The Magnum Opus of the Reformation: Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation; Part 2
Listen to the lesson or download audio file.
Welcome truth lovers to Blog Talk radio .com/False Reformation, this is your host Paul M. Dohse Sr. Tonight, part 2 of “The Magnum Opus of the Reformation: Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation.”
Greetings from the Potters House and TANC ministries where we are always eager to serve all of your heterodox needs. Our teaching catalogue can be found at tancpublishing.com.
If you would like to add to our lesson or ask a question, call (347) 855-8317. Remember to turn your PC volume down to prevent feedback.
Per the usual, we will check in with Susan towards the end of the show and listen to her perspective.
Remember, you may remain anonymous. When I say, “This is your host; you are on the air, what’s your comment or question—just start talking.
If you would like to comment on our subject tonight, you can also email me at paul@ttanc.com. That’s Tom, Tony, Alice, Nancy, cat, paul@ttanc.com. I have my email monitor right here and can add your thoughts to the lesson without need for you to call in. You can post a question as well.
Last week we did pretty well; we began with an introduction and completed the first two theses. Tonight, we begin with thesis 3.
Thesis 3: Although the works of man always seem attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins.
Human works appear attractive outwardly, but within they are filthy, as Christ says concerning the Pharisees in Matt. 23:27. For they appear to the doer and others good and beautiful, yet God does not judge according to appearances but searches »the minds and hearts« (Ps. 7:9). For without grace and faith it is impossible to have a pure heart. Acts 15:9: »He cleansed their hearts by faith.«
The thesis is proven in the following way: If the works of righteous men are sins, as Thesis 7 of this disputation states, this is much more the case concerning the works of those who are not righteous. But the just speak in behalf of their works in the following way: »Do not enter into judgment with thy servant, Lord, for no man living is righteous before thee« (Ps. 143:2). The Apostle speaks likewise in Gal. 3:10, »All who rely on the works of the law are under the curse.« But the works of men are the works of the law, and the curse will not be placed upon venial sins. Therefore they are mortal sins. In the third place, Rom. 2:21 states, »You who teach others not to steal, do you steal?« St. Augustine interprets this to mean that men are thieves according to their guilty consciences even if they publicly judge or reprimand other thieves.
In this third thesis, Luther declares ALL works of men evil. That includes the works of believers as well. Again, we come to a paramount tenet of the Reformation; total depravity does not only pertain to mankind in general, but also the saints. Even though the works of men appear “good and beautiful” (eerily similar to Plato’s trinity of the good, true, and beautiful), they are evil:
If the works of righteous men are sins, as Thesis 7 of this disputation states, this is much more the case concerning the works of those who are not righteous.
By the way, this is synonymous with the Calvin Institutes 3.14.9-11. Luther hints in this thesis in regard to why all the works of men can be deemed wicked: they are under the law, and no man can keep the law perfectly:
But the works of men are the works of the law…
This is another way of saying that Christians remain under the law just like unbelievers, and since no person can keep the law perfectly, all bets are off. The Calvin Institutes 3.14.10 is an in-depth articulation of this idea. This is amazing because it’s right here where Reformed soteriology falls completely apart and turns the whole Bible upside down. Right here, you are looking at it. It’s the idea that Christians cannot perform a good work because they are still under the law and the law demands perfect obedience.
Also, amazingly, all of the major tenets of the Reformation gospel are in this one thesis. Let’s begin with Luther’s heart theology that actually laid the foundation for the contemporary biblical counseling movement; at least what came out of Westminster’s CCEF. An illustration can be seen below.
Luther cites Matthew 23:27 and Psalms 7:9 to make the point that the outward works of men are meaningless and God looks upon the heart. In this theology, the “heart” is the seat of faith. Even though the believer can do no good work; the believer’s heart (or faith) can be pure. What Luther proffers as we move along is a purity totally disconnected from works, and purity (faith) that is strictly an ability to perceive, and depending on the Reformed camp, experience the works of God completely separate from anything man does. If we pay close attention, we see these ideas in this third thesis.
For without grace and faith it is impossible to have a pure heart.
We must continue to remember that what Luther is saying about the heart is completely disconnected from man’s ability to do a good work. Why? Because everything man does is under the law and no man can keep the law perfectly. Again…
But the works of men are the works of the law…
Everything man does whether lost or saved is under the law, and since no man can keep the law perfectly; all of his works are condemned. The next part is very important:
Acts 15:9: »He cleansed their hearts by faith.«
The heart is cleansed by faith alone, and as we will see further along in our study, Luther believed that these cleansings needed to be repeated for ongoing present sin. But a little bit of thinking will reveal it here as well. If we are still under the law, we continue to sin against the law which necessarily demands a repurification. Especially since this sin is “mortal sin.” However,
But the works of men are the works of the law, and the curse will not be placed upon venial sins. Therefore they are mortal sins.
It boils down to this: if one thinks they performed a good work or are able to perform a good work, that’s mortal (subject to death) sin. But a faith that separates itself from works is venial (forgivable) sin which must be continually sought to receive ongoing cleansing. Luther elaborates on this more in the latter theses, but note how he uses Psalm 143:2 in this regard:
»Do not enter into judgment with thy servant, Lord, for no man living is righteous before thee«
To not completely depend on faith alone, and thinking that you can do a good work is being under the curse of the law:
Gal. 3:10, »All who rely on the works of the law are under the curse.« But the works of men are the works of the law, and the curse will not be placed upon venial sins.
So there is no middle ground; one either depends totally on faith or on works. The belief that one can do a good work is tantamount to being cursed.
This third thesis is the very heart of the Reformation: no man can do a good work, and to believe that is pure faith apart from any good works. Again, faith and good works are separated. Now you know why Luther didn’t like the book of James. The premise for this is the supposed fact that believers remain under law which is a glaring contradiction to Scripture. The “heart” is the seat of pure faith apart from any works; faith and works are mutually exclusive throughout the life of the “believer.”
Thesis 4: Although the works of God are always unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits.
That the works of God are unattractive is clear from what is said in Isa. 53:2, »He had no form of comeliness«, and in 1 Sam. 2:6, »The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.« This is understood to mean that the Lord humbles and frightens us by means of the law and the sight of our sins so that we seem in the eyes of men, as in our own, as nothing, foolish, and wicked, for we are in truth that. Insofar as we acknowledge and confess this, there is »no form or beauty« in us, but our life is hidden in God (i.e. in the bare confidence in his mercy), finding in ourselves nothing but sin, foolishness, death, and hell, according to that verse of the Apostle in 2 Cor. 6:9-10, »As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as dying, and behold we live.« And that it is which Isa. 28:21 calls the »alien work« of God »that he may do his work« (that is, he humbles us thoroughly, making us despair, so that he may exalt us in his mercy, giving us hope), just as Hab. 3:2 states, »In wrath remember mercy.« Such a man therefore is displeased with all his works; he sees no beauty, but only his depravity. Indeed, he also does those things which appear foolish and disgusting to others.
This depravity, however, comes into being in us either when God punishes us or when we accuse ourselves, as 1 Cor. 11:31 says, »If we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged by the Lord«. Deut. 32:36 also states, »The Lord will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants.« In this way, consequently, the unattractive works which God does in us, that is, those which are humble and devout, are really eternal, for humility and fear of God are our entire merit.
Here we have the Reformed mainstay doctrine of mortification and vivification. This is a major Reformed soteriological doctrine along with double imputation and the vital union. But in regard to M&V, here it is folks—right here. This is probably where this doctrine is first introduced.
But first, let’s look at the Reformation’s single perspective on the law also in this thesis. Luther makes it clear that the supposed sole purpose of the law is to bring man down into despair because of his total depravity:
This is understood to mean that the Lord humbles and frightens us by means of the law and the sight of our sins so that we seem in the eyes of men, as in our own, as nothing, foolish, and wicked, for we are in truth that. Insofar as we acknowledge and confess this, there is »no form or beauty« in us, but our life is hidden in God (i.e. in the bare confidence in his mercy), finding in ourselves nothing but sin, foolishness, death, and hell, according to that verse of the Apostle in 2 Cor. 6:9-10, »As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as dying, and behold we live.« And that it is which Isa. 28:21 calls the »alien work« of God »that he may do his work« (that is, he humbles us thoroughly, making us despair, so that he may exalt us in his mercy, giving us hope), just as Hab. 3:2 states, »In wrath remember mercy.« Such a man therefore is displeased with all his works; he sees no beauty, but only his depravity. Indeed, he also does those things which appear foolish and disgusting to others.
Once we use the law, and God uses circumstances to bring us into despair, that is the mortification part, God brings about vivification, or exaltation. As you can see, Luther uses 2Corithians 6:9,10 to make the case for that. This suffering is actually the good works of God as opposed to the evil works that look good to man; ie., good works done by men whether saved or unsaved. Later in this disputation Luther will define that as the story of man, or the glory story, viz, good and beautiful works done by man, versus the cross story, viz, the works of God that look unattractive. As we will see further along, this is Luther’s very definition of the new birth. The Christian life is a perpetual death (mortification) and resurrection (vivification) cycle that continually repeats itself experientially from despair to joy.
This is also the basis of John Piper’s Christian Hedonism doctrine. Joy must be part of the salvation experience because it is the upside of the perpetual new birth experience that keeps salvation moving forward by faith alone. If you only experience despair, that’s a half gospel. Many are confused by John Piper’s Christian Hedonism doctrine until they understand M&V, then it all makes perfect sense why joy must be part of the salvation experience. Contemporary Reformers state it this way:
Progressive sanctification has two parts: mortification and vivification, ‘both of which happen to us by participation in Christ,’ as Calvin notes….Subjectively experiencing this definitive reality signified and sealed to us in our baptism requires a daily dying and rising. That is what the Reformers meant by sanctification as a living out of our baptism….and this conversion yields lifelong mortification and vivification ‘again and again.’ Yet it is critical to remind ourselves that in this daily human act of turning, we are always turning not only from sin but toward Christ rather than toward our own experience or piety (Michael Horton: The Christian Faith; mortification and vivification, pp. 661-663 [Calvin Inst. 3.3.2-9]).
At conversion, a person begins to see God and himself as never before. This greater revelation of God’s holiness and righteousness leads to a greater revelation of self, which, in return, results in a repentance or brokenness over sin. Nevertheless, the believer is not left in despair, or he is also afforded a greater revelation of the grace of God in the face of Christ, which leads to joy unspeakable. This cycle simply repeats itself throughout the Christian life. As the years pass, the Christian sees more of God and more of self, resulting in a greater and deeper brokenness. Yet, all the while, the Christian’s joy grows in equal measure because he is privy to greater and greater revelations of the love, grace, and mercy of God in the person and work of Christ. Not only this, but a greater interchange occurs in that the Christian learns to rest less and less in his own performance and more and more in the perfect work of Christ. Thus, his joy is not only increased, but it also becomes more consistent and stable. He has left off putting confidence in the flesh, which is idolatry, and is resting in the virtue and merits of Christ, which is true Christian piety (Paul Washer: The Gospel Call and True Conversion; Part 1, Chapter 1, heading – The Essential Characteristics Of Genuine Repentance, subheading – Continuing and Deepening Work of Repentance).
Now, the next thesis is fairly interesting. In the fifth thesis, Luther distinguishes between crimes and mortal sins.
Thesis 5; The works of men are thus not mortal sins (we speak of works which are apparently good), as though they were crimes.
For crimes are such acts which can also be condemned before men, such as adultery, theft, homicide, slander, etc. Mortal sins, on the other hand, are those which seem good yet are essentially fruits of a bad root and a bad tree. Augustine states this in the fourth book of ›Against Julian‹ (Contra Julianum).
This is pretty straight forward. Criminal acts are NOT classified as mortal sins. Criminal acts are works that are condemned among men while mortal sins are the good works of man that are really “fruit of a bad tree.” Those of orthodoxy must deny that man does any good work at all that is not condemned by God. The belief that any man can do any kind of meritorious work falls under sin that will not be forgiven. This means that Reformed persons in the know would seek daily forgiveness for every, and all acts performed by them. It pretty much boils down to this quotation cited by a theological journal:
The flesh, or sinful nature of the believer is no different from that of the unbeliever. “The regenerate man is no whit different in substance from what He was before his regeneration.” — Bavinck [Reformed philosopher Herman Bavink] (Present Truth: Sanctification-Its Mainspring Volume 16 Article 13).
At this point it is fairly easy to draw a watershed conclusion in all of this: the lynchpin idea of the Reformation was that salvation can only be obtained and maintained with a righteousness not our own, but also the exclusion of righteous acts performed by us. At this point, there is only one way forward: a mystical manifestation of works performed by deity; Martin Luther’s Alien Righteousness. This necessarily demanded and still demands a discussion of a philosophical ideology to make manifestation and realm birthing feasible. The Heidelberg Disputation not only does that, but articulates the theoretical life application and how these manifestations are experiences in reality. Luther was very concise in that regard while anticipating future objections.
Thesis 6: The works of God (we speak of those which he does through man) are thus not merits, as though they were sinless.
In Eccles. 7:20, we read, »Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.« In this connection, however, some people say that the righteous man indeed sins, but not when he does good. They may be refuted in the following manner: If that is what this verse wants to say, why waste so many words? Or does the Holy Spirit like to indulge in loquacious and foolish babble? For this meaning would then be adequately expressed by the following: »There is not a righteous man on earth who does not sin.« Why does he add »who does good,« as if another person were righteous who did evil? For no one except a righteous man does good. Where, however, he speaks of sins outside the realm of good works he speaks thus (Prov. 24:16), »The righteous man falls seven times a day.« Here he does not say: A righteous man falls seven times a day when he does good. This is a comparison: If someone cuts with a rusty and rough hatchet, even though the worker is a good craftsman, the hatchet leaves bad, jagged, and ugly gashes. So it is when God works through us.
Luther’s rusty and rough hatchet is an interesting metaphysical illustration. Notice carefully who the “’good’ craftsman” is. That can’t be us, right? Right, we are the rusty and rough hatchet. A hatchet, like all other tools, is a completely passive instrument. It has no life of its own. It only does what the craftsman does with it. Like one Reformed teacher said to me, “The Christian life is done to us not by us.”
Also, the hatchet doesn’t get any credit for the work, but only the good craftsman using the axe. This is Luther’s cardinal point of the thesis. This is a strict metaphysical dichotomy of good and evil with man defining evil and God defining good (The Calvin Institutes 1.1.1.). All manifestations of good on earth must come from above, and no good can be in man or come out of man.
Of course, this makes God the creator of rusty and rough hatchets; ie., sin and evil, but remember, as Luther stated, the good work of the craftsman only appears to be evil to us, right?
Although there is no room in this series to unravel every Scripture text that Luther twisted for his own purposes, I will speak to his use of Ecclesiastes 7:20 to make his point. All that verse is really saying is that man needs wisdom because he is not sinless and is prone to erroneous ways and death without wisdom. It’s not saying that no man does any good work. The idea in the text as noted by translations like NASB follows: no man does only good exclusively.
A thought before we go to the phones for you who are aware of our ministry’s dustup this week with the Wartburg Watch. Some folks from over there came over to PPT claiming that we have no orthodoxed credentials; therefore, apparently, our views are not relevant. Well, two things: if this is not orthodoxy, what is? And secondly, how can people claim to be advocates for the abused when they hold to this doctrine? They are either blowhards that don’t even understand what they are talking about, or they do understand. Which is it? Let’s go to the phones.
Why the Protestant Gospel Cannot Save: Todd Friel Defends Josh Duggar
Todd Friel is a Reformed radio host and also MC for some very prestigious Reformed conferences. The name of Friel’s radio show is simply “Wretched.” The title is predicated on authentic Protestant soteriology: the new birth ONLY changes a person’s ability to see how wretched they are.
It’s not that the person doesn’t change per se; their ability to see the depths of their depravity improves. However, the saved person possesses no righteousness; ALL righteousness remains outside of the saved person. This is Martin Luther’s alien righteousness.
Because Protestantism is a super-cult that uses deceptive communication for the sole purpose of deceiving, Luther’s alien righteousness is often framed as “having no righteousness of our own.” Hence, the hearer is allowed to assume that “our own” denies that the means of righteousness originated with the believer. The biblical definition of the new birth is therefore deliberately skewed. The gift of new life is framed as an ownership issue rather than a supernatural embodiment of new being. To believe we are righteous is to make ourselves equal with God.
At any rate, and via many truisms, Protestants seek to keep the new birth in an ambiguous light. To say that we have “the righteousness of Christ” can be interpreted many different ways in regard to the new birth, and that is the idea. The goal is to keep people in a sliding mode of assumption until they are fully indoctrinated. This is Cult 101. For example, the assumption that Protestant pastors talk about the gospel every Sunday “because there might be some lost people present or members who are self-deceived.” Eventually, this assumption leads you to where they want to take you—you need the gospel every day to keep yourself saved and the gospel is only legit in the institutional church.
Another favorite deceptive truism is the idea that we focus on our depravity so that we will appreciate our salvation more, and then all obedience is sanctified and flows from “gratitude.” This seems perfectly logical, but wait a minute, what is the nature of the obedience if we are totally depraved to begin with? If a totally depraved person can obey, doesn’t that make them at least partially righteous?
Very good question, but most Protestants have been conditioned to not think that deeply, and are temporarily satisfied with such an answer until they are fully indoctrinated.
The citations from Friel’s defense of Duggar speak to what I am saying above. Yes, the disaster here, according to Friel, is not that the Gentiles have cause to blaspheme God because of the molestation of children, but rather…
There are two groups of people who should not be shocked to discover that a member of the Duggar family is a sinner: Christians and non-Christians. Surprisingly, both camps seemed to be surprised by this revelation.
That is what makes the Josh Duggar story a disaster.
Remember, this guy is not a Reformed lightweight by any stretch of the imagination, and often partakes in ministry projects with the likes of John MacArthur Jr. and RC Sproul.
He continues…
Based on his own admission, Josh sinned, repented and got saved. Why in the world would Christians be appalled to discover an unregenerate 14-year-old boy acted wickedly?
According to Josh himself, “I sought forgiveness from those I had wronged and asked Christ to forgive me and come into my life.” Sounds like a pretty typical conversion story to me.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (I Cor.6:9-11).
Have we forgotten that the Apostle Paul was a murderer before God saved him?
It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life (I Tim.1:15-16).
Stop right there. Notice how Friel proffers an angle that we would all agree with: what the guy did was horrible, but it led to his salvation. He even cites verses that speak of the behavior in the past tense. But then watch what he does in the very next sentence,
Josh is no worse than the Apostle Paul. Josh should not be shunned by Christians; he should be comforted by Christians who are just as wicked and just as forgiven as he is. Josh is nothing more, and nothing less, than a story of God’s amazing grace.
See how he slides from the past tense to the present tense without a transition? Something changes, but obviously NOT our nature. People are left to assume what the specifics of the changes are. Folks, this is classic cultic communication.
And…
This might be the bigger tragedy of the Josh Duggar story: unbelievers consider it a bombshell when it is discovered that a Christian has a shameful past. This ought not to be.
If we Christians were doing our job proclaiming that the Gospel is for sinners, of whom we are the foremost, the world would yawn when it discovered that Josh was a hound dog.
If Christians were as loud about the Gospel as we are about being the moral majority, I suspect there would be five results:
- Unbelievers would not see Josh Duggar as a hypocrite; they would see him as a typical born-again believer who is forgiven by an amazingly gracious God.
- Unbelievers would not see Christians as a mere special interest group that seeks to impose values on other people.
- The Gospel would be shining brightly.
- Somebody might get saved.
- Josh Duggar and his family would be going about their business today as a typical Christian family saved by grace alone.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that any of those things are happening. I don’t blame the world; I blame us.
Is it possible we have become so obsessed with imposing our values on unbelievers that the world sees us as self-righteous Pharisees and not as blood-washed sinners?
Have we been so consumed by the culture wars that we have failed to engage in the spiritual battle for souls?
Notice again how Friel confuses the past condition of Christians with the present. A difference is delineated, yet it’s not defined; the change that takes place is ambiguous, and the logical conclusion cannot assume an actual ability to be righteous. Really, it boils down to a mere positional status rather than an actual change of being.
However, in his closing paragraph, Friel leaves no doubt as to the identity of believers in Reformed soteriology:
Josh tendered his resignation to the Family Research Council and they accepted it. While none of us know all of the details, if Josh were in my employ, I would not have accepted his resignation.
I would have shouted from the rooftops, “If you think Josh is wicked, you should meet the rest of us! That is why we are Christians! We need forgiveness for being wretched, vile, wicked rebels. If you are a rebel too, Jesus died for you! Run to Jesus! Join the wretched club.”
Let’s not squander this opportunity to share the great good news that Jesus died for perverts, liars, thieves, drunkards, abortionists, Wall Street fat cats, skid row bums, suburban housewives, blue collar workers and every sinner who will come to Him in repentance and faith.
Josh Duggar’s story is more than a Gospel tragedy; it is a Gospel opportunity. Don’t waste it.
This gospel cannot save, and will only attract those who do not want to undergo the radical change of new birth. It will only attract those who think they can sin all the more so grace will abound.
paul
If You Don’t Have “A Righteousness of Your Own,” You Are Condemned
“And frankly, that’s exactly what Protestantism teaches: that righteousness is on loan from Jesus.”
In vogue among evangelicals is the idea that we have no righteousness of our own. If we lay claim to a good work that pleases God, we must sanctify it with, “It wasn’t I who did it—it was Jesus working through the Spirit.”
To take credit for a good work is to steal the glory from God, and lay claim to a “righteousness of our own.” This idea is rooted in Martin Luther’s alien righteousness. It is the belief that all righteousness remains outside of the believer.
The result is a confused endeavor to do Christianity without doing anything; after all, “The just shall live by faith.” Therefore, Protestantism still struggles in the clarification of how we do Christianity without doing anything; after all, “It’s not about our doing, it’s about what He has done.” Protestantism is fraught with these doing it without doing it truisms.
Actually, Luther and Calvin articulated how the Christian life is done without doing, but Protestantism wouldn’t be any more popular than the Branch Davidians if Protestants knew the true tenets of Protestantism.
But here is the primary problem: Protestantism is a slick works salvation gospel. Basically, it turns doing nothing into a work; you do nothing to keep yourself saved. People assume that doing nothing with intentionality to obtain an objective is not doing anything. In reality, doing nothing is still doing something; it’s a “choice,” and deciding to do something or not do something is doing something in both cases.
The linchpin is Protestantism’s redefinition of the new birth which is redefined as an ability to better see what we can’t do, rather than a new creature who does things because of who we are.
Hence, if we have no righteousness of our own, we are condemned. If you are the least bit familiar with the New Testament, you know of the interpretive duo of “gift” and “reward.” Once you receive a gift, you own it, right? Salvation and the righteousness that comes with it is a GIFT. Rewards come in this life and the life to come as a result of how we put the gift that we now own into use. Primarily, the Bible calls that “love.”
But now think with me for a moment. If something is not a gift, what is it? Right, it’s a loan, and what do we know about loans? Right, you have to pay them back. And frankly, that’s exactly what Protestantism teaches: that righteousness is on loan from Jesus. We have no righteousness of our own; we only have the righteousness of Jesus. The gift of righteousness is really righteousness on loan from Jesus, and we receive the benefits by antinomian faith alone payments (doing nothing).
Let’s clarify the Protestant payments a little more. Because of this construct, Protestants have to categorize works into two categories: works of self-righteousness, and faith alone works. Faith alone works usually consist of praying, faithfulness to church attendance, tithing, and behaving well at church. Works of self-righteousness are pretty much everything else, but particularly thinking that you know something well enough to debate the pastor.
Because Protestantism denies that we own the gift of righteousness, they must now define REWARD as final salvation, and they most certainly do in no uncertain terms. Think about that: the final equation of Luther’s alien righteousness is salvation as reward for living by faith alone. That’s a huge problem.
One of the keys to understanding all of this is Hebrews 6:10,
“For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do.”
Why would it be “unjust” for God to “overlook” YOUR “work”? Because you have earned it. This isn’t complicated: salvation/righteousness is a gift that you can’t earn, but nevertheless this righteousness is part and parcel with your new being, and you are rewarded for how you put it to use for love’s sake.
The conclusion of the matter is simple: Protestantism is a false gospel that circumvents love because we supposedly have no righteousness of our own. It makes ownership synonymous with being the originators of righteousness which also defies the reality of a “gift” as well.
paul
Are Christians Truly Righteous? Yes, Because Jesus DID NOT Die for All of Our Sins
The weak sanctification/kingdom living among Christians is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the new birth. Once again, I was involved in a debate last week with several professing Christians who understand the new birth to be an idiom for our sins being covered rather than ended. Rather than being made, or recreated righteous, we still have sin that separates us from grace and requires an “imputation” of an “alien righteousness.” Our sins are only covered and we remain fundamentally unchanged.
Per the usual, the debate included Baptist pastors and missionaries which of course is completely terrifying. Wonder why your little Baptist church is dying a slow death? A false gospel perhaps?
Ask many professing Christians if Christ died for our present and future sins and they will look at you like it is the stupidest question they have ever heard in their whole life, but this is indicative of the overall ignorance concerning the true gospel among professing Protestants.
Christ came to end the law, and where there is no law there is no sin. Christ only died for sins that are under law. When you are saved you are no longer under law—there is no penalty to be paid for any sin that is not under law. That is the legal aspect, but it is also the reality of being.
The new birth puts the old person to death with Christ. A dead person is no longer under law. And where there is no law there is no sin. All sin is against the law; that is, the law of sin and death. That law no longer applies to the believer for two reasons: Christ ended it on the cross, and a dead man is no longer under the law. What happens when the Police find out a suspect is dead? Case closed. This is along the exact same line of argument Paul makes in Romans 7.
But there is also a resurrection. Even though the body of sin has been brought to nothing, and those who have died have ceased from sin, the soul of the believer is quickened (regeneration) and now is free to “serve another.” Who is the new person now free to serve? His/her new master, the law of the Spirit of life. The law is now our guide to love God and others—it cannot condemn us. We were indifferent to the law when we were under it and it was condemning us, but now we love it (see Psalms 119).
If Christ died for our present and future sins, we are still under the law of sin and death. The law of sin and death is not ended—we are still under it, and in fact, Christ’s death needs to be applied to any present or future sin we commit—we are therefore not under grace.
This denies the new birth. We have not ceased from sin because we never really died with Christ. The sin we presently commit is not merely family sin that can bring chastisement from our Father—that sin can actually condemn us. There is still condemnation for those who love God.
A verse often quoted to refute the literal new birth and the ending of the law of sin and death is 2Corinthians 5:21.
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (KJV).
The idea in citing this verse is that the only righteousness we have is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. Christ not only came to die for our sins, but instead of ending the law of sin and death, he came to obey it perfectly so that His obedience (righteousness) can be credited to our account because we are not literally righteous and fall short of obeying the law of sin and death perfectly. 1John 1:9 is often added to 2Corinthians 5:21 to make the case.
Moreover, this perfect obedience and His death must be reapplied to any new sin we commit against the still active law of sin and death. Hence, any obedience to the law done by us can only bring about death—we are not free to serve the law of the Spirit of life (Romans 8:2).
So, we have no righteousness of our own, and are not recreated righteous. We only have the righteousness of God, who is also Christ, so being interpreted: we are not righteous or recreated, but merely covered by the righteousness of Christ. “In Christ” means that the righteousness of God and the righteousness of Christ are the same thing.
This idea not only turns the true gospel completely on its head for a number of reasons, but 2Corithians 5:21 is saying the exact opposite.
“In Christ” means that Christ made it possible for God to recreate believers as truly righteous beings through the baptism of the Spirit. Christ died on the cross so that we could die with Him and no longer be under the law of sin and death. Christ died for us so that we could die with Him. Christ was then resurrected by the Spirit so that we could be resurrected with Him as new creatures that are truly righteous. This is what 2Corithians 5:21 is saying.
The two words translated “made” in said verse are two different Greek words. The first in regard to Christ being made sin is the word poieō which, for the most part is the idea of assignment or appointment. The meaning has a wide use and is ambiguous. Not so much with the word ginomai used in regard to us being made the righteousness of God. The word means to make something, or create something completely. For example, this is how the word is used in Matthew 4:3…
If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.
“Become” is the same word, and how it is used is obvious. Satan wasn’t demanding that Christ declare the stones to be loaves of bread in some kind of forensic declaration, he was demanding that Christ recreate the stones as bread. Nor was this going to be a gradual process of transforming the stones into bread, but would have been a final complete act. Get the picture?
2Corinthians 5:21 is simply stating that Christ made it possible for God to recreate us to be the same righteousness that defines our Father because we are truly born of Him—that’s the gospel.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
6 comments