The Lamb’s Wife, Part 2 by Andy Young
In part one of this series, we examined the notion of the “church” being the “bride of Christ” and how this is a false doctrine. We examined from scripture that the “Lamb” does indeed have a “wife”, but the “wife” is actually the New Jerusalem come down from heaven, according to Revelation 21. We also compared two parables which portrayed elements of a traditional Jewish wedding. These parables reveal that the assembly, which is made up of converted Jews as well as Gentiles from every nation, is not the “bride”, but they are the “guests” at the wedding.
This would seem pretty straightforward. Despite the fact that a simple search of scripture reveals that the expression “bride of Christ” is nowhere to be found, this doctrine continues to breathe life. Contributing to this is the existence of several New Testament passages that seem to refer to the “church” in “spousal” terms.
I’ll tackle the easy one first. But this one also requires the most exegesis and so it will require the most space in this article. It is probably also the most familiar and widely used to support the “bride of Christ” doctrine.
Ephesians 5:22-33
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.”
Now, the first thing I want us to do is for us to read this passage with the correct terms. So, read through that passage again, and in each place where you see the word “church”, replace it with “assembly”. Believe me, this will have a tremendous impact on the way you understand this passage. “Church” connotes building, place, institution. “Assembly” connotes “body”, for that is the meaning of the word. It is a “called out” body of individuals. It is also a secular, political term. A political body of individuals called together to accomplish a specific task. Moreover, this assembly is the “Body of Christ”, and that is especially significant in this passage.
Paul reinforces this idea at the end of verse 23 when he says “and he is the saviour of the body.” This is not a stand-alone statement. And it is not a reference to your physical body or mine. It is a parenthetical clause that further establishes the main clause just prior to it. Notice the colon that appears at the end of the previous clause.
“Christ is the head of the [assembly, ‘called-out ones’]:”
The very next clause modifies this statement.
“- and he is the saviour of the body”
This is the actual Greek word for “body”, σωμα (“soma”). The structure of the end of this verse is interesting. The word “and” is the Greek word και (“kai”), and it is used as a joining word, just like a conjunction creates a list or connects words or clauses or ideas. It is also used to show equivalence or parallel thought. This kind of writing style is common in Hebrew writing, especially in poetry, this parallelism. And you can see Paul’s Hebraic style of writing in the parallelism in this verse. Paul is stating that Christ is the head of the assembly, and furthermore, not only is He the head, He is the Savior of the whole body of the assembly. In this one verse, Paul has established that the assembly is the body and Christ is the head. Paul is not establishing a husband/wife relationship, he is establishing a head/body relationship. Keep this relationship in your mind because I’ll say more on this in a bit.
Now, when someone wants to make the case that the “church” is the “bride of Christ”, they usually go right to verse 24 and pull this one particular phrase out of context:
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church,…”
Their reasoning goes something like this:
“Husband” is to “wife” as “Christ” is to “church”
Therefore:
Christ = husband
church = wife
Therefore:
The church is the bride (wife) of Christ.
And while that may seem to be a reasonable logical conclusion, it fails because it is beginning with the wrong premise which results from failing to understand the context of the entire passage. Paul is instructing men on how to love their wives, but he is not using a metaphor of a husband/wife relationship. He is using the metaphor of a head/body relationship. The reasoning of the metaphor is better understood like this:
Husbands are to love their wives
– How do they do that?
Well, no man hates his own body.
Man loves himself (i.e. his body).
Therefore, love your wife in the same way you love your own body.
This is the context of the entire passage. Period. Nothing more. It’s that simple. Now Paul goes on to elaborate on that point by giving examples of how one loves their own body. He says that man shows that he loves his body because he feeds it and nourishes it and cherishes it. Thus, men thus show love to their wives by treating them just as they would their own body, by feeding, nourishing, and cherishing. Obviously he means from an emotional standpoint.
To further emphasize his point about loving one’s own body, Paul draws a comparison to Christ and the assembly. Christ is the head, and the assembly is the body. Just as a man loves his own body, Christ also loves His own body, which is the assembly. Christ also shows his love towards His body/assembly by feeding, nourishing, and cherishing it. And Paul is also quick to point out that Christ gave himself for His body/assembly. More than that, He also sanctified and cleansed it. How? With the washing of water by the word. These are the very same words that Jesus prayed to the Father in John 17:17, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth!” once again showing that the believer is sanctified by the law.
This whole portion of the passage regarding Christ and the assembly is actually a parenthetical thought apart from the main thought. The main thought of the passage, as already pointed out, is about how men are to love their wives. But Paul digresses into this parenthetical aside as an illustration- man loves his own physical body; Christ also loves His body, the assembly of believers. It appears that Paul even recognizes that he has digressed from his main point. At the end of verse 32 there is one particular clause that sticks out,
“but I speak concerning Christ and the assembly,”
and in the very next verse we read,
“Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so [thus, in this manner] love his wife even as himself;”
Here in verse 33 Paul brings his readers back to his main point by offering a final summarizing statement: love your wife as you love your own body. To take this passage and make it a treatise on how the assembly is the “bride of Christ” is reading more into the illustration (eisegesis) than Paul intended.
There are a few other passages in the New Testament that need to be dealt with where the writer seems to be addressing the assembly in “spousal” terms, such as Romans 7:4 and 2 Corinthians 11:2, but for the sake of time, I will deal with those in part 3.
Andy
The Lamb’s Wife, Part 1 by Andy Young
A few weeks ago my family sat down together and watched Fiddler on the Roof. It is a rather long movie for young children to sit through (there were several “potty breaks”), but the little ones enjoyed the songs, and the older ones gained an appreciation for the historical context. One scene in particular depicts a traditional Jewish wedding. Please take a moment and watch the brief clip below:
Traditionally, Jewish weddings were arranged between the fathers of the proposed couple. Keep in mind, there are many details here that I am leaving out because I am trying to be brief. After the parents have come to an agreement to the marriage, the couple is considered “espoused”. This is a formal legal contract into which the couple has entered, and for all intents and purposes, the couple is considered “married” even though the marriage has not yet been consummated. This espousal period can last for up to a year. During this time, the man returns home to make preparations for his bride, and the bride-to-be prepares herself for becoming a wife. Her fidelity to her bridegroom is on display during this period as well.
On the actual wedding day, the bridegroom leads a procession of his friends through the streets of the village to go and meet the bride. This usually occurs between sunset and midnight. There is much pomp and celebration that occurs along the way, and as the procession continues, people exit their homes, bringing a torch or lamp along with them to help light the way, and so the “wedding party” grows larger and larger as more and more “guests” join in celebration with the bridegroom. The bridegroom then receives his bride, and the two, along with the entire party of friends and guests return to the bridegroom’s house where the wedding ceremony occurs with a grand feast and celebration following.
One of the major tenets of Protestant/Reformed/Catholic orthodoxy is that the “church” is the “bride of Christ”. This doctrine can be traced as far back as Augustine. But while originally a Catholic doctrine, evangelicals and fundamentalists still cling to this teaching to this day. You cannot go into any institutional church of any denomination where you won’t hear this taught or not find it in its “statement of faith”. However, what they fail to conveniently mention is that the phrase “bride of Christ” is found nowhere in the Bible. Let me repeat that – the phrase “bride of Christ” is found NOWHERE in the Bible!
This brings me to the point of this article: the doctrine of the “church” being the “bride of Christ” is a FALSE doctrine. Why is that? Because the Bible tells us who the Bride is specifically, and it is not the church! A plain grammatical interpretation of Revelation 21 reveals exactly who the Bride is.
Revelation 21:2, 9-10
“And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband…And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, ‘Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.’ And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God…”
Here in plain terms, the Bride is clearly and explicitly shown to be the New Jerusalem. The angel says, “I will show you the Bride”, and he shows John, not a body of people, but the New Jerusalem. The remaining verses of chapter 21 go on to give in great detail a description of what this city looks like. Notice that nothing is said about the inhabitants of the city. The focus of the chapter is the actual city itself. Not only does the angel tell John that this city is the Bride, but in case there was any doubt, he reinforces that fact by stating plainly that this city is the “Lamb’s wife”. So while the Bible never uses the expression, “bride of Christ”, it does use the terms “the Bride, the Lamb’s wife”. But that title is clearly given to the New Jerusalem and not the “church”.
Moreover, even the nation of Israel is not referred to as the “bride”. So if the “church” is not the “bride”, and Israel is not the “bride”, there where exactly does the church and Israel fit in to all of this? Again, scripture tells us plainly. Elements of the Jewish wedding tradition are clearly visualized when Jesus described the “Kingdom of Heaven” in the parable of the wedding feast (Matthew 22), and the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25). Let’s begin with the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22.
Matthew 22:1-10
“And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, ‘The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: and the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.’ ”
It should be fairly obvious that, as Jesus points out right at the beginning, this parable is used to describe a particular aspect of the Kingdom. In this parable, He is using the metaphor of the traditional Jewish wedding, with the wedding feast being the focus. Of course, this would have been a familiar metaphor to His audience since they were all Jews.
The theme of this parable revolves around two particular groups of people. The first group is made of those who already had invitations to participate in the wedding feast. These were the King’s special invited guests. They received their invitations first. One would think that since these people have been given such a special invitation from the King that they would not hesitate to respond. But notice what happens. On the day of the feast, none of them show up. They reject the gracious invitation. They view it with an attitude of indifference and make all kinds of excuses why they cannot attend. Some even killed the servants who were sent to them to tell them that everything was ready for them to attend the feast.
This first group is a description of national Israel. This is the very nation whose God was Jehovah, but who rejected every prophet that God sent unto them to bring them unto Himself. Stephen accused them in Acts 7:52 when he said, “Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers?” accusing them of killing Jesus, their Messiah. And for this God judged them with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. And in His wrath, God will pour out His judgment upon national Israel during the period of the Great Tribulation.
But there is a second group mentioned in this parable. Since the King made all these preparations, it was his desire to have the feast furnished with guests. So he instructed his servants to go out and issue an invitation to anyone, as many as they could find. This second group represents the nations of the world, or the Gentiles, those whom God would redeem by the blood of the Lamb out of “every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” (Revelation 5:9, 14:6) I think it is important to note that this second group would also include repentant individuals from the first group, or converted Jews.
Nevertheless, the point to take from all of this is that neither of the two groups in this parable are the bride. They are guests, and this is important. What we have is a body of individuals that make up the “church”, or using the correct Biblical term, the εκκλησια (“ekklaysia”), the “called out” (invited) assembly that makes up the Body of Christ. In this parable they are not the bride, but they are clearly the guests at the wedding.
Take a look at the second parable in Matthew 25.
Matthew 25:1-13
“Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.”
Now the point to make here with this parable is not to determine who the foolish virgins represent and who the wise virgins represent. The point is to show that all of these “virgins” represent those who would go out to join the procession of the wedding party as the bridegroom goes to meet his bride and return with her to his father’s house for the wedding feast. Refer to the video clip at the beginning of this article and you will notice all of the people who accompany the groom on his way to pick up his bride. As the procession goes through the streets of the village, more and more people come out of their houses carrying a candle or “lamp” and join the procession. Notice that this happens at “midnight” or more literally, sunset, as portrayed in the video clip. The young girls in the parable are not going to the wedding to marry the bridegroom. The bridegroom already has a bride. The young girls are simply guests at the wedding.
This is not the first instance that scripture posits this notion of wedding guests. Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19, and Luke 5:34 use the term “children of the bridechamber”, referring to Jesus’ disciples – those who were called by Christ to follow Him. That would include not only the twelve, but all those who would be saved by faith in Christ, the “ekklaysia”. In John 3:29, John the Baptist referred to himself and any others “which standeth and heareth Him as a “friend of the bridegroom”.
So in terms of the picture of a traditional Jewish wedding, all believers, members of the Body of Christ, are referred to as “guests” and “friends of the bridegroom”, but they are NOT the bride. They go out joyfully with the Bridegroom as He goes to receive His Bride. But clearly from a scriptural standpoint, the wedding guests cannot be the Bride.
Now there are questions that remain. For example, how can Christ “marry” a city? And if the “church” is not the Bride, then what about all those New Testament passages that seem to refer to the “church” in “spousal” terms? These are all valid questions, and I will seek to address them in part 2.
Andy
Calvinist Catholicism, Denial of Sanctification, Denial of the New Birth, and Distortion of the Trinity Through “Emphasis”
Originally published January 3, 2013
“Those of Reformed theology are not under grace. How do we know that? Because they say Christians are still under the dominion of sin. And plainly, according to the Bible, that equals being under the law and not under grace.”
The mystery of why sanctification is so anemic today is no longer a mystery. Traditionally, this has been the case for a long time in the Western church because the fathers of the Reformation discounted sanctification all together. Sure, they used the term, but it was disingenuous then, and continues to be such with those who use the term today. Weak sanctification leads to very unexciting lives which are no incentive to share the “new life” with others. We share what we are excited about, and being no better than what we were before our “conversion” is neither good news nor worth sharing. It seems the only thing we have to share is, “We are more humble than you because we know that we are empty vessels waiting to be filled and maybe the Lord will fill us and maybe he won’t.” Such a message just doesn’t set the world on fire.
The more I learn, the more I am convinced that there is really no difference between Catholicism and Protestantism: both are “under the law.” One is Jesus plus ritual to complete your justification and the other is Jesus plus making sure you do nothing in your sanctification to complete your justification (because the “just” shall live by faith [ALONE]). And in both cases, being faithful to the authority of the church secures your salvation. Calvin believed that we stay saved through daily repentance for daily salvation, and that forgiveness can only be found in Reformed churches:
Secondly, this passage shows that the gratuitous pardon of sins is given us not only once, but that it is a benefit perpetually residing in the Church, and daily offered to the faithful. For the Apostle here addresses the faithful; as doubtless no man has ever been, nor ever will be, who can otherwise please God, since all are guilty before him; for however strong a desire there may be in us of acting rightly, we always go haltingly to God. Yet what is half done obtains no approval with God. In the meantime, by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God. Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God” (Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. 45: Catholic Epistles).
And, Calvin’s homeboy, Luther, believed that Reformed elders have the authority to forgive sins:
Confession consists of two parts. One is that we confess our sins. The other is that we receive the absolution, that is, forgiveness, from the pastor as from God himself and by no means doubt but firmly believe that our sins are thereby forgiven before God in heaven (Timothy J. Wengert: A Contemporary Translation of Luther’s Small Catechism; Augsburg Fortress PUB 1994, p.49).
And on page 35….
Daily in this Christian church the Holy Spirit abundantly forgives all sins—mine and those of all believers. On the last day the Holy Spirit will raise me and all the dead and will give me and all believers in Christ eternal life.
The granting of eternal life is future, and is based on faithfulness to the established church. Look, I have been a pastor long enough to know that many Baptists associate their salvation with church membership. I have suggested cleaning up the roles in a few churches, and the response is always one that hints of this being synonymous with taking away one’s salvation. Where did they get that idea? Whether Catholic or Protestant, you can get your absolution in a booth or an alter call—there is no difference.
Calvinism, and the Reformed gospel in general, is “under the law.” In the Scriptures, being under the law equals being under the dominion of sin:
Romans 6:14—For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Romans 2:12—For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
Romans 2:15—For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Those of Reformed theology are not under grace. How do we know that? Because they say Christians are still under the dominion of sin. And plainly, according to the Bible, that equals being under the law and not under grace. Quotes from the Reformed that establish this are myriad, I will note one:
We are enemies of God. We are God ignoring. We are God defying. We hate God. (CJ Mahaney: Resolved Conference 2008).
Comments by Reformed pastor Matt Chandler speaking of Christians as being “wicked sinners” have apparently been scrubbed from the internet (see here, and here), but nonetheless are indicative of the Reformed position.
This simply equals nothing less than, from the biblical perspective, Christians remaining in an unregenerate state though they call it regeneration. And this, they in fact do:
Bavinck too, wrote in connection with the regenerating work of the Spirit: “The regenerate man is no whit different in substance from what He was before his regeneration” (G. C. Berkouwer: Faith and Sanctification, p. 87).
Unchanging regeneration: such oxymorons are not few in Reformed writings. And though they would deny it, sanctification and the new birth are rejected as a matter logical conclusion. There can be no sanctification or new creaturehood where we are still under the bondage and dominion of sin. This is antithetical to being under grace. The Reformed think tank that launched the present-day New Calvinist movement which is a resurgence of authentic Calvinism, wrote an article in their theological journal entitled, “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” The article can be read here.
The argument that is used is one of emphasis which is Gnostic epistemology: sure, stars are true, but they only shine because of the Sun. Sure, shadows are true, but they wouldn’t exist without the Sun either. Sure, flowers are true, but they wouldn’t be able to grow without the Sun as well. What we want to do is focus on what really gives life: the Sun. To emphasize stars, shadows, or flowers over the thing that actually supplies the life will diminish life to whatever degree that the “good thing” is emphasized over the “best thing.”
Beginning to get the picture? It enables them to acknowledge the truth of sanctification and the new birth while deemphasizing them into oblivion. Out of sight; out of mind. To say that the new birth and our ability in sanctification are deemphasized in today’s church is certainly an understatement.
Said think tank, The Australian Forum, used the same argument to emphasize Christ over the Father and the Holy Spirit as well. Christocentricity is very important to Reformed theology. The core four of this think tank was Geoffrey Paxton, Jon Zens, Graeme Goldsworthy, and Robert Brinsmead. In a book where Paxton documents the Reformed heritage of Seventh-Day Adventism, he stated the following:
Luther and Calvin did not simply stress Christ alone over against the Roman Catholic emphasis on works-righteousness. The Reformers also stressed Christ alone over against all—be they Roman Catholics or Protestants (29) — who would point to the inside of the believer as the place where justifying righteousness dwells. Christ alone means literally Christ alone, and not the believer. And for that matter, it does not even mean any other member of the Trinity! (The Shaking of Adventism: p. 41).
Likewise, the same argument is made in regard to sanctification:
The distinction between the two types of righteousness will make the final emphasis of the Reformation easier to understand. The Reformers contended that the believer is righteous in this life only by faith. In saying this, they were not denying either the necessity or the reality of sanctification in all true believers. Rather, they were asserting that in this life sanctification is never good enough to stand in the judgment. The believer must look only to the righteousness of faith (the righteousness of the God-man) for his acceptance with God.
The inadequacy of sanctificational renewal was an integral part of Reformation teaching. Its corollary was the Reformers’ steadfast gaze at the righteousness of faith—namely, the doing and dying of the God-man, Jesus of Nazareth. Though the believer fights against sin and seeks to be a faithful law-keeper, sin nevertheless remains until his dying day Luther put it forcefully:
Paul, good man that he was, longed to be without sin, but to it he was chained. I too, in common with many others, long to stand outside it, but this cannot be. We belch forth the vapours of sin; we fall into it, rise up again, buffet and torment ourselves night and day; but, since we are confined in this flesh, since we have to bear about with us everywhere this stinking sack, we cannot rid ourselves completely of it, or even knock it senseless. We make vigorous attempts to do so, but the old Adam retains his power until he is deposited in the grave. The Kingdom of God is a foreign country, so foreign that even the saints must pray: ‘Almighty God, I acknowledge my sin unto thee. Reckon not unto me my guiltiness, O Lord.’ There is no sinless Christian. If thou chancest upon such a man, he is no Christian, but an anti-Christ. Sin stands in the midst of the Kingdom of Christ, and wherever the Kingdom is, there is sin; for Christ has set sin in the House of David.
(Ibid pp. 46,47).
Hence, at least Reformed theology is consistent in regard to Christians being under the law and also still under sin’s dominion. We must live by faith alone because we will supposedly stand in a future judgment that will determine righteousness by a perfect keeping of the law. And it’s true, those under the law will stand in such a judgment. But will we? The heart of the Reformation posited the idea that if we live by faith alone in sanctification, Christ will stand in the judgment for us.
But we know well what James thought of sanctification by faith alone.
paul
The 5 Solas: Worshiping Under the Banners of Heresy
“If justification is completely finished, and NOTHING that we do in sanctification can change that, what do we need an elitist priesthood for? That question strikes fear in the heart of every Calvinist.”
In another article on the five solas, we looked at sola fide, or faith alone and examined why that is false soteriology. In short, it denies the new birth and redefines it as a mere perpetual death and rebirth experience only. Because the Christian life is merely an extension of the finished work of justification, which is supposedly not finished, one must live their Christian life by faith alone in order to get from beginning justification to final justification.
It also makes law the measure of justification. The Christian life becomes an endeavor to live by sola fide in a way that results in the perfect obedience of Christ being applied to our lives in place of anything that we would do. Hence, if sanctification is not done TO US by Christ instead of us DOING the Christian life—it’s works salvation. We also looked at how this cuts off the believer from the true practice of love.
But, when justification is not a finished work, and sanctification is the progression of justification, EVERYTHING is a work. Even if you are doing nothing so that you are supposedly not involved in finishing justification, you are in fact assuming a role in the process by making sure that you don’t do anything, or closely adhere to prescribed ways of doing things that qualify as doing nothing.
This is how Reformed heresy deceives based on assumption. It is assumed that sola fide concerns justification alone, but it doesn’t. In the same way, it is assumed that solus Christus (Christ Alone) means believing in no other man as a mediator between God and you for salvation. No, solus Christus means literally Christ alone as opposed to the other Trinity members. It also means Christ alone as opposed to anything we would do in what they call “progressive sanctification” which is really progressive justification. This is also known as Christ for us or Christ 100% for us.
It begins with the idea that Christ’s role in salvation was two-fold: he died for our justification, and lived in perfect adherence to the law so that His obedience could then be applied to our Christian lives by faith alone, or sola fide. Therefore, the “believer” must continually revisit the “saving works of Christ in all of the Bible” (sola scriptura) in order to keep themselves saved. It should be called Bachman Turner Overdrive soteriology because of their famous song “Taking Care of Business.” The main refrain is, “I love to work at nothing all day.” In this case, the Reformed work at nothing in order to keep yourself saved.
This is where we get into the issue of Trinitarianism leading to a role for the believer in sanctification other than sola fide. If it is the Father’s righteousness imputed to the believer apart from a perfect fulfillment of the law by Christ, that naturally implies a role for the believer in sanctification. That’s a problem for Reformed soteriology on many levels.
If the Holy Spirit is merely a manifestation of what Christ does, that excludes the enablement of believers to participate in kingdom living apart from the finished work of justification. If justification is completely finished, and NOTHING that we do in sanctification can change that, what do we need an elitist priesthood for? That question strikes fear in the heart of every Calvinist.
Protestantism and Catholicism BOTH see justification (salvation) as a PROCESS. BOTH believe in a beginning justification, progressive justification, and a final justification. BOTH are false gospels—the only disagreement is in the details about how you get from point A to point B, and the disagreement is primarily Trinitarian. Catholics traditionally believe that God does a work inside of the believer to help them finish their justification with the help of the Mother Church. Authentic Protestantism believes that NO work is done within the believer because that enables them to participate in the finishing of justification. True classical Protestantism believes that Christians do not DO anything; they only EXPERIENCE the salvific works of Christ—Catholics believe that you actually do something other than believe. It is not sola fide.
Therefore, in regard to Catholicism, they replace a perfect keeping of the law with a set of rituals to make participation in finishing justification plausible. However, remember, since it is the finishing of justification, it requires the same necessity of returning to the same gospel that saved us; viz, the Mass and absolution because sinning as a Christian is no different than sinning as an unbeliever; in both cases, the “Christian” is still under law and not under grace.
In regard to Protestantism, they cry foul because the Catholics distort the law while they uphold the law by making it the standard for justification, but the dirty little secret is that Jesus keeps the law for us via sola fide. This cuts off love from sanctification. One removes the law from sanctification by ritual; the other removes the law from sanctification by making it the sole responsibility of Christ because the perfect keeping of it finishes justification. In both cases, it is not the righteousness of God APART from the law FOR justification. One is a co-laboring with the church to finish justification, the other is “Christ 100% for us” to finish justification.
So, solus Christus means literally solus Christus…for justification and sanctification both because sanctification is really progressive justification; it isn’t Christ plus us, and for that matter, not even Christ plus the other members of the Trinity. One of the foremost authorities and proponents of Reformed soteriology stated it this way:
Luther and Calvin did not simply stress Christ alone over against the Roman Catholic emphasis on works-righteousness. The Reformers also stressed Christ alone over against all—be they Roman Catholics or Protestants—who would point to the inside of the believer as the place where justifying righteousness dwells. Christ alone means literally Christ alone, and not the believer. And for that matter, it does not even mean any other member of the Trinity! (Geoffrey Paxton: The Shaking of Adventism: p. 41).
For all practical purposes, solus Christus is the controversial modulist view of the Trinty. This is the idea that one of the Trinity members is the one, true God, and the other two members are only manifestations of the one true God. This not only makes realm manifestations that are ONLY experienced possible, but it also makes the separation of justification and sanctification impossible. In other words, a modulist view of the Trinity is the necessary companion of progressive justification. This point is reflected in statements by leading Calvinists of our day like John MacArthur Jr.:
As Christians we have one message to declare: “Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). “For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake” (2 Corinthians 4:5; cf. 1 Corinthians 2:2; Galatians 6:14).
Rick Holland understands that truth. This book is an insightful, convicting reminder that no one and nothing other than Christ deserves to be the central theme of the tidings we as Christians proclaim—not only to one another and to the world, but also in the private meditations of our own hearts.
Christ is the perfect image of God (Hebrews 1); the theme of Scripture (Luke 24); the author of salvation (Hebrews 12:2); the one proper object of saving faith (Romans 10:9-10); and the goal of our sanctification (Romans 8:2). No wonder Scripture describes the amazing growth-strategy of the early church in these terms: “They ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ” (Acts 5:42). That is the only blueprint for church ministry that has any sanction from Scripture.
The pastor who makes anything or anyone other than Christ the focus of his message is actually hindering the sanctification of the flock. Second Corinthians 3:18 describes in simple terms how God conforms us to the image of His Son: “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another” (emphasis added). We don’t “see” Christ literally and physically, of course (1 Peter 1:8). But His glory is on full display in the Word of God, and it is every minister’s duty to make that glory known above all other subjects.
As believers gaze at the glory of their Lord—looking clearly, enduringly, and deeply into the majesty of His person and work—true sanctification takes place as the Holy Spirit takes that believer whose heart is fixed on Christ and elevates him from one level of glory to the next. This is the ever-increasing reality of progressive sanctification; it happens not because believers wish it or want it or work for it in their own energy, but because the glory of Christ captures their hearts and minds. We are transformed by that glory and we begin to reflect it more and more brightly the more clearly we see it. That’s why the true heart and soul of every pastor’s duty is pointing the flock to Christ, the Great Shepherd.
Notice in this statement that Christians merely “REFLECT” the glory of Christ as a result of meditating on His personhood and works. Notice also that any emphasis at all on anything or ANYBODY detracts from sanctification. This goes hand in hand with MacArthur’s rejection of eternal sonship as well. A debate about that issue is not the point here, the point is why they take this view of the Trinity. The point is to show the relationship between this view and their Catholicism-like progressive justification.
paul
The Perpetual Recrucifixion of Christ by Calvinism
“Therefore, Hebrews does violence to the Reformed notion of a ‘lifestyle of repentance’ (Paul David Tripp). The lifestyle of a true believer is a lifestyle of aggressive love without fear of judgment while a ‘lifestyle of repentance’ is ‘crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.’”
Many false religions perpetually reapply the crucifixion of Christ in an atonement colaboring. They acknowledge that Christ only died once, but propagate a needed reapplication of that death and resurrection in order to keep ourselves saved by “faith alone.” Yes, the cross-work of Christ is “finished,” but the APPLICATION of the work is NOT. And since we believe in the death and resurrection by faith alone, and since our ongoing faith is a gift, the reapplication of Christ’s atonement for sin is an act of FAITH ALONE, not works.
And that’s Calvinism in a nutshell. We keep ourselves saved by faith alone which is defined by a perpetual re-visitation of the same gospel that saved us. Hence, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” Hence, “The same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us.” Though they deny it, this makes sanctification a progression of justification. Reformed theology has a large corpus of lofty doublespeak that attempts to get around this foregone conclusion. My favorite is already, but not yet. Yes, you are already justified, IF you are justified, and you won’t know for certain until the final judgment; so, not yet. However, there is a trump card: Calvin’s power of the keys; if your local Reformed elders like you, and they say you are in, you are in.
But, more than likely, the elders are not going to proclaim you justified unless you partake in the Reformed…Vital Union. What’s that? That’s staying connected “to the vine” (Christ) by faith alone. How do you do that? Well, first, they would correct us on our use of verbs here; it’s not a doing because it’s of faith alone. The list of what you do to stay connected to the vine, what the Reformed call, “new obedience,” and “obedient faith” (obedience to faith acts is not really obedience because it focuses on the one act of faith) follows:
- Faithfulness to the institutional church.
- Regular partaking of the sacraments which “impart grace.”
- Sitting under the preaching of preordained elders which also “imparts grace.”
- Putting yourself under the authority of the institutional church.
- Reading the Scriptures with “an eye for all of the saving works (plural) of Jesus in all of the Scriptures” (gospel contemplationism).
- Partaking in “deep repentance” which results in “new obedience.” A deeper realization of how sinful we are results in a re-experience of the “joy of our salvation.” This is the Reformed doctrine of mortification and vivification which is “reliving our original baptism.”
This list is not comprehensive, and for all practical purposes would include anything added to it by the authority of local Reformed elders. Many Calvinists such as John Piper have stated on numerous occasions in no uncertain terms that the gospel did not just save us once, but continues to save us. Most stripes of Protestants would scream in protest against this idea, but the fruit doesn’t fall far from the Protestant tree; the same will often be heard saying, “Sanctification is the growing part of salvation” [salvation does NOT grow], “We are all just sinners saved by grace” etc. Others promote the idea that Christ was raised form the dead to confirm that He was the suitable sacrifice for sin which has connections to the Reformed idea of double imputation.
What’s that? In short, Jesus died for our justification and lived for our sanctification. When we “revisit the gospel afresh,” we are once again forgiven for NEW sins committed in our Christian life, and Jesus’ perfect obedience to the law is imputed to our Christian life thus keeping us justified. We keep ourselves saved by revisiting the same gospel that saved us. The Reformed get cover for this because it is assumed by many that they are merely stating that we are best sanctified by appreciating the sacrifice of Christ, and indeed, that is how it is often framed by the Reformed, but in fact, it is a construct that is a prescription for “keeping ourselves in the love of God” (CJ Mahaney). Many assume that this means, “keeping ourselves in the experience of God’s love while we grow as Christians.” No, this is keeping yourself justified by revisiting the gospel.
As an aside, let me quickly mention how the Reformed use all of this to avoid the accusation of antinomianism. They define antinomianism as rejecting all use of the law (the Bible). Because they believe the Bible has a use, viz, gospel contemplationism, they aren’t antinomians. Biblicists define antinomianism as a rejection of the Bible for instruction in righteousness and the many-faceted applications thereof in the Christian life. In short, Biblicists define antinomianism as the fusion of justification and sanctification which distorts the true application of the Bible’s imperatives to life. Biblicists define antinomianism as any distortion of the Bible’s general application to justification and sanctification, and those specific distinctions. Biblicists object to any doctrine that obscures an aggressive obedience to Scripture without fear of condemnation, and would deem it antinomian. This is obedience unto salvation versus obedience unto love. Justification versus sanctification. Antinomianism makes obedience unto salvation the same thing as obedience unto love, and makes Christ the only one performing any act of love. Hence, a commandment to love is not really anything we do, but we only experience the love Christ performed in our stead as we contemplate His salvific acts in “all of the Bible.” ALL of the Bible is about justification, and ALL of the acts of God through Christ for that purpose. Yet, Ephesians 1:3ff. states the following:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Antinomianism denies the purpose of God that we ourselves will be righteous according to a proper understanding of the Bible’s (law) relationship to justification and sanctification. Herein is another possible definition of antinomianism:
Antinomianism misrepresents the law’s proper relationship to justification and sanctification according to God.
With all of this said, we will now examine how Calvinism, in essence, re-crucifies Christ and exposes Him to open shame. This is done by acknowledging that Christ only died once, while stating that the onetime death must now be continually re-applied to keep ourselves saved. The Bible is merely a tool for that return, and not instruction for loving God and others, and discerning good from evil and truth from error. Let us proceed:
Hebrews 5:11 – About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
Hebrews 6:1 – Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits. 4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. 7 For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.
9 Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation. 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. 11 And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, 12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
There is no new thing under the sun. What the Hebrew writer was railing against is present-day Calvinism and Catholicism to a “T.” We could spend a year examining this text, and it would be a joy to do it, but for purposes of this post, we will only address the major points that serve our subject at hand.
The Hebrews being addressed were guilty of parking on, or revisiting the basic fundamentals of justification. This resulted in them being undiscerning, and in general, spiritual infants. They didn’t leave the basics and move on to the “meat.” TANC, as an educational institution has operated fulltime for about four years, but the fact of the matter is, we are still laying doctrinal foundations—the meat of true biblical doctrine is a wide-open frontier. What the Hebrew writer explained is exactly what has been going on in Protestantism for more than 500 years, and they got it from the Catholics. We are in a Protestant Dark Age, and it will take a rising up of what the called out assembly of Christ was from the beginning: a laity movement. This doesn’t exclude academia, but they should definitely be the tail and not the head. Christ, His word, and the Spirit should be the head. Academia in our day has led to a woefully dumbed down assembly, and in Christ’s day, “sheep without a shepherd,” and backdoor “hirelings” that abandon sheep who don’t feed their gluttony.
What were the basics that they had not left?
- Repentance from dead works: this is a return to the original state of repenting of works that cannot please God. The works of the “believer” are still dead. It is a focus on repentance from fruits of death. The “believer” must continue to repent of the only thing they can do: dead works. This requires a continued covering of “new sins” committed by the Christian. In order to stay saved, a reapplication of Christ’s death must be applied via ongoing repentance for “new” sins committed.
- Faith towards God: faith without works because works in the Christian life are no different from works under the law.
- Instruction about washings: the idea that justification requires more than ONE washing.
- The laying on of hands: probably refers to rituals that transfer the sins of “believers” to something else, such as an animal that was set loose or sacrificed. It could also signify the laying on of hands by someone who supposedly has the authority to forgive sins.
- The resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment: fear of possible eternal judgment. The idea that “believers” will be present at one massive judgment following one massive resurrection that confirms the eternal fate of all people. Christians are not to fear a final judgment that determines one’s eternal destiny. That fate has already been determined and settled:
Ephesians 1:13 – In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
If I may have one more aside, I am slowly, but surely getting my mind around the concept of God’s purposes for a group being elected, and not individuals. Individuals become part of the elected purpose for a group or classification by believing. “Us” does not mean “you” specifically as far as election goes. If you believe on Christ, you become part of the elected group and its predetermined destiny. Hence, by believing, your destiny is predetermined. In that sense you are among the elect chosen for specific purposes. This may be so obvious that we miss it. When I became a Christian, I assumed that I was going to heaven. What would make me assume such? Because God has predetermined that all Christians go to heaven. This doesn’t mean that he chose each Christian individually; it means that he chose the means of salvation and the destiny of those who believe. Part of the “good news” is that the group you are joining has a predetermined destiny. We see a hint of this in the following passage:
Ephesians 2:11 – Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.
Notice that being separated from Christ is tantamount to being “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise.” The means of salvation, the purposes of salvation, and the promises (covenants) of salvation have a predetermined outcome which benefit those who believe. By believing, our fate and purpose is predetermined and sealed. In contrast, the idea that God preselects individuals for salvation and damnation creates massive confusion in regard to understanding the rest of the Bible.
These thoughts of mine are definitely transitional at this point and not dogmatic as more study is needed. But with that said, we do well to note that the source of deterministic orthodoxy; i.e., Calvinists, are definitively wrong in regard to justification and the gospel. This demands a complete rethinking of election with the complete disqualification of Christian academia as they have had 500 years to make their case and have failed. This is the sum of the matter: the gatekeepers of predeterminism have been found as propagators of a blatant false gospel and completely wanting.
Now, in regard to the Calvinist construct, I believe that we can apply the principles proposed by the Hebrew writer to refute the notion of a continued repentance and forgiveness for “new” sins committed by “believers.” Note what the Hebrew writer stated:
4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance,
If Christians fall away via “new” sins committed “in time,” it is “impossible” for them to partake in a VALID saving repentance—that kind of repentance is impossible because…
since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
Yet, this ministry has documented numerous quotations by Calvinists, and John Calvin himself that state in no uncertain terms that new sins committed by Christians must be forgiven in order to maintain salvation. The Hebrew writer stated that as “impossible” because a redundant repentance cannot save. Why? It infers that the person has not really experienced the sealing of the Holy Spirit and the power of the age to come. This particular repentance of the justification class can only happen once and must be differentiated from sonship repentance. The latter restores a sense of joy and peace when the relationship between a father and son has no unresolved issues.
Therefore, Hebrews does violence to the Reformed notion of a “lifestyle of repentance” (Paul David Tripp). The lifestyle of a true believer is a lifestyle of aggressive love without fear of judgment while a “lifestyle of repentance” is “crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.”
Also stated as impossible by the Hebrew writer is the possibility that a continued return to the basics of salvation can produce life:
7 For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.
One last point before we close this post. In verse 10, the author states the following: “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.” This is an astounding statement. It is saying that God would be “unjust” to overlook our “work” and “love.” If that would make God “unjust,” that means these works are both righteous and earned by us. Our works of love in kingdom living deserve some sort of recognition by God. This could NOT be speaking to justification.
And that’s why we must move on from that which justified us to that which sanctifies us. We must move on to maturity and love.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
17 comments