John H Armstrong

Repentance and Faith: God's Gifts to Us in Christ

The first words of true mission are an invitation to repentance. To repent means to change, to turn, to believe the good news. Repentance and faith, so far as I can tell, are like two sides of the same coin. While some theologians separate them, in order to distinguish them, the gospel seems to keep them closely bound together. In some texts we read about faith in our Lord Jesus Christ while in others people are urged to repent and then believe the good news. John the Baptist began his ministry of preparation for the coming Messiah by saying, “Repent for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matthew 3:1-2). 

The Greek word metanoia is used in the LXX (OT Greek translation) to describe both God and man having repented about something. We read, for example, that God repented of having made Saul king of Israel. The rabbis used the word to primarily express how a person changes their mind about an evil life. God’s people were constantly called upon to repent because they continually moved away from the covenant. And the prophets believed the Messiah would lead all to God by conversion, a conversion which would follow upon repentance. 

In the New Testament repentance plainly means to take a new direction in one’s life. Deep conversion, which is a life long procession regardless of how it begins, is rooted in repentance. This is not, however, our effort or our morally righteous “work” but God’s gift that results in our turning around. The gift results in my willingness to follow Christ and to co-operate with God in changing my direction. 

Evangelicals are right to call upon people to repent. But they are wrong to think of this as a “one time” turning. It is a first step in a new direction. It is the beginning of a process. My whole life, and my attitude toward God, needs to be converted daily and repentance is God’s grace to pursue this change. I do make a decision to repent. But I make it daily if I am a disciple of Jesus. 

Various theologians have argued about which comes first, repentance or faith. I do not think the Bible is clear on this question. A case can be made, theologically, for either coming first. Yet I prefer to think that faith comes first since faith is the God-given ability to believe that God truly loves me and personally desires my fellowship with him in Christ Jesus. When I believe this to be true then I am motivated to turn from sin and to God again and again. If I do not believe that I am loved turning will be nearly impossible in many instances. 

Today ask God to grant you “eyes that see” and a “heart that believes” so that you might turn from sin and follow God’s call in your life. Begin each day with faith and repentance. In fact, live every moment in faith and repentance. Surely no true Christian can argue that faith and repentance are at the very center of the good news of Jesus. God’s gracious gift in Christ grants us the “eyes that see” so that we can repent and follow Jesus as our Lord!

 

Women, Ministry and the Paradox of Faith

Very few issues divide biblically-informed Christians from one another quite like the debate over the role of men and women in Scripture and the church. Over sixty-plus years of life I have discovered a wide-range of responses and views. From almost every view I have heard I have discovered a new way to read a particular text and to understand what the commentator believes this means for the modern church. Many of these claims to precise certitude were quite common on the side I once held. This prompted me to rethink how I read Scripture and what conclusions I should draw from my reading.

Within evangelical Protestant circles the two most common stances  are called egalitarianism and complementarianism. I move in churches and among people on both sides of this debate. Broadly speaking, I do not generally advocate one position over the other because my mission is to promote unity among all churches and Christians. But I can’t avoid the debate since I do hold a view. I try to express that view in a way that respects those I disagree with. But at times some will not allow this to happen regardless of my efforts.

Having said this I have openly explained how I changed my mind on the role of women in the church. My story is included in what I believe to be an excellent collection of personal stories written by fellow evangelicals. My former Bible professor at Wheaton College, Dr. Alan Johnson, graciously invited me to contribute to this unique volume several years ago. I was pleased to offer my own narrative. The book was published late last year. If you would like to see how many of us were led to change our minds on this matter the book makes for interesting reading.

The simple, self-evident truth is that we have two groups of solid Christian leaders promoting two quite different positions by means of publishing, teaching and conferencing. The egalitarian group is called Christians for Biblical Equality. CBE says that it is “advancing a biblical foundation for gift-based rather than gender-based ministry and service.” That is the way I understand my view. I obviously believe that my thinking is rooted in biblical teaching and theology or I would not hold it, much less teach it in any context (including this blog). The complementarian group is called Christians for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. CBMW says it is “promoting God’s glorious design for men and women.” Who could disagree with that goal in a simple sense? But of course the issue is in the details. In short, the CBE position comes down to this—leadership and ministry is completely open to women. Gender is not an issue in leadership. Moral excellence, God-given gifts and divine calling are the issue. CBMW believes that it is not this simple. Women are not to (formally) lead (or teach) men as pastors/elders/bishops, etc. The unique difference between men and women makes this so because of creation, as well as several New Testament injunctions that seem to forbid women from teaching men or holding (pastoral) ecclesial office.

Both groups are represented by respected and beloved Bible scholars and teachers. Both groups are led by people that I count as my friends and as fellow Christians. The simple fact is that in churches of all types and sorts you will find pastors and leaders on one side or the other in this debate/disagreement. (I am excluding non-Protestants here since the priesthood is closed to women in Catholicism and Orthodoxy.) While I hold to a position that I believe rightly understands both the Scripture and the church I do not disdain or attack those who disagree with me. I once held the other position on this matter so how arrogant would it be for me to now condemn faithful Christians who do not agree with my present understanding? But I am willing to discuss this issue in an atmosphere of mutual respect. I do the same on many similar issues. I do not understand why this doctrine should be placed in the center of doctrinal faithfulness, especially among evangelical Protestants. This is not an “essential” doctrinal stance so we can, and should, pursue it in liberty and with charity.

But, and this is important, this is an issue that will not go away because of good will. This should prompt us to think about it very, very carefully. Healthy discussion is welcomed by healthy and mature Christians. I feel called to make my own views known in certain contexts. This is not my explicit mission but it is my decided view. I think one’s view does impact how they actually handle some very important issues so all of us should be persuaded in our own minds as to what we believe and why. I encourage churches and church leaders to faithfully seek better understanding of this issue and then to have the courage to pursue what it is they believe the Scripture teaches about it. I would begin by listening to the other side. I make it a practice to always begin here when I see godly and good Christians who disagree with me. When I began to do this about fifteen years ago I was stunned at what I had not seen. When I listened without fear to a view that I did not want to emotionally embrace for decades I was moved to rethink. Can we not do this kind of listening and learning without rancor toward one another? I believe that we can but I am not sure all of us want to try at times.

Having said this I would like to commend the work of my friend Mimi Haddad and CBE. If you’ve never seen their ministry or their excellent and wide-ranging material please check it out. With her permission I reprint (below) Dr. Haddad’s most recent CBE news article called “The Paradox of Faith.” I hope you find it helpful. I also hope that some of you will be led to rethink your position. If you find yourself agreeing with me and Dr. Haddad then please support CBE. I support them as a committed member. I believe they are deserving of your support if you agree with them. Frankly, I love what this ministry does around the globe for more than half the members of the Christian Church—women!

The tragedy of how women are treated in many male-dominated cultures should alarm us, regardless of our view of the biblical text. CBE actually helps Christians like me understand why I should support our sisters in Christ more openly. For this I am truly thankful.

Paradox of Faith

Dr. Mimi Haddad

Have you ever wondered why the Bible remains a best-seller? After all, the teachings of Scripture can be downright unappealing. This is never more the case than in the words and deeds of Jesus. The gospels, for example, make it clear that each human being, regardless of their upbringing, accomplishments, or fine intentions is spiritually bankrupt and in need of salvation. Furthermore, despite our rebirth in Christ, becoming holy is arduous work. And, throughout our lives we are called to some very unpleasant efforts in our relationships, like turning the other cheek, forgiving the offenses of others, going an extra mile, loving our neighbor as ourselves (whether or not they are lovable!), giving our cloaks away, and more! Now, I ask you, why is this book a best-seller?

If you've been around Jesus and the Holy Spirit, you realize that there is a paradox in these seemingly impossible commands. For example, we find that in casting our bread upon the water when we give of our resources, even though small, they actually return to us in some unexpected and manifold way. Every time you extend yourself to others, even when exhausted, you find that something deep within you is refreshed and restored. While Scripture asks us to store our riches in heaven, instead of on Earth, in doing so, we also discover that the more we give away, strangely, the more we seem to have to give away again. The paradox of faith runs so entirely counter to any culture in history. It consistently challenges us where humanity has been so often misguided—that in caring for others, we too, are nurtured.

Perhaps this is why Scripture remains a best-seller, that in trusting the teachings of the Bible we experience the expansive joy that comes not from saving our lives, but, paradoxically, from giving them away as Christ did. The creator and ruler of heaven and earth came not to be served, but to serve sacrificially. Christ's leadership was not control, power, domination, or entitlement, which humans so often pursue. Rather, as Jesus said in Matthew 20:25, to be great is to be last, to be first is to become the servant of all—as he was. As we join Christ in serving others, we encounter, ironically, a release from the toxic and self-minimizing need to hold power over others, to be first, and to be served.

In my work at CBE, I have had the pleasure of working beside our founders and members—Christians who have walked many miles with Jesus, so much so that they embody the paradox of faith in ways that inspire me each day. They have imbibed the teachings of Scripture and have allowed the Spirit in the Text to shape and change them into radical people who embrace leadership as service and service as leadership; that in giving to others we receive even more. The largeness of their spirits is dazzling! I remember one member who, after giving sacrificially to CBE, said, "You will never know how much joy it brings me to give and serve CBE." This is indeed, the paradox of faith. And, it is because of so many like her that CBE is able to give generously to others asking for resources on biblical equality in their contexts and languages.

If there was ever a time to remember the paradox of faith, it is next week, on Wednesday, November 16—Give to the Max Day. For 24 hours there are many opportunities to make your simple donation count for more. To learn more click here. Thank you!

Mimi Haddad
President, CBE

Justice, the Kingdom of God and Reading the Bible

A recent article on the Christianity Today web site brought considerable surprise to many. The article revealed that a recent poll sponsored by LifeWay Research found that owning a Bible is quite different from reading it. Most polls, surveys, and studies that have examined the Bible's influence in America have looked at views of its inspiration and various methods of interpretation. Gallup, for example, has routinely asked Americans how literally the Bible should be taken. But almost no research has looked into what happens when people actually read the Bible. This new research, conducted by Baylor University, indicates that reading the Bible on one's own makes a real difference but the difference is one that some did not see coming.

First, frequent Bible reading does have some predictable effects. It increases opposition to abortion as well as to homosexual unions. It also boosts a belief that science helps reveal God's glory. It also diminishes hopes that science will eventually solve humanity's problems. But unlike some other religious practices, reading the Bible more often has some other (much less expected) effects. Christianity Today suggested that these effects are more akin to liberal political beliefs than conservative ones. They also noted that the research shows us that this is true even when you account for factors such as political beliefs, education level, income level, gender, race, and religious measures (like which religious tradition one affiliates with, and one's views of biblical literalism). You can read the whole story for yourself.

Frequent Bible reading influences one’s views about criminal justice, opposition to the death penalty, national security, the war on terrorism, the environment and a number of related (not so politically conservative) issues. And the way Bible reading influences how people think about these issues is what shocked some readers. The more someone reads the Bible, the more likely he or she is, for example, to believe science and religion are compatible. But some of the most interesting findings related to moral attitudes. "How important is it," the survey asked, "to actively seek social and economic justice in order to be a good person?" As you might expect, those with more liberal political leanings were more likely to say it's very or somewhat important. But those who read the Bible more often were more likely to agree. Indeed, they were almost 35 percent more likely to agree at each point used on Baylor University’s five-point scale. Christianity Today adds, “That may be bad news for Glenn Beck, who last year told believers to leave their churches if they hear ‘social justice’ language being used.” (I’ll say no more about Glenn Beck resisting the temptation to tell you what I really think about him!)

These results do not surprise me at all. I talk to younger Christians almost every day. I can tell you that they think for themselves and that they read their Bible for themselves. (There are dangers here, I acknowledge, since evangelicals read their Bible without concern for the larger church and the ancient faith!) But these Bible readers also ask great questions that most political conservatives either ignore or trash in the public diatribes of our day.

The reason I believe this is happening is that a new concern for justice is growing as Christians read the Bible more holistically. When open minded people really read the Bible, and do not simply listen to their politically conservative churches tell them how to think about every single issue, they find real surprises in the Scripture. And they are willing to think outside the box much more than my generation.

Clearly, one of the overwhelming concerns of the biblical text, and of Jesus' teaching in particular, is for social justice and the plight of the poor. A growing change in attitudes about this truth is also reflected in the growth of better missiology joined with real concerns about how the gospel addresses personal and systemic sin. When wealthy and middle-class Christians read the Bible with a conservative political perspective they miss whole elements of the gospel itself, reducing the good news to the question of how to get my soul saved and then get into heaven when I die. Apparently new Bible readers who actually bother to listen to the text see other concerns besides those of a politically conservative way of thinking.

In the end this comes back to the issue of discipleship. Put more particularly, are mission, personal discipleship and social justice (all three) intimately connected in the  Bible or are they separate and unequal paradigms? The relationship between these three is very clear when you read the Bible for all its worth and not repeat conservative political mantras. I would submit that even the terms liberal and conservative are rather meaningless if you read the Bible properly. I think the Spirit is up to something here. I am ready to embrace where I believe the Lord is leading us in understanding and applying the gospel of the kingdom. The gospel that I grew up with was racist, elitist and closed to corporate repentance in profound ways. I welcome this recovery of the gospel of the kingdom and await what God will now do with new leaders that I get the privilege of teaching and sharing with almost daily. I am doubly blest to have this joy. These are exciting times in which to live the good news of the kingdom. If you feel otherwise you will likely grow weary and succumb to one or more of the regnant theories of eschatology and culture that fosters pessimism.

Conversations with Theologians

More than twenty years ago an evangelical professor of theology at Hillsdale College, Dr. Michael Bauman (photo), decided to interview some of Europe’s leading theologians. He selected Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran, Orthodox and Catholic thinkers. He sought out eleven people because he thought they had in them the unmistakable marks of having lived a truly theological existence. The theologians included Hendrikus Berkhof, Alister McGrath, Jürgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Bishop Kallistos Ware, Sister Benedicta Ward, Thomas Torrance, Gareth Moore, John Macquarrie, Bishop Graham Leonard and Dorothee Sölle.

This excellent small book, now available only from out-of-print sources, was titled Roundtable: Conversations with European Theologians. As I was recently going through my library to purge several thousand books I re-discovered this little book of only 142-pages. I found it so immensely interesting that I decided not to part with it quite yet.

Michael Bauman suggests that evangelicals are often extremely insular when it comes to doing theology. We are far more likely to read authors that we already know and agree with. If we do not know a writer, or think that we should not trust him/her for any reason, we generally avoid them. We do not relish listening to people who challenge our beliefs. I consider this one of the biggest marks against modern evangelical life and practice.

Bauman articulates my own thoughts well when he says, “But if we feed only on versions happening to be in favor with our own small coterie of evangelical theologians, we doubtless shall miss a great deal that would have made us better thinkers, better theologians, indeed better people” (13). Bauman sought out these eleven theologians in order to glean something from their wisdom and to gather their own pious reflections upon the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Some of the theologians he interviewed struggled for decades to bring the Christian gospel, and its manifold implications, to bear upon all that we think and do as Christians possessed with an active, inquiring mind. While Bauman’s interviews reveal answers that I do not share, at least in some instances, but they all show that the particular person being interviewed has been deeply touched by both human life and the divine.

The first theologian interviewed, at least in the order of the book itself, was Bishop Kallistos Ware. Kallistos Ware is now Metropolitan Ware, one of the world’s great Orthodox scholars and a serious ecumenist, something not overly common in the world of Orthodoxy. I have had the joy of reading a great deal of Ware’s excellent work. His two books on Orthodox theology and history are the best you can read from an English/American perspective. I have also enjoyed meeting Metropolitan Ware and hearing him speak on several different occasions.

In each of Bauman’s interviews the theologian was asked to “describe God.” Ware answered that God is above all Trinity. This is how we understand divine love, in and through Trinity. He then adds:

I deeply regret the way in which the Trinity is passed over in so much Christian thinking today. Karl Rahner [Roman Catholic] rightly observed that one could remove the references to the Trinity from most contemporary books on Christian theology and their arguments would remain unaltered. All too many Christians today are simply monotheists, not Trinitarians. One of the most important tasks of the Orthodox Church in the inter-Christian dialogue of our time is to stress the centrality of the doctrine of the Trinity, not as a piece of abstract speculation, but as an expression of practical theology that can make a huge difference to your and me personally. In all our struggles for human rights, for justice, for the abolition of oppression, we are active in the name of the Trinity (20)!

This underscores once again why ecumenism matters so profoundly. By listening to the whole church there is so much to learn that will only add strength and bulk to your own life and thought as a Christian.

Paul: Converted or Called?

Scholars debate the story of Paul’s conversion, or call, and some even question the three accounts in the Book of Acts and how they sync with the personal references in the epistles. The simple fact is clear to all – Paul, or Saul as he was initially known, was a persecutor of the church and a rigorously faithful Jew who rejected the idea that Jesus was Israel’s messiah. In Acts 9:1-31 we have an account by Luke of Paul's conversion story and in 22:6-21 and 26: 12-20 we have speeches of Paul about how he came to faith in Jesus as messiah. The final account speaks of a conversion type of experience. Is this the primary way we should think of Paul’s account of his great change?

This is what we know: Saul was a ferocious antagonist of the early Jesus followers in Jerusalem. He obtained authority to travel to Damascus to arrest the followers of Jesus. While on the road to Damascus he experienced a blinding light and heard a voice from heaven. When he asked who this was the answer must have shocked him: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” Saul was left blind and led into Damascus by his companions. He was later met by a man named Ananias, a Jesus follower. Ananias had been instructed in a vision to go and minister to Saul, who would later become Paul. As a result of the faithfulness of this one man, Ananias, and of course God’s overwhelming grace, Paul believed the good news and was baptized. He became a zealous proponent of Jesus and of his good news movement.

Paul went from being a persecutor to a powerful advocate, thus he experienced a type of conversion. This began in a visionary experience in which he saw and heard the risen Jesus!

Paul tells us that he was a zealous Jew, righteous and blameless according to the law. He refers to himself in Philippians 3:5 as a “Pharisee” though this is the only time he provides this information. In Acts 22 he refers to having studied under Gamaliel, ,a fact mentioned nowhere else too.

Some have doubted Paul’s visionary experience, often for very different reasons. Yet Paul clearly refers to his experience of Jesus in Galatians 1:15-16 and 1 Corinthians 15:5-9. He says in Galatians that God was pleased to “reveal” himself to him in his Son. In Corinthians he says Jesus “appeared” to disciples five different times. These terms both refer to the nature of his experience. The Greek in Galatians is apokalysai, the verb form of the word apocalypse or revelation. In the light of Paul’s claim that he did not confer with any other human being about this matter the only reasonable way to understand this is to say that he had an apocalyptic vision of the risen Christ!

In Corinthians the word translated “appeared” comes from the Greek word opthe, which is the identical verb form in the preceding verses used to describe the appearances of the risen Jesus to Peter, James and the five hundred. Simply put, the appearance that they had of the risen Christ is exactly like the one Paul had. The sense here is captured in the word “epiphany.”

At this point there are several ways to respond. Some resort to psychological explanations of Paul and the changes that followed. Others realize that he lived in a religious environment where revelatory visions were the norm. In fact, he refers elsewhere to making decisions based upon such revelations; cf. Gal. 2:1; 2 Cor. 12:1. In 2 Corinthians 12 he goes on to describe one such encounter when “he was caught up into the third heaven” and saw paradise (2 Cor. 12:2-5). All serious scholars admit that this last description is actually common to the Jewish apocalyptic tradition. What they debate is not that people had such experiences, or wrote about them, but whether or not they believe they actually happened as “real” (supernatural) experiences. The answer you give is rooted in how you read the New Testament and understand such literature. I am persuaded that such revelations did happen in real history. I am actually persuaded that they still do but the Canon of Scripture is primary and interpretive of them in our day.

What no one can deny is that Paul had a profound experience, regardless of how or why they define it. In Gal. 1:15 he refers to all of this as the time when “God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace.” Paul believed what happened to him was in line with what happened to Hebrew prophets in such Old Testament passages as Jeremiah 1:4-5 and Isaiah 49:1-6. Both passages refer to being “set apart” and “consecrated” or “called.” There is, in Paul’s case, a prophetic calling to serve the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth. He had no doubt who this was and what he should do with this call.

All of this places Paul squarely within his Jewish heritage and context. Yet Paul became the apostle to the Gentiles. His mission was to spread the Jesus movement beyond the Jews, to the  whole Gentile world. This means that there was no sense in which Paul left his Jewishness behind or turned away from it entirely. This is also why the “conversion” versus “calling” debate arises among scholars of the Bible. Was Paul “converted” away from Judaism? I answer no. He was a Jew to his final day. But he believed Jesus was the messiah of Israel and then the nations. His “call” was to take the Jewish message to the whole world. One scholar, who again has less confidence in the supernatural origins of the human text of the Bible, says that Paul was a “religious quester.” By this he means that he gradually came to realize that the very group of Jews he had persecuted as an aberrant form of Judaism was indeed the true way of Judaism after all. I think these scholars get very close to the truth in this conclusion. It is best to think of Paul’s experience as his calling in order to avoid the wrong conclusions about his Jewish past and identity. Paul was a Jew and a follower of messiah Jesus. His calling was to take the good news beyond Israel, to the nations. This is what set him apart in the early church.

Creation, Science and the Human Genome

Recent polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find that four out of 10 Americans believe that the creation accounts in Genesis 1-3 are to be read quite literally. In fact, it is safe to say that a literal reading of the opening chapters of Genesis is a central tenet for most conservative Christianity. This was the case in my experience but no one in my background taught me what St. Augustine said about reading such texts about creation or how theories of literature actually work in terms of certain kinds of texts and how we should read them. I thus went through several phases in my journey through the minefield of questions that touch on origins and the biblical narrative.

More recently a growing number of conservative both biblical and scientific scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account, at least not literally. When asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, recently replied: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."

This kind of statement would have shocked me even ten years ago. I am not only not shocked by it now but I am listening with increasing interest to the debate itself. The reasons for listening are numerous but the basic one comes down to the biblical text itself. Science has spoken. But have we understood the Bible correctly? Some believe any compromise here means that we will necessarily give up the gospel there. But how are we meant to understand this “story” of Genesis about the first two human persons? How should we understand their creation and their fall? I very much believe in creation, fall and redemption. I am just not so sure the model we have assumed from a strictly literal reading of Genesis is right. We have been wrong before about how we’ve read science and the Bible. Are we wrong again? I am not sure but like I said, I remain an inquirer who is open to learning and thinking. I know, however that this stance will invite criticism. That I cannot stop even I actually wanted to do so.

This growing debate was recently featured on NPR. If you want to listen to this engaging dialog you can hear it online. My friend John Schneider, a professor of Bible for 25 years at Calvin College, was directly impacted by this debate as reported in the NPR story. There is one thing I feel rather strongly about – how you read the creation story is not a matter of orthodoxy in the end. After all, Church Fathers were not one in their reading and this ought to at least suggest we might be wrong in our dogmatic assumptions about a monochrome way of understanding the Genesis account. Science and the Scriptures are not foes. The question remains: “How do we read the Bible faithfully and continue to listen to science at the same time?”

The Supreme Authority of Scripture and Interpretation

Yesterday, I wrote about the authority of Scripture. I am often asked what has kept me from embracing the Catholic Church in its present state? I have many friends who’ve converted to Roman Catholicism. I have many supporters of this mission who are Catholic. This happens because these friends and donors know I am serving the whole church in a unique and ecumenical context. The fact is that I have great love for the Catholic Church. And I am clearly not an anti-Catholic. Further, I have no desire to become a polemicist who engages in anti-Catholic evangelicalism. I am a serious ecumenist and as such I love all Christians – Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. I long to see full communion between the great ancient churches of the Christian faith. Because of this love and longing I will continue to engage with these kinds of issues for the rest of my life. It is because I love Christ and all his people that I do so.

But I am sometimes asked, What keeps you from becoming a Catholic? There are several reasons I remain a Reformed Protestant but a major one is related to this issue of authority. Over time I believe the Catholic Church developed a two-source view of authority. I believe this view is wrong. I believe this view was correctly challenged by the magisterial Reformers of the sixteenth century because the errors it had produced were harmful to the health of the church. I also believe, as I began to show yesterday, that this two-source view is in conflict with the teaching of the early church fathers as well. This point will be strongly opposed by good Catholic friends. The danger in this debate is that we will simply trade quotes and throw verbal bombs. Good ecumenism will not do this. It will listen respectfully and keep the discussion moving forward. In the end a person has to be persuaded in their own conscience by the facts they read and seek to understand. I have wrestled with these facts deeply. I remain persuaded that the Catholic claim that final authority residing in two-sources is wrong.

For my Catholic friends I urge you to respect me even if you disagree with my reading of this important issue. I know most of you do. Catholic academics clearly engage in this dialog without the heated rhetorical devices of many untrained apologists. For my Protestant friends, I urge you to not give up this precious truth in the midst of the modern polemics used against it by popular Catholic authors and speakers who often rail against it by using stereotypes and misrepresentations. What is at stake here is very important, so important that at least for now it hinders the union of our respective Christian churches. (It should not hinder unity even while we cannot attain union with this disagreement on the table!)

Yesterday, I cited some sayings from early church theologians. Here are a few more that I find extremely helpful:

What the Scriptures have not declared, you will never find.
(St. Athanasius, De S. Trin. Dial.)

It is a mockery to ask questions, or to make discourses, on that which is not written. (St. Athanasius, Epist. Ad. Serap.)

In the Holy Scriptures alone is the instruction of religion announced—to which let no man add, from which let no man detract—which are sufficient in themselves for the enunciation of the truth. (St. Athanasius, adv. Gentes init.)

Do not believe me simply, unless you receive the proof of what I say from Holy Scripture. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. A.D. 348)

Keep that faith only which the Church is now giving to you and which is certificated out of the whole of Scripture. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech.)

Concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, even the most casual remark ought not to be delivered without the sacred Scriptures. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. IV.12)

It is evidently a falling away from the faith, and a proof of great presumption, to neglect any part of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not written. (St. Basil c. 329-379, bishop of Caesarea, de Vera Fide)

How can we use those things, which we find not in the Scriptures!
(St. Ambrose c. 339-397, Offic. Lib. 1, c. 23)

When we receive money, we do not trust to those who give it to us; we wish to count it ourselves: and when there is a question of Divine things, would it not be a folly rashly and blindly to receive the opinions of others, when we have a rule by which we can examine everything? I mean the Divine law. It is for this reason that I conjure you all, without resting in the slightest degree on the judgment of others, to consult the Scriptures. (St. John Chrysostom c. 347-407, Homil. xiii. in 2 Cor.)

When you shall see the wicked heresy, which is the army of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the church, then let those who are in Judea head for the mountains, that is, those who are Christians should head for the Scriptures. For the true Judea is
Christendom, and the mountains are the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles, as it is written: “Her foundations are in the holy mountains.” But why should all Christians at this time head for the Scriptures? Because in this period in which heresy has taken
possession of the churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge for Christians who want to know the truth of the faith except the divine Scriptures. Earlier we showed in many ways which is the church of Christ, and which heathenism. But now there is for those who want to know which is the true church of Christ no way to know it except only the through the Scriptures. Why? Because heresy has everything just like the church. How, then, will anyone who wants to know which is the true church of Christ know it in the midst of this great confusion resulting from this similarity, except only through the Scriptures? The Lord, therefore, knowing that there would be such a great confusion of things in the last days, commands that Christians who…want to gain steadfastness in the true faith should take refuge in nothing else but the Scriptures.

Otherwise, if they look to other things, they will be offended and will perish, because they will not know which is the true church, and as a result they will fall into the abomination of desolation which stands in the holy places of the church. (Traditionally ascribed to St. John Chrysostom, glossa ordinaria 49th Homily, on Mat. 24)

We deny not those things which are written, so we refuse those which are not written. That God was born of a Virgin, we believe, because we read; that Mary married after she gave birth to him, we believe not, because we read not. (St. Jerome c. 347-c. 420, adv. Helvidium juxta finem, Tom. IV. Part II)

In those things, which are plainly laid down in Scripture, all things are found, which embrace faith and morals. (St. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana A.D. 427, Lib. II, c. 9)

The canon of the Scriptures is perfect, and in itself suffices to the full, and more, for all demands. (St. Vincent of Lérins, Adversus profanes omnium novitates haereticorum commonitorium A.D.434)

Bring me not human reasonings and syllogisms, for I rely on the divine Scripture alone. (Theodoret of Cyrus c. 393-466, Dial. I. Atrept.)

I have provided only a small sample of hundreds of such early church texts. When I began to wrestle with this issue of biblical authority some years ago, and then re-engage it through my deep love for the whole Christian church over the last fifteen years or so, I came to a deeper appreciation for a sound and balanced understanding of the truth of sola scriptura. Often Protestants hold very bad views of sola scriptura. This does not disprove the true doctrine but it should make us careful about how we state it and teach it.

But this pursuit has also caused me to see many of the more common errors taught by Protestants who hold to this principle. Some Protestant evangelicals make amazing claims about the Bible, especially when it comes to interpreting Scripture. In their desire to avoid various forms of interpretation (allegory comes to mind) embraced by the whole church throughout her history they sometimes fall into grievous errors. One such egregious error was made by a now deceased professor of mine who also became a personal friend. He once lectured for our ministerial meeting here in the Chicago area. In his lecture on Scripture he said:

We don’t criticize the apostolic use of the Old Testament in the New because the apostles were inspired but we cannot follow it because  they were wrong.

I am not misquoting my departed friend. So amazing was this claim that I have discussed it now and again with friends. (This professor actually wrote a book on the Old Testament in the New!) When my dear friend, Fr,. Wilbur Ellsworth, once a Baptist and now an Orthodox priest, brought his up to me a few days ago I was mortified by its conclusion once again. I asked myself, “What made a brilliant man make such a statement?” What my friend was seeking to uphold was a particularly evangelical view of how to interpret the Bible literally. I believe in this case his view of Scripture had gone wrong.

I am again reminded that Catholic and Orthodox Christians read the Bible as the Word of God. This is why I am especially delighted when I see all of us reading and discussing Holy Scripture. For now we disagree about the nature of biblical authority but we can agree on far more than we realized not too long ago. This will remain true so long as we keep talking and listening. By talking and listening we can still learn and so long as we are learning there is room to grow in knowledge and the grace of God. A true ecumenist doesn’t have all the answers but knows the way forward. After all the central message of Holy Scripture is the same for us all – God is love and Christ died for our sins, was raised on the third day, and ascended to the Father from where he will come again at the end of this age. He thus came to redeem all who trust in Him!

The Supreme Authority of Scripture

A major tenet of Protestant theology is the authority and finality of the biblical revelation. This principle is often poorly stated but the essential point is that Scripture serves as the supreme court in all matters of faith and practice.

For some all one needs to do is quote a verse and the issue is settled. For others they are aware of the difficulty of some questions and realize Scripture does not directly address some doctrinal and ethical issues with complete clarity. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts this principle rather clearly:

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

Here, and elsewhere, the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura reflects a nuanced tension between the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture necessary for final authority, and the occasional need for its meaning to be revealed by careful exposition (Hebrews 5:12).

The errors made by many Protestants regarding this truth are too numerous to engage in through one post. They are legion and they are often extreme.

Sola scriptura teaches that the only doctrines which should be admitted or confessed are found directly within Scripture or indirectly therein by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning discovered within scripture. But, and this is vitally important, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion! This is the error large numbers of modern evangelicals have made by appealing wrongly to sola scriptura. What the principle simply says is that all other authorities are subordinate to, and to be corrected by, the written word of God.

Another major error is to believe that sola scriptura ignores Christian history and tradition when interpreting the Bible. In principle the doctrine sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice but not the only authority. Martin Luther thus said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so.

One of the more important aspects of this doctrine is the idea of efficacy of Scripture. Scripture, united with the power of the Holy Spirit, not only demands, but creates the acceptance of its clear teaching. Thus a proper teaching of Scripture produces faith and obedience. The Holy Scripture is not a dead letter, an academic tool box. By the power of the Holy Spirit inherent in its witness it is powerful and living in the human soul. Put more clearly, Scripture compels more than intellectual assent to its doctrine. By the power of the Spirit it works to create the living agreement of faith. The Smalcald Articles affirm, "in those things which concern the spoken, outward Word, we must firmly hold that God grants His Spirit or grace to no one, except through or with the preceding outward Word.” This statement does not deny that divine revelation comes through other means (e.g., in nature, etc.) but simply affirms that the spoken teaching of the Christian faith must firmly hold to the canon of the written Scriptures and then proceed in the power of the Spirit.

I do not write these things to debate with Catholic apologists, though they any are welcome to disagree and post their response. What I write these things to establish a basic principle, one I believe taught by the Reformers and the early church Fathers as well. While Luther’s doctrine of faith, at least as he put it, is not clearly found in the writings of the earliest Christian theologians (Alister McGrath has established this beyond any reasonable doubt in his magnum opus, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification), the doctrine of the authority and finality of the Holy Scripture is abundantly evident in the writing of early church fathers. Consider these few quotations:

We have received the disposition of our salvation by no others, but those by whom the Gospel came to us; which they then preached, and afterwards by God's will delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and ground of our faith. (St. Irenaeus, Lib. III. c. 1)

Let the shop of Hermogenes prove that what it advances is written; or if it be not written, let it fear the malediction uttered against those who dare to add or to retrench. (Tertullian c. 160-240, adv. Hermog.)

There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Sacred Scriptures. For as he, who would profess the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise attain it, unless he read the doctrines of the philosophers; so whosoever will
exercise piety towards God, can learn it no where but from the Holy Scriptures. (St. Hippolytus c. 170-c.235, adv. Noetum, c. IX)

In the two testaments every word that pertaineth unto God may be sought and discussed, and out of them all knowledge of things may be understood. And if anything remains which Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third scripture ought to be received to authorize any knowledge, but we must “commit to the fire” what remains, that is, reserve it unto God. (Origen c. 185-c.254, Hom. in Lev.)

When I arrived in the district of Arsinoe, when as you know this notion had long been widely held, so that schisms and secessions of entire churches had taken place, I called a meeting of the presbyters and teachers of the village congregations, with any laymen who wished to attend, and urged them to thrash out the question in public. So they brought me this book as positive and irrefutable proof, and I sat with them for three days on end from
dawn to dusk, criticizing its contents point by point. In the process I was immensely impressed by the essential soundness, complete sincerity, logical grasp, and mental clarity shown by these good people, as we methodically and good-temperedly dealt with questions, objections, and points of agreement. We refused to cling with pig-headed determination to opinions once held even if proved wrong. There was no shirking of difficulties, but to the limit of our powers we tried to grapple with the problems and master them; nor were we too proud, if worsted in argument, to abandon our position and admit defeat; conscientiously, honestly, and with simple-minded trust in God, we accepted the conclusions to be drawn from the proofs and teachings of Holy Writ. (Eusebius, in The History of the Church, quoting Dionysius c. 200-c. 265, bishop of Alexandria)

The holy and divinely inspired writings are sufficient of themselves alone to make known the truth. (St. Athanasius 296-373, Orat. Contr. Gent. Tom. I)

If you desire a new quotation, if you pretend to affirm anything besides what is written, why do you dispute with us, who are resolved to hear nothing, and to say nothing, besides what is written? (St. Athanasius, De Incarn. Chr.)

The Hope of Future Life

I am amazed at how easily people speak of life after death with no real basis for what they think or say. It is apparent that Christian thought has so permeated our culture that even when Christian thought no longer holds prominence in morals, or in day-to-day decision making and living, people still cling to the Christian idea of life after death. Simply put, they believe they will go to heaven, whatever and wherever it is in the universe. Their views of heaven are undefined, or ill-defined, but they speak of it all the time at funerals and when they think of a deceased relative or friend. In fact, the requirement for going to heaven now seems to be simple: you die!

An extremely important part of Christian faith is the hope of triumph over death. It is common to most people, even in other religions and systems, to believe that they will live again after this life is over. There is no evidence that any other creature has such a belief or practice as humans. But what must be continually kept in mind is that there is all the difference in the world between a hope that has reasonable grounds and a hope that is a simply wishful thought. J. B. Phillips said, “In plain sober fact, our hope of passing through death to share in God’s eternal life rests upon Christ’s own demonstration with the enemy, his rising from the dead. It is the crux of the Christian faith.” If Christ was not raised then all his claims are false or irrelevant.

Sooner or later you have to make up your mind. Do you accept as sober historical fact the resurrection of Jesus from the dead? If you think at all you will soon realize there is little basis for your own life after death, and certainly for your own resurrection and the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21 – 22:4), unless Jesus was truly raised as claimed by the early disciples.

What launched the Christian Church into the ancient world? When I stood in an ancient second century church meeting place in Rome, back in March, I realized in a wholly different and powerful way that these believers gathered in this spot, over the remains of the cult of Mithraism, precisely because they believed Jesus was alive and still with them by the Spirit as he had promised.

The Gospel Is Completely Antithetical to Our Way of Thinking

For some years I have believed the gospel is good news about Jesus and his reign in this world and in the world to come. Thus we pray as our Lord taught us to pray: “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” The gospel of the kingdom is not about grasping facts, repeating words or saying some version of the “Roman Road” with proof texts that invite a closing prayer. Do not misunderstand me -- the death, burial and resurrection of the man Jesus are historical realities, not pious myths. This man from Nazareth was more than a mortal man, which we forget he really was in some churches. He was, and is, divine. I hold to an orthodox Christology. But the gospel is much more than Christology, especially when Christology is understood simply as “right beliefs” about the person of Jesus Christ.

The living truth of the gospel is something that we access through a faith journey, a journey that is antithetical to human certainty. This journey may/will bring us to make clear doctrinal statements but these statements are not the gospel. Remember, you can believe all the right things and not know Jesus. It is only as we step out in faith into the things to which God calls us that we experience God’s faithfulness, but this step is always taken in uncertainty and with a lack of full understanding. Faith is not an irrational leap in the dark but it is not a rational grasp of beliefs either. Faith is not anti-rational but it does transcend reason. The ancient mystics always understood this point. So did the Reformed thinker Jonathan Edwards. But few modern Christians understand it at all.

Most modern religion supplanted this type of spiritual journey and claimed that faith was believing in the truth of certain sacred doctrines. Or faith was hearing these truths and accepting them by the will. But all of this is very different from the kind of faith the gospel calls us to in Jesus. Jesus never associates faith with a belief in sacred doctrines. Instead of doctrinal beliefs that offer certainty, Jesus simply says, “Follow me.” That’s it.

When we follow Jesus we discover a God that is very different from what we had anticipated based upon religion or human/biblical forms of faith. The Jesus that religion and theology present to us is often very different from the Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This religious Jesus that we follow is very often a tribal Jesus who shares our values and conforms to our notions of right and wrong. He punishes evildoers and rewards good people who believe the right things and practice the right kind of behavior. (Quite often such good people are those who are most like us since we believe that we have the truth and understand the mystery of true faith! This is why we keep creating new denominations and movements.)

The problem with this is clear. We make Jesus into our likeness and ignore all the things that he says that seem strange and mysterious to our way of religion. We convince ourselves that he did not really mean it when he said we are to turn the other cheek and love our enemies. And we cannot comprehend how the last are really not first and the first are actually last so we spiritualize this saying to make it fit our religion. We especially have a hard time believing that God is “kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.” And we fiercely debate how Jesus could speak as true God and pray for his torturers to be forgiven while he was on the cross. This is just too foreign to our human understanding. Consequently, we go on imagining a Jesus who will fit nicely into our fearful and limited understanding. This is so much easier than believing in a Jesus who changes our understanding in order that we might come to know the mystery of God’s mercy.