John H Armstrong

Christ Alone Is Without Sin

Article 15 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England says: "Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit. He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world, and sin, as Saint John saith, was not in him. But all we the rest, although baptized, and born again in Christ,yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."A modernized version says, "Christ, who truly took our human nature, was made like us in every respect except that of sin." I do not think most Christians I know actually believe this point. Or at least most do not act like they believe it. It seems that what they believe is that Christ, being divine in nature, was not really "like us in every respect."

I hear it often said: "I cannot be expected to do that. Jesus was God and I am not God so how can I be expected to conform to his will or resist such a profound temptation?" The problem with this response is that it is wrong. He was God but he was, as this creed says so simply, "like us in every respect."

But, I hear it also said, Jesus did not inherit original sin. Yes, this is true so far as it goes. But he was fiercely tempted in every way and completely and faithfully resisted sin by the power of the same Holy Spirit that he has now given to you and me as Christians. Jesus faced more temptation, real temptation not the play acting sort, than you and I will ever face. It is pointless to argue about whether or not he "could have sinned." I find that debate not only useless but one conducted by people with too much time on their hands. The very question is wrong but even if you grant the question there is no obvious biblical answer except by a strange sort of inferential logic. We simply do not know and should say we know something like this. Leave mystery as mystery. The point is clear: He did not sin and he was truly and consistently tempted to sin.

Paul says that when we are tempted God will provide a way of escape (1 Corinthians 10:13). He provided such a way for Jesus and he always took it by the Spirit's power. We should do the same. Some say this makes this model less than ideal. I find this also silly. Who would you rather follow, a person who faced real trial and stood strong, or a person who faced real trial and failed? Maybe the reason we make such silly statements is because we have forgotten what Article 15 really says.

The Central Core of True Faith is Jesus Christ

John Stott has clearly given the church a treasure of biblical teaching that will feed minds and hearts for decades to come. One of Stott’s most useful books is Basic Christianity, a book that I have often used to train/mentor others. First published in 1958 this is vintage John R. W. Stott. He sets forth a compelling course of simple, yet very rich, study that defends the fundamental truth claims of Christianity. What are the basic beliefs of all Christians and why do they really matter? How do we live out the faith that we confess? Stott’s friend, J. I. Packer, calls this little gem of a book a “disarming introduction to personal faith [a] modern classic.” I agree.

Stott begins this incredibly useful book by saying: “We must commit ourselves, heart and mind, soul and will, home and life, personally and unreservedly, to Jesus Christ. We must humble ourselves before him. We must trust him as our Savior and submit to him as our Lord; and then go on to take our place as loyal members of the church and responsible citizens in the community. Such is basic Christianity.”

It is widely know that John Stott has been engaged in serious ecumenism, especially of the informal and relational sort that I openly advocate, for his entire life. (He has also taken a role in more formal ecumenical discussions within the UK.) Stott remains a resolute evangelical but he is also catholic in every best sense of this ancient term. Stott provides a basis, in the thinking that we read in this quotation, for how we can approach one another when we disagree on significant doctrinal issues. His solution, it seems to me, is obvious: Always begin with Jesus Christ.

Commit yourself totally and completely to Jesus Christ. If we began all relational dealing with other Christians right here I wonder what would really happen? We would have to begin by acknowledging that we were committed “personally and unreservedly to Jesus Christ.” When God taught me to embrace the missisonal-ecumenism paradigm that I now openly advocate in every possible way he also taught me this simple principle—begin all conversations and relationships with others who are professing Christians with Jesus Christ. Make him the whole point of our conversation, dialogue and pursuit. There is much more to the faith for sure but there is nothing quite so central and truly important as this. Why is this so hard for us to grasp?

Some Final Thoughts About the Problem of Modalism

As Christian thinkers continued to deal with various errors regarding the incarnation and the Trinity they eventually developed a formula called the “communication of attributes.” This expressed the idea that although Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man, he is but one person. Because he is one person, and thus a single subject in both a psychological and grammatical sense, what is said about the person of Christ may logically be said about both God and man. For this reason it is always right to say that God was born, suffered, died and rose. But this statement is only right if we also affirm that while the Son is God, God is not only the Son but also the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Martin Luther developed this idea about the attributes even further. He wanted to stressed the communication of the attributes so profoundly that he insisted the human body of Christ possessed the divine attribute of omnipresence. This would mean that (somehow) Jesus was present in Jerusalem but at the same time he was present in his body everywhere. Luther’s opponents suggested that he compromised the humanity of Christ in the process. He insisted that he was defending it. I agree with his critics but I do not think he was guilty of a great error in any true sense of the word. But, and this is important I think, his teaching challenged a richer, fuller truth by overstating his case. On the other end of the Reformation spectrum John Calvin so stressed the human and divine in Christ that he came close to splitting him into two persons. (He never actually did this but his emphasis does seems to be slightly off, at least as many theologians have understood him.)

What all these Christian teachers had in common was their earnest belief in the divinity of Christ. They all wanted to make sure that others truly believed in him as Lord. And they took the incarnation very seriously. Contrary to liberal theology, as it developed in the last two centuries, all of these men openly stated their faith in Christ as Lord and, when called upon, would die for that faith. Praxeas, as we saw, did confess his faith in a way that could have actually cost him his life.

Harold O. J. Brown concludes:

Would modern theologians, if challenged to confess their faith in court and give their lives for it, be ready to die for their theology, or would most prefer to explain it away as only a theory or an interpretation? In the absence of persecution, it is impossible to know what others will do. Indeed, even the most orthodox and traditional Christians would be unwise to boast in advance of how they would respond to persecution and the threat of a painful death. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that one senses a tremendous urgency and genuineness in the early heretics that one misses in the more urbane and academic discussions of modern theologians (Heresies, 102).

Modalism: The Error About Christ That Keeps on Ticking

Modalism has a definite basis in Scripture, as do most false or deficient ideas about God. In the case of modalism appeal can be made to John 10:30 which says, “I and the Father are one.” And John 14:9 says, “He that has seen me has seen the Father.” Instead of seeing these verses as saying Christ is the second person in the Trinity, and thus a person who is in perfect communion with the Father, the modalist sees Christ and the Father as the same person but appearing in two different forms/modes. But John 10:30 uses the neuter hen in Greek, which means “one deity, one divine essence.” This point is missed by ordinary readers or by those who simply refuse to accept the doctrine of the Trinity because they cannot explain it to their own satisfaction. Jesus is not saying “I and the Father are one and the same person.” He is saying that he is one in essence with the Father and thus he stands in closest relationship with him.

Modalism sometimes arises because a person will not accept the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. But in most conservative circles this doctrine is strongly believed so this has very little to do with the modalism that people unwittingly embrace. It arises, when people do think about the Trinity at all, because they attempt to reduce the mystery of the Trinity to a concept that they can understand and explain with ease. In more conservative circles the loss is, generally speaking, the humanity of Jesus. Make no mistake about it this loss is immense. The longer I live, and the more I listen to conservative Christians talk about God, the more convinced I am that losing the humanity of Jesus has actually left us with a faith that lacks the ability to meaningfully relate the gospel to real human persons.

The first known modalist in church history was a man named Praxeas. It should be clearly stated that Praxeas was a committed follower of Jesus Christ. It is easy for people reading about this today to miss this important point. Fundamentalism has led many to conclude that anyone who holds to a serious error in theology is not a follower of Jesus. History proves this is patently untrue.

Praxeas was a Christian confessor. This meant that he was brought before a judge (in Asia Minor in this case) and openly confessed his faith in Jesus Christ before traveling to Rome in the year 190 A.D. Praxeas opposed the Montanists and their new, prophetic revelations. When he finally arrived in Rome the bishop, a man named Victor, openly welcomed him in his battle to put down adoptionism, a doctrine being popularized by a teacher named Theodotus the Tanner. Praxeas’ emphasis on the full divinity of Christ was a great help to the bishop. But Praxeas also taught that Jesus was God the Father and God the Father was born in time. This aroused the opposition of Tertullian who wrote a book titled: Against Praxeas. Ironically, Tertullian himself later moved into Montanism.

The late Harold O. J. Brown says, “The appearance of modalism in Rome by the last decade of the second century marks the extent of the victory of orthodoxy over Gnosticism, which had been flourishing not many years earlier” (Heresies, 100). Praxeas eventually taught that Christ revealed the Father by actually being the Father. By this means orthodoxy was attacked from the exact opposite end of the spectrum of Gnosticism and adoptionism. To avoid the doctrine that the Father suffered on the cross Praxeas made a distinction between the man Jesus and the Christ, who is God. He reasoned that Christ, who is the Father, adopted the man Jesus and dwelled in him. The struggles of adoptionism and modalism came about because people could not make clear, in their own minds and ideas, what is ultimately a supreme mystery: the doctrine of the incarnation. We must always remember that we can state this truth but we can never explain it in a way that can be completely comprehended by human understanding because revealed truth is always transcendent.

Modalism: The Most Common of All Christian Mistakes About Christ

Modalism is a word unfamiliar to ordinary Christians. This is unfortunate in a way that I want to explain the next several days. The word modalism may not be widely known but the idea is the most common theological error among people who believe they are fully orthodox. Modalism, in brief, is the idea that the three persons in the Trinity are different modes of God’s activity rather than separate/distinct persons.

Subordinationism taught that the second and third persons of the Trinity were in a secondary relationship to God the Father. Modalism tended toward a denial of any distinction between God and Christ. It taught that there was one absolute God, and thus the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were three different modes (“forms”) of God. In this view God shows himself under three names just as an actor might wear three different masks to play three different roles (persona) in a play. The most common way that I hear this idea illustrated is in analogies people employ to talk about the Trinity. A common one is to speak of me, for example, as one person while at the same time I am a father, a son and a brother. But this idea is clearly not faithful to the biblical doctrine of Trinity. I hope to show you why by explaining the problem of modalism.

Why is modalism so popular? It is the simplest way to explain the Trinity while at the same time preserving the oneness of God. Adoptionism preserved the unity of the godhead by sacrificing the deity of Christ. Modalism preserves the unity of the godhead by abandoning the personhood of Christ and the Holy Spirit but by affirming deity strongly. Modern conservatives often fall into this trap because they do insist on the deity of Christ but then have little or no grasp of the doctrine of the Trinity to support that belief.

Modalism thus occurs among conservatives precisely because in upholding the deity of Christ they do fail to see him as a distinct person vis-à-vis the Father. The modalist sees the Father at work in creation and in giving Israel the law. Modalism sees the Son coming to live and die for our salvation. And it sees the Holy Spirit coming after Christ’s ascension to reveal him to us and to live his life in us. Modalsim thus correctly avoids the idea that Christ is a second God alongside the Father. So what is the essential mistake here? Modalism abandons the diversity of persons within the godhead and thus loses the core biblical idea that Christ is our representative (advocatus) with the Father.

Modalism logically leads to the notion that the events of redemptive history are a kind of divine charade. Since the Son is not a distinct person in modalism he cannot fully represent us before the Father. But this is just the beginning of the problems this  thinking causes. Modalism is also docetic. Docetism taught that Christ only appeared to be human. He was human in appearance only, not in his essence. If he was divine then God died on the cross and God cannot die. The consequence of all this is to believe that while Christ died he could not have been truly human. He only appeared to be human. This is a major error and one that has wreaked havoc in conservative understanding. It undermines the uniqueness of our message in a way that makes it less able to affect the whole human person who is redeemed by the fully human Christ.

Switching the Whole Human Race

One of the most staggering, and infrequently understood, texts in all the Bible is found in Colossians 1:19-20. Paul says:

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

I ponder this text a lot. What does it mean to "reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven" through the cross?

The word "all" has led to many interpretations of Christ's work and the way in which he has specifically reconciled all things on the earth. Because of the way Jesus spoke specifically about judgment, and because of the way Bible generally treats the subject, most exegetes agree that this text is not saying that all will be saved. But what is the text saying? Some say that everything will finally be brought under his power and will but this seems to me to only beg more questions. I do not see how the word "all" cannot have in view the whole cosmos when it includes "things in heaven."

Oswald Chambers had a great deal to say in his voluminous writing on the cross. I came across a quote of his recently that sums up something if what Paul must be saying here:

There is nothing more certain in Time or Eternity than what Jesus Christ did on the Cross. He switched the whole human race back into right relationship to God and made the basis of human life Redemptive; consequently any member of the human race can get into touch with God now (italics his). It means not simply that men are saved from hell and put right for heaven, but that they are freed from the wrong disposition and can have imparted to them the very disposition of the Son of God, viz., Holy Spirit. . . .On that basis I can be forgiven, and through the forgiveness I can be turned into another man (Biblical Ethics, 109).

Regarding this very text in Colossians Oswald Chambers adds, "We do not worship an austere, remote God; He is here in the thick of it. The Cross is a Reality, not a symbol--at the wall of the world stands God with His arms outstretched" (Biblical Ethics, 109).

I think Chambers phrase, "he switched the whole human race back into right relationship with God" gets very close to the point Paul makes. This means there is a proper universalism in the New Testament even though judgment is a fearful and real thing. If we viewed ourselves, and others, as living in a world in which the human race has been "switched" I do wonder what this would mean in our dealings with others? I even wonder what it would mean for how we treat ourselves? I am sure of this much--any kind of Christianity that roots its doctrine of Christ and the cross in the condemnation of people and the world is not the Christianity of Jesus and the apostle.

Ask yourself: Do I believe Jesus came into this world to save it or to condemn it (cf. John 3:17)?

The Teaching of Jesus

John 1:35-37 tells us that one of the first two followers of Jesus was Andrew. The other is not named though we tend to believe it was the writer himself, John. Andrew then recruited his brother, Simon Peter, saying, "We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ" (John 1:41). This was the straightforward way Jesus gathered his first disciples. Luke gives more background before the calling telling us that Jesus had already begun preaching and becoming widely known in the region, first around Nazareth, and then in the north near the coast of the Sea of Galilee: "And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the Sabbath days. And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was power" (Luke 4:31-32).

Note Luke's historical reference: "they were astonished at his doctrine." The word "doctrine" means, very simply, teaching. Jesus' teaching always astonished people. The fact that it does not astonish us tells us a lot more about us than it does about Jesus. I think we cease to be astonished for several reasons: (1) We have heard these stories since childhood and know them too well. (2) We have tamed the stories to fit into a context that is nothing like that of the Bible. (3) We have actually paid so much attention to other things about Jesus (like debates over his nature) that we have not allowed his stories to sift and change us deeply. Could it be that we do not know the teaching of Jesus as much, or as well, as we think we do?

The Gospel of Mark is considered the oldest of the four Gospels. Mark, not an apostle like Matthew and John, is believed to have been Peter's close associate. Tradition suggests this Gospel was written under Peter's direction. It is the shortest Gospel and a great deal of it is repeated in other places thus prompting modern scholars to see its impact on the whole story.

Matthew provides the transition between the call of the first disciples away from their profession as fishermen to become fishers of men (Matthew 4: 23-25).

What amazes me is this: Jesus actual teaching is the least known and least understood part of his ministry. The church has always said the main teaching of Jesus was that he was the Son of God, the Creator and Judge of the world. Modern scholars tend to downplay this suggesting that the church made up this part of Jesus' teaching. This makes no good sense at all. The remarkable thing about this man is found in what he teaches about himself and the kingdom of God. C. S. Lewis was correct when he said in Mere Christianity that Jesus' claims to be the Son of God are either evidence of madness, a lie or clearly the truth. Unless these teachings are the truth then he cannot be the "good moral teacher" that many liberal critics still want him to be.

The very best way to grasp the teaching of Jesus is to read the Gospels again and again. Allow the "big picture" to grip you as you read. You will be amazed there is no doubt about it.

I believe the central truth Jesus taught, besides the revelation of who he was, is found in the Sermon of the Mount and the parables that reveal some of the same truths again and again. In short, the teaching of Jesus is about the kingdom of God. Jesus' hearers were looking for a new world order, a delivery from the oppression of the Romans. In the Sermon on the Mount they discovered that he was not a Zealot or a revolutionary. He is filled with zeal but it is for a kingdom-of-God lifestyle, not for overthrowing the government. The most powerful expression of this point occurs in Matthew 5:17-20, a passage that has intrigued and stretched me all my life. I have preached and I am still not sure I have exhausted the meaning. I do know that Jesus is not attacking the law of Moses but teaching it in a new way. That is self-evident. The other self-evident truth here is that Jesus wants his followers to exceed the efforts of the Pharisees to be holy. This holiness is central to his kingdom but it is not found in external customs but in conformity to God's law by the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is the key to obedience in the kingdom of Heaven. The lifestyle we are called to by the teaching of Jesus cannot be undertaken without the power of the Spirit. Going the extra mile to solve grievances, bearing the burdens of others and making our words truthful all need divine power. We dare not attempt to live by any other means.

Matthew tells us that when Jesus finished this teaching the people were astonished. He taught them as one who had authority. He personifies a new covenant, a whole new arrangement with God whereby a person can live in obedience to God by the power of the Spirit.

Christ Is Risen!

The cross of Christ is an abyss of wonders, the center of human desires and the school of true virtue. Here, at a place of supreme sorrow, there is the root of joy and everlasting life. It is a stone of stumbling to some but it is salvation to all of those who believe. Here we see God's wisdom, goodness and power. Indeed, here we see his mercy and anger displayed in the same event. We see man's sin and we see our infinite value. We see a man who loved the whole world and a God dying for mankind. Mystery of mysteries.

But today we celebrate the resurrection. Jesus' resurrection was foreshadowed in the Old Testament and anticipated by those who saw him raise the dead. The resurrection of Jesus demonstrates God's power more than any single event in all of human history. And it is the sole ground of hope for all believers.

I am amazed at the minor role that most Christians seem to give to the resurrection, at least in their daily experience. Paul says of Jesus: "He was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification" (Romans 4:25). We argue about a lot of Christian doctrines. including the nature of how God justifies us, but this is the really BIG one. This is what it is all about. If Jesus Christ is not raised then we are still in our sins. If Jesus Christ is not raised we should forget about Christianity altogether. This is the BIG event, period!

A few weeks ago a pastor told me a story about a women who came to him for spiritual help. He said to her, in the course of his counsel: "Christ died, Christ was buried and Christ was raised. Now he is alive!" She said, "Would you say that again?" He repeated himself. She then said, "No, I mean the last part of what you just said." He said, "You mean the part when I said: 'He is alive.'" She said yes! She then began to repeat this and thus said over and over, "He is alive." Her whole countenance was altered. She was born from above right then and there in front of the pastor's eyes. She walked out of his office and began to speak to the secretary and then several others, stopping each one and asking, "Did you know that he is alive today?"

May you know the same wonder she experienced as you consider this great celebration day that we call Easter!

How Seriously Do You Believe "Christ Died for Me?"

How seriously to you really believe that "Christ died for me?" For me. How has the consciousness of this revelation, which we should think about this day in particular, formed your life?

Is this thought always before you as the guiding principle of your life? If you are a Christian it should be. Of course we can all claim to believe something that does not truly inform and shape our lives. To lead your daily life with an awareness of this truth, however, is to live "under the shadow of the cross." It is the only truth which I know that gives my life meaning and lasting worth.

I spent some time last week discussing ultimate questions with an atheist. He felt that I was a Christian because of the faith my parents gave to me. After he realized that I did agreed with a number of his objections to many Christians on television and in the public arena he listened to my story a bit more closely. But the end result was that he said there were mysteries he simply could not answer. When I appealed to Christ crucified and buried, for our forgiveness, he questioned the historicity of this basis for my deep faith. He even assured me that he had read several of the most popular evangelical apologists, such as Lee Strobel. (He knew the arguments our thinkers make very well.) But he said, "Faith is foolishness. You put your trust in a miracle that you did not see and certainly cannot prove." I agreed with him that the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth was foolishness to him but to me it is life eternal.

As I walked away, again asking hard questions about my own faith, I found that I was driven back to this rather basic point: "Christ died for me." This is life. This is my hope and my foundation. I prayed, "God make me more aware of this truth every single moment of every day!"

For God So Loved the World

No text may be better known than John 3:16. We see it at ballgames and we hear it from Christians regularly. Most of us who have any background in the Christian faith learned it before we heard almost any other Bible text. Luther said this text was "the gospel in miniature."

But is this text all there is to Christianity? Some evangelicals seem to think so. They treat this as a kind of magical verse that unlocks the door of life to all who say it and believe it. (What does it mean to believe it?) What happens to all the texts that speak about things like "loving your enemies" (Matthew 5:43) or Micah 6:8, "What does the Lord require, but that you do justice, and love mercy, and walk humbly with God." Does a "simple faith" in the words of John 3:16 settle everything and we are "one and done?" Even simple readers of the Bible should recognize that this approach is reductionistic to the extreme.

John 3:16 describes how the mission and ministry of Christians is to be defined. God so loves the world that he enters it, lives in relationship to it, and dies to save it. He now comes to us in the person of this same Jesus, who poured our the Spirit in his place. He calls us to trust his love and to follow the vision of life he embodied in love. He calls us to give our hearts and minds to him and to seek and follow him all the days of our lives. This is what the gospel does in those who receive it and who experience the life that Jesus and John call "eternal life"

The Christ of John 3:16 is a verb. He comes into the world because he loves the world. But he is also an example. He shows us how to live in love. He is the question but he is the only answer. He bids us to see his love in everything in this world since he renewed it (Colossians 1:15-20) and will renew it totally when he comes again (Romans 8:18-30).

God is love. Christ came to reveal that love to us so that all might know that God is not a distant divinity but a very human person who loves and gives. Do you believe the gospel and do you then seek to live it in your life day-by-day? You do if you are a real Christian.