Theologically speaking, whenever I feel like I’ve reached a roadblock I tend to look for answers in unfamiliar places. I was taken in by one Orthodox scholar who suggested that in Orthodox theology we “Westerners” might find fresh answers to age-old problems. So I explored it.

I generally like Orthodoxy Theology and find that there is much to glean from and incorporate into my own understanding. I have found the people welcoming, engaging, and warm. I find its tradition rich and classic.

But I cannot bring myself to convert, and here’s why:

Note: I am sharing my heart here. These are not to be in any way strikes against the Orthodox Church, neither am I to be perceived here as attacking it, nor am I offering apologetical reasons for not joining.

1. I’m married. As a married man, making a major decision such as this is not one I am obligated to make alone, and neither is it prudent to do so. My wife and I both come from very charismatic pentecostal backgrounds, making a move to any liturgical church would be difficult as it is, and more so if that Church has no instruments. If my wife is not ready for such a move, then by default, neither am I.
2. I’m Evangelical. This point might seem circular, but it really hangs on one of my deepest convictions which is that all Tradition must be weighed by Scripture. In theory this point is moot if it can be said that Tradition and Scripture perfectly agree. But then, in theory, if Tradition ever were to make a claim contrary to the Scriptures, I must place the Biblical testimony first. So even in theory, the point still stands.
3. What Apostolic Succession? I remain skeptical that something of an Apostolic Succession is actually historically true. Whenever I hear people defend an Apostolic Succession, there seems to be a gap in the timeline lacking actual historical evidence in which “reason” and “logic” seems to fill the gap. (Admitting, of course, that Clement of Rome [1.17] may have talk of something of an Apostolic Tradition, though its doubtful that’s what he had in mind in his context.)
4. Practical church related stuff. Where I currently attend church I have friends and family with me, I sit on the church council and I preach on occasion. All of these elements would be lost to me if I made such a move.
5. I like to worship with music. I play guitar, and though I no longer play in church, worship with instruments has brought on powerful experiences for me in the past. And just like how a familiar smell can trigger a fond memory, so too is the power of music.

Of course there are other reasons I could explore but these are five off-the-cuff reasons why I cannot jump my Nazarene ship to catch the Eastern cruiser liner.

JoAnn: "I was raised Catholic. I am surprised they let you receive communion. I went to a Catholic funeral recently where they were very adamant that is was ONLY for Catholic (in their church of course)."

Derek: "Ya, the priest did not make it clear that it was just for Catholics. He simply said, "part of our faith". I took that as an ecumenical invitation. I'm beginning to think I should not have though. Live and learn."

JoAnn: "well fortunately PROTESTANT is not written on our foreheads"]

_____________________________

During the Exodus celebration (also known as Passover) Jesus gathered together with his closest friends and initiated what has variously come to be termed “The Lord’s Supper”, “The Eucharist” or simply “Communion”. That last term is my favorite because it captures the essence of Paul’s complaint in 1 Corinthians 11:

“In the following directives I have no praise for you… In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you… When you come together it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else.” 1 Corinthians 11:17-20

The context lays clear the issue Paul has in mind: division in the body of Christ.

The believers where first of all not united, but secondly, they would not wait for one another. The body of Christ wasn’t much functioning like a body. Paul goes so far to say, “it is not the Lord’s supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else“. In other words, call it Eucharist, call it the Lord’s Supper, call it Communion, but if you eat in division, it’s not really the Lord’s Supper.

Being Protestant, I always raised more than a few eyebrows at the Catholic Church. First, we were Christians, they were merely Catholics in need of salvation. If ever I attended a Catholic service during which the Eucharist was offered, I made my protest clear: I refused to go up and partake. Not only were they not real Christians (in my opinion), and not only were their rituals eerily cultic to my understanding, but they believed something too weird for me to accept: “Transubstantiation”, the belief that the bread and wine literally transform into the body and blood of Christ. Yuck!

Today we buried my grandmother.

The service was held in a Catholic Church.

The Eucharist was offered.

I partook.

It was the first time in my life I recall ever taking Communion with my Catholic brother’s and sisters. Admittedly it felt strange to do so.

The priest gave us three options: we could come up and receive the bread (I don’t understand why only the bread is offered); we could come up and receive a blessing; or we could remain in our seats.

I nudged my wife, but she didn’t want to go. I looked around, my brother and his wife sitting somewhere to my left. My sister and her husband sitting somewhere across the aisle to my right. No movement from them. No judgment from me. I could just as easily remained in my seat. But after a moment of hesitancy I jerked up and got into line.

When I stood before the priest, hands cupped in front of my chest ready to receive, there was a moment of hesitancy on his part and a look of perplexion on his face. I began to worry that I missed a step. Was I supposed to say something like “Father, I receive this wafer” or something like that? Was I supposed to genuflex or cross myself? Has the cat been let out of the bag, that I’m Protestant[!]?

Finally he placed the wafer in my hand. I thanked him and put it in my mouth as I returned to my seat passing my brother who was watching me with a big smile on his face. I didn’t mean for it to be a joke. I hope no one took it as me mocking the Catholic Church.

Later I was talking to my wife about the whole incident. She explained to me that the reason she didn’t go up was because she didn’t know what to do or what rituals were involved. Recalling my awkward moment, I’d say for someone less forward then I, that reason is perfectly understandable.

So what changed? Why did I – an uncultured, low church Protestant – partake in the Eucharist at a Catholic Church?

It goes back to the passage in 1 Corinthians and every other passage in the New Testament were the Lord’s Supper is discussed. The Church is the body of Christ. One Church. One Body. Orthodox may disagree. Catholics may disagree. Protestants may disagree. They can disagree all they want. Jesus prayed that his disciples would be one as he and the Father are one.

That is my prayer too.

Of course the various traditions have understood what exactly takes place during the Lord’s Supper different. There is the Catholic view of Transubstantiation, the Lutheran view of Consubstantiation, Calvin’s view of ascension, Zwingli’s view of symbolism, and even Pentecostalism has it’s own take on it (incorporating a physical healing dimension). But the scriptures are just not that clear on the matter and so we should not allow our various understandings of Communion prevent us from communing together.

To do so is an affront to Christ’ body and a sin for which Paul says, “I have no praise for you” (1 Corinthians 11:17). Where Paul once exhorted against the divisions of the early church: “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but all are one in Christ”, he might very well instruct us today, “there are neither Eastern Orthodox nor Roman Catholic nor Protestant, but all are one in Christ”.

Communion is about the body of Christ celebrating the work of Christ on the cross together, until He returns. The way I see it. In the eschaton all of the disciples will be gathered together with our Lord physically present, and we will partake in the Lord’s Supper together.

I figure, why not start now.

I was informed that the service was going to be running from 11pm to midnight, and as our decision to go was more or less last minute, we were running late, but I was in no rush to get there “on time”. Being late wasn’t a real concern for me because, as I recalled from my first visit, the bulk of the service is taken up with chanting in a foreign language, while the seats remained generally empty as people casually wandered in throughout the hour at their own leisure. To assume it would be the same this “Holy Saturday” night was a big mistake.

We arrived at about 11:15 to a parking lot jam-packed with cars lining the entrance way, and crowds of people all over the place while vehicles lined the street trying to find parking spots along the curb. I have a small car, and with the help of my wife getting out and waving me in, I managed to parallel so close to an SUV that the only way it’d ever get out is if I left first or the driver pulled an Austin Powers (my wife’s observation).

We entered the foyer packed with the hustle and bustle of people. The scene was familiar to me. To the right people were tossing toonies into a basket to light a thin candle and pitch it in a sandbox standing up. They continued around to kiss an icon (a picture of a saint) before making their way up the stairs and into the sanctuary.

To my left was something new. Two men were standing behind a table with a cash register open (and filled with cash) selling larger candles run through red cups. We didn’t know what that was about, so we shrugged our shoulders and get into line to enter the sanctuary.

When we reached the sanctuary it became very evident that every seat in the house had been filled. We were compelled to stand along the back brick wall. I noticed as I looked around that every person in sight had a large white candle with a red cup run through it. Figuring it was important for this special service I went back into the foyer and bought two, one for me and one for my wife. Ten bucks.

While we stood there my feet began to numb, like I was losing circulation. It was really hot. I took off my coat and placed it on the ground between my feet on my wife’s purse, leaned over and whispered, “If we do this again, let’s come early. We might not understand the chanting, but at least we’ll have seats.” Someone standing along the side had opened a window, which was perfect for us as we were in the line of the draft. Nice.

The chanting was similar to what I had experienced in my first visit, mostly circular with the occasional chant in English. The man standing next to me was a young Greek about my age (late 20’s or early 30’s). He was obviously not just an occasional visitor; he knew the chants by heart. I reached over and introduced myself. He reciprocated. I asked him what was up with the candles to which he explained that the “Father” has a flame that came straight from Jerusalem and later in the service, right at midnight, the flame will be passed along in the sanctuary until we all have a bit of the light. It signified the light of the world rising the first Easter morning.

It was now about 11:30pm and more people began to crowd in. Certain men began to move those of us who stood along the back forward so that we would line the sides of the sanctuary and that others could line the back in our place. As I moved closer to the front of the sanctuary along the wall I became aware of two things: 1) I had lost the wind-draft from the window, and 2) I stood out like a sore thumb. Most people were “Greek looking” (sorry for the stereotype, but think “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”), dark slicked hair and dark suits. I stood there with my light brown/blond hair and a blood red dress shirt with a cute Latino woman to my side. We were not unaware of the many glances I received. Not bad glances, but curious ones.

The chanting continued until about 11:45pm when the priest took his place at the podium and began to lecture, presumably in Greek. After about six or seven minutes he changed languages and began to lecture in English. His sermon was appropriately on the resurrection. He talked about how many today are trying to deny the resurrection of Jesus as a historical reality for their own agenda. He turned the discussion to answer the question, how can we be sure of the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ? As Adam was aware of God’s presence when he walked with him in the cool of the day, as the disciples on the Emmaus road were at first unaware but soon became aware that it was Jesus they were walking with, so too we can know the reality of the living resurrected Christ when we experience him in our lives every day.

When he finished off his sermon a lot of commotion had begun. I leaned over to my new friend and asked him what was going on. He explained that the church was taking up an offering (plates were being passed around). I was not expecting this as nothing of the sort happened during my first visit. I suppose they figured there was no better time to get caught up on Church expenses than when the place was packed.

The lights in the place went pitch black and all of the candles had been blown out except one, which the priest came out with – the Jerusalem flame. I was quite excited about this. Leaders in the church had lit their candles and then began walking along the sides of the sanctuary lighting candles of those who stood along the wall (like myself) and those who stood on the end of the pews who then would light the persons next to them.

I got anxious as the man with the flame drew near. When he finally arrived directly in front of me I extended my candle toward his, but he shouldered my arm and walked passed me with his back toward me and continued on with the others. I was embarrassed, hung my head and began to lower my candle in shame. But before it got to low my new friend who was not unaware of what had just happened had graciously extended his candle toward mine, offering a light. I smiled, thanked him and lit my candle, then turned and lit my wife’s.

We stood there for about fifteen minutes chanting in Greek (of course I was mostly humming along) and raising our candles, then lowering them again. As the lights in the building came back on and people began to move around, my friend leaned over and explained to me that many people usually leave at this point. I asked him if they would be celebrating the Eucharist, he explained that they chant for another hour or so before they celebrate it. Many people leave long before then.

That was my cue then. I smiled, shook his hand, thank him for helping us navigate the service, and joined the crowd bottlenecking back through the sanctuary door.

My wife held our candles and kept them lit all the way home. We took a couple of pictures with them and then were faced with a dilemma. What do we do with the lit candles? (After all, the flames had arrived all the way from Jerusalem!)

It was a great experience, and one we will probably repeat.

“The Great Tradition has seriously and demonstrably distorted the gospels. Eager to explain who “God” really was, the church highlighted Christology; wanting to show that Jesus was divine, it read the Gospels with that as the question; looking for Jesus’ divinity, it ignored other central themes such as the kingdom of God. By the fourth century the church was not so eager to discover that God’s kingdom had arrived and was to be implemented in Jesus’ way, so it screened out that kingdom inauguration which lies at the heart of the Synoptic tradition.” – Jesus, Paul and the People of God, p.63

Later in the same book Wright adds:

“I continue to affirm Chalcedon in the same way that I will agree that a sphere is also a circle or a cube also a square, while noting that this truth is not the whole truth.” – Jesus, Paul and the People of God, p.135

JOHN CALVIN COMMENTS:

“’That whosoever believeth on him may not perish.’ It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.”

Um Okay. I think I’m with you there, brother John.

JOHN CALVIN COMMENTS:

“Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.”

MY RESPONSE:

Whoa! What do you mean “on the other hand”? Umm… Now you seem to be dodging out of it all by appealing to a theology that is rooted in something else, brother John.

Here you are clearly leaving exegesis behind and trying to reconcile the verse with a preconceived theology. How can ‘life’ be promised to those incapable of receiving it? It can’t. How can God ‘invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers’ (as you say) if God is choosing to withhold the ability to believe from some?

You can’t have it both ways. I mean, I know you’re a logical guy, John. Isn’t it possible that Augustine was wrong in the Enchiridion — where this same logical inconsistency can be found?

JOHN CALVIN COMMENTS:

“Still it is not yet very evident why and how faith bestows life upon us. Is it because Christ renews us by his Spirit, that the righteousness of God may live and be vigorous in us; or is it because, having been cleansed by his blood, we are accounted righteous before God by a free pardon? It is indeed certain, that these two things are always joined together; but as the certainty of salvation is the subject now in hand, we ought chiefly to hold by this reason, that we live, because God loves us freely by not imputing to us our sins. For this reason sacrifice is expressly mentioned, by which, together with sins, the curse and death are destroyed. I have already explained the object of these two clauses, which is, to inform us that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves; for in this wretched condition of mankind, redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation.”

What! Now you seem to be having problems with your earlier statement that [faith] ‘frees us from everlasting destruction.’ Do you mean that ‘faith bestows life upon us’ (as you said earlier) or ‘life’ (through grace) bestows faith upon us?

Now you are saying that redemption precedes salvation, because the ability to believe is itself the result of that salvation. If the ability to believe is wholly the decision of God, then it is God who has determined the issues of life and death. It is your theology that has dictated that “redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation” not the text itself.

I agree that part of the message of this verse is ‘that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves’ but it is also a universal offer of eternal life (thus, it says: “whoever”) — a possibility your theology does not seem to allow for! In my opinion, making sense of this verse requires a concept of Prevenient Grace, which allows fallen humans to respond with faith to the offer of life.

Otherwise, from your point of view, the verse should read either:

“For God so loved the elect that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who belongs to the elect and, thus, has faith, may therefore believe in him unto eternal life.”

or, more simply:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has eternal life may believe in him.”

But, surely you see, don’t you, it doesn’t say either of those things. You’ve turned it around backwards. This is no longer the Scripture with which you began.

JOHN CALVIN COMMENTS:

(Start gathering the wood again, boys, I think there’s another heretic in town.)

[Cross posted from here: Commonplace Holiness.]

There is some latitude (in my view) in what it means to have a “Wesleyan” perspective. No one is likely to follow Wesley in everything he said. I’m quite willing to settle for a rather open & relaxed characterization of Wesleyan theology: it is a theology that takes its cues from the teaching and ministry of John Wesley.

And, in light of this, I ask the following.

Is there something distinctive about Wesleyan teaching that can give Christians guidance as we think about human sexuality? I think there is.

Because the Wesleyan approach to the Christian life speaks of the possibility of a the life of perfect love, I believe that a Wesleyan approach to the issue yields some important insights. Human nature is not inherently sinful just for being human. It is the power of love (devotion to God’s will and devotion to the best interests of others) that frees us from our sinfulness. This alone, and not legalisms or ascetic efforts, can set the heart free from its (otherwise) sinful intentions. It is a supernatural love: inspired in our hearts by God’s Holy Spirit through faith in Christ.

Specifically, let me begin with this excerpt from Wesley’s Sermon “On Perfection.” He poses the following question:

“‘But surely we cannot be saved from sin, while we dwell in a sinful body.”

And, answers it in these words:

“A sinful body? I pray observe, how deeply ambiguous; how equivocal, this expression is! But, there is no authority for it in Scripture: the word, sinful body, is never found there. And as it is totally unscriptural, so it is palpably absurd. For no body, or matter of any kind, can be sinful; spirits alone are capable of sin. Pray in what part of the body should sin lodge? It cannot lodge in the skin, nor in the muscles, or nerves, or veins, or arteries; it cannot be in the bones any more than in the hair or nails. Only the soul can be the seat of sin.”

— Sermons on Several Occasions, Vol. 2: “On Perfection.”

I feel this quote is especially significant, because it identifies human sinfulness as a spiritual, rather than a purely physical issue. This (I think) puts Wesleyans on a different path than much of the Augustinian tradition, which is more inclined to see the human sexual drive as itself a component of Original Sin. It also sets us on a different path than the NIV translators, who identify our human drives and tendencies (that is, what Paul calls our “flesh”) as being our “sinful nature.”

It becomes possible to give a positive account of human nature. It becomes possible to agree with God in pronouncing the human creation “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Yes, human drives need to be disciplined. There are times (many times, really!) when we are called upon to say “no” to some human capacity for enjoyment. But, the ability to enjoy the things of life is not evil. It is good.

Most of our temptations arise from human appetites and drives of various sorts. We have the capacity to enjoy certain things. As long as we have that capacity we will be tempted to gratify these capacities and appetites in ways that are destructive to ourselves and others — and to our walk with God. As long as you love the taste of chocolate you will be tempted to indulge your love for chocolate in ways that are destructive to yourself: to your body, your teeth, etc. But, what a horrible thing it would be to lose the ability to enjoy chocolate! It would make life less enjoyable.

Most temptations are simply proof that we’re still alive and well and healthy, with the capacity to enjoy the good things of life.

And, how does insight this help us to give a theological account of human sexuality?

What I’m suggesting is a view of human sexuality which sees it as a capacity for perceiving wonder and beauty in human beings. As such, it is a good and wonderful thing.

My ability to perceive this is limited — by my sexual attractions and tastes (which are often a mystery even to myself) — but what I perceive in this way is true.

People really are beautiful. And, what I see only very selectively must be what God sees always and more generally. This sexual capacity is, at bottom, a pro-creative urge — and it is good that there is a relationship between affection, admiration (both physical & personal) and sexual attraction. This relationship exists (I think) to benefit the human race over-all.

But, the capacity to see wonder & beauty in human beings (legitimately recognized) does not authorize any particular actions on my part. No one was ever put on this earth to meet my needs or desires, and my desires must be subservient to what I believe is the higher good — as it relates to all people and all life.

“Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. No longer present your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness.” (Romans 6:12, 13 NRSV).

Detailed support for the above affirmation follows.

1. THE OLIVET DISCOURSE. (Mark 13, Matthew 24 & 25, Luke 21.) Jesus is giving instruction to his disciples here about the coming crisis in Jerusalem and about the end of time. Nowhere in this passage does he in any way hint of a “pre-trib rapture.” Quite the contrary! Rather than giving them assurance that they will be exempted from any tribulations that lie ahead, he is giving them warning about tribulations and seductions they will have to endure in the times to come. For example, notice this:

“Pray that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now — and never to be equaled again. If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect — if that were possible. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.” (Mark 13:18-23 NIV).

The expectation here is that Christ’s followers will endure tribulation. Jesus tells them: “…[the one] who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Mark 13:13 NIV). If exemption from the tribulations of the last days were the expectation (as it is among Christians in our day) this would have been a great place for Jesus to say so.

He says the opposite.

It appears from the Olivet Discourse that the time when Jesus will gather his followers to himself will also be the time of judgement upon the world.

“At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.” (Matthew 24:30-31 NIV).

It appears from this passage that the time of judgement upon the world will be the same as the time of the gathering the elect. In fact the Judgement aspect of Jesus coming (“all the nations of the earth will mourn”) is mentioned first. If the so-called Rapture and the time of Judgement were two different things, again, this would be a great place to say so. Again, it says the opposite. There is nothing here that teaches, implies, or even hints at a silent, secret Rapture of the Saints.

2. THE THESSALONIAN LETTERS. (1 & 2 Thessalonians)

The passage generally cited for a “pre-trib rapture” is 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18:

“Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words.” (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 NIV).

This might seem to accord with the Dispensational view, but upon closer examination it doesn’t. Notice the very next sentences:

“Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief.” (1 Thessalonians 5:1-4 NIV).

So, Paul’s teaching here is similar in structure to Jesus’ teaching. The time of being caught up together with the Lord is the same as the time of Judgement upon the world. Jesus return is spoken of as being like a “Thief in the Night” not because it is silent or secret, but because it is unexpected.

The same phenomenon can be noticed in 2 Thessalonians. The time when Christ is going to come for his people is spoken of as being the same when Judgement comes upon the world:

“All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.” (2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 NIV).

Then notice this a little way further:

“Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for [that day will not come] until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 NIV).

This passage says explicitly that “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “our being gathered to him” cannot occur until “the rebellion” (often identified with the “great tribulation” spoken of in the Synoptic Gospels) occurs first, and the “man of lawlessness” (often identified with the Antichrist spoken of in the letters of John) is revealed. This passage actually seems to disallow the possibility of a pre-trib Rapture (though I will acknowledge the great and imaginative efforts of Dispensational interpreters down through the years to make this somehow conform).

3. THE BOOK OF REVELATION. Nothing in the Book of Revelation itself necessitates the Pre-trib view. It is nowhere taught, though it has been read into some passages.

“After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” (Revelation 4:1 NIV).

This is simply a transition in John’s visions. it is an experience that happened to John. I suppose it could be a pre-trib Rapture, but there is no reason to think that it is. The doctrine is being read into the passage.

There are numerous places in the Book of Revelation where the people of God are spoken of as enduring the tribulations of the Last Days. The oft-repeated maxim of the NT is “[the one} who stands firm to the end will be saved."

“After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no-one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.” All the angels were standing round the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshipped God, saying: ‘Amen! Praise and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength be to our God for ever and ever. Amen!’ Then one of the elders asked me, ‘These in white robes — who are they, and where did they come from?’ I answered, ‘Sir, you know.’ And he said, ‘These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.’” (Revelation 7:9-14, NIV.)

Notice that the great multitude "from every nation, tribe, people and language" came out of "the great tribulation" — that is to say, they endured it (okay, or at least, part of it).

“He [the beast from the sea] was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.” (Revelation 13:7 NIV)

“If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.” (Revelation 13:10 NIV.)

“This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God’s commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.” (Revelation 14:12 NIV.)

“I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished.” (Revelation 17:6 NIV.)

To summarize:

1. the Bible does not generally separate the “gathering together” and “judgement” aspects of Jesus’ Return
2. the NT does not clearly promise that the “saints” or the “elect” will have any exemption from the tribulations of the last days,
3. many passages in the NT are given to prepare the followers of Christ for times of tribulation,
4. the pre-trib Rapture doctrine is an implication of the Dispensational theory of biblical interpretation (the current crop of believers must leave the earth at the next major Dispensational shift, so that God can return to working with Israel again) and has no basis in the Bible without it.

While, with great effort the relevant passages can be made to conform to the Dispensational view, they need not be read that way. In certain cases, the Dispensational view seems to run directly counter to the more natural sense of the passages in question.

Or, to put it more succinctly: The Pre-Tribulational Rapture is not a biblical doctrine.

But, the burning question for our day is: how do we recover the NT concept of Hope? How can we teach a credible doctrine of Hope for our generation?

Click Here to go to the article.

Wright: "Aren't we on the same team?" Sproul: "It depends, define 'sola fide' and then define 'Gospel'."

A few years back I must have been the only person oblivious to the horrendous massacre of the Munich Olympics of 1972. When in conversation a friend mentioned the movie, Munich (2006), I asked what it was about, and in shock he said “Don’t you know? It’s when Muslim terrorists murdered Jewish athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.”  But we were both caught off guard when another friend my mine, a Muslim, overheard our conversation and roared out through clenched teeth the way a father might chastise his children: “THEY WERE NOT TERRORISTS! IT WAS WAR! THOSE JEWISH ATHLETES WERE SOLDIERS WHO WOULD HAVE KILLED MUSLIMS AFTER THE OLYMPICS!” Then, as if nothing happened, he just walked away, leaving us staring at each other in perplexed silence.

The Olympics are supposed to be a time of peace. Everyone knows that. But for those Muslim terrorists, there is no such thing as “truce”. The context never changes. Time never goes by. “Kill the infidel!”

If this short-sighted mentality frustrates you as much as it does me, then you may be able to glimpse the frustration I have when leaders who are hailed as defenders of Reformed orthodoxy write and lecture as though the volatile age of the 16^th century were alive and well. (“Anathema the Catholic!”) It is a mentality which needs to be crushed under the full weight of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ for the glory of Christ and the union of his Body: the Church invisible and visible.

These men – I believe – need to undergo a “gestalt switch”, nothing less then a complete paradigm shift.

In the book Justification in Perspective, N.T. Wright was invited to contribute to the last essay-chapter titled “New Perspectives” where he makes this comment which some have called “The King Kong of straw man fallacies”. Here’s what Wright wrote which “defenders of Reformed orthodoxy” find so offensive:

“We are not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith. We are justified by faith by believing in the gospel itself – in other words, that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead.” Wright, “New Perspectives” (Under the heading “5: Justification” in the essay.)

I cheer Wright for this bold statement. It was about time someone called the Reformers out on the carpet and exposed much of their rhetoric for what it is. What Wright is saying is that Catholic and Orthodox believers are as much a member of the family of God, the living Church, as are Protestants if (and the “if” goes for Protestants as well) they believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ: “that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead”.

Well of course the charge is an offensive one. In one fell swoop N.T. Wright has accused the Reformation Tradition (of which he is a part of, it is important to note) of raising 16^th century “doctrine” above scripture, above the faith and above the Gospel. This is a deadly blow to the Reformers ego, and like any blow dealt to an ego, there was a backlash reaction. And so R.C. Sproul (who one blogger refers to as being “at the top end of the heavyweights” when it comes to Reformed theology) pushes back:

“To intimate that Protestant orthodoxy believes that we are justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith is the king of all straw men. It is the Goliath of scarecrow, the King Kong of straw man fallacies. In other words, it is a whopper. I am aware of no theologian in the history of the Reformation tradition who believes or argues that a person can be justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith. This is a pure and simple distortion of the Reformed tradition.” (Here)

But is that true? We have to look no further for our answer then to Mr. Heavyweight himself (in case you missed it, that’s a reference to R.C. Sproul) in a little tract called Justification by Faith Alone. In it he writes this:

“Since the Reformation the doctrine of sola fide has been the defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity. It has functioned as a normative doctrine because it has been understood as essential to the gospel itself. Without [the doctrine] sola fide one does not have the gospel; and without the gospel one does not have the Christian faith. When an ecclesiastical communion rejects [the doctrine] sola fide, as Rome did at the Council of Trent, it ceases being a true church, no matter how orthodox it may be in other matters.” – Justification by Faith Alone, p.12 (2010)

There is so much to say and so little time.

1) The doctrine of sola fide has NOT “been the defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity”. The defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity is sola scriptura (it is a sad day when we have to remind any Protestant of this fact). Pick up any book on Evangelical Christianity and you will not find a treaty there on sola fide (at least not in any central or defining way). You will find other points such as “missional” or “conversionism”, and centrally always “sola scriptura” (no matter how it is defined) but not sola fide:

“[Francis] Schaeffer said that an orthodox view of the Bible is the ‘Watershed of the Evangelical World’. In other words, it is a defining position, such that our view of Scripture determines whether or not we are truly evangelical. It seems to me that he was correct in this assessment.” A.T.B. McGowan, The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage, p. 11

2) It is NOT true that without the doctrine of sola fide one does not have the Gospel. Nowhere in scripture is the Gospel defined as “sola fide”. But Paul explicitly defines the Gospel as believing in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) – as N.T. Wright correctly points out in his quote above. (This constitutes one of the fundamental areas of confusion among the traditionalists: confusing the terms “gospel” “justification” and “soteriology“.)

3) It is NOT true that by rejecting the doctrine of sola fide an ecclesial commune “ceases being a true church, no matter how orthodox it may be in other matters”. This last point is a very dangerous move on Sproul’s part because now he has explicitly raised up the Reformed doctrine of sola fide above the core belief of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ! He subjugates this core orthodox belief (the True Gospel) to the sixteenth century doctrine of sola fide. Was there no “true church” before Luther? Sproul places the true Gosple of Jesus Christ (by which he “is being saved” 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) under the subcategory of “other matters” (as if you could tuck the Gospel away somewhere under the rubric of “other matters“?). God help him!:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gosple – not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-7, emphasis mine)

Sproul has distorted the Gosple by confusing the sixteenth century doctrine of sola fide with the Gosple Paul preaches in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and which he declares to be the true Gospel being distorted here in Galatians 1:6-9. A blogger named Cameron whom I have been in dialogue with states that God is not the author of confusion, “but maybe N.T. Wright is a good candidate“. N.T. Wright has offensively reminded the Reformers what the true Gospel is: belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If this truth has confused my friend Cameron, this should not reflect either God who wrote the Word or Wright who has been dragging the Reformers (kicking and screaming) back to the Word. I am not surprised that my friend Cameron has been confused by Wrights comment. If he has always believed an error, and someone writes to correct his error, before he capitulates to the truth his mind will be confused. This only reflects that he is either resisting the truth or about to overcome the presuppositions of his mind!

In any case this entire quote from R.C. Sproul, an influential leader in the Protestant church and author of such books as “Defending the Faith” and “The Consequences of Ideas”, is very scary. In the quote above Sproul writes: “I am aware of no theologian in the history of the Reformed tradition who believes or argues that a person can be justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith.” Perhaps he should have a good look in the mirror.

If N.T. Wright’s argument is a straw man, then R.C. Sproul is the scarecrow who is caught up in the time loop of 16^th century polemics. Even the Catholic Church has moved on since then, acknowledging that other forms of orthodox Christianity are a part of the true church, while Sproul (like my Muslim friend) vehemently contends that because Trent (1559-1563) rejected the Reformed doctrine of sola fide, our Catholic brothers and sisters who believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, i.e. the Gospel, are not “a true church”.

But of course we now know that Wright’s comment is nothing at all like a “straw man argument”. It is verified right here in Sproul’s own words as the “heavyweight” speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

What Piper is Saying:

The Traditional Reformed doctrine simply teaches that humans, born depraved and guilty of Adam’s sin (imputed guilt), are unrighteous in the eyes of God. No amount of self-righteousness (works of the law, trying to be good enough) can make someone “right” in the eyes of God (“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. “There is none righteous, no not one”).

But by the gift of faith (a gift given by God to his Elect) we are declared “justified” in the eyes of God. But how can God declare a guilty person to be “justified”? Wouldn’t that make God a bad Judge? Yes. So what is the answer? In enters Christ. Christ died on the cross for our sins (“he who knew no sin became sin for us”) and so our sins must have been imputed on to Christ (substitutionary Atonement). Since Christ was righteous (“knew no sin”) then while he took our sins upon himself, we in turn take his righteousness of us (“so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God”).

So Justification is at the heart of the doctrine of Salvation and at the heart of Justification is the doctrine of Imputation. It can be diagrammed like this:

Our sins are Imputed or Transferred to Christ while His Righteousness is Imputed or Transferred to us. We are declared righteous through the process of Imputation.

There are two things to keep in mind before we look at what Wright has to say on this subject:

First it is important to note that Luther developed this doctrine as a response to the works based religion of 16^th century Catholicism. Key text are Galatians 2:16 (“a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ”) and Romans 3:22 (“This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe”).

Second thing to notice is that Imputation is crucial to this whole Traditional Reform understanding of Justification by faith, as John Calvin says, “[Justification] consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness” (Institutes III.xi.3). (This brings up a third point, the confusion between the terms “Christ’s righteousness” and “God’s righteousness” thinking of 2 Corinthians 5:21. But that is going deeper then I intend.)

So now you can understand why the Reformers find this statement of Wright’s so offensive:

“God’s righteousness belongs to Him. It isn’t something that, in the Law Court motif, could be imputed, imparted, bequeathed, bestowed, or otherwise tossed around the courtroom” (What Saint Paul Really Said? – more on this in the next post.)

What is Wright Saying:

Contrary to the traditional view outlined above, we are neither Justified by OUR faith (in the context of Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:22) nor are we IMPUTED Christ’s (or God’s) own righteousness. We are justified, but this is not a reference to a MORAL standing before God, justification is simply a status we incur when we enter Christ (the doctrine of “In Him”). But If we are not justified by OUR faith then how are we justified? The answer, again, is Christ. We are justified by Christ’s obedience to God the Father on the cross. We are not justified by our obedience or works, but we are justified by Christ’s obedience and works! (Philippians 2:8)

What this means is that 16^th century events formed a doctrine out of the scriptures which is not there. Luther and Calvin’s doctrine of Justification (however helpful it may have been at the time) is simply not what Paul was saying. Paul is not saying (in Galatians 2:16 or Romans 3:22) that we are Justified by our faith and not our works, what he is saying is that we are not justified by our works but by Christ’s works.

Key text are the same for Wright as they are for the Traditional Reformed scholars, Galatians 2:16 (“a man is not justified by observing the law, but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ”) and Romans 3:22 (“this righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe”) but you’ll notice that I underlined a translation difference between here and how this text is traditionally translated. We are not justified by our faith, but by His Faithfulness. It is not by our BELIEF but by His OBEDIENCE.

And that is all N.T. Wright is trying to say about the doctrine of Justification (particularly in the context of Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:22). We are justified by what Christ did, not by what we do.

What About God’s Righteous Judgment?

But the question remains the same as for the Traditional Reform scholars: how can God be a righteous Judge if he declared people “justified” even though they are “guilty”? Wright believes that Traditional Reformed scholars at this point begin to confuse “Justification” with “Salvation”. If Salvation were a car, Reformed theology mistakenly assumes that “Justification” is also the car when in fact “Justification” is only the steering wheel. In other words, they have confused a “piece” of the car for the car itself. Justification is only one part of the salvation process it is not the whole thing. (See, for example, the video I posted here.)

So to the question, “how can God be righteous in declaring sinners “justified” even though they are “guilty”’, instead of reaching inside of the doctrine of Justification and creating something called “Imputation” (as Luther, Calvin and Piper do), Wright would rather reach for a category which Paul himself uses, the doctrine of “In Christ”. (2 Corinthians 5:21, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that IN HIM we might become the righteousness of God”. I should note here that I’ve added to where Wright would not. Tom Wright does not see this verse as applying to you and me, but rather specifically to the Apostle.  I think he is right, but I do not see sufficient cause to limit this passage only to the Apostle.)

Other ways in which God can be righteous in declaring the “guilty” as being “justified” are through the doctrine of sanctification (we are being made more holy every day until we die), the doctrine of the Holy Spirit who is conforming us into the image of Christ (since we are “IN HIM”) and not least the principle of Already but Not Yet. (Romans 2:13 “for it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous”. Notice the future tense “will be” is not based on faith but one works (“who obey the law”). God declares us righteous in the present in anticipation of a future declaration based on our works in the here and now.)

Given the biblical doctrine of “In Christ”, “Sanctification”, the “Holy Spirit” and the principle of “Already but Not Yet” we simply have no need to create a doctrine of Imputation or Impartation the way the Reformers imagined it. As Wright says, there are other ways to get there. Imputation is not a biblical category and is superseded by the doctrine of “In Christ” and Impartation is not a biblical category and is superseded by the doctrine of “Sanctification”.

Not only are the doctrines of Imputation and Impartation not necessary, they are actually incorrect for understanding Justification and the key text in play (Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:22).

If we want to understand what Paul is saying we need to kick these categories to the curb, get rid of the old misunderstanding of Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:22 which has long been imbedded in the Reformed Tradition (ironically) and turn to the scriptures and what Saint Paul Really Said. The Reformers did many good things and many bad things. Let us be thankful for the good they did and correct their mistakes. And in this discussion they simply got it wrong.

In the next post we’ll look at the question: What Is At Stake?

***Stay Tuned***