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.

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.]

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***

My wife described the movie as “poetically violent”. I like action movies but I’m not really into gore (squirting blood and all). So if anyone has seen SAW or Rambo 4 you may not relate, but this has been one of the goriest movies I’ve seen in a long time.

Putting that criticism aside (and the fact that there were a few “F” bombs), it was a fascinating and even stimulating movie.  I sometimes felt as though Eli (Denzel) was like a futuristic Abraham, receiving a divine call to go to a land he doesn’t know and to – quite literally – walk by faith (you have to see the movie, I’m not going to spoil it for you).

I’ll share a bit of the plot here, but don’t worry no spoilers. The movie takes place sometime not far from “now” after WWIII turns the surviving humanity into nomads, and sometimes cannibals. And Eli has within his possession the last remaing copy of the Bible in the world, and with it he’s been given a divine mission.

The villian in the movie is a man who remembers the “power” of the Book and has been searching for years to get his hands on it. Upon discovering that it is in Eli’s possession the man stops at nothing to obtain it.

Throughout the film Eli turns a blind eye to people who are in need, who are in danger and who are being killed and raped; reminding himself to keep to his mission and that nothing else matters. But at one point in the film Eli and a young woman who has “tagged along” are surrended by the bad guys. The woman was held a gun point and Eli is asked to give up the Book to save her life. To everyone surprise he does just that.

Later he is asked why, if the book is that important, would give it over to the enemy to save her life. His responds with a lesson we Protestants need to take to heart.

I have cared for it for so long, and I got so caught up in protecting the book, that I have forgotten to go and do what I learned from it.”

“What did it teach you?”

“Do unto others more then you do for yourselves. At least that’s what I’ve gotton from it.”

Sometimes we can get so caught up in defending the Book, in protecting the Book, that we have forgotten that the Book – as important as it is – is only a book apart from its Author. I hear the concern from my Catholic friends that we Protestants have fallen into a kind of idolatry, worshipping a book over it’s Creator. Many treat the Book as though it is magical in its own right, going so far as the chant it for healing like a warlock might do as he casts a spell. Many think there is power in the Word; and by Word they mean the ink on the pages of their genuine leather KJV.

But the scriptures are emphatic. The Word of God is not an object, a thing. He is a person, the Son of God and the Son of Man. John states, “In the beginning was the Word…” but he does not continue, “and the Word became a book, ink, pages, bonded leather, gold imprinted KJV” or any other nonesense like that. He writes, “and the Word became flesh”. The risen Jesus states that all authority has been given to Him [Matthew 28:18]. By whom? Paul writes that all authority is from God [Rom 13:1].

As N.T. Wright points out, when the Reformers utter the phrase “authority of scripture”, that this phrase was a short way of saying, “authority of God as it is exercised through the scriptures” [Chpt. 1]. But the shorthand way of refering to Gods authority exercised through the scriptures has become so common that it has actually supplanted the intention of those who used it.

People have forgotten that the phrase, “the authory of the scriptures” is actually a reference to Gods authority and not just the authority of a book. I think that if we would all begin to get this write it would clear up many confusions, bad doctrines, biblical abuses (such as the “venerable dogmatic approach” as one scholar put it – proof texting [Larry Heyler p.32) and even begin to clear some debris between Catholics and Protestants.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father. [John 1:1, John 1:14]

You often charge: Faith is a work. I agree. You say: Salvation is of God, but conditioned by our response. I say “amen”. Then I scratch my head in bewilderment: what are we debating?

Yes the so-called neo-reformed are out in full bloom. Sure their doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura have no teeth. But I need to remind you that…

NOT ALL REFORMERS ARE THE SAME!

The Reformation stood on principles. PRINCIPLES! We are not crafted in cookie cutter fashion. We do not all agree on doctrines, we agree on principles.

• Principle 1: Sola Scriptura – Scripture is our highest authority (without rejecting the testimony of Tradition)

• Principle 2: Semper Reformanda (Always Reforming) – The Reformers recognized that there was much work to be done, and so we are challenged to keep in an attitude of reform, always returning to Principle 1!

• Principle 3: Sola Gratia – Salvation is by God’s good grace alone. Had God not sent his Son into the world to die for the world of undeserving people, no one would be saved.

• Principle 4: Sola Fide – Salvation, in order for it to take effect, calls for a response of faith from man. No one is saved by work of moral effort, nor can anyone will power themselves into the Kingdom.

You and I, we have very many differences. But when we discuss our differences, please keep in mind that I may not fit the mold of others you have debated in the Reformed Tradition.