Tag: justification

Book Excerpt — Raised With Christ: How the Resurrection Changes Everything by Adrian Warnock

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments


For Resurrection Sunday, I wanted to share an excerpt from Adrian Warnock’s book Raised With Christ: How the Resurrection Changes Everything, published by Crossway. I hope to review this book in the near future, but this excerpt captures some of the beauty of it. Very few books are written which revel in the resurrection. This book is full of such reveling.

Some may wonder why the resurrection is so important, since Jesus uttered “It is Finished” on the cross, and there atoned for the sins of the world. This excerpt from pages 124 to 126 explains how vastly significant the resurrection is. The words below will be another reason to wonder and worship Jesus Christ our living Savior this Easter morning.

The credit of Jesus’ righteousness is much larger than the debt of our sin. His account had more positive approval than the negative disapproval that was due to all of us. The debt was paid, and as a result, as a righteous man and the beloved Son of God, the Father was entirely just to raise him. Jesus had turned away God’s wrath, he had destroyed our sin, our guilt could now be taken away, and we could be counted righteous. If the cross was Jesus’ payment for our sins, then the resurrection marked God’s acceptance of that payment.

Jesus is declared to still be righteous by his resurrection, just as he was declared to have become sin by his death. God’s wrath has been satisfied….

Unless Jesus himself had been justified, it is impossible to see how we could have been. If he could not even save himself, how could he save others? The resurrection shows the positive delight of God in his Son, which is now shared by us. Many people think of salvation as the removal of our sin and its punishment. If Jesus had only wiped the slate clean, forgiven our wrongdoing, and taken the wrath God had for us, we would be left in a neutral position. We would no longer be under God’s displeasure, but he would not be pleased with us either. Many Christians, even if they do not articulate their theology like that, certainly live as though it was true. Many live as though they must still work to please God.

The resurrection was necessary to allow the credit of Jesus’ righteousness to be shared with us, for it demonstrated that the credit was greater than the debt. Jesus’ favor still remained when sin was destroyed. God’s hatred for sin was not greater than his love for his Son. Righteousness remained available to credit to our account.

Jesus was so full of merit that not only did he have enough righteousness to cancel out our sin and enough that he deserved to be raised from the dead, but he still had abundantly more credit remaining in his account. As a result, our justification consists not just of a canceling of our debt, but also of an imputing to us of the righteousness of Christ. It is not only “just as if I’d never sinned,” but also “just as if I’d already completed a perfect life.” Jesus doesn’t merely give us a clean slate and then sit back and watch whether we will mess it up again.

Still a Fundamentalist at Heart: My Stance on Roman Catholicism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

Some readers of my blog dismiss me as having in effect abandoned the faith. They are so committed to certain fundamentalist practices and positions that they refuse to look on me with any grace. I am a hopeless liberal to them, and have abandoned important implications of the Gospel, and rejected Scriptural teaching.

My blog professes to stand “for the Unity of the Faith for the Glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3,13; Rom. 15:5-7”. In fact I strive for that. Much division in the body of Christ is avoidable and harmful. I’ve expressed my concerns over a radical separatism which views anyone who doesn’t self-identify as a fundamentalist with suspicion and distrust — even scorn.

I have found a wider grace in Christ through my experience with Reformed Theology, which rather than making me more narrow-minded has freed me to hope the best in people and let God do His work. This charitable spirit which many have taken time to thank me for, is nevertheless acknowledged by some critics to be just the spirit of this post-modern age. I’m nice and want to be nice. And niceness is all this is about. I don’t have the backbone needed to defend the faith as fundamentalists really should.

So I find it somewhat ironic that I am now being taken to task for my stance on Roman Catholicism by people to the left of me. I guess this is proof positive that I am still a fundamentalist at heart! In my recent review of Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill, I added the following caution:

I have but one small reservation with this book. Hill details both a Roman Catholic’s and Greek Orthodox’s struggle on this issue with no caution about the deficient theology of those churches. There may be genuine Christians who are RC or Orthodox, but they are the exception not the rule. Perhaps those faiths are more open to the struggle for faithful celibacy and so have something he can identify with. As a Protestant, I fear the gospel can be at stake in so easily recommending Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy with their denial of justification by faith alone.

I am now said to be the harsh judgmental one, who refuses to extend grace to the millions of Catholics and Greek Orthodox Christians around the world. I’m being denounced in no uncertain terms; here, here and here, and especially here. I’m hindering “the unity of the faith”, I’m the one who isn’t nice and is making harsh judgments.

Let me be clear, I still hold that the Bible does lay down guidelines and boundaries to the faith. We are not given the right to just blur those boundaries whenever we want. We don’t find Paul doing that, he names names and contends for the faith (as do the other Apostles). There is “another gospel” which is no gospel. The danger of false teachers looms large all over the New Testament. It behooves those who prize the Gospel, to defend the Gospel. Unity goes up to a point, but ultimately it must be tethered to the Gospel. Where the Gospel is in danger of being lost, unity can not continue.

So that makes me a fundamentalist, I guess. I think some doctrine is so vital to the essence of Christianity, that it must be defended and cannot be denied without serious consequences.

And I am not alone in my assessment of Roman Catholicism. Consider the words of one of the original fundamentalists from the 1920s:

I am aware that, if I undertake, to prove that Romanism is not Christianity, I must expect to be called “bigoted, harsh, uncharitable.” Nevertheless I am not daunted; for I believe that on a right understanding of this subject depends the salvation of millions. [T. W. Medhurst, “Is Romanism Christianity?” in The Fundamentals, edited by R.A. Torrey, online here]

Or consider the eloquent and large-hearted Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

There are, of course, individuals who are both Roman Catholics and Christians. You can be a Christian and yet be a Roman Catholic. My whole object is to try to show that such people are Christians in spite of the system to which they belong, and not because of it. [source]

I must say I haven’t read primary Catholic authors writing after Vatican 2. But in what I’ve heard and read about Vatican 2 it never abrogates the Council of Trent and it doesn’t change church teaching on additional things “necessary unto salvation”. I’m foolish enough to trust the Reformers and evangelical Protestants up through the middle of the 20th Century who have studied these matters and conclude that Roman Catholic doctrine on salvation is confusing at best and damning at worst.

Consider just a few of the statements from The Council of Trent, the reaction that Rome officially gave to the Protestant Reformation:

On Justification
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

On Baptism
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

On the Eucharist
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

On Penance
CANON VI.–If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.

On the Mass
CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

This is addition to the Gospel and hence it is “another Gospel”. See Galatians 5:2-6 and 1:6-9. That is my understanding and the understanding of the Reformers and most evangelical Protestant churches. I consider the trappings of the religious system which is Catholicism conspire to cloud out the simplicity of the gospel. Veneration of the saints, prayers to Mary, purgatory, the role of priests, the place the Eucharist holds, penance, beads, icons, holy object, the holy pope “” all of these easily vie for central place.

UPDATE: I forgot to add this bit. The Roman Catholic Church has no problem anathematizing me. The pope has no problem not recognizing my church as valid. Why isn’t that a big deal worth getting upset about?

I freely admit evangelicalism has its problems, and in many places another gospel is preached there too. But I cannot turn a blind eye to Rome’s problems. Call me a kook if you will. There are intelligent and careful responses to Rome’s doctrine available for those who search. Perhaps some of my readers can recommend good resources on this. I do respect and appreciate much that the Roman Catholic Church stands for and has bequeathed to us. But it is dead wrong on salvation and is misleading countless millions of followers around the world.

I realize this won’t win me many awards (except negative ones), and it won’t make me popular. But I aim for faithfulness rather than acceptance by the biblioblogging community.

Quotes to Note 20: Ulrich Zwingli on the Gospel

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

The following is excerpted from Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings by James R. Payton Jr. (IVP, 2010). The quotes by Zwingli are from his Commentary on True and False Religion, written in 1525.

Ulrich Zwingli also stressed the mercy of God for the justification of unworthy sinners. He wrote, “This is the gospel, that sins are remitted in the name of Christ; and no heart ever received tidings more glad.” Zwingli proceeded to expand on this teaching, eventually stating:

“For when man through repentance has come to the knowledge of himself, he finds nothing but utter despair. Hence, wholly distrusting himself, he is forced to take refuge in the mercy of God. But when he has begun to do that, justice makes him afraid. Then Christ appears, who has satisfied the divine justice for our trespasses. When once there is faith in Him, then salvation is found; for He is the infallible pledge of God’s mercy.“

He wrapped up his treatment by asserting: “Through Christ alone we are given salvation, blessedness, grace, pardon, and all that makes us in any way worthy in the sight of a righteous God.“ (pg. 120)

Books for the Bullied: Recommended Resources Dealing with Grace & Legalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

My post yesterday, on “The Real Meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22” seemed to touch a nerve. Sharper Iron excerpted this line from my post: “1 Thess. 5:22 Often ‘Used As a Bully Club to Keep People in Line with the Group’s Expectations'”. If that’s all you see, it comes across a bit strongly. But this is the real beef with the misuse of 1 Thess. 5:22. It really is used in such a harsh, unloving and hyper-critical way.

A friend of mine from college posted the following on my Facebook page in response to my post:

Good read! I have been doing some extensive studies on the subject of “living under grace” these past few months. I have sat under many of these “bullies”…it is almost as if they are trying to bully us back under the law. It is interesting…when you read the Scriptures through the eyes of Grace…it sheds a whole new light on everything…

I replied back with some of the books that I’ve read over the years that helped me grapple with Grace vs. Legalism. I thought I’d share some of them here with you today.

I should first stress that the definition or the use of the word “legalism” can be much more incendiary than using the term “bully club”. I don’t want to offend and I don’t conclude that people in most fundamentalist churches are legalists. The tendency to legalism in the manner I am talking about, is a wider problem than just fundamentalism. But let me be careful to define what exactly I’m talking about. I’ve defined legalism in the past, but will try to give a quick explanation here as well.

Legalism is an attitude of the heart that depends on self-efforts to please God. It can apply to sanctification and not only to justification. I used to wonder how people could call fundamentalists “legalists” because none of us were close to a works-based justification. But as I left the movement of fundamentalism (I’m still a historic fundamentalist at heart), I came to grips with a real legalism of my own mind and heart. I really did think I was better than other Christians because of the positions I held or the level of personal sanctification (as evidenced by my external standards) that I maintained. I had to be honest with myself and admit that I used to actually think things like: “Those other people must not be as serious about the Lord or love Him as much as we do, because…”.

This kind of performance-oriented Christianity is legalism. When your relation with God ebbs and flows in direct correlation to how much production you have achieved recently in keeping the do’s and don’ts and in evangelism and service, then you really are legalistic and you don’t understand grace. This doesn’t mean you aren’t saved. It means you are missing out on the true glory of the Gospel of grace.

The following books helped me as I thought through these things, and may be a help to you as well.

The Cross Centered Life: Keeping the Gospel the Main Thing by C.J. Mahaney This book is a real gem. It has been revised and expanded and is now available under the title Living the Cross Centered Life: Keeping the Gospel the Main Thing although you can still find the first edition. This book will help you see how the Gospel intersects with all of life, and it has a chapter devoted to the legalism of which I speak. I highly recommend it. (Click on the picture of the first book, for a post I did on it way back in 2005.)

The Grace and Truth Paradox: Responding with Christlike Balance by Randy Alcorn This book is an easy read and quite helpful. Sometimes we feel that you can either be gracious or stand for truth, but Alcorn shows us that dichotomy is false. Jesus perfectly lived a life balancing an emphasis on Grace and Truth. This book cuts at the heart of legalism. (Click on the book’s cover to read my review with excerpts.)

Extreme Righteousness: Seeing Ourselves in the Pharisees by Tom Hovestol This book studies the Pharisees through new eyes. Instead of seeing how bad they are, or even how bad others are, Hovestol stresses that we are in their shoes. Evangelicals are the closest thing to a conservative religious establishment today, and we would be the target of Christ’s anger too. This book can be biting, but in much of it, Hovestol is sharing his own journey. It’s refreshing to be honest and to really see yourself through different eyes. (Click the book’s cover for the Amazon listing for this book.)

40 Loaves: Breaking Bread with Our Father Each Day by C.D. Baker is a book I reviewed recently. It is a devotional book with 40 small readings. It is packed full of grace from cover to cover. The author told me he shares a similar legalistic past and wanted to stress grace. You will be blessed by this book. (Click on the book’s cover to read my review.)

“The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John” by Larry Helyer

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Author: Larry Helyer
Publisher: IVP
Format: Hardcover
Pages: 432
ISBN: 9780830828883
Stars: 4 of 5

When I received The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John: An Exploration in Biblical Theology by Larry Helyer, I noticed the book looked like a college or seminary text book. After reading it, I feel like I have earned some college credits!

The book is eminently suited for a text book, because it is really a course on a Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Helyer opens the book with a question that looms large in New Testament studies today: Is the New Testament unified in its message? It is common for liberal or modern NT scholars to claim Paul’s theology is opposed to Christ’s, and John’s concerns were opposed to Matthew’s. In response to this problem, Larry Helyer sets out to trace the theology of Jesus, Paul and John as found in the New Testament. Then he compares each of their emphases and puts the question to rest, in my opinion. There are different emphases but the basic message of these three primary movers in the NT remains largely the same.

Along the way, Helyer explains exactly what Biblical Theology (BT) is, and he describes the problem of the overall unity of the Bible by tracing a history of theology from the time of the Apostles to today. He then moves on to discuss the two basic evangelical systems of BT, Covenant Theology (CT) and Dispensationalism. His chapter defining BT helpfully discusses how the canon shapes our BT, and provides a helpful method for doing BT. His historical sketch of how the Christian church has dealt with the unity of the Bible opened my eyes to some of the big players in Biblical scholarship of the last couple hundred years. He explained the influence of Bultman, Von Rad, Robinson and others, with particular stress on the development of BT. In his discussion of CT and dispensationalism, I was helped by his comparison of the growth and development within CT with the rise of progressive dispensationalism. He doesn’t come and spell out his overall conviction in the matter, but takes care to follow the clear theological teaching of Scripture. From what I can tell he ends up more in line with the progressive dispensational or revised CT perspective.

The bulk of the book is his examination of the theology of Jesus (as seen in the Synoptic Gospels), Paul and John. This examination is strengthened by Helyer’s familiarity with 2nd temple Judaism and the similarities and differences such Jewish thought has with the New Testament. Helyer also explains the theological development of various key terms as he goes along. He is abreast of the points of controversy, and he navigates them with care.

In his section on the Gospels, I found his discussion of the Kingdom extremely helpful, especially with regard to working out how the Testaments are unified. He compares the different phrases “kingdom of God” , “kingdom of Heaven” , etc. and convincingly demonstrates they are synonymous. The kingdom is explained in terms of inaugurated eschatology, and Jesus’ use of the kingdom is shown as both similar and different from the Judaism of his day.

Helyer’s discussion of Paul begins by explaining that we only have insights into Pauline theology extracted from his overall thought. Paul’s letters are occasional documents, addressed to a specific church in a specific situation. After discussing the question of a center of Pauline theology, he handles the matter of justification and the new Pauline perspective quite well. He is careful to appreciate the new insights into Pauline thought, yet with his familiarity with 2nd temple Judaism he explains why he thinks the NPP goes to far in overturning Reformation thought. His discussion of Paul’s view of the Law was masterful, even though he took just a couple short pages to survey Paul’s view of the relationship of the believer and the law of Moses. He explains that while Jews are “under the law” , the Christian is “not under law” . The law has run its course in redemptive history. The Spirit, now, is the “moral governor of the Christian life” . “For Paul, the new covenant operates under a new law, the law of Christ, the law of love, which, while embodying underlying moral principles of the old Mosaic legislation, should not be strictly identified with it.” (pg. 266-268).

In detailing John’s portrayal of Christ’s person and work, Helyer takes pains to explain John is countering a proto-Gnostic error. There is a polemical thrust behind John’s presentation of Christ. On the question of John’s use of the term “Logos” , Helyer explains that the term has as much of an OT and 2nd temple Judaistic background as it has roots in Greek thought. In examining John’s writings, the emphasis on eschatology goes up a notch, of course. Yet an already, but not yet view of the kingdom is still inherent in John’s thought. Helyer’s treatment of Revelation was excellent. I especially liked his chiastic outline of the book (from pg. 353):

    A.  The Inaugural Vision: The Risen and Reigning Christ (ch. 1)
        B.  Messages to the Seven Churches: The Church Militant (chs. 2-3): What is the
          present prospect and promise for the church?
            C.  Vision of the Throne Room (chs. 4-5): Who is in charge?
                D.  Visions of the War for the Throne (chs. 6-16): The Wrath of the Lamb
                    1.  Seven Seals
                    2.  Seven Trumpets
                    3.  Seven Bowls
            C’.  Vision of Babylon the Great (chs. 17-18): Who will lose charge?
        B’.  Vision of the King and His Kingdom: The Church Triumphant (chs. 19-21):
          What is the future prospect and fulfillment for the church?
    A’.  The Final Vision: The Returning and Rewarding Christ (ch. 22)

His discussion of Rev. 20, also almost pushed me back into historic premillennialism. His exegetical treatment was clear and forceful. It forces me to go back and study that passage again in more depth.

At the end of the book, Helyer ties up the various strands of theology that Jesus (the Synoptics), John and Paul have been developing. Within the overarching and unifying theme of the Kingdom, Helyer finds a great degree of unity in this NT witness. Helyer is right to conclude by the end of his book that “enough… has been said to counteract the lopsided insistence that diversity and contradiction drown out any meaningful sense of unity and harmony.”

After sitting through Helyer’s “class” , I have a greater understanding of NT theology, and biblical theology in general. If you pick up the book, you will be glad you entered his course as well.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from IVP.