fellowship.

Quote of the Day

On the one side, however, stood error, on the other, the truth; on the one side, the word of men, on the other, God's Word; and this is the main thing: on the one side stood the invisible Jesus Christ, the King of truth and the Lord of salvation with all his holy angels, on the other, Satan, the prince of darkness and ruin with his entire hellish army.

...

Now my dear brethren, has the victory of the Reformation of the Church finally brought peace? Alas no! The Church is to triumph above; here it must fight until the peal of the last trumpet. That God's Word testifies to us on all pages, and so also the apostle Jude, who has the surname Thaddeus, writes in our text: "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

On the basis of these words permit me today to answer the question:

WHY DARE AND CAN WE NEVER GIVE UP THE CHURCH'S STRUGGLE FOR THE PURE DOCTRINE?
I answer:

1. Because the Pure Doctrine of our Church is Not Our Possession, but a Treasure Only Entrusted to us for Our Faithful Administration;
2. Because the Loss of This Treasure Would be Something Much More Terrible than All the Strife and Discord Among Men; and finally,
3. Because this Conflict is One Commanded by God, and Therefore is Certainly Blessed by God in Time and in Eternity.

...

Oh, therefore, let us never listen to those who praise and extol the conflict of the Reformation for the pure Gospel but want to know nothing of a similar conflict in our days. God's command: "Contend for the faith!" applies to all times, also to ours. Let also our hearts be kindled by the fiery zeal with which Luther and his faithful helpers fought. Let us not like a coward surrender without a fight what they in hot conflict and with word, writing, blood, and tears gained by conflict, but faithfully preserve it and courageously defend it against all assaults until death. Let us consider no truth revealed for salvation as insignificant and agree to its falsification; for here applies: "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." Nor let us be concerned that for the sake of our conflict our names are rejected as malicious people. Even Luther and his helpers once had to experience this, and today millions bless them after they are long since at rest in their graves. If today we show that we are not the degenerated but the true children of the Reformation, some day when we also lie dust to dust, our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will bless us.

Granted that our name remains covered with disgrace before men until Judgment Day because of our struggle for the pure doctrine in our Church; nevertheless, if we remain faithful in the struggle, as truly as God is righteous and true, for the sake of Christ Judgment Day will be the day of our crowning and our entire eternity a festival of eternal victory and peace. Oh, what joy, what glory that will be when also we poor despised, scolded, and hated people will be received into the countless host of all the holy soldiers of God from Adam until the last faithful fighter who triumph before God's throne!

- C. F. W. Walther, Reformation Day, 1876

Chasing After the Wind

"There is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind." - Ecclesiastes 1:9-10, 14.

There is a storm brewing in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS). In fact it has been brewing for some time now, but recently there has been a lot of furor surrounding the Texas District youth conference, and the announcement that several non-LCMS leaders - who believe a distinctly different doctrine on certain fundamental matters - would be taking charge of the conference, including a worship leader from a "non-denominational Spirit-filled Christian church". The Lutheran blogosphere is operating in overdrive, most of the people being extremely (and I would say justifiably) upset that the Texas district and the LCMS are tolerating the fact that these leaders will be joining with and teaching our Lutheran youth a theology which our synod expressly opposes, and more importantly, which God's Word expressly rejects.

I have been privately and even publicly (if you count commenting on blogs as "public") disappointed with much of the Lutheran reaction, as it has too often focused on the errant doctrine - and even the supposed deceptive tactics - of the evangelical leaders and church in general, rather than the responsibility (or lack thereof) of the LCMS and its churches to guard and protect against errant doctrine and uphold the true gospel of Christ as professed in our confessions. Yes, I agree that evangelicalism should not be mixed with Lutheranism; I agree that evangelicals deny several fundamental doctrines of the Bible; I agree that they should not be participating in an LCMS event. Heck, I would even agree that evangelicalism is not only incomplete, but dangerous. I have 24 years of intimate experience with the exact same people and churches who are now involved in this Texas youth event. However, I am disheartened by many of my fellow Lutherans who feel it is more important to beat up and make fun of the evangelicals, adopting a "we're so much better" way of thinking, rather than to take issue with their own synod and churches. Respectfully, I am not so worried that evangelicalism is furtively sneaking through our gates and leaving for us the gift of a carven horse, secreting its influence into our synod - though I do believe it would do so at the slightest invitation. No, I am more worried that our synod is waiting til nightfall to crack open the back gates and let in a little at a time, hoping the sleeping faithful will not stir and rise up.

What I intend to actually discuss here, however, is the new directions and quest for change which are at the root of the Texas district's choice to allow non-LCMS leaders at their gathering, as well as at the root of the present movement within the LCMS in general. Having grown up, from birth, in a non-demoninational evangelical church, spending my first few years in college at the same types of churches (and perhaps even more radical examples of them), and then finding and converting to Lutheranism, I feel I have a distinct advantage when looking at what is really going on here. Sure, one's own experience alone is never enough to fully end the debate. But it is certainly helpful.

The last church I was at before becoming a Lutheran was, I would say, the epitome of the contemporary, seeker-sensitive, evangelical church. The lights were always dim; the music was always loud, concert-oriented rock music mimicking modern secular bands; the people were mostly college and post-college age; the environment was always, 'come in, it's comfortable and fun and unoffending'. Oh, and everything about this church was focused on ME. The atmosphere, the lyrics of the songs, the pleas of the worship leaders to lift up my hands and get on my knees and cry out to God (regardless of what I cried out), the sermons filled with multiple steps to fulfilling my needs. The continual focus on my emotional and passionate surrender to experiencing God. Even those sacred elements of worship, the sacraments, were geared toward my comfort and my emotion. Once-a-month-or-so 'communion' meant walking to one of the tables in the corner of the room, whenever I felt comfortable going during the praise songs, tearing off and eating a piece of bread from the giant loaf, drinking grape juice, and walking back to my seat to continue worshipping while those around me communed at their leisure. Baptism took place far less often, and entailed a giant inflatable pool in the front of the room, the pastor standing inside in his board shorts, inviting each person into the pool and asking how they came to know Jesus and if they now wanted to be baptised, the immersion and reappearance, and the resounding applause of the congragation. Neither 'ordinance' had anything to do with what Christ has done for us, but what we do in remembrance of Christ.

When I was still a non-denominational evangelical, I visited a confessional, liturgical Lutheran church with a college roommate. Although I continued in my church for some time, I had gotten a taste of something completely different. The Lutheran church had…EVERYTHING I had never heard growing up in my evangelical church. And I’m not just talking about the stylistic differences. I’m talking about what the church teaches and how the church operates. It was as if for 24 years I had been fed only kool-aid, which was pleasing to my tastes but always, ALWAYS left me feeling empty and unfulfilled and coming back for another cup, and now I was being fed a 24 oz. Porterhouse steak. And now I wanted more. Now I saw what I had been missing all along.

Now I see almost the same reaction from those in the LCMS who are Ablaze with passion for the new and different. They now insist that everything they had done previously, everything they had known and been raised with, was wrong and misguided and missing out on the right way. They see the exciting praise band who isn't afraid to shake things up. They see the way the music gets the congregation to surrender to God and desire to be close to Him. They see the way this contemporary method can attract the youth and the unchurched, because after all, this is what the youth and unchurched like! This is what makes them feel comfortable and welcome. Now, finally, we can discard the stale monotony of the liturgy and the hymns with their "organ-only" trappings. Now we can raise up people who are passionate about God, who seek an intimate relationship with Him, who just want to love and serve God. Now they see what they had been missing all along.

But therein lies the problem: the way we look at “what has been missing all along”. For me, I was throwing off 24 years of evangelicalism, which meant giving up the emotional intimacy, the passion, the constant desiring to be close to God, the perpetual effort of trying to please God. But what I gained was far and above what I lost. I gained, FINALLY, true substance. It is no longer about me and my passion and my effort and my feelings and my surrender. Because you know what? That’s exactly what I hated about myself in the evangelical church. That is all I ever heard, and I NEVER measured up. No amount of raised hands or shed tears or altar calls for recommitting my life to God could ever bring me to the one place they promised to bring me - close to God. If I sound angry, it is because I am. I was led by the hand of evangelicalism for 24 years, always being told that this was the way to be a passionate follower of Christ. Instead, I walked that endless path without true passion and, sadly, without the true Christ. That is what drove me out of the evangelical churches. I left a church with tons of feelings and passion but zero substance, for a church with endless substance and a passion that follows from it. Now, it is about CHRIST, not me. "It’s not about you. It’s about Christ FOR you."

The problem as I see it is that the desire to get at “what’s been missing” absolutely requires one to think (a foreign concept to the evangelical) about what that new direction entails. For me, it was abandoning empty self-centeredness for Christ-centered substance. For those in the LCMS who desire the new change, I fear they are going backward. My experience tells me that they will throw off the stale and trifling old confessions to chase after the passion and excitement of the new worship style - "And among the things thus designated as "trifling" is found the Cross of Christ", as Machen rightly observed. All the while they are convinced that this is what they really need. But let us not be fooled by their 'best intentions' - they absolutely are convinced that this is a good change, a necessary change. However, they will leave Christ behind; they now follow the method instead of the gospel message. It reminds me of something written by C.S. Lewis: "If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair."

I've been down the road they now want to travel. I know what I left behind and the very same thing awaits these when they arrive. It is not what they think. It is only emptiness, a chasing after the wind.

Sermon of the Day

From Pastor Weedon.

Homily for Trinity 11 (2008)
[Genesis 4:1-15 / Ephesians 2:1-10 / Luke 18:9-14]

The mark of Cain is something we’ll likely never know. But the mark of the Pharisee is plain as day: “who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and treated others with contempt.” To be in the right so as to be able to look down your nose at those you hold to be in the wrong – that lands you in Pharisee country. Think of those whom you’ve disagreed of late. Think of how you’ve regarded them. Have you looked down on them? Have you thought yourself better because you knew you were in the right and they were in the wrong? Have you dared to whisper in your heart: “Thank God I’m not like THEM?”

To be right is a most dangerous position for a fallen human. I mean, think of the Pharisee in Jesus’ story. He was RIGHT to pray – Jesus had just told a parable to encourage us ALWAYS to pray and NEVER to give up. He was right not to want to be a sinner – notorious or otherwise. He was right to fast and go without food, for fasting pleases God as we read everywhere in Scripture. He was right to give his tithe, his tenth, and not to hold back from the Lord that which is His due. In doing all those things the Pharisee wasn’t in the wrong; they were all good things to do and to strive for.

But where he shot himself in the foot was in looking at what he did in such a way that he was able to despise others who weren’t like him, who weren’t in the right like him. If you’ve been convinced you’re right and others are dead wrong, and you’ve looked down on them in your heart and spoken evil of them, you know whom you are like.

But being a Pharisee is not the only option. There is also the tax-collector. The man who looks into his life with dismay and realizes how often his heart isn’t in the things the Lord commands and how often he fails, and how miserable and sorry his life truly is. This man has no way of looking down on ANYONE, because he realizes how greatly he himself has failed the Lord. He can only stand afar off and beat his breast and plead: “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!”

The tax collector is focused not on his rightness, or on the good things he’s done, or his noble intents. No, he’s focused squarely upon the sin, the shame, the failure, the sorrow of his life. He looks upon it without any Polaroid lenses to filter things – he looks at his life in the stark, unfiltered sunshine of God’s holy law. And so his constant plea, over and over again: “Be merciful to me, a sinner!”

The word he uses for mercy is not our usual. It’s not what we sing when we say Kyrie eleison! Rather, it’s more along these lines: O God, provide atonement for me; O God, provide a sacrifice to blot out my sins; O God, let the blood of Your sacrifice cover over my guilt and make we pure before You.

It’s the sort of prayer that Abel would have understood as the lamb’s blood spilled and an innocent animal died in his stead and for his sake. It’s the sort of prayer that Cain and his brother the Pharisee never get – because they never think THEY’RE as bad as all that.

It’s a prayer for bloody mercy, for sacrifice that substitutes for the sinner. And even as they ask for such an audacious thing, God in astonishing grace grants it.

Abel’s blood may have cried for vengeance to the skies. But there is another blood shed that cries for something entirely different; not judgment, but pardon; not vindication, but mercy. There is blood that speaks louder and more clearly than Abel’s lamb could ever voice. There is the blood of Jesus, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

It’s what the tax collector was asking for. And that’s why Jesus said that the fellow went home justified, rather than the man who didn’t think he needed all that blood. The tax collector, who humbled himself to plead for divine mercy in the blood of the Lamb slain for him – he in the end was exalted. And not he alone, but all who stand with him, pleading before God for mercy that they know they have not deserved, mercy written in blood, spilled to give life.

Have you been living in Pharisee territory? Have you been despising others? For you there is a Lamb whose blood pleads for your pardon, whose crimson stain can give you life. He does not want your destruction; as He was tender to Cain and sought to turn him from sin before judgment wiped him out, so He is tender to YOU, Pharisee, and seeks to turn you from all that despising and judging and putting down. He seeks to you show you that He has provided a better way for you than that. A way so that you too can go down to your house justified.

His body and blood that were on the tree to plead for forgiveness for your every sin –He reaches you today. He says: Let it go; you know you’re not in a position to look down on anyone. I know your heart. And even so, I have loved you with an everlasting love. Come, take of my body, let my blood stain your lips and your throat, and cleanse you from all sin, and from all the treating of your fellow sinners with contempt. Mercy is my gift to you, atoning mercy, bloody mercy, my life poured out for you. And so you will live with me forever. Forgiven. Amen.

Lord, hear my prayer.

Philippians 1:
9 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, 10 that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, 11 being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

27Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.


Almighty God, I know that I am a poor and miserable sinner. I have not conducted myself in a manner worthy of your Son, Jesus Christ, but have been selfish and proud and quick to judge. Though I desire to please and serve you through the knowledge and discernment you have given me, I confess that my nature seeks my own honor and takes pleasure in receiving the praise of others. I am truly sorry for my sin, and trusting in my Savior, Jesus Christ, I pray: Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner. Please give me a humble and penitent heart, that I will not boast in myself or whatever good may be accomplished through me. Let me gratefully acknowledge that all my talents and possessions are undeserved gifts from your gracious hand. O Lord, I pray that you will grant to me a gentle and humble spirit, especially in my relationships with those whose approach to your gospel differs from mine, that I may place my confidence not in my own merit or ability but always and only in you. For the sake of your Son, Jesus Christ, have mercy on me and forgive me, that I may delight in your will and walk in your ways, to the glory of your Name. Amen.

Quote of the Day

A fanastic quote, borrowed respectfully from Pastor Weedon's blog:

Old Lutheran Quote of the Day
Therefore, in order that the praise may be and remain solidly and wholly with Christ for our justification, Paul does not want our "doing" to be mixed in with Christ's obedience, but when we by faith lay hold on this obedience, then we have solid, perfect, and complete righteousness before God. - Blessed Martin Chemnitz, *Justification* p. 163

Quote of the Day

The Jesus spoken of in the New Testament was no mere teacher of righteousness, no mere pioneer in a new type of religious life, but One who was regarded, and regarded Himself, as the Savior whom men could trust.

But by modern liberalism He is regarded in a totally different way. Christians stand in a religious relation to Jesus; liberals do not stand in a religious relation to Jesus-- what difference could be more profound than that? The modern liberal preacher reverences Jesus; he has the name of Jesus forever on his lips; he speaks of Jesus as the supreme revelation of God; he enters, or tries to enter, into the religious life of Jesus. But he does not stand in a religious relation to Jesus. Jesus for him is an example for faith, not the object of faith. The modern liberal tries to have faith in God like the faith which he supposes Jesus had in God; but he does not have faith in Jesus.

Why then did the early Christians call themselves disciples of Jesus, why did they connect themselves with His name? The answer is not difficult. They connected themselves with His name not because He was their example in their ridding themselves of sin, but because their method of ridding themselves of sin was by means of Him. It was what Jesus did for them, and not primarily the example of His own life, which made them Christians.

But the example of Jesus is a perfect example only if He was justified in what He offered to men. And He offered, not primarily guidance, but salvation; He presented Himself as the object of men's faith. That offer is rejected by modern liberalism, but it is accepted by Christian men.

There is a profound difference, then, in the attitude assumed by modern liberalism and by Christianity toward Jesus the Lord. Liberalism regards Him as an Example and Guide; Christianity, as a Savior: liberalism makes Him an example for faith; Christianity, the object of faith.

- J. Gresham Machen, from Christianity and Liberalism (1923).

Christ Died for the Sins of Christians Too

Christ Died for the Sins of Christians Too
Rod Rosenbladt

Any evangelical- indeed, any real Christian-would probably say that life's key issue is whether someone comes into a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ. How one receives that salvation, however, has been the subject of many debates throughout church history, debates that continue today. At the center of these many debates is an assumption: Every human being born after Adam and Eve is affected (some call this effect total depravity) by the Fall. In order to right the wrong and restore us to a saving relationship with our Creator, Christians affirm that the eternal Son of God assumed to himself a particular human nature in order that he might do the work of being our prophet, priest, and king. He has solved our basic problem by standing in our stead and taking our place. That simple story of Christ's life, death, and resurrection is the gospel. And the gospel message is that Christ did all of this for you and me. The word that most evangelicals would use for this work is a biblical word-Christ Jesus has brought us salvation.
My task would be simple if I were merely to answer the question, "How am I to be saved?" For, the answer to this question is simple as well. It is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved!" (see Acts 16:31 [nkj]; cf. 1 Tim. 1:16 [nkj]). Although the doctrine of justification is still under attack in many circles, most evangelicals understand the question of salvation and are able to grasp it in its bare simplicity: Christ died for me. But the more difficult thing with which Christians must come to grips is, "What does the gospel matter to my Christian life?" Or, in other words, "What do I do now? Do I still believe the gospel, or is the rest left up to me?"
An Alien Gospel
One of my favorite stories that illustrates this particular matter deals with a time when the German reformer Martin Luther was translating the Bible into German at the Wartburg castle and could only have contact with his colleague Phillip Melanchthon by courier. Melanchthon had a different sort of temperament than Luther. Some would call him timid; others of a less generous bent might call him spineless. At one time, while Luther was off in the Wartburg castle translating, Melanchthon had another one of his attacks of timidity. He wrote to Luther, "I woke this morning wondering if I trust Christ enough." Luther received such letters from Melanchthon regularly. He had a tendency, a propensity, to navel-gaze and to wonder about the state of his inner faith, and whether it was enough to save. Finally, in an effort to pull out all the stops and pull Melanchthon out of himself, Luther wrote back and said, "Melanchthon! Go sin bravely! Then go to the cross and bravely confess it! The whole gospel is outside of us."
This story has been told time and time again by less sympathetic observers than I in an effort to caricature Luther and the Reformation generally as advocates of licentious abandon. These critics assert that if we are not justified by our own moral conformity to the law, but by Christ's, surely there is nothing keeping us from self-indulgence. This, of course, was the criticism of the gospel that Paul anticipated in Romans 6: "Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!" Luther's pastoral advice was calculated to jar Melanchthon out of morbid introspection. Great sinners know liberation when they have it, but Melanchthon had been a scrupulous, pious Catholic. Luther's words did not bring him assurance, but only doubts. For his assurance depended not so much on God's promise to the ungodly as ungodly (see Rom. 4:5), but on his own ability to see growth and improvement in his "Christian walk." Luther's frustrated counsel was not an invitation to serve sin, but an attempt to shock Melanchthon into realizing that his only true righteousness was external to him: "The whole gospel is outside of us."
Melancthon's experience is common among many Christians I know today. Many of them, such as Melancthon did 400 years ago, are looking for assurance of their salvation in all the wrong places. They tend to think that their standing before God-now that they are Christians-is based on their own obedience and their own righteousness. They have forgotten the fundamental fact that the gospel is "outside of us." It was "outside of us" when we turned to Christ for salvation and it is "outside of us," now, as we progress in our sanctification.
This "alien" nature of the gospel is a primary theme in the New Testament: Christ's death was outside of me and for me. It is not primarily something that changes me. After one has been declared righteous by grace through faith, this grace will begin to change us (sanctification). Nevertheless, its changing us is certainly not what justifies us. In Roman Catholicism, and in some forms of American Evangelicalism (like John Wesley's work), however, the accent falls on actual moral transformation. In other words, what makes us acceptable to God is not his external declarationof justification, but his internal work of renovation within our hearts and lives. Thus, through the influence of Arminianism and Wesleyanism, the situation in many evangelical churches is almost indistinguishable on these points from medieval Rome. Some of the preaching in Evangelicalism-certainly some of the Sunday school material and some of the addresses by retreat speakers and Christian leaders-tends to reinforce that old intuition that morally good people are the ones who are saved and that those who are not so good are the ones who are lost.
The bellwether test as to where a person stands on this issue is what he or she does with Romans 7, particularly passages such as, "For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (vv. 19, 24). Often, those who are not grounded in the Reformation say that this was Paul's experience before he met the Lord. Those of us from a Reformation perspective, however, would probably say there is no better description of the Christian life in the entire Bible than Romans 7. The reformers really believed that the Christian life was a matter of being simul iustus et peccator-simultaneously justified and sinful-and that we would remain in this tension until death.
Any righteousness that we have, even in the Christian life, is a gift to us. It is not the result of our obedience, of our claiming God's promises, of our "victorious Christian living," or of our "letting go and letting God." You might be familiar with some of these ideas if you've spent any amount of time in American church circles. But the reformers would not have been especially impressed with these teachings, commonly called "Higher Life" teachings. In the early twentieth century, the Princeton Presbyterian theologian B. B. Warfield, had this to say about Lewis Sperry Chafer (a Presbyterian minister whose writings helped pave the way for these ideas to infiltrate American churches):
Mr. Chafer makes use of all the jargon of the Higher Life teachers. In him, too, we hear of two kinds of Christians, whom he designates respectively "carnal men" and "spiritual men," on the basis of a misreading of 1 Cor. 2:9ff; and we are told that the passage from the one to the other is at our option, whenever we care to "claim" the higher degree "by faith." With him, too, thus, the enjoyment of every blessing is suspended on our "claiming it." We hear here, too, of "letting" God, and, indeed, we almost hear of "engaging" the Spirit (as we engage, say, a carpenter) to do work for us; and we do explicitly hear of "making it possible for God" to do things-a quite terrible expression. Of course, we hear repeatedly of the duty and efficacy of "yielding"-and the act of "yielding ourselves" is quite in the customary manner discriminated from "consecrating" ourselves.
Gospel-Centered Sanctification
Did the reformers, then, have any doctrine of sanctification? Of course they did. We are all familiar with the biblical announcements as to what is involved in sanctification: the Word, the Sacraments, prayer, fellowship, sharing the gospel, serving God and neighbor. And the Reformation tradition acknowledges that there are biblical texts that speak of sanctification as complete already. This is not a perfection that is empirical or observable (as Wesley and others would have insisted upon), but a definitive declaration that because we are "in Christ," we are set apart and reckoned holy by his sacrifice (1 Cor. 1:30; Heb. 10, and so on). Anybody who is in Christ is sanctified, because Christ's holiness is imputed to the Christian believer, just as Jesus says in John 17:19, "For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified." God sees the believer as holy. That means that Wesley should not have terrified Christian brethren with texts such as "Without holiness, no one will see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14 [niv]). The Christian is holy, it is all imputed. What would the reformers have done with texts such as 1 Peter 1:16, "You shall be holy, for I am holy" ([nas], cf. Lev. 11:44f; 19:2; 20:7)? They would say we are called to be holy. But, some may ask, why should we be called to holiness if we are already perfect in Christ? That question has been asked before, and Paul's answer in Romans 6 is because we are saved unto good works, not unto licentiousness. Good works are done out of thankfulness of heart by the believer who has been saved, not by one who is trying to be saved by following the law.
How did the law function in the reformers' doctrine of sanctification? They believed that the law in the Bible has three uses. First, it is a civil ordinance to keep us from stealing each other's wives, husbands, and speedboats. The civil use of the law applies to the whole culture. Second, the theological use of the law is to reveal our sin and drive us to despair and terror so that we will seek a savior. Luther believed that is a primary use of the law in all of Scripture. But the reformers also believed in a third use of the law, and that is a didactic use, to teach the Christian God's will for holy living. (For more on this point, see the sidebar, "Defining Law and Gospel.")
What should the Christian do if he is reading the law and says, "This is not yet true of me: I don't love God with all my heart, and I certainly don't love my neighbor as I love myself. In fact, just today I failed to help a poor man on the side of the road who was having car trouble. I must not yet be a Christian." The answer of the Higher Life movement to the struggling Christian is, "Surrender more!" or, "What are you holding back from the Lord?" The Reformation answer is different: "You hurry back to the second use of the law and flee to Christ where sanctification is truly, completely, and perfectly located." After this experience, the believer will feel a greater sense of freedom to obey (thus fulfilling the third use of the law), and this is the only way that one will ever feel free to obey. The most important thing to remember is that the death of Christ was in fact a death even for Christian failure. Christ's death saves even Christians from sin. There is always room at the cross for unbelievers, it seems. But we ought also to be telling people that there is room at the cross for Christians, too.
Too often in evangelical circles, the law only condemns. It comes back to undermine the confidence of the gospel. It can still make threats; it can still condemn. There is wonderful grace for the sinner, and the evangelical is at his best in evangelism. But the question as to whether there is enough grace for the sinful Christian is an open one in many gatherings. I have had people come up to me after I had spoken and tell me, "This is about the last shot I've got. My own Christian training is killing me. I can understand how, before I was a Christian, Christ's death was for me, but I am not at all sure that his death is for me now because I have surrendered so little to him and hold so much back." That perversion is the result of a faulty understanding of the gospel and of a faulty application of the law.
Instead, there must be a clear and unqualified pronouncement of the assurance of salvation on the basis of the fullness of the atonement of Christ. In other words, even a Christian can be saved. The other "gospel," in its various forms (Higher Life, legalism, the "carnal Christian" teaching, and so on) is tearing us to pieces. I must warn you that the answer to this devastating problem is not available on every street corner. It is available only in the Reformation tradition. This is not because that particular tradition has access to information other traditions do not possess. Rather, it is because the same debate that climaxed in that sixteenth-century movement has erupted again and again since in less precise form. In fact, since Christ's debates with the Pharisees and Paul's arguments with the legalists, this has been the debate of Christian history. At no time since the apostolic era were these issues so thoroughly discussed and debated as they were in the sixteenth century. To ignore the biblical wisdom, scholarship, and brilliant insights of such giants as the reformers is simply to add to our ignorance the vice of pride and self-sufficiency. The Reformation position is the real evangelical position.
The only way out is an exposition of the Scriptures that has to do with law and gospel-an exposition of the Scriptures that places Christ at the center of the text for everybody, including the Christian. All of the Bible is about him. All of the Bible is even about him for the Christian!
I used to tell my students at an evangelical Christian college that they had never heard real preaching, with the exception of a few sound evangelistic appeals. Their weekly diet in the congregation was often a moral exhortation to be like Jesus, or Paul, or Daniel, or some other super saint in the Bible. They were constantly peppered with the question, "What are you doing for Jesus?" The preaching was not, as it should have been, a proclamation of God's grace to them because of the finished and atoning death of Christ-God's grace for them as Christians. That emphasis is desperately needed. But the only way we can recover this message is by ceasing to read the Scriptures as a recipe book for Christian living, and instead find within the Scriptures Christ who died for us and who is the answer to our unchristian living. We must have that kind of renewal (a renewal, which not surprisingly, was important to the reformers, as well), and it can only come if we realize that the gospel is for Christians, too.
A friend of mine was walking down a street in Minneapolis one day and was confronted by an evangelical brother who asked, "Brother, are you saved?" Hal rolled his eyes back and said, "Yes." That didn't satisfy this brother, so he said, "Well, when were you saved?" Hal said, "About two thousand years ago, about a twenty minutes' walk from downtown Jerusalem." This is the gospel message. It's just as important for Christians to believe for their sanctification as it is for pagans to believe for their justification; for it is the same message, the same salvation, the same work of God. It's just as important for the evangelical church today as it was for the reformers in the sixteenth century. Without this simple, but mind-boggling message, there is no hope, not for the sinner nor for the saint.


[Rod Rosenbladt is professor of theology and apologetics at Concordia University (Irvine, California) and co-host of The White Horse Inn radio broadcast.]