Armchair Theologian

Clear Word vs Bible: Doctrine of the Sabbath

Posted on May 15, 2016 by ACTheologian

This is the third post in a series on the SDA Clear Word, for the previous entry please click HERE.

The Seventh Day Adventist Church believes that the weekly Sabbath day is a moral law that should be kept today. They also believe that you must keep it perfectly by your own diligent effort without a mediator after the close of probation or you will get the mark of the beast and be damned. For proof on that please click HERE.

This post is not really about the Sabbath though. My issue with the SDA isn’t really the Sabbath anyway it’s the false gospel associated with it. For example, I respect Seventh-Day Baptists a great deal and understand why they observe the Sabbath. I believe they are mistaken but I also believe there is a thing called Christian Freedom which applies to things like the Sabbath Day (Rom 14:5).

That said, do SDA actually believe that Sabbath keeping is taught in scripture or did they feel the need to modify the Bible to say what they believe? This is the question that I seek to answer in comparing the Clear Word version with the Holy Bible. I am going to present some common texts that SDA themselves use to argue for Sabbath keeping and see if they made any significant changes.

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.; 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made..” Gen 2:2-3 KJV	“Then on the seventh day of creation week, God stopped to enjoy what He had made and to rest in the beauty of it all. So He blessed the seventh day and set it apart as a day of spiritual refreshment and joy, a memorial of creation.””

Notice in the Holy Bible nothing is created on the Seventh Day, God simply stops working. In the Clear Word the author adds a creation of rest as an ongoing memorial. SDA do in fact believe in a Seventh Day of “creation week” where as most Christians speak of six days. If SDA really believe that the text teaches rest was created in this text why do they feel the need to add it in?

Where is this talk of a “memorial” and “refreshment” in the Holy Bible? This concept is added in lock stock and barrel, there is no indication of such things in the original. Why did SDA feel the need to add this in the text? If they believe this is taught here would it not be there already?

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.” Exo 31:16 KJV	“My people are to keep the Sabbath, celebrating it forever as a sign that they belong to me.”

Notice that the Holy Bible excludes Gentiles entirely, if you are born as a child of Israel and are within their literal generations living before the new covenant then you could argue this applies to you. The Clear Word though says “my people” and instead of generations just uses the word “forever”. These concepts are not in the Biblical text.

SDA believe that literal passages such as this one are to be interpreted figuratively so that they apply to believing New Covenant gentiles as well. But if they honestly did believe the text conveyed this meaning all on its own why tweak it? Shouldn’t it already plainly say what you believe?

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.” Luke 4:16 KJV	“He also went to His hometown of Nazareth, and as His boyhood habit had been, He attended the synagogue on the Sabbath. On this particular Sabbath, the one in charge asked Him to give the Scripture reading.”

The first thing that strikes me is that they felt the need to use the word Sabbath twice. Check in the greek on BibleHub and you will see it only occurs in the text once. The reason seems to be that the writer of the clear word wants to define custom as childhood sabbath keeping and scripture reading. This concept isn’t in the Holy Bible at all. His custom could simply be to preach the Word in the Synagogue during his ministry.

I’m not saying that Jesus didn’t keep the sabbath growing up. I’m just saying this verse doesn’t convey what the Clear Word does. For some reason the writer chose to add it in himself. It does make sense that Jesus would have kept the Sabbath as a child, he grew up in the old covenant and was even circumcised on the 8th day. He also kept Passover and the rest of the Torah. It would be silly to draw prescriptive conclusions off of that though.

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.” Luke 6:5 KJV	“Then He said, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath and knows what is right to do because He’s the One who set it apart“.”

Where did all the text in red come from? There isn’t even a stray word in this verse of the Holy Bible that conveys a shred of that thought. It’s as if the SDA just threw their hands in the air and decided to turn the Gospel of Luke into Bible Fan-fiction.

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Rom 14:5 KJV	“The same thing applies to religions festivals. One person thinks he has to keep every Jewish festival, while another thinks those days are no different from other days. About nonessentials like these, everyone needs to make up his own mind.”

The Holy Bible uses broad terms that can include any and all days. Clearly the Apostolic faith has no Holy Days with regards to the Law. The only way to rescue Sabbath keeping as a law is to insert distinctions of types of days into the verse with your imagination. But Paul gives no such distinctions.

If SDA really believe that this passage has a distinguishing of types of days why did they have to add those distinctions themselves into their new Bible? Why isn’t it clear enough on its own? Is the Holy Bible insufficient for them?

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.” Col 2:16 KJV	“Don’t let anyone control your life by giving you a set of ceremonial rules about what to eat, what to drink and which monthly festivals or special sabbaths to keep.”

The key to understanding what the SDA have changed in this passage is the use the words “which” and “or”. These set up a paradigm where some things are included and others are excluded. This is because they believe that the Saturday Sabbath day is not spoken of in this verse at all.

The problem is, in the Holy Bible Paul uses the phrase “in respect of”. This indicates a categorical distinction rather than an itemized one. Thus we are on the Category of the Holy Days of the Torah, and the weekly Sabbath was included in that system.

If SDA truly did believe that this verse didn’t address the weekly Sabbath why was it necessary to modify at all?

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet” Rev 1:10 KJV	“On the Sabbath of the Lord I went to the island’s rocky shore to worship. Suddenly the Spirit took control of me, and I heard a voice behind me that sounded as loud as a trumpet.”

I am fully aware of how SDA eisegete the Sabbath into Revelation 1:10. If it really was as obvious as they say though why did the writer have to change the words? Shouldn’t it be clear all on its own to anyone reading?

Also we have an added narrative of John walking around the shore . I don’t know why that was necessary but if fan-fiction is allowed at this point then who knows what we can come up with.

Conclusion

If the Bible doesn’t say what you believe, instead of bending the text to your beliefs I recommend simply bending your beliefs to the text. It can be painful but in the end it is worth it. And one of the perks is you can read any old Bible and it will say exactly what you believe all the time. You don’t have to go make a special one that works better for you.

Posted in Leaving Adventism, The Clear Word | Tagged Heresy & Heterodoxy | 9 Comments

Clear Word vs Bible: Doctrine of the Holy Trinity

Posted on May 14, 2016 by ACTheologian

This is the second post in a series on the SDA Clear Word. For the previous entry please click HERE. As I presented in my post on the Holy Trinity, the doctrine boils down to three clear teachings in the Bible.

One Being
Three Persons
Same Substance

Full disclosure, I actually haven’t read the clear word passages on this topic. I will find out what they say as I type this out. As before I will present a passage from the Holy Bible alongside that of the Clear Word. My prediction going into this is that the Clear Word is going to mangle verses that teach the ‘same substance’. It probably won’t mess with the other two so much. But just to be fair I will present some of the clearest passages that I have used in the past on this doctrine.

One Being

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” Deut 6:4 KJV	“Listen to me, Israel! The Lord our God is one God!”

No problems with this passage at all. The Clear Word simply reads like a paraphrase here. In fact I think that it handles this better than The Message for example.

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him….. Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.” Deut 4:35, 39 KJV	“The Lord did this for your sakes to prove to you that He alone is God and that there are no other gods beside Him…. Remember all this and take it to heart. The Lord or God is the God of heaven and earth. Don’t ever forget it. There is no other God!”

As with the passage above I don’t really have a problem with this as a paraphrase. Both are teaching “One Being”. My guess is though that the writer is going to deny “One Being” in the passages teaching “Same Substance”.

Three Persons

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Matt 28:19 KJV	“So go and tell people of all nations the good news and baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

Fair enough

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matt 3:16-17 KJV	“As soon as Jesus was baptized, He came up out of the water and knelt on the river bank to offer a prayer of thanksgiving. As He looked up, heaven itself seemed to open. Then the light of the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove and hovered over His head. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son whom I love, I am very pleased with Him.”

In the Holy Bible we have the Holy Spirit identified as God, which I believe is an important thing to have. I don’t know why the Clear Word omits this but there you go.

Notice also that a narrative of Jesus walking up to the river bank and praying is added. The prayer itself could be argued to come from Luke’s account, which for a paraphrase is fine. But the riverbank is new.

This is one of those many Ellen’isms SDA have added to the Bible. I doubt the writer even realized he was doing this. Ellen White added a lot of extra details to the Biblical narrative in her books. One of them is simply this riverbank thing.

“Upon coming up out of the water, Jesus bowed in prayer on the river bank.” – Ellen White, The Desire of Ages Pg 111

What is telling about this being added to the Bible is how natural it seemed to come for the writer. I would suspect there are a great deal of these in the Clear Word. I digress, back to the topic of the Trinity.

One Substance

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“I and my Father are one.” John 10:30 KJV	“You see, my Father and I are so close, we’re one.”

This is where the Arian roots of Adventism start to shine through more clearly. Notice that the writer of the Clear Word equates the oneness to a relational closeness. The concept of the oneness of God in Adventism is like that of a Human Marriage. I remember comparing the Trinity to that all the time when I was SDA. In Truth, SDA believe in three beings united in purpose.

The reason they do this is because you can’t have same substance and still believe in books like “The Great Controversy” for example. Ellen White paints a picture of Heaven with Jesus and God the Father walking around in bodies and talking to people like actors in a play. Such a notion is just absurd to Biblical orthodoxy and fits better with the visions Joseph Smith offers than it does with the Bible.

Back to the issue at hand though, if the writer of the clear word truly believed that the Bible teaches a relational closeness rather than same substance why did he feel the need to add the concept?

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1 KJV	“From the beginning, the Word of God was there. The Word stood by the side of God, and the Word was fully God.”

Here is another example where we see this Tri-theist concept peeking its head through. Why add “stood by the side of” into the text? In this case I do not suspect the writer was intentionally tweaking the text. In my opinion he genuinely views “was with” as meaning “stood by the side of”. This is because when an SDA thinks of heaven they view the narrative as Ellen White presents it.

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24 KJV	“God is very much concerned about our spiritual lives and how honest and sincere we are, not about where we worship Him.”

How did a description of the very nature of God transform into a sentiment? That is an obvious category switch. Notice that SDA truly cannot approach the concept of God being Spirit for the reasons I made clear above.

And let me be honest, this one is still hard for me personally. The key is accepting the passages as true on faith. I know God is Spirit because the Bible says so. I know God is one being and three persons because the Bible says so. I know God is one substance because this is what the Bible teaches. I have no idea how that plays out in reality by the wisdom of this world, so I simply accept a bit of mystery in my life.

And it is this leap of faith SDA cannot take because to do so means throwing out Ellen White. As soon as you accept Biblical Orthodoxy she goes out the window. And in my opinion the writer of the Clear Word knew this and had to iron out those pesky verses that just don’t work with her teachings very well.

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Col 2:9 KJV	“The fullness of Deity was in Christ when He was here and continues to be. He is the only human in whom all the wisdom and knowledge of God is found.”

Notice that the Holy Bible teaches the incarnation of the fullness of God in human flesh (bodily). But the Clear Word simply affirms the Deity of Christ and then defines fullness as the “wisdom” and “knowledge” of God. This is a whole concept not taught in the Holy Bible at all. It is in my opinion a deliberate attempt by the writer to step away from the teaching of ‘same substance’.

If the writer of the Clear Word truly believed the Bible taught those concepts in this passage why did he feel the need to add them in?

Conclusion

It is and has been my analysis that those who deny the Trinity do so by abbrogating one of the Biblical teachings of One God, Three Persons, and Same Substance with one of the others. This is why there exist such a wide range of different Trinity deniers. I think it would be fun to just watch them debate each other if you ask me.

Seventh Day Adventists try to appear Trinitarian but due to their inability to confess “one being” and “same substance” they end up with a Tri-Theism which they call “Trinity”. The truth is, just because you use the word doesn’t mean your belief is the same.

And here is the important part, those who hold a Biblical Orthodox view on the Trinity don’t need a paraphrase to iron out the Bible for them. They can just read the Holy Bible and it says what they believe. Something to think about.

Posted in Leaving Adventism, The Clear Word | Tagged Heresy & Heterodoxy, Trinity | 2 Comments

Clear Word vs Bible: Doctrine of Hell

Posted on May 13, 2016 by ACTheologian

One of the things that I have found amusing about looking into this is that SDA will claim that they believe what the Bible teaches. But if that is true then why does one have to change it so much to arrive at SDA beliefs in the Clear Word? If what SDA taught and what the Bible said were the same thing then you wouldn’t have to change anything.

Below I am going to present some of the clearest passages of the Bible on the doctrine of Hell and compare alongside their rendering in the Clear Word. As an aside, even if you personally believe in annihilationism, ask yourself if you would be okay with adding to or deleting from the text of scripture to support it.

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Matt 13:50 KJV	“Then the bad will cry and feel the terrible pain of God’s withdrawal just before they’re destroyed forever.”

Where is the concept of “destroyed forever” in the Biblical text?

What word, phrase, or idea is this claiming to paraphrase?

Even in the NLT or the Message you can draw a vague nexus between the concepts in the paraphrase and those in a scholarly translation. Where is the connection here? This concept of “destroyed forever” is added to the text of the clear word out of nowhere.

The Holy Bible

The Clear Word

“By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” 1 Peter 3:19-20 KJV

“It was also through the power of the Holy Spirit that Christ worked for the salvation of people in the past to set them free from the prison house of sin.” This was the case in Noah’s day when the Holy Spirit offered the people a way of escape. But they kept right on sinning. God patiently waited for one hundred and twenty years, and the whole time that Noah was building the Ark. But only eight people decided to come into the Ark and be saved.”

What I find telling here is how much longer the clear word is. Obviously great bodies of text are being liberally added. I am no reader of Greek but I am willing to bet my last dollar before payday that there is no nexus from the Greek to the clear word on the extra verbiage.

Look at what was changed though. Notice in the clear word we have a narrative of events in old testament times, while in the Bible we see Christ preaching to spirits who were in prison during first century ‘present day’ but had also been alive in the time of Noah. In the Clear word the text is pointing from Noah forward while in the Bible it is pointing from Christ backward. This is a complete reversal of the temporal momentum of the text.

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” Revelation 14:11 KJV	“The fire of God’s judgment will give no rest to those who worship the sea beast and his image and have the mark of his name until they are destroyed.”

The Youngs Literal Translation renders “for ever and ever” as “ages of ages”. Some latch onto this without realizing that “ages of ages” is simply a first century greek term meaning “for ever and ever”. But even if you do believe that “ages of ages” means a finite period of time, would you change the text? Or would you leave it how it is and simply point that out?

If SDA really believed that this verse taught”until” and “destroyed” on its own why would they feel the need to add these words into the ‘paraphrase’?

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” Revelation 20:10 KJV	“And the devil who had deceived the wicked was consumed in the lake of fire, together with those who had worshiped the sea beast and the animal turned false prophet. They were all punished with the second death which lasts forever.”

Notice the difference, the Bible says day and night forever and ever, and the Clear Word replaces this with a past tense “punished” which results in a nothing that lasts forever. These are conflicting concepts. The words “day” and “night” combined with “forever” and “ever” convey an ongoing state of “tormented” where as in the clear word we have an act that ends with finality.

Why do SDA feel the need to switch the words around? Does the Bible simply not work for them here?

The Holy Bible

The Clear Word

“And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:43-44 KJV

“You must be willing to sacrifice anything that would take you away from me, even something as valuable as your right arm. It is better to be physically handicapped and be in the kingdom of God than to go through life physically whole only to lose eternal life and be consumed in the lake of fire. That fire will do its work as thoroughly as worms eat a dead body or as forest fire burns trees.”

Why does the Clear Word change something that is never consumed into something that is? In the Holy Bible it uses the words “never” and puts it next to “quenched”. In the Clear Word it speaks of being “consumed” by a work that is done “thoroughly” and ends like a forest being burnt to the ground.

One teaches an ongoing fire and the other one that consumes. These concepts are not consistent with each other. This is plain evidence that the writer of the Clear Word just didn’t like what the Bible was saying in these areas so he felt the need to tweak them a bit. Why would he do that if the Bible actually taught what he believed in a consistent fashion?

The Holy Bible	The Clear Word
“Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” Matt 25:41 KJV	“Then He will say to those on His left, ‘You can’t be given a home in my Father’s kingdom, for you are still controlled by your sinful nature. Leave my presence. You will perish in the same fire which will destroy the devil and his angels.”

Notice that the Holy Bible says “into everlasting fire” while the Clear Word says a destroying fire. One is everlasting and the other destroys and it is done. If the author of the Clear Word truly believed that “everlasting” meant “destroy” why did he feel the need to tweak it? Why not just let it read how the Bible renders it?

Furthermore, why did he feel the need to tweak every clear passage on Hell? Is it because he doesn’t believe what they are saying? It is a fair question. If you were interested in this post and would like to read more on Hell please click HERE. Going forward I plan on blogging more topical comparisons of the Bible vs the Clear Word.

Posted in Leaving Adventism, The Clear Word | Tagged Heresy & Heterodoxy | 6 Comments

Council of Trent: Canon IX

Posted on May 13, 2016 by ACTheologian

When I was a Seventh-Day Adventist I didn’t really have any good reasons for claiming the cause of the Protestant Reformation. I suspect this is true for most SDA. Instead I opposed the Pope based on how “catholicy” those Catholics are. They have those funny hats, weird perpendicular x’s with Jesus on them, and a number of other things that used to put me off. There were other reasons but that sums up the majority of them.

Today I would say that I cannot in good conscience commune with Rome due mostly to the Council of Trent. If you are ever tempted in some way to take Papism for a spin all I ask is that you read the Canons and Decrees of Trent yourself first, if you can swallow that then you probably should become a Roman Catholic. This post will address the Canon that I take the largest issue with.

Canon IX

“If any one shall say, that by faith alone the impious is justified;

so as to mean that nothing else is required to co-operate in order unto the obtaining the grace of justification, and that it is not in any respect necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”

This really sums up why we have a Protestant Reformation. You may have to read the above quote twice as it is clear they tried to obfuscate their meaning with verbosity. The key to unlocking this is to understand that everything discussed in black above precedes red text.

Specifically, they are teaching that Good works in some manner precede faith in the ordo saludis (order of salvation).

Effectively this means that the Roman Catholic Church did in fact anathematize the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ with those words in Canon IX. To demonstrate this I first have to present the passage where we get the word “anathema”.

“8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. ; 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” Gal 1:8-9 ESV

The word “accursed” in the ESV is also translated at “anathema” in others. The meaning amounts to the same no matter which version you prefer though. In this passage above Paul demonstrates the primacy of the Gospel over everything. Not even an apostle or an angel has the authority to change it.

Rome claims that they have apostolic authority passed to them from Peter. Even if that were true, based on the text above they still do not have the power to change the gospel. Paul is very clear that we are saved by Faith alone.

To prove my claim I need to demonstrate that good works come after faith rather than before it in the Ordo Saludis.

To start off I am going to demonstrate a clear juxtaposition in scripture with regards to good works and Justification. If I can prove that we are justified by Faith and not by works then then would mean works at the very least do not precede faith.

“You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” Galatians 5:4 ESV

“For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Romans 3:20 ESV

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV

“For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Romans 3:28 ESV

“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” Galatians 2:21 ESV

“yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” Galatians 2:16 ESV

Lest there be any confusion on what the “works of the Law” is Paul defines this as righteousness.

“and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” Philippians 3:9 ESV

This verse in Philippians is in my opinion one of the clearest. Paul distinguishes between the righteousness of God, and the righteousness of man. He also defines the law as righteousness in general. Therefore it is not the righteousness of man that saves but that of God, and the later is received by faith. This clear juxtaposition is what defines “Sola Fide”. Notice specifically that the Righteousness of God is imputed after the word “Faith” rather than before it.

“And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” Romans 4:5 ESV

“Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” John 5:45-47 ESV

“But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” Romans 4:23-25 ESV

“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians 6:11-12 ESV

“Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Romans 5:1 ESV

“Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him,but the righteous shall live by his faith.” Habakkuk 2:8 ESV

“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” John 1:12 ESV

“1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, ; 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. ; 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, ; 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” 1 Cor 15:1-4 ESV

Notice that we are “being saved” by this Gospel that Paul preached. By this preaching comes Grace to the creation of Faith (Eph 2:8-9)(Rom 10:17). By this faith comes Justification.

It is this Gospel that the Council of Trent has anathematized, and in doing so have applied the authority Paul declared against the very Gospel he was preaching. If that glaring inconsistency in and of itself cannot make clear to the world that the Roman Catholic Church does not possess the divine protection from error which they claim corporate ownership of then I do not know what will.

Posted in Creeds & Councils | Tagged Justification, Trent | 4 Comments

Dichotomy or Trichotomy?

Posted on May 9, 2016 by ACTheologian

There are two common Biblical views on the human soul. In this post I am going to present the argument for both and why I hold the position that I do. Essentially, a Dichotimous position is that Man consists of two parts, one part Body and the other part Soul. The Trichotimous view argues that Man is Triune and consists of Body, Soul, and Spirit. Each being distinct from the other.

Dichotomy

Essentially the Dichotomous view holds that Man is both Spirit and Flesh. There is the material part which we all see and touch, and there is the immaterial. Just as the body can be classified into different pieces so can the immaterial aspect of man be distinguished into different aspects.

For example, the material can be distinguished as consisting of parts like the ears, nose, skin, eyes, etc. The immaterial would be things like conscience, heart, spirit, and mind. The greater distinction though is between the body and the soul in general. One of these is sown in the earth and the other returns to God upon death.

“and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” Ecc 12:7 ESV

There are many verses discussing this immaterial aspect of man both new Testament and Old. See below for a brief sample.

“But from there you will seek the Lord your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.” Deu 4:29 ESV

“then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” Gen 2:7 ESV

22And they fell on their faces and said, “O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and will you be angry with all the congregation?” Num 16:22 ESV

“For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?” Mat 16:26 ESV

“For God alone my soul waits in silence; from him comes my salvation.” Psa 62:1 ESV

“And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” Matt 22:37 ESV

The clearest of these passages distinguishing between the two is found in 1 Corinthians chapters 4 and 5. I covered them extensively on my post on the State of the Dead if you want a breakdown verse by verse.

“1 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. ; 2 For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, ; 3 if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. ; 4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, ; 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight. ; 8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” 2 Cor 5:1-4, 6-8 ESV

Notice the juxtapostion that Paul makes above, we see that which is material dying away. We see that which is immaterial being eternal. We see that which is material being referred to as a tent that makes us groan. And the Inner Man inside (2 Cor 4:16) that tent being renewed day by day.

“So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day.” 2 Cor 4:16 ESV

“I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” 1 Cor 15:50 ESV

I like the analysis that SimplyBible provides on a comparison of the above two passages and am including it for review:

“This verse clearly portrays the human being as having two parts (“dichotomy”), the outward and the inward: “Though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day.” (2Corinthians 4:16). If we were to transpose terms from the previous verse to this verse, it would read, “Though our body is decaying, our spirit and soul is being renewed day by day.”

Similarly, the outward man is described as “flesh and blood” (1Corinthians 15:50). Again we could transpose that expression into the above to make it read, “Though our flesh and blood is decaying, our spirit and soul is being renewed day by day.”

I am making the point that the expression “flesh and blood” matches “outer man”, and in the same way “spirit and soul” matches “inner man”. There is of course a difference between flesh and blood, and there may well be a difference between spirit and soul, but the differences in either case do not amount to humans having more than two distinct natures.” – SimplyBible

Essentially, even if the Trichotomous position is correct on some level, the Dichotomous one is also correct. In my mind, the Dichotomous view properly understood is making a broad distinction rather than a narrow one. Simply stated there are two general aspects of man, that which is material and that which is immaterial.

Trichotomy

It is my assessment that those who hold to this view do so because of conclusions they want to have on other doctrines.

For example, some will make a strong distinction between the soul and spirit because they believe that God creating man in his image means we must therefore be Triune.

“Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Genesis 1:26 ESV

I will concede that this is a nifty idea, but in all honesty I cannot see a direct nexus between source material and conclusion in this doctrine. I think that the idea is being read in. Man made in the image of God can just as easily mean a host of different things.

The proof-texts to support this view most frequently are the next two found in the New Testament.

“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” Heb 4:12 ESV

“Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Thess 5:23 ESV

The strength in these two passages above is that soul and spirit are distinguished from each other in the context. There would be no reason to argue one as a synonym for the other, at least in this passage anyways, as it doesn’t work with the context.

And if one happens to hold to this view because of these verses I understand. The reason I disagree though is because there is no good reason to assert that the writer doesn’t just mean parts of a whole. For example:

“And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” Mark 12:30 ESV

If I were to use the same reasoning on the above verse then that would mean we have to make clinical distinctions between the heart, soul, mind, and strength. Should we refer to the finger as a separate essence than the hand? What about all the other organs? Instead of 2 or 3 divisions of man should we not be arguing for a million or so distinctions? This is why Christians have in the past made helpful distinctions between essence and accidents of a substance.

Rather than all that mess we should keep in mind that first century anatomy terms do not have the same exact meaning of those that we use today. Second, we should focus on what it is that they are teaching rather than the specific words they are choosing, this protects us from eisegeting an anachronism.

Conclusion

The plainest reading of all the passages used by Trichotomists is that the writer is speaking of parts rather than wholes. Even if one must insist that the Spirit is part of the Soul of a man in the same manner that a “nose” is part of the “face” that is fine. But I would caution against building further conclusions and distinctions off of that as one invariably has to make unnecessary assumptions to get there. After all, twenty-three assumptions later and you’re stuck with the Investigative Judgement.

This is why I hold to a Dichotomous view. At the end of the day, man is most easily divided into material and immaterial. We do not know where one ends and the other begins. We can study the material with modern science but the immaterial is still quite beyond our grasp.

Posted in Armchair Lounge, Nature of Man | Tagged Armchair Theology, Body, Soul, Spirit | 4 Comments

Does the word “is” mean “is”?

Posted on May 3, 2016 by ACTheologian

In an older post I broke down the passages that convinced me on the doctrine of the Real Presence. If you have not already read that I recommend you do so before proceeding as I will be building on conclusions I have already reached from that study.

Although all analysis in this post is my own, I initially learned the concepts discussed from a podcast that I highly recommend. It is put together by a Pastor by the name of Jordan Cooper and you can find his work HERE.

There are different ways that those coming from a Calvinist or Zwinglian approach deny the real presence as taught in scripture. What I am going to focus on though is those who approach it from arguing that the word “is” in the words of institution doesn’t mean “is” but instead means “represents”.

The way I worded that might sound absurd, but it is good to remember that the New Testament wasn’t written in English so it is possible the Greek work has a different range of uses than the English. First, let’s Jesus words found in the first three Gospels.

“26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Matt 26:26-28 KJV

“22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.” Mark 14:22-24 KJV

“17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.; 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” Luke 22:17-20 KJV

The plainest reading of the word “is” would be to understand Christ as referring to the whole in part. This is a figure of speech called a synecdoche. For example, if I were to hold up a Mug and say “This is my coffee” I would be using one noun to refer to a whole by its part.

In my opinion, if Christ were to have meant symbolism then he would have expounded upon that in greater detail as we see in other passages where he does use metaphor. That aside though, can we find examples where this word is used symbolically?

I am not educated in Greek, but I can certainly use a concordance and cross reference context. To facilitate this I will be using Biblehub. The word for “is” here in Greek is “estin”

For the purposes of this post I am going to focus on this word and see how it is used elsewhere in a broad sample of the historic narrative accounts written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The reason I am focusing on historic narrative is because that is the category I would put the Lord’s Supper in.

Some of the verses below are translated as “is” in english and others convey the meaning differently. All use the word “estin”. The goal is to demonstrate consistency in use of the word. Click HERE for an exhaustive list of all uses of the word.

“Is” in Matthew

“But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” Matt 1:20 KJV

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” Matt 1:23 KJV

“Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.” Matt 2:2 KJV

“For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” Matt 3:3 KJV

“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” Matt 3:11 KJV

“Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” Matt 16:20 KJV

“While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” Matt 17:5 KJV

“10 And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?; 11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.” Matt 21:10-11 KJV

“26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Matt 26:26-28 KJV

“Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?” Matt 26:68 KJV

“And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull” Matt 27:33 KJV

“And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.” Matt 27:37 KJV

The word “is” is used in a consistently literal fashion in all passages detailing historic events. A few of them that stand out to me are as follows:

“which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost”

“Where is he that is born King of the Jews?”

“he was Jesus the Christ”

“This is my beloved Son”

“this is my body”

“this is my blood”

Are there any conservative Bible believing scholars that argue for a figurative conceiving of the Holy Spirit? Who would read Jesus as figuratively the “king of the Jews”? Is he only a representation of Christ? Is Jesus the beloved Son of the Father or only a representation? Is the bread and wine his body and blood or only a representation?

Matthew uses the word “is” in a very literal sense very consistently. I feel confident that the word “is” means “is” in the book of Matthew.

“Is” in Mark

Below we see that Mark uses the word “is” in much the same fashion that Matthew does during the entire gospel.

“And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.” Mark 1:27 KJV

“Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?” Mark 2:9 KJV

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” Mark 6:3 KJV

“And when the day was now far spent, his disciples came unto him, and said, This is a desert place, and now the time is far passed” Mark 6:35 KJV

“And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.” Mark 9:7 KJV

“And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.” Mark 9:21 KJV

“And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?” Mark 12:28 KJV

“22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.” Mark 14:22-24 KJV

“And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely.” Mark 14:44 KJV

“And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.” Mark 16:6 KJV

Would it be appropriate to say that Christ was figuratively risen? Does “is” mean represent there?

“Is” in Luke

We find in Luke that his use of the word “is” is much the same. Below are the relevant samples I have assembled for review.

“60 And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.; 61 And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.” Luke 1:60-61 KJV

“For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” Luke 2:11 KJV

“And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” Luke 5:21 KJV

“And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.” Luke 8:30 KJV

“And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.” Luke 9:35 KJV

“And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?” Luke 22:11 KJV

“17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.; 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” Luke 22:17-20 KJV

“And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?” Luke 22:64 KJV

“And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.” Luke 23:35 KJV

“But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.” Luke 24:29 KJV

Same situation as before, I am not willing to read “is” as “represents” in any of those verses. The damage it would do to Christian theology is staggering, instead of something that occurred in human history we would end up with a sad allegory and no Gospel.

“Is” in the Parables

Above I used the historic narrative as that is most comparable to the Lords Supper, which is what I am reviewing. What about the word “is” in parables though? Below is a verse from each gospel using the word “is” with a figurative referent.

“For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Matt 6:21 KJV

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” Mark 10:25 KJV

“Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.” Luke 8:11 KJV

My point by bringing these up is that even when the referent is figurative the word “is” still means “is”. In no case does it ever mean “represents” in any of the synoptic gospels. It simply isn’t used that way by these writers, thus to assert that “is” does mean “represents” the one time it has to for a symbolic hermeneutic to work is special pleading.

Conclusion

Because of what I have demonstrated above I firmly believe that one cannot arrive at Zwinglian theology from arguing that “is” means “represents”. I am resolved that if one is coming to this conclusion they are not taking these texts very seriously.

I have seen some try to argue that the referent to “is” in the words of institution contains the symbolism. Specifically, they say it is either the body and blood or bread and wine that is symbolic rather than the word “is”. I disagree with that just as much but will save this for a future post.

Thanks for taking a look at my study on this and please let me know what you think in the comments.

For Laughs I will leave you with this….

Posted in Armchair Lounge, Soteriology | Tagged Armchair Theology, Gospel, REAL PRESENCE | 2 Comments

The Last Day

Posted on May 2, 2016 by ACTheologian

I have studied a vast array of different approaches to Eschatology. After leaving SDA there was a time that this was something I really wanted to nail down. In time that became a much less pressing concern but I understand the need for others to go there. Due to a lack of clarity on the Biblical texts related to the end of things, I think there is a great deal of Christian freedom with regards to this study. As long as we hold to the essential truths and strive to stay Biblical in our approach we are on the right path.

The only thing I am very dogmatic about is the eschaton in general, and this is what is taught in the Nicene Creed.

“He [Jesus] shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.” -Nicene Creed

Anything outside of that confession I reject as heresy. That said, if you have been reading the few posts I have done on eschatology then you know I am studying Amillenialism. Not a very popular end times framework in america today. Furthermore it doesn’t sell a lot of books or make good movies, but I do believe it is true.

Before continuing I recommend you read my post on the Millennium if you have not already. I will be building on the conclusions that I came to from that study and will not be repeating them in depth.

A key buzzword in amillenialism is “The Last Day”. Essentially the belief is that since the beginning of time there have been a preordained consecutive number of days. Starting of course with the “first day” of creation and then culminating with the “Last Day”, after which of course there is no time thus no more days.

This post is going to focus on a more narrow concept related to that. The questions I seek to answer are:

Is the “Last Day” a clear theme in scripture?

If so what events set apart the “Last Day” from all others?

What are the implications on other eschatological traditions that rely on a timeline of events which define the “end times” as a latter day season consisting of many days?

My primary source for study on this topic, besides of course the Bible, was an Eschatology Blog which I have linked HERE.

The Last Day

Below we see a passage in John whereby he identifies critical eschatological events transpiring on the “Last Day”. I will dig into this verse again later but right now I just want to point out his use of the term.

“39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.; 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.; 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.; 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:39-40, 44, 54 KJV

John seems to be teaching in a circular fashion by re-iterating the same points with greater clarity over an over again, what stands out is this concept of those in Christ being raised on the “last day”.

“He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” John 12:48 KJV

Above we again see John teach again this concept of a “Last Day”.

Below we see that the Apostles believed themselves to be living in the “Last Days“. I demonstrate this more fully HERE if you are unconvinced by the proof-texts I have posted.

“Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” 1 Cor 10:11 KJV

“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” 1 John 2:18 KJV

The broader idea is that the Apostles taught the Last Days began at the cross and persist until the “Last Day”. Thus, we have been in the end times for the past 2000 years. We are not looking for a grand epic finale right before the end of the world, we are in it right now and have been for some time. Thus we are looking for the “Last Day” in which all things come to an abrupt end.

Furthermore, we should expect to be be surprised by the Last Day. Everything else regarding “those days” in the passage below has signs associated with it. While conversely “that day” has no signs and comes like a thief in the night. Most traditions collate these themes, but I believe there is a biblical distinction between the two which clarifies the apocalyptic texts.

“17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. 19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. 20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days…… 24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light…… 26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory….. 27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven…… 31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. 32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” Mark 13:17-20, 24, 26-27, 31-32 KJV

“Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.” Rev 16:15 KJV

The next logical question is;

What events does the scripture teach happen on the “Last Day”? How will we know for sure when this day has come?

All are Resurrected

We see a consistent theme in scripture that at the end of the world all are resurrected. Not just the good and not just the evil, but everyone. Some are risen to Heaven and some to Hell.

Daniel clearly identifies the Resurrection as the finality of the eschaton. We see his teaching resonate in John as well.

“1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.; 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Daniel 12:1-2 KJV

“28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” John 5:28-29 KJV

In this next passage Jesus points to the past regarding the Queen of the South, presumably from Daniel 11, as being resurrected to judgement at the same time as those who would be damned in the first century. This hasn’t taken place yet so we would presume it occurs in in the Judgement day spoken of by the prophets and apostles.

“42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.” Matt 12:42 KJV

“15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” Acts 24:15 KJV

Again, we see the Resurrection of both the just and the unjust. At the time I am writing this no such event has transpired, we would have noticed. This event is spoken of as happening concurrently with both the good and the evil at once. That established, when can we expect the Resurrection to happen?

Resurrection occurs at the Second Coming

There is a specific event in scripture spoken of in many places. That is the coming of Christ on the clouds and visible for all to see.

“Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.” Rev 1:7 KJV

“31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:;…. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matt 25:31-34, 41 KJV

It is fair to say based on the above that the same event when Christ is coming in the clouds is the event when the sheep and goats are judged.

“16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first” 1 Thes 4:16 KJV

“39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:39-40, 44, 45 KJV

The two passages above speak of the same Last Day in which the ressurection occurs. This is tied to the second coming. One passage identifies this date as the “Last Day” and the other as the Lord “Decend[ing]” from “heaven”. Both are associated with the Resurrection and both have language consistent with the judgment. There is no Biblical reason to divide these events into different segments on a grid separated by dispensations of time.

All the Living are Judged when Christ Appears

Just like we see that the Resurrection occurs on the Last Day, we also see that the Judgment does. This is the Judgment spoken of the in the creed:

“He [Jesus] shall come again with glory to judge the quick [living] and the dead” – Nicene Creed

Parables can be tricky, due to the tendency for people to twist them I prefer to build my hermeneutic in other places in scripture and then come back to the parable rather than the other way around. I believe that I have done this, but even still the only thing I want to point out in the parable below is that Judgment is tied to the eschaton, notice both are happening in a gap-less sequence.

“39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.; 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear…… 49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Matt 13:39-43, 49-50 KJV

Below in the poetic narrative of the Psalms it is seen that God comes to earth to Judge the world.

“12 Let the field be joyful, and all that is therein: then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice; 13 Before the Lord: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.” Psa 96:12-13 KJV

This next verse is very compelling. It is used by Roman Catholics to substantiate purgatory. I don’t see purgatory at all in this passage, in my assessment it is something they are bringing to the text rather than pulling it out. That said, you do see a testing by fire of all in the eschaton. Once again Judgement is associated with the end of time.

“13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. 14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” 1 Cor 3:13-15 KJV

Just a side note on the above verse in 1 Corinthians, in my opinion the kind of Judgement it is speaking of is the one for believers. That is, not in the sense of damnation but in the sense of one’s life and how much treasures were stored in heaven.

Did you fulfill your duties as a father or mother? Did you proclaim the gospel? Did you live your life in love a charity? While such things do not merit salvation one who abdicates their vocation may find that though they themselves go to heaven those closest to them do not, or other such consequences along those lines. I could be wrong about this and am certainly not dogmatic, but I thought I would share my interpretation just the same.

Moving on

“7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” 2 Thes 1:7-9 KJV

In the above passage we see judgement tied directly to the coming of the Lord. When all these passages are understood as occurring at the same time as the Resurrection what we see is a singular event. The plainest reading is that this event is the “Last Day” that John speaks of.

The Saints are Glorified

Another event that happens at the same time is the Glorification of the Saints. For those who don’t know, that’s when you get a new body. The one we have now dies off and is gone forever. At the Resurrection we receive new bodies.

“50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.; 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” 1 Cor 15:50-52 KJV

To be more specific, I believe time literally ceases to be a thing at this “last trump”. This is what we see in the “twinkling of an eye”. It is the last day because after this moment there is not more time at all.

“29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, 30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.” Luke 18:29-30 KJV

“29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s, 30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.” Mark 10:29-30 KJV

“10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.” 2 Thes 1:10 KJV

“2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John 3:2 KJV

“21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.” Php 3:21 KJV

“3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.” Col 3:3-4 KJV

This last verse very clearly ties the appearance of Christ with the glorification of the saints.

When Christ

Shall appear

then shall

One gap-less chain of events starting with the Appearance of Christ. These events are not dispersed between dispensations of time. The Glorious Appearance, the Resurrection, the Judgement, and the Glorification of the Saints are a chain of events described as transpiring in the “twinkling of an eye”.

Conclusion

I haven’t studied every brand of eschatology out there, I don’t think anyone has. But I know enough to be aware of how most slice up all of the events I have mentioned above. For example, in the Tim Lahaye model the saints are raptured and glorified at one point, and then seven years later the Sheep and Goats Judgement (Matt 25) takes place. Then 1000 years later another Judgement day takes place. That is essentially three Judgments and three Second Comings. The scripture never states Christ will come again three times before the last day.

I have quoted the clearest passages on the eschaton above and the plainest reading is that all of these things happen at once. The “Last Day” motif is a Biblical one. I would argue that the best understanding is that we are in the “Last Days” now. In this time we are to expect a loose Devil in the world causing persecution and tribulation, and the Binding of the Devil in Word and Sacrament. In this we are sustained in Christ by the riches of his Grace through Faith.

But on the Last Day…..

“He [Jesus] shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.” -Nicene Creed

Posted in Eschatology | Tagged Armchair Theology, End Times, Eschatology | 1 Comment

Old vs New Covenant

Posted on April 25, 2016 by ACTheologian

This is the first post in a series on the New Covenant. For the next one please click HERE. In this post I am going to present the New Covenant and its relevant impact on SDA Theology. I am writing this from the perspective of a few years of study after leaving SDA and have tested the hermeneutic you are about to see both in my own studies and in critique received from others. Please take a look and tell me what you think in the comments.

Defining the Old Covenant

The primary question I seek to answer is whether or not the Law of the Old Covenant is definitive of or included in the Mosaic Covenant. Can one stand and the other fall? This is crucial because SDA and others teach that the Ten Commandments are the Moral Law which stands forever and the rest of the Old Covenant Law is now obsolete.

“9 Nothing was in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt…. 21 And there I have made a place for the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord which He made with our fathers, when He brought them out of the land of Egypt.” 1 Kings 8:9, 21 NKJV

Examine the passage above carefully, notice that the “two tablets of stone” are the only thing in the Ark of the Covenant at the time of this writing. And then in verse 21 how the Ark is definitive of the entirety of the Covenant. Since the Ten Commandments were in the ark when it was referred to as such then it is logical to conclude that the Ten Commandments are biblically defined as part of the Covenant in this passage.

“1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary…. 4 which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant” Heb 9:1,4 NKJV

Once again, in the New Testament we see that the Ark of the Covenant is defined as the Covenant itself. Later in the the passage we see at the Ten Commandments are included as well. In verse 5 the writer of Hebrews allows for other elements of the Covenant not stated to also be included in his sweeping definition. I find it compelling though that the Ten Commandments are plainly cited as part of the Old Covenant.

Obviously the Ten Commandments must be part of the Old Covenant. But isn’t there a distinction between the Law of Moses and the Law of God? My understanding growing up in SDA was that there were two laws of the Old Covenant. The passage that SDA use to argue this is as follows:

“24 So it was, when Moses had completed writing the words of this law in a book, when they were finished, ; 25 that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying: ; 26 “Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there as a witness against you” Deu 31:24-26 NKJV

SDA will say that since the Law of Moses was placed beside the Ark, that means it is separate from the Ten Commandments. And because it is separate that means it is less important and is the law that was nailed to the cross (Eph 2:14). Though any SDA being honest will confirm this, don’t take my word for this claim, here is Ellen White in her own words:

“The ceremonial law was thus given to Moses, and by him written in a book. But the law of Ten Commandments spoken from Sinai had been written by God Himself on the tables of stone, and was sacredly preserved in the ark.” – Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets, Pg 365

The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that the words Moses wrote “in a book” wasn’t simply the Pentateuch. That is to say, the first five books of the Bible. Secondly, it assumes that anything prescriptive in nature is implied by the descriptive narrative of the ‘book being placed beside the Ark’.

The big problem with accepting the SDA argument is that it means the Ten Commandments are now obsolete and we have to keep what SDA call the Law of Moses! That’s right, we need to have animal sacrifices and not mix fabrics as well as a few hundred other old covenant laws. Why is that? See below!

“7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” Heb 8:7, 13 NKJV

Consider the following;

The Ark is definitive of the Old Covenant,
To include the Ten Commandments and that which was inside of it (Heb 9:1-4),
Then it follows that these are the things which are obsolete

Since this “Law of Moses” wasn’t inside of the Ark then by SDA Logic that means it isn’t obsolete. So if you’re going to accept the SDA premise then you have to keep the Law of Moses and not the Ten Commandments!

Obviously they are simply mistaken, the whole Torah to include the Ten Commandments are abrogated. That is the plainest reading.

Notice the disposition of the old covenant in the passage above. The writer uses the word “obsolete“. It really doesn’t get any more clear than that. If you’re going to believe the Bible and accept what it says at face value then you have to accept this. If the writer didn’t mean to include the ten commandments then he wouldn’t have named them as part of the obsolete covenant four verses later.

The Law of Moses?

I am going to address the SDA understanding of the Law of Moses. Is it true that this is a sole and separate classification of the Law that stands separate from the Ten Commandments in the Torah (Old Covenant)? Rather than accepting the assertion at face value let us test this by reading other passages of scripture.

Just just to be clear, SDA teach that the Ten Commandments are the Moral Law and the rest of the Old Covenant Laws are the Ceremonial “Law of Moses”. Let’s see if this definition works in scripture.

“23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), ; 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” Luke 2:23-24 NKJV

That isn’t the Ten Commandments but it is called the Law of the Lord.

“10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.” Mark 7:10 NKJV

So above we see that one of the Ten Commandments is referred to as part of the laws of Moses. This is actually very common and can be found in many different passages:

(1Ch 16:40)(2Ch 31:3)(Matt 15:4)(Deut 5:1-8, 21-22)

The point is that the Bible does not make the same distinction that SDA do. I would argue that their distinction is anachronistic to the text because the writers of the Bible consistently refer to the Torah as a whole. Whether they refer to it as the Law of the Lord, the Law and the Prophets, or the Law of Moses, they interchange each title without regards to if it was part of the Ten Commandments or not.

The logical conclusion is the simplest, that the Torah is a unit of 613 laws. This makes sense out of many of the Laws in the Torah. Much of it has interpretive qualities of the ten commandments. For example, you will see the commandment not to steal in the Decalogue (Exo 20:15), and then numerous laws of the Torah interpreting the commandment not to steal (Exo 21:16)(Exo 22:1)(Exo 21:24).

Because of this I see the Old Covenant Ten Commandments as a cover sheet for the rest of the Torah. You have the broad commandment at the front and the narrow one in the body of the text.

Old Covenant Prophesied to End

In the book of Jeremiah we find an interesting passage where it is foretold that:

A new covenant would be made

It would not be like the old covenant

That the old covenant was broken

31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” Jer 31:31-34 NKJV

Notice the words “not according to” in the above passage. There are some SDA I have spoken with that will say that the law written on our hearts is the ten commandments. But this isn’t stated in the text at all.

Besides that, why would we assume that “not according to” means “same as“? They are opposing statements not unifying ones. We should be expecting a very different Covenant.

Which is what Jesus insituted

“20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.” Luke 22:20 NKJV

Compare this passage in Jeremiah and Luke with Hebrews 8&9 above and it is clear that each is speaking of the same Covenant. This is the covenant that Christ instituted at the Lord’s Supper. This covenant makes obsolete that which came before it. The old of which was inextricably tied to the law. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

You accept the new and leave the old in the dust or you cling to the old and reject Christ.

Conclusion

The hermeneutic demonstrated above is key to understanding the New Covenant and its implications. This was important for me because I had believed all Christians were insane for ignoring the Sabbath commandment. I didn’t realize the implications of the New Covenant on first century Christianity and the following generations. It is a shame we don’t see more discussion on this today.

I know that if this is the first time you have read my blog you have some big questions. You are probably scratching your head ready to ask one or all of the following:

If the Ten Commandments are obsolete does that mean it is okay to kill and steal?
What about Matt 5?
What about the Sabbath in Genesis?
What about Ellen White???
Didn’t early Christians keep the Sabbath?

That is just scratching the surface as to the questions this “New Covenant” Jesus instituted hit me with when I first found it. Those questions and more are covered in the next series of posts on the New Covenant. This one is critical for understanding the foundation of what follows though. Please keep reading each post in the series as each one builds on those that came prior.

God Bless and good luck with your studies.

Click HERE to go to the next post in the series.

Posted in Leaving Adventism, New Covenant | Tagged Armchair Theology, Leaving Adventism, New Covenant | 15 Comments

Church Fathers on Sola Gratia

Posted on April 22, 2016 by ACTheologian

For a Biblical breakdown on the doctrine of Grace please click HERE. This post is to answer the question as to whether or not the doctrine of Sola Gratia was taught in ancient Church history. For those who do not know, Sola Gratia means salvation only by God’s unmerited favor and not as a credit earned on our part in any fashion.

For my source on the below citations please click HERE. As I have said in prior posts, some assert that these reformation doctrines were new. The truth is that these “Solas” have always existed in the Church. See below for yourself on the matter of “Sola Gratia”.

“To be pleasing in the judgment of human beings derives from superior human virtue and achievement; in the sight of God, who examines hearts, to be righteous does not derive from human achievement, but from a divine gift.”– St. Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 89, par. 5

“Why then are you afraid of drawing nigh, since you have no works demanded of you? Why are you bickering and quarrelsome, when grace is before you, and why keep putting me the Law forward to no purpose whatsoever? For you will not be saved by that, and will mar this gift also; since if you pertinaciously insist on being saved by it, you do away with this grace of God.” – St. John Chrysostom, Homily 18 on Romans 10,11

“After speaking of the wages of sin, in the case of blessings, he has not kept to the same order: for he does not say, the wages of your good deeds, but the gift of God: to show, that it was not of themselves that they were freed, nor was it a due they received, neither yet a return, nor a recompense of labors, but by grace all these things came about. And so there was superiority for this cause also, in that He did not free them only, or change their condition for the better, but that He did it without any labor or trouble upon their part: and that He not only freed them, but also gave them more than before, and that through His Son.”- St. John Chrysostom (Epistle to the Romans, Homily 12, Rom 6:23)

I want to make the juxtaposition that St. John Chrysostom presents very clear. This is key to bring out the teaching of “alone” with regards to grace.

Notice when he speaks of things other than grace with regards to salvation he excludes them with words like the following:

“not of”

“nor was it”

“neither yet”

“nor a”

“without any”

Then when he highlights Grace as efficacious for salvation he uses the words:

“but by grace”

The clear juxtaposition here may have just as easily been written by Paul or Luther. It sounds just like those two, and that is because Apostolic teachings like “Sola Gratia” go back to the very beginning. This is not a new doctrine.

“And if any were to cast in prison a person who owed ten mites, and not the man himself only, but wife and children and servants for his sake; and another were to come and not to pay down the ten mites only, but to give also ten thousand talents of gold, and to lead the prisoner into the kings courts, and to the throne of the highest power, and were to make him partaker of the highest honour and every kind of magnificence, the creditor would not be able to remember the ten mites; so hath our case been. For Christ hath paid down far more than we owe, yea as much more as the illimitable ocean is than a little drop.”- St. John Chrysostom, Epistle to the Romans, Homily X, Rom 5:17

“Is it possible, Scripture says, for one to repent and be saved? It is absolutely and most certainly the case. What, though, if I have wasted my life in sins and then repent: will I be saved? Yes, indeed! What source indicates this? The philanthropy of your Master. Can I take courage from your repentance? Could it be that your repentance has the power to wipe clean so many evils? If it were only up to repentance, then assuredly be afraid. However, since repentance is mixed together with the philanthropy of God, take courage. For God’s philanthropy is immeasurable, nor can any word provide the measure of his goodness. Your wickedness is measurable, but the medicine is immeasurable. Your wickedness, whatever it may be, is human wickedness; but God’s philanthropy is ineffable. Have courage because it surpasses your wickedness. Just think of one spark that fell into the sea; could it stand or be seen? What one spark is in comparison to the sea, so wickedness is before the philanthropy of God; not even this much, but much more so. For the sea, even though it is vast, has limits; but God’s philanthropy is unlimited.”- St. John Chrysostom, Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church FOTC: vol 96, p. 112,113

“Well done, 0 Christ, 0 Wisdom and Power and Word of God, and God almighty! What should we resourceless people give Thee in return for all things? For all things are Thine and Thou askest nothing of us but that we be saved. Even this Thou hast given us, and by Thy ineffable goodness Thou art grateful to those who accept it. Thanks be to Thee who hast given being and grace of well-being and who by Thy ineffable condescension hast brought back to this state those who fell from it!”- St. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 4

“And so the power is conquered in the name of him who assumed human nature and whose life was without sin, so that in him, who was both priest and sacrifice, remission of sins might be effected, that is, through the ‘mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus’, through whom we are purified from our sins and reconciled to God. For it is only sins that separate men from God; and in this life purification from sins is not effected by our merit, but by the compassion of God, through his indulgence, not through our power; for even that poor little virtue which we call ours has itself been granted to us by his bounty.”- St. Augustine, City of God, X, Chapter 22

As I have qualified before, this doesn’t prove that other teachings do not exist in the writings of the Church fathers. It doesn’t prove they were even individually consistent with themselves. But it does prove that the basic tenets of Sola Gratia existed throughout Church history, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Posted in Armchair Lounge, Heresy & Heterodoxy | Tagged Church Fathers, Heresy & Heterodoxy | 1 Comment

Church Fathers on Sola Fide

Posted on April 21, 2016 by ACTheologian

The claim of some is that you don’t find the teaching of Justification Sola Fide (Faith Alone) in the Church until the reformation. As before, it is not just Roman Catholics that assert this. So to put this accusation to rest I have assembled a sample of Patristic quotes below from the same source used in my prior post.

If you want a Biblical breakdown on Justification by Faith Alone then click HERE. Below though are Patristic quotes demonstrating an early witness to this doctrine. Each quote is ordered by birth date, all emphasis is mine. Discern for yourself if this teaching existed prior to the reformation.

“Similarly we also, who by His will have been called in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, or our own wisdom or understanding or godliness, nor by such deeds as we have done in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which Almighty God has justified all men since the beginning of time. Glory be to Him, forever and ever, Amen.”- St. Clement of Rome (? – ~101 AD) (Letter to the Corinthians, par. 32)

The above quote is my favorite. This is the oldest non-biblical witness to Sola Fide. St. Clement knew the apostles personally, and is even mentioned in scripture (Php 4:3). The only better written witness to apostolic teaching than this on the topic is the New Testament itself.

“Human beings can be saved from the ancient wound of the serpent in no other way than by believing in him who, when he was raised up from the earth on the tree of martyrdom in the likeness of sinful flesh, drew all things to himself and gave life to the dead.”- St. Irenaeus (130 – 202 AD) (Against the Heresies, IV, 2, 7)

“While I was sick in the flesh, the Savior was sent to me in the likeness of sinful flesh, fulfilling such a dispensation, to redeem me from slavery, from corruption, and from death. And He became to me righteousness, and sanctification, and salvation. Righteousness, by setting me free from sin through faith in Him. Sanctification, in having set me free through water and the Spirit and His word. And salvation, His blood being the ransom of the true Lamb, having given Himself on my behalf.”- St. Epiphanios (310 -403 AD) (Against Heresies 3.1,2 PG 42-477)

“Confess Jesus Christ, and believe that He is risen from the dead, and you will be saved. For indeed righteousness is only to be believed; but a complete salvation must also be confessed and knowledge must be added to confidence.”- St. Gregory Nazianzus (329 – 390 AD) (On Moderation, PG 36.204)

“Indeed, this is the perfect and complete glorification of God, when one does not exult in his own righteousness, but recognizing oneself as lacking true righteousness to be justified by faith alone in Christ.”- St. Basil the Great (330 – 379 AD) (Homily on Humility, PG 31.532; TFoTC vol. 9, p. 479)

“But we all escape the condemnation for our sins referred to above, if we believe in the grace of God through His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who said: ‘This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins.”- St. Basil the Great (330 – 379 AD) (Concerning Baptism, TfoTC vol. 9, p. 344)

“To this end has His Grace and Goodness been formed upon us in Christ Jesus, that being dead according to works, redeemed through faith and saved by grace, we might receive the gift of this great deliverance.” Ambrose (337-397 AD), Letter 76 to Irenaeus, a layman

“But when the Lord Jesus came, He forgave all men that sin which none could escape, and blotted out the handwriting against us by the shedding of His own Blood. This then is the Apostle’s meaning; sin abounded by the Law, but grace abounded by Jesus; for after that the whole world became guilty, He took away the sin of the whole world, as John bore ·witness, saying: Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. Wherefore let no man glory in works, for by his works no man shall be justified, for he that is just hath a free gift, for he is justified by the Bath. It is faith then which delivers by the blood of Christ, for Blessed is the man to whom sin is remitted, and, pardon granted.” Ambrose (337-397 AD), Letter 73, to Irenaeus, a layman

“Let us see, however, whether the brigand gave evidence of effort and upright deeds and a good yield. Far from his being able to claim even this, he made his way into paradise before the apostles with a mere word, on the basis of faith alone, the intention being for you to learn that it was not so much a case of his sound values prevailing as the Lord’s lovingkindness being completely responsible. What, in fact, did the brigand say? What did he do? Did he fast? Did he weep? Did he tear his garments? Did he display repentance in good time? Not at all: on the cross itself after his utterance he won salvation. Note the rapidity: from cross to heaven, from condemnation to salvation. What were those wonderful words, then? What great power did they have that they brought him such marvelous good things? “Remember me in your kingdom.” What sort of word is that? He asked to receive good things, he showed no concern for them in action; but the one who knew his heart paid attention not to the words but to the attitude of mind.” —John Chrysostom, (347 – 407 AD), Sermon 7 on Genesis, in St. John Chrysostom, Eight Sermons on the Book of Genesis, pp. 123-24 (2004), Robert C. Hill translator.

“They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed.”- St. John Chrysostom (347 – 407 AD) (Homily on Galatians 3)

“But he calls it their ‘own righteousness,’ either because the Law was no longer of force, or because it was one of trouble and toil. But this he calls God’s righteousness, that from faith, because it comes entirely from the grace from above, and because men are justified in this case, not by labors, but by the gift of God.”- St. John Chrysostom (347 – 407 AD) (Homily 17 on Romans 10:3)

“Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.” Homily 7 on Romans- St. John Chrysostom (347 – 407 AD)

“For you believe the faith; why then do you add other things, as if faith were not sufficient to justify? You make yourselves captive, and you subject yourself to the law.”- St. John Chrysostom (347 – 407 AD)(Epistle to Titus, Homily 3, PG 62.651)

“But what is the ‘law of faith?’ It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.” St. John Chrysostom, (347 – 407 AD)Homilies on Romans 3

“We need none of those legal observances, he says; faith suffices to obtain for us the Spirit, and by Him righteousness, and many and great benefits.”- Chrysostom (347 – 407 AD), Homilies on Galatians 4

“And he well said, “a righteousness of mine own,” not that which I gained by labor and toil, but that which I found from grace. If then he who was so excellent is saved by grace, much more are you. For since it was likely they would say that the righteousness which comes from toil is the greater, he shows that it is dung in comparison with the other. For otherwise I, who was so excellent in it, would not have cast it away, and run to the other. But what is that other? That which is from the faith of God, i.e. it too is given by God. This is the righteousness of God; this is altogether a gift. And the gifts of God far exceed those worthless good deeds, which are due to our own diligence.” Chrysostom, (347 – 407 AD) Homily on Philippians 3

“God does not wait for time to elapse after repentance. You state your sin, you are justified. You repented, you have been shown mercy.”- St. John Chrysostom, (347 – 407 AD)Homily 7 On Repentance and Compunction, p. 95 in FOTC, vol. 96.

“Suppose someone should be caught in the act of adultery and the foulest crimes and then be thrown into prison. Suppose, next, that judgment was going to be passed against him and that he would be condemned. Suppose that just at that moment a letter should come from the Emperor setting free from any accounting or examination all those detained in prison. If the prisoner should refuse to take advantage of the pardon, remain obstinate and choose to be brought to trial, to give an account, and to undergo punishment, he will not be able thereafter to avail himself of the Emperor’s favor. For when he made himself accountable to the court, examination, and sentence, he chose of his own accord to deprive himself of the imperial gift.

This is what happened in the case of the Jews. Look how it is. All human nature was taken in the foulest evils. “All have sinned,” says Paul. They were locked, as it were, in a prison by the curse of their transgression of the Law. The sentence of the judge was going to be passed against them. A letter from the King came down from heaven. Rather, the King himself came. Without examination, without exacting an account, he set all men free from the chains of their sins.

All, then, who run to Christ are saved by his grace and profit from his gift. But those who wish to find justification from the Law will also fall from grace. They will not be able to enjoy the King’s loving-kindness because they are striving to gain salvation by their own efforts; they will draw down on themselves the curse of the Law because by the works of the Law no flesh will find justification.

What does this mean? That he has justified our race not by right actions, not by toils, not by barter and exchange, but by grace alone. Paul, too, made this clear when he said: “But now the justice of God has been made manifest apart from the Law.” But the justice of God comes through faith in Jesus Christ and not through any labor and suffering.” Chrysostom on Justification, (347 – 407 AD) Discourses Against Judaizing Christians. Discourse 1:6-II:l:

“What is meant by mercy? and what by sacrifice? By mercy then is signified, Justification and grace in Christ, even that which is by faith. For we have been justified, not by the works of the law that we have done, but by His great mercy. And sacrifice means the law of Moses.” – St. Cyril of Alexandria (378 – 444 AD), Commentary on Luke, Homily 23

“Be not troubled when thou meditatest upon the greatness of thy former sins; but rather know, that still greater is the grace that justifieth the sinner and absolveth the wicked. Faith then in Christ is found to be the pledge to us of these great blessings; for it is the way that leadeth unto life, that bids us go to the mansions that are above, that raises us to the inheritance of the saints, that makes us members of the kingdom of Christ.” — St. Cyril of Alexandria (378 – 444 AD) , Homily 40 on St. Luke.

“Gain for yourself the pardon coming from faith, since he is his own worst enemy who does not believe that he is given what the very generous Bestower of mercy promises in all kindness.” St. Peter Chrysologus (406 – 450 AD)- Sermon 58 (On the Creed), par. 13 (TFOTC, Vol. 109, p. 224)

“Give yourself, 0 man, pardon by believing, since you fell into all the sins by despairing.” St. Peter Chrysologus (406 – 450 AD)- Sermon 62 (On the Creed), par. 16 (TFOTC, Vol. 109, p. 245)

The point is this, Sola Fide can be demonstrated very easily in the writings of the early Church. The truth of the Reformation is not a truth added to Christianity but the very Gospel itself restored. Don’t let anyone tell you that Sola Fide is a new doctrine.

Posted in Armchair Lounge, Heresy & Heterodoxy | Tagged Church Fathers, Heresy & Heterodoxy | 19 Comments

Armchair Theologian

Clear Word vs Bible: Doctrine of the Sabbath

Clear Word vs Bible: Doctrine of the Holy Trinity

Clear Word vs Bible: Doctrine of Hell

Council of Trent: Canon IX

Dichotomy or Trichotomy?

Does the word “is” mean “is”?

The Last Day

Old vs New Covenant

Church Fathers on Sola Gratia

Church Fathers on Sola Fide

Follow Armchair Theologian

Pages

Search Armchair Theologian

Other Connections

Trending Armchair Studies

Recent Armchair Studies

Follow Blog via Email

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Follow Armchair Theologian

Pages

Search Armchair Theologian

Other Connections

Trending Armchair Studies

Recent Armchair Studies