This man, rather than the other…

Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18: 9-14).

It is an unfair, gross distortion to hold that Rome teaches justification by works, while we Protestants teach justification by faith. The more accurate distinction recognizes on both sides the necessity of the work of Christ. Rome affirms that His righteousness is necessary for our salvation, that without it we are without hope. That righteousness, however, becomes ours through infusion. Protestants affirm also that His righteousness is necessary for salvation, that we have no hope without it. It, however, becomes ours through imputation.

Some here are quick to affirm that our differences now amount to nothing more than a tempest in a teapot. We are arguing over two, thick, theological terms that are not a part of our ordinary language. Surely such a nuance must be insignificant. But it’s not, as Jesus’ parable illustrates. Let’s look at these two men, what they have in common and what separates them.

First, it is an unfair, gross distortion to hold that the Pharisee believes he justifies himself. How quickly we pass over the one good part of his prayer, “Lord, I thank you…” The Pharisee knows from whence came the power to make him righteous. He knows that he needed the grace of God, that God had to work in him, that God is due all the glory for his obedience. The publican likewise looks to God and His grace as His only hope. He knows where to turn, even as the Pharisee knows whom to thank.

The difference, however, is here. The Pharisee believes that God’s grace has made him whole, that he is now, albeit by the grace of God, just in himself. God helped him out. God stood him up. But now he is standing on his own two feet. He gives thanks to God that he is better than other men, that he doesn’t commit this sin and that, that he performs this duty and that. God has poured righteousness into him, and there he stands.

The publican, on the other hand, knows what he still is, a sinner. The mercy he cries out for isn’t that he would be made a saint, but that he would be a forgiven sinner. He cannot cooperate. He cannot stand. He can only, and even this is the grace of God, cry out for the mercy of God, which is found in Christ alone.

The bigger difference than the differing approaches of these two men, however, is what it meant for their eternities. Only one of these two men went home justified. Only one of these men was an adopted son of the living God. Only one of these two men will spend eternity walking with God in paradise. The other will spend eternity weeping and gnashing teeth. Teapot tempests have no such eternal consequences.

– Dr. R. C. Sproul, Jr.

Ignatius of Antioch in Context

Back in the year 2004, I attended a seminary class taught by Dr. James White on the Early Church Fathers (also known as Patristics). It was fascinating to read the writings of precious men of God from the first few centuries who hold to the same faith as I do. Yet it has to be said, the Early Church Fathers were indeed a mixed bag.

Just as if you or I would go to a Christian bookstore today, we would find good books, scholarly books, and books that propagate shoddy scholarship and even false doctrine; so it was in the Early Church. Yet in studying their writings we learn a great deal about how the early Christians worshipped, what was important to them, what the issues were that were causing controversy and of course, what they believed about a whole host of issues.

I have a Roman Catholic friend named Steve. He told me some years back that he was considering quitting his full time job to seek training so that he might one day enter the Roman Catholic priesthood. As you might imagine, he and I have often had lively debate with each other, centering mostly on the subject of justification by faith alone, but on other issues too.

Just today Steve wrote to me challenging me to deal with the subject of Ignatius, an Early Church Father, who was discipled by the Apostle John. Because of his direct link to John, Ignatius is one of the most important Church Fathers.

The apologists of Rome often make the claim that Ignatius taught the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist (the term “eucharist” simply means “the giving of thanks”) and of transubstantiation (that when the priest consecrates the bread and wine, it becomes the literal blood, body and divinity of Jesus Christ). But is this true? Did Ignatius actually teach this? Or have Ignatius’ words been taken out of context?

Because the issue of Ignatius is an oft repeated claim of Rome, Dr. White put some of his class (dealing with Ignatius specifically) onto YouTube videos. Because of time restraints (each video lasts only a few minutes) there are five videos. They are well worth the effort to watch them. I recommend them very highly.

Continue reading

Thursday Round Up

(1) Shortly before I called Dr. James White on his “Dividing Line” program on Tuesday (which I posted about James was interviewed on Chris Date’s podcast covering more than an hour on Roman Catholicism and its claims of authority. There is a fairly lengthy preamble and advertising for the first 5 minutes of the show (which you can skip) but the interview with James is outstanding and a refresher for all of us who reach out to our Roman Catholic friends. Do you know how to defend Sola Scriptura? Are you able to counter Roman Catholic claims regarding authority? We need to know what we believe, and why we believe it. Here’s the link to the podcast.

(2) One of the most frequent questions I get asked concerns which Study Bible I recommend. Let me try to answer this question in two phases. First of all, the translation of the Bible text.

TRANSLATION – Our generation is so blessed. In contrast to former periods in history where access to the word of God was very rare, there are many good Bible translations available to us in the English language today. How we thank God for this. It is simply a fact of history to say that many have paid the ultimate price (forfeiting their very lives) so that we would have access to the word of God in our native tongue.

Because there are so many translations available to us, if the version used from the pulpit is not the same one we have brought to the service it is often difficult to follow a preacher’s sermon. Personally, I mainly use the English Standard Version (ESV). I like it both for its diligent effort to be true to the original text (Hebrew in the Old Testament and koine Greek in the New) and for its great readability. Usually one of these things suffers in Bible translation, but this is not the case with the ESV. It is both highly accurate and easy to read, and these features make it a remarkable translation.

EXPLANATORY STUDY NOTES – Of course, it is the text of the Bible that is inspired not the notes we might find in the margins. This is an extremely important distinction that should always be remembered. However, it can be so helpful to have something of the historical background available to us at our fingertips, as well as useful and practical explanatory notes. Yet not every study Bible out there can be recommended. Some show very poor scholarship or else they have an agenda to articulate extreme views.

It is a high and holy calling to lead people in the things of God and great care is needed to help guide God’s people in the way of truth. This is certainly the case when it comes to providing study notes in a Bible. Because of this, for many years, I would never recommend a Bible with study notes. It is better to have no notes at all, than to be steered in the wrong direction. However, in recent years, the publishing of two study Bibles have excited me greatly and I would like to see at least one of these in the hands of every English speaking Christian. In terms of the two things that I believe to be most important features of a Study Bible – accurate translation and helpful and reliable (sure guide) study notes – in my opinion, the two which are outstanding are the ESV Study Bible and the Reformation Study Bible (ESV). Both are great resources. However in terms of sheer practicality, the ESV Study Bible is very bulky and a great weight to cart around (my mother said its too heavy to take to church with her, and who am I to argue?). Therefore if I could only recommend one, it would be the Reformation Study Bible in the ESV. Its also the one I use in my preaching. Right now, there is a 40% off sale on this Bible at Ligonier, so if you were interested in obtaining one (either in hardback or several different cover types) now would be a good time to do so. Save 40% on your Reformation Study Bible at Ligonier.org. Shop now!

(3) Apparantly, there is a time restriction for watching this youtube video. I am told it can only be viewed until March 31, 2011. This is rare footage of the man who was perhaps the greatest preacher of the 20th Century (Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones) producing a documentary about George Whitefield, the greatest preacher of the 18th Century. Though both of these men have left the stage of human history, the God who anointed them certainly has not and He is forever the same. May He raise up similar Holy Spirit filled gospel preachers in our day. Watch and be blessed: