How would you feel if?

• Your doctor said: ‘Rest on the Sabbath, as God commands.’1

• Your science teacher said: ‘Open your Bibles, today we are learning how God created animals.’2

• Your politician said: ‘We are instating the death penalty for murder, as God commanded.’3

Would you be uncomfortable? Would you think of excuses to get God and the Bible out of the picture?

• ‘Believing in Jesus is a private choice.’

• ‘You cannot make people behave like Christians.’

• ‘The Bible is a religious text, not a science textbook.’

These objections embody secularism, which excludes religion from the public sphere. Secularism relegates religious beliefs to your ‘private life’, while establishing other authority structures for your ‘public life’.

Jesus is Lord

Does the Gospel have something to say about secularism?

As we saw in our previous article, the Gospel has the power to shape society.4 When we see the glory of the Gospel, we reform every area of life to reflect it.5

At the heart of the Gospel is a man who exerted his rightful authority in the world, by obeying God’s words:

‘I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.’ (John 5:30)

Jesus Christ did not shy away from exerting authority: he commanded his followers how to live,6 he publicly condemned religious leaders,7 he kicked thieves out of the temple.8 Jesus judged.

Meanwhile, Jesus never exceeded the authority that God gave him. He submitted to his earthly parents,9 he paid his taxes,10 he accepted his death sentence from an earthly court.11 He did nothing on his own.

Finally, Jesus lived according to every word that comes from the mouth of God.12 Each decision he made was based on and derived from God’s explicit laws in Scripture. He heard.

Jesus showed his glory by rightfully ruling according to God’s words.

Lord of Lords

Due to sin, we deviate from Jesus’ glory in this area.

Instead of judging, we abdicate and refuse to exert the authority God has given to us: fathers do not discipline their children, governments do not punish criminals, employers do not fire poor performers.

Instead of doing nothing on our own, we usurp and exceed the authority that God has given us: teachers act like parents, businesses control speech, medical doctors try to heal the soul.

Instead of hearing, we autonomously exert authority, according to our own standards: governments redefine marriage, schools teach atheistic science, business leaders do not pray together before making decisions.

Yet we cannot love Jesus’ exertion of biblical authority, while hating its image in ourselves. To be Gospel-shaped in this area means we will be driven to reflect the glory of Jesus’ authority.

Jesus is Lord of lords, he is King of kings.13 He is building a Kingdom that is filled with subordinate kings, who image his own rule.14

What does this look like in practice?

Legislators pass laws based on and derived from the laws in Scripture. Scientists research according to the framework and facts found in Scripture. Financiers reform banking in accordance with Scripture’s laws on lending and interest. Medical doctors heal the body (not the soul) according to God’s design, as it is found in Scripture. Parents teach and raise their own children in the Christian faith, according to the pattern found in Scripture.

Secularism contradicts the Gospel. If we love the Gospel, then we will hate secularism. If we love the Gospel, then we will exert rightful authority in this world, to bring it into submission to the Bible.

Thoughtful Reformed

Subscribe now

Evangelical circles have mass produced a get-out-of-jail-free card:

‘Not a primary issue.’

Should countries have open borders? Not a primary issue. Should women work outside of the home? Not a primary issue. Should we oppose abortion? Not a primary issue.

If we keep using that card, the Gospel shrinks and shrinks into abstraction, until there is nothing left connecting it to real life.1

On the other hand, culture warriors see Christianity as a tool for ‘saving the West’. Their approach subsumes the Gospel so that it becomes a small part of a larger social movement.2

Both of these approaches contradict the Gospel. As we saw in our first article, the Gospel is Trinitarian: it has authority, power and presence.3

An abstracted Gospel denies God’s power and presence: it is reduced to a concept or ideal. Meanwhile a subsumed Gospel denies God’s authority: it is reduced to a method for exerting our own power and presence in this world.4

What is the solution?

In Scripture, we find a framework that relates the heavenly to the earthly:

No human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.

James 3:8-10

Fundamentally, the Gospel is not about us. It is about God. It is the good news of what God has done.5 The Gospel is about a heavenly reality.6 Meanwhile, social issues are an earthly reality. We wake up in the morning and decide how we will speak to our neighbours.

Yet James connects the two: the earthly reality is designed to be an image of the heavenly reality. We cannot love God while abusing something that looks just like him.

As we read the Bible, this same logic appears over and over again:

• Earthly marriage is meant to be an image of Christ’s marriage to the Church.7

• Earthly family is meant to be an image of Christ’s eternal family.8

• Earthly work is meant to be an image of Christ’s work.9

• Earthly government is meant to be an image of Christ’s government.10

In other words, every part of society is meant to image the Gospel. Every part of life is meant to be Gospel-shaped.

If we love the Gospel, then we will reform (shape) each part of society until it perfectly images the particular aspect of the Gospel that it is designed to reflect.

We will rejoice when national borders are enforced - because Christ enforces the borders of his Kingdom. We will honour husbands who exert loving authority over their wives - because Christ exerts loving authority over his wife. We will applaud women who raise and teach their children - because Christ raises and teaches us, his children.

Conversely, we will not feel embarrassed when wives submit to their husbands. We will not seek to lessen due punishments for criminals. We will not apologise for hiring men in the workplace. We will not be ashamed of establishing a Christian culture.

We will not pretend to love the Gospel, while hating its images.

Thoughtful Reformed

Subscribe now

3

Remember that these three aspects of the Gospel reflect the Father, the Son and the Spirit, respectively:

A social movement was born in the early 2000’s.

Reformed Theology boomed. Reformed theologians became popular. The Gospel Coalition was launched. Gospel-Centered Ministry was ready to win the world for Christ.

That movement died in the early 2020’s.

Across a wide range of social issues, the Gospel-Centered Movement failed to deliver effective biblical leadership:

• Racism1

• Marxism2

• Feminism3

• Authoritarianism4

• Immigration5

• Pop Culture6

• Contraception7

In response to this, many have concluded that the Gospel and social issues are in mutually exclusive tension.

Some now say that we can still be Gospel-Centered but not Gospel-Only.8 Others say that urgent social issues should delay our promotion of the Gospel.9 Finally, some have abandoned the Gospel altogether and converted to Roman Catholicism due to its perceived clarity on social issues.10

The Power of the Gospel

When we read Scripture however, the Gospel is not a hindrance to social reform, rather it is the power of salvation that reveals righteousness :

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Romans 1:16-17

What if the Gospel-Centred movement failed, not because it prioritised the Gospel, but because it prioritised a truncated Gospel?

What if the postman cut your letter in half before delivering it?

A Truncated Gospel

The Bible knows that you can preach empty words.

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

James 2:14

While some erroneously argue from this passage that good works contribute to a right standing before God,11 the Bible does no such thing.12 Before the judgement seat of God, there is only one thing that can cover our sin and give us righteous standing: the perfect punishment Jesus took on our behalf, and the perfect life he lived on our behalf.13

James does not deny the Gospel here, rather he is teaching us how to distinguish between genuine faith and counterfeit faith.

What is the hallmark of a counterfeit faith? It empties the Gospel of specific moral content. It hermetically seals particular aspects of your life (works) from what God has said. It hides the righteousness of God from you, instead of revealing it.14

According to James 2:14-26, the true Gospel has full-orbed integrity. Genuine faith is not just Gospel-centered, it is Gospel-filled. A true believer carefully fills every part of his life with the Gospel. He lives it. He breathes it.15

A Trinitarian Gospel

What is a full-orbed Gospel? How can we avoid truncating the Gospel?

At the heart of Scripture is a God who is both one and many. He is perfect unity and perfect diversity. He is the very standard of integrity. A Gospel that has integrity must therefore reflect the Trinity.

John Frame points out that in Scripture, each person of the Trinity reveals particular aspects of God’s nature. The Father reveals God’s authority. The Son reveals God’s power. The Spirit reveals God’s presence.16 We see this for example in the baptism of Jesus,17 where the Father speaks authoritatively, the Son is powerfully active in the world and the Spirit is existentially present.18

A life that is filled by the Trinitarian Gospel will be:

• Gospel-Centered: The Gospel is our authoritative standard and focus.

• Gospel-Shaped: The Gospel powerfully controls every material aspect of our lives.

• Gospel-Driven: Our hearts are existentially alive to and motivated by the Gospel.

Just like the Trinity, if you try to remove any one of these aspects, you will not end up with a smaller Gospel, you will end up with a false Gospel.

Gospel-Filled Social Reform

The Gospel-Centered Movement clearly taught us the core (authority) of the Gospel. It also applied the presence of the Gospel to our very hearts (Hallelujah!). Yet, I believe it failed to sufficiently shape us by the power of Gospel. It muzzled the specific moral content of God’s message.

Some people reacted to this failure by de-emphasising the Gospel, side-lining the Gospel or abandoning the Gospel. But the solution lies very much in the opposite direction.

We do not need less of the Gospel, but more of it. We need Gospel-filled lives, where every thought, deed and word is shaped by, driven to and focussed on the glorious victory of Jesus Christ over death and sin on the Cross.

Towards that end, I will write a series of articles on Gospel-Filled Social Reform. In them, I will apply a Gospel-Shaped paradigm to the main social issues of our time. By the mercy of God, may these articles display the power and righteousness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thoughtful Reformed

Subscribe now

We all have verses in the Bible that we find, well, uncomfortable. Deep down, we wish that God had not written them. Or maybe, that he had written them a little differently.

This is a common struggle. However, few people are aware of the solution. It is called loophole hermeneutics.1

In 10 easy steps, you will be able to read any verse in the Bible without the least bit of discomfort. No longer will you experience unpleasant things, such as a pricked conscience, or questioning your life decisions. Instead, you can enjoy saying things like ‘I believe the Bible!’ guilt free.

1. Pick Verses that You Find Uncomfortable

This is an important step. You must not, under any circumstances, apply loophole hermeneutics to verses in the Bible that you already find comfortable.

For example, if you apply it to John 3:16, you might end up with disastrous results, such as believing that God does not love the world, or that Jesus does not give us eternal life.

2. Pick Verses that Your Friends Find Uncomfortable

In some cases, you might be perfectly comfortable with a verse, but someone you know is not. Or maybe, everyone you know is comfortable with that verse, but someone your friend knows is uncomfortable with it.

It is important to remember that loophole hermeneutics works very well in these situations too. It enables you to say things like ‘This is just something I believe, but you don’t have to.’ Or ‘No one has to believe this in order to be a good Christian.’ Thus, everyone can feel fully respected and honoured as a Christian, even when they are brazenly rejecting the plain meaning of Scripture.

Using our first two rules, let’s now choose some uncomfortable verses:

While there are plenty of other Bible passages we could have chosen,2 these verses enable us to showcase every one of our loophole hermeneutic tools.

3. Appeal to the Present Culture

Our first port of call is to say something like: ‘In the modern world, we don’t do that.’ This tool works really well on almost any issue because your sense of what is comfortable is determined by what everyone else is already doing.

For example, most women in Western cultures today are not submissive. Specifically, for the past 2.7% of church history3 it has become more common for women to have leadership roles in the workplace.

This means that the word ‘submissive’ in verse 11 is not very important and should not become a distraction.

4. Appeal to Ancient Culture

Sometimes however, today’s culture is not helpful (for example, in the majority of the world today, women are submissive). In this case, we can use our next tool: ‘It was just an ancient cultural standard.’

This tool works well because we can always find some culture in the past that we disagree with on a given issue. For example, in Jewish society at the time of Jesus, only men could become religious teachers. Therefore, verse 12’s prohibition of a woman teaching only reflects the Jewish cultural standards at the time.

However, we need to be careful. This letter was written to Timothy while he was in the ancient Greek city of Ephesus,4 which used to have women in positions of religious authority and power.5 We must make sure we ignore the Greek cultural standard on this issue, in case someone says verse 12 was meant to somehow reform wayward cultures.

Remember, this tool only works when you apply it to an ancient cultural standard that you disagree with.

5. Ignore the Context

Sometimes we cannot simply gloss over a passage due to cultural considerations. In these situations, we have no choice but to engage with the text.

The first tool for engaging the text is to ignore the surrounding context. For example, Paul wrote 1 Timothy to provide clear instructions on how to run the church in Ephesus.6 Paul’s command that a woman should be ‘quiet’ and not ‘teach’ or ‘exert authority’ is written in chapter 2, which describes a church gathering.7

Equally, all 3 verses afterwards say that, from the very first page of the Bible, man was meant to be woman’s teacher. And everything went wrong when these roles were reversed.

If we let this context get in the way, we might have to change how our churches run. However, if we ignore this context, then we can say that the ‘woman’ and ‘man’ in verses 11-12 only refer to a particular man and a particular woman who happened to live in Ephesus at the time.8

6. Appeal to Irrelevant Context

Another approach is to actually use context, but only unclear or generic parts of it. For example verse 15 says that a woman ‘will be saved through childbearing.’ Since these words seem unclear, they let us off the hook from every other clear word in the passage.

On the other hand, if the surrounding context is entirely clear, we can appeal to overly broad and generic statements in distant parts of Scripture.

For example, the second part of Matthew 19:19 says that ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ Since this command is generic, we can apply it any way we like. For example, we can say that it is unloving if you do not allow your neighbour to teach you or exert authority over you. Therefore, since women are our neighbours, we can only love them by letting them teach and exert authority over us (including men).

7. Appeal to Silence

If contextual tools do not help, we can appeal to the inverse of context. Instead of paying attention to what is in a passage, we can pay attention to what is not in the passage. This is called appealing to silence.

Most passages of Scripture will not explicitly tell you what to do in every possible situation. For example, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 does not explicitly say that women are not allowed ‘teach’ or ‘exert authority’ on Sundays. In fact, the word ‘Sunday’ does not even appear in the text! This means women can teach and exert authority on Sundays.

Note: Some people refer to this as the ‘You didn’t say “Simon Says”’ tool.

8. Claim that the English Translation is Wrong

At this point, our loophole hermeneutic tools will become more technical.

You might now be wondering: ‘Wouldn’t it be easier to just admit the plain meaning of the passage?’ That is a perfectly natural response. As a small encouragement, remember that, unless you master these tools, you will need to obey any and every passage of Scripture, no matter how uncomfortable it might be.

So now we will learn the tool of disagreeing with established English translations of the Bible. If you have not spent enough time to learn the original languages of the Bible, don’t worry. A quick Google search can easily find a blog written by someone who claims to know these languages and happens to agree with you.

These blogs normally focus on a single word in the passage, and try to prove that its least likely definition is actually the right one. For example, ‘exercise authority’ is a translation of the Greek word authenteō.9 Outside of the Bible, this word was used (at least once) to describe one man physically forcing another man to do something.10 Therefore verse 12 only forbids women from physically forcing men into submission. The common, general and natural meaning of authenteō11 can be safely ignored.

There are, of course, many other words in this passage such as ‘teach,’ ‘quiet,’ ‘submissiveness,’ or ‘permit.’ If someone asks about these, you must find their least likely definitions too.

For example, consider the word translated as ‘teach’ (didaskō). This is one of the few words that have almost the same meaning in English as they do in Greek.12 However, if a woman leads an entire congregation in confession of sin by opening Scripture, explaining it, applying it and calling for repentance, she is not actually ‘teaching’ (didaskō) from Scripture. This is because one of the least likely translations of the word didaskō is to ‘admonish,’ and it is possible that the woman was not admonishing the men in the congregation in her heart.

If someone doubts your methodology, remind them that all of history has been biased against your particular view. Therefore every significant translation of this passage since the early church cannot be trusted.

9. Claim that the Original Language is Wrong

If you are unable to translate a verse into something more comfortable, you can claim that scribes in the past made a mistake when they copied Scripture.

This tool works particularly well when combined with tool #4: ancient scribes were part of a culture that disagrees with you, so they were biased when they meticulously copied each individual letter of the Bible.

10. Claim that the Human Author of Scripture is Wrong

If all of the above tools fail to provide you with an adequate loophole, you can resort to the final and ultimate tool: ‘It was just the human author’s opinion.’

You see, verse 12 begins with the word ‘I’. Paul said ‘I do not permit.’ He did not say ‘God does not permit.’ This means that verse 12 was just Paul’s opinion. So God’s opinion must therfore be the exact opposite of Paul’s opinion on this matter.

You might wonder why this tool has been classified as the most advanced tool. The reason is that you can easily apply it to every single verse of Scripture, without exception. Without proper care, you could accidentally turn every verse you do like into a mere opinion.

So you must use this tool sparingly, otherwise you run the risk of becoming a theological liberal, which is not the point of loophole hermeneutics!

Conclusion

I like to think of loophole hermeneutics like a treasure hunt. It can sometimes be incredibly difficult to find the loophole you are in need of. I have heard that in some cases, it can take years, involving multiple academic degrees and even international study groups. But once you have found your loophole, you get the same feeling that Blackbeard the pirate experienced when he discovered illicit booty in the West Indies.

Extending the analogy, you might end up realising that you quite like hunting for illicit treasure, and don’t want to stop, until you become a lifelong thief and abuser of precious cargo that does not belong to you.

Thoughtful Reformed

DISCLAIMER 
While loophole hermeneutics is very effective at convincing you and others that you are being faithful to the Bible, there have been reports that it will not withstand the day of God's judgement. These reports invoke passages of Scripture such as:

'For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.' - Ecclesiastes 12:14 (ESV)

'I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.' - Matthew 12:36 (ESV)

'Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.' - Matthew 5:19 (ESV)

On the other hand, we also received reports that 'It probably doesn't matter' and 'Those verses don't mean what you think they mean'.

Subscribe now

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

Romans 3:23-24 (ESV)

There is an old illustration that Christian evangelists used to give, which went something like this:

Imagine that you died tonight and arrived at Heaven’s Gates. As you sheepishly look between the bars, trying to spot a way in, God’s voice thunders from within:

‘Why should I let you into my Heaven?’

It’s a good question. It’s also uncomfortable.

How would you respond?

Any answer worth its salt would include the word ‘because’:

• Because I am a good person.

• Because you are forgiving.

• Because I forgot my keys.

On what grounds should you be allowed into Heaven?

Underlying that question is a quintessential Christian idea:

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

2 Corinthians 5:10 (ESV)

In front of the gates of Heaven, there is a judgement seat. Jesus is sitting on it, and he is going to give you what you deserve.

For some people, this is great news. They know that they are good people. For others, this is not such great news - they know that they’re not.

But by what standard will Jesus judge what is ‘good or evil’?

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

James 2:10-11 (ESV)

Uh oh.

Jesus is going to judge people using God’s law. And he’s going to be one of those super strict teachers - get question 217 wrong and you fail the whole exam.

But maybe God’s laws aren’t too hard to follow. Maybe he just wants us to be good citizens - like make sure you recycle and pay your taxes.

Unfortunately, Jesus uses a higher standard than Greenpeace:

You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Matthew 5:21-22 (ESV)

Double uh oh.

At this point, the Christian view puts people (as my Swiss friend liked to say), in a pickle:

1. To get to Heaven you have to be right with God.

2. To be right with God, you have to obey everything he has ever said, without exception.

3. There was that one time I insulted my brother for being such an idiot.1

And yet, after the Apostle John visits Heaven, he writes about it, saying:

After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands.

Revelation 7:9 (ESV)

How did they all get there?

Or rather, how did they all get right with God, in order to get there?

Roman Catholicism has an answer.

In this article, I am going to give a summary of that answer. And then I will assess it in the context of what the Bible says.

Official Catholic Teachings

How can you summarise what the Roman Catholic church believes about something?

Again, they have an answer:

All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.

First Vatican Council, 244-2452

Who is the magisterium? The Catholic Catechism defines it as ‘the Pope’ and ‘the college of bishops in communion with Him’.3 More specifically:

Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith or morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.

Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium4

What does this mean? When all the Catholic bishops formally agree with the Pope on a given teaching, that teaching becomes the official Catholic position.5

More specifically, that teaching is then seen as infallible - it is not possible for it to be wrong.6

But where can we find those teachings? As Catholic Canon Law says:

The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively;

Code of Canon Law, can. 749 §2 (emphasis added)7

So in summary: we can find the official and definitive Catholic teaching about something in the documents produced by their Ecumenical Councils.8

What are those Ecumenical Councils? The three most recent ones have been:

• The Council of Trent (1545)

• The First Vatican Council (1869)

• The Second Vatican Council (1962)

The Catholic View of Justification

So let’s dive in. What do the councils of the Catholic church have to say about our question:

How does a Catholic get right with God?

The Council of Trent starts by acknowledging that everyone is born in a state of not being right with God:

All men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam - having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath.

The Council of Trent, The Sixth Session, Chapter I9

This resonates with the biblical texts we saw earlier - everyone is under judgement (wrath) for not obeying God’s law (sin). Those ‘sins’ cause us to be ‘alienated from God’ (Ibid, Chapter V).

Moreover, everyone is born in this state because everyone is a descendent of the first man Adam:

For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust, - seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own.

Ibid, Chapter III

Here we see the key problem: everyone is born unjust and has his own injustice.

What does that mean?

It can be hard to understand until we dig into the original Latin term that the council is using here:

justitia (noun)

1. equality

2. justice

3. righteousness10

The term justice is being used in its third sense, namely righteousness.11

So, in other words, the Catholic view is that each person is born with their own unrighteousness. And that unrighteousness is the reason they are not right with (alienated from) God.

So how can someone get right with God then?

Logically, by replacing their unrighteousness with righteousness:

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, - as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace

Ibid, Chapter IV

So, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.

Ibid, Chapter III

Here we see a parallel: just like you were given unrighteousness (injustice) in your first birth, you are given righteousness (justice) in a new birth.

But what does it mean to receive ‘righteousness’? Is it like getting a gift that you hold onto? Or does it go deeper than that?

Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just

Ibid, Chapter VII

When someone receives that righteousness, it actually becomes part of his ‘inward man’ - part of his very nature.

And so, is that it? Do you just need to receive righteousness by being born again in Christ?

Well, you can actually lose that righteousness. Specifically when you commit a serious (mortal) sin:

It is to be maintained, that the received grace of Justification is lost, not only by infidelity whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, though faith be not lost

Ibid, Chapter XV

And you can regain it:

As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance they shall have attained to the recovery, by the merit of Christ, of the grace lost

Ibid, Chapter XIV

Equally, that righteousness increases when you do good works:

They, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified

Ibid, Chapter X

Finally, by combining the righteousness received from God and the righteousness gained by good works, someone can merit eternal life:

Life eternal is to be proposed to those working well unto the end, and hoping in God, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Jesus Christ, and as a reward which is according to the promise of God Himself, to be faithfully rendered to their good works and merits.

Ibid, Chapter XVI (emphasis added)

In summary then, according to official Catholic teaching, by combining the righteousness given in Christ, with the righteousness gained from good works, someone becomes internally righteous - and that will make him right with God.

The Catholic View of the Means of Justification

Yet there is something missing from the summary above. How do you receive that righteousness? And how do those good works happen?

With regards to receiving righteousness:

The beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace

Ibid, Chapter V

First God makes someone ‘disposed’ to ‘convert themselves’ by ‘quickening’ and ‘assisting’ their wills by an act of ‘grace’. Then, based on this initial assistance, a man can convert by ‘freely assenting’ to and ‘co-operating with’ God’s initiative.12

This assent to God’s initiative happens through ‘faith’:

Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised

Ibid, Chapter VI

And so, receiving righteousness happens internally?

Not entirely. In order for someone to accept God’s righteousness, their response needs to be enacted physically by carrying out the sacraments of penance and baptism:

By that penitence which must be performed before baptism

Ibid, Chapter VI

The instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith

Ibid, Chapter VII

On the other hand, how do those good works happen?

They were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

Ibid, Chapter I

Although everyone still has a (weakened) ‘free will’, no one can be ‘liberated’ from ‘sin’ just by their own ‘force of nature’.

However, after the ‘new birth’:

The charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity.

Ibid, Chapter VII

God gives the ‘gifts’ of ‘faith, hope, and charity’ so that they become ‘infused’ and ‘inherent’ in the person who receives them. However, someone can still refuse these free gifts, and so their reception depends on his co-operation (see above on losing God’s righteousness):

Overall Diagram of the Catholic View of Justification

And so, we can summarise everything we said above in a single diagram:13

As can be seen, there are many Christian terms used in the Catholic view (faith, righteousness, justification, baptism), however their full meaning can only be grasped in the context of the overall Catholic system.

Grace is present, and yet its role is always dependent on man’s cooperation. Being right with God is also present, but is entirely dependent on inherent righteous. Faith is there, however it is inextricably linked to the physical act of baptism.

Biblical View of Justification

As I mentioned above, the Catholic ecumenical councils provide us with the official Catholic view on justification.

And yet, in our quote from the First Vatican Council (see above), Catholicism claims that its views come (in part) from the ‘written’ ‘Word of God’. In other words, Catholicism claims to inherit the Bible’s teachings.14

Which leads us to a natural question: Are the views summarised above found in the Bible?

A good place to start would be the word justification itself. As mentioned above, the word justification comes from the Latin word justitia, which means righteousness. However, justitia is itself a translation15 of the biblical Greek term dikaiosunē:

dikaiosunē 'righteousness' (G1343)

righteousness, what is right, justice, the act of doing what is in agreement with God’s standards, the state of being in proper relationship with God16

Here, we find some nuances compared to the Catholic definition of justice/righteousness. Specifically, righteousness is not just an ‘internal’ state, but it can also be an external ‘state of being in proper relationship with God’.

If we go further and focus on the Greek term for justify, we find:

dikaioō 'to justify' (G1344)

to justify, vindicate, declare righteous, to put someone in a proper relationship with another, usually referring to God’s relationship to humankind, implying a proper legal or moral relationship17

This provides us with a meaning for ‘justify’ that is completely absent from the Catholic view. As summarised in the diagram above, the Catholic view is that God consistently justifies someone internally. The person naturally (or inherently) becomes righteous.

However, in the definition above, we find another possible meaning: to ‘declare righteous’. More specifically, we find that ‘justify’ can refer to being ‘put’ in a ‘proper relationship’ with God.

Where do these other meanings come from?

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
    and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

Romans 4:2-8 (ESV) (emphasis added)

In this passage, Paul contrasts two types of becoming righteous (justification):18

1. Righteous by Works: When someone ‘works’, his ‘wages’ are his ‘due’. And so someone who is righteous by (good) works deserves his right standing with God.

2. Counted Righteous by Faith: When someone ‘believes’ God, ‘his faith is counted as righteousness’. This righteousness is a ‘gift’.

The key term that appears here is counted:

logizomai 'to count' (G3049)

to credit, count, reckon; regard, think, consider19

The righteousness (justification) that Paul talks about here is external to the person who has faith. The person himself is not internally righteous, but is ‘regarded’ or ‘considered’ (counted) righteous.

Another way to say this is that a person is ‘declared’ righteous by God:

Biblical View of the Means of Justification

How then is someone counted righteous (externally justified) according to the Bible?

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 3:21-26 (ESV) (emphasis added)

The key word repeated in this passage is faith or believe:

pistis ‘faith/trust’ (G4102)

faith, faithfulness, belief, trust, with an implication that actions based on that trust may follow; “the faith” often refers to the Christian system of belief and lifestyle20

The term pistis contains within it both knowledge and trust. And so, someone receives God’s external righteousness by knowing and trusting that God has declared him righteous:

Meanwhile, the passage also gives us the fundamental reason that someone is declared righteous: the ‘propitiation’ of ‘Jesus Christ’:

hilastērios ‘propitiation’ (G2435)

atoning sacrifice; atonement cover, the place where sins are forgiven; traditionally propitiation or mercy seat

The ‘sacrifice’ of Jesus ‘atones’ for sins - therefore, the death of Christ pays for the external righteousness received by a believer:

Finally, it is important to note that God’s declaration that someone is righteous is both complete and final from the moment it is made:

But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,

“This is the covenant that I will make with them
    after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
    and write them on their minds,”

then he adds,

“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”

Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Hebrews 10:12-18 (ESV) (emphasis added)

This passage ties together the ‘single sacrifice for sins’ made by Christ, and the definitive ‘forgiveness’ of ‘sins’ so that Christ ‘has perfected for all time’ those who believe. The term ‘perfected’ (teleioō) means to ‘complete, finish’21 and is in the perfect indicative active22 form, which refers to a ‘completed action in the present time’.23

Therefore, the forgiveness of sins has already, completely and definitively been accomplished for those who are justified by faith.

This is why Paul can say:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Romans 8:1 (ESV) (emphasis added)

Overall Diagram of the Biblical View of Justification

Therefore, we can now represent the biblical view of (external) justification as:

It is important to note the emphasis of this diagram: the emphasis of every box is external. More specifically, ever part of the diagram has a God-centred focus:

• Christ’s payment on the Cross is accomplished entirely and exclusively by Christ.

• The declaration of righteousness is made entirely and sovereignly by God.

• Faith is fundamentally a state of trusting in the (external) works of God.

• Being right with God is seen as the (external and objective) state of one’s relationship with God.

Comparison of Views on Justification

Now that we have summarised both the Catholic and biblical views, it would be worthwhile to compare and contrast them.

Beginning with each view of justification, it is interesting to note that the Catholic view (being justified via internal righteousness) is actually referred to in the Bible:

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Romans 2:12-13 (ESV) (emphasis added)

Here, the stated ‘doers’ of the law attain an internal righteousness by which they might be justified.

However, attaining justification this way is considered impossible by Paul:

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

Galatians 3:10-12 (ESV) (emphasis added)

If someone relies on an internal righteousness (derived from works), then they are under a ‘curse’ since they would need to ‘abide by all things written in the Book of the Law’.

Therefore, ‘no one is justified before God by the law’.

This means that using internal ‘righteousness from good works’ as a basis for justification is both identified and condemned by the Bible.24

However, being justified by good works was only one of the two aspects of being justified from a Catholic perspective (see diagram above). What about gaining ‘righteousness from God’? Specifically, what if the ‘righteousness from God’ in the Catholic view is actually the same thing as being ‘declared righteous by God’ in the biblical view?

In fact, the Council of Trent clarified their position on this issue:

If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

The Council of Trent, The Sixth Session, Canon XI25 (emphasis added)

Here, the council identifies ‘sole imputation’ (counting) of ‘justice’ (righteousness) as contrary to their views. Instead, the ‘righteousness from God’ must inviolably have an ‘inherent’ aspect that is ‘poured forth’ into the ‘hearts’ of the justified.

In order to display the importance and strength of this position, Canon XII declares an ‘anathema’ on anyone who disagrees. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

At a late period, Gregory IX (1227-41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication. Since that time there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema, except the greater or less degree of ceremony in pronouncing the sentence of excommunication.

Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity.

Catholic Encyclopedia 1913/Anathema

Hence, the ‘anathema’ pronounced at the time of the Council of Trent (1547) corresponds to a ‘major excommunication’ from the Catholic Church.

Meanwhile, according to the biblical view, being ‘declared righteous by God’ is an entirely external act that changes only God’s ‘regard’ (counting) of a believer - and not the internal state of that believer, in any way.26

Believing in the biblical view of justification therefore entails excommunication from the Catholic Church.27

Comparison of Views on the Means of Justification

Seeing then that the Catholic and biblical views of justification are at odds, what about their respective views of how justification takes place?

While there are many elements in the Catholic view regarding the means of justification, they all pass through a single entity: man’s cooperation.

As was mentioned in a previous footnote, ‘cooperation’ refers the the Latin term cooperando which literally means ‘co-work’. Hence, there are many actions (works) that take place as a part of man’s cooperation with God’s grace, including baptism and penance. Faith plays a role, but it is subordinate to and an expression of man’s ‘co-work’ with God.

Meanwhile, in the biblical view, ‘faith’ is consistently seen as opposed and contradictory to ‘work’:

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 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 2:15-16 (ESV) (emphasis added)

The word not (ou) is repeated in this passage three times, making Paul’s point absolutely clear: works do ‘not’ justify. Rather, we are justified through faith.

More specifically, Paul states that adding works (in this case circumcision28) to one’s justification actually annuls that justification:

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Galatians 5:2-4 (ESV) (emphasis added)

According to the Bible, justification by faith is not only necessary, but exclusive. If anything else is added to justification by faith, then it ‘will be of no advantage to you’ and you will have ‘fallen away from grace’, being ‘severed from Christ’.

And while the biblical statements here are strong and exclusive, the Council of Trent made equally strong and exclusive statements concerning its own view:

If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

The Council of Trent, The Sixth Session, Canon XII (emphasis added)

If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

Ibid, Canon IX (emphasis added)

Again, we find an ‘anathema’ (major excommunication) applied to anyone who believes the biblical view that faith alone justifies.

And so we find diametrically opposed anathemas being mutually applied between the biblical and Catholic views of the means of justification.

The last means of justification to consider is the ‘grounds’ of justification. Essentially, by which merits is someone justified?

The Bible repeatedly refers to the grounds of justification as having been completed and accomplished, once for all, by Christ’s work on the Cross:

And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Hebrews 10:11-14 (ESV) (emphasis added)

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

John 19:30 (ESV)

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Romans 8:1 (ESV) (emphasis added)

Meanwhile, in the Catholic view, we find a continually growing justification based on the merits of the good works performed by the believer:

If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

The Council of Trent, The Sixth Session, Canon XXIV (emphasis added)

‘Good works’ ‘cause’ an ‘increase’ in one’s ‘justice’ (righteousness) and therefore ‘justification’.

Again, the council pronounced an ‘anathema’ (major excommunication) on anyone who disagrees with its view on the grounds of justification. In this situation, that includes those who hold the biblical view of those grounds.

Conclusion

Looking back at our original question:

How does a Catholic get right with God?

We could provide the following answer:

A Catholic gets right with God by increasing his internal righteousness. He does this by receiving righteousness from God and gaining righteousness from good works. However, in both these cases the man cooperates (co-works) with God to increase his internal righteousness.

This answer is grounded in the official Catholic documents produced (primarily) at the Council of Trent (1545). Since the Catholic Church sees the decrees of its ecumenical councils as being infallible, we can be confident that the views expressed in those documents are the definitive and final Catholic views on justification.

However, when we compare the Catholic view of justification with the Bible, we find some key differences:

• Declared (external) righteousness is entirely missing from the Catholic view, while being the foundation of the biblical view of justification.

• ‘Righteousness by faith’ and ‘righteousness by works’ are clearly portrayed as contradictory and mutually exclusive in the biblical view. Meanwhile, the Catholic view not only sees them as compatible, but as conjoined in the process of justification.

• Justification in the biblical view is an objective act carried out by God alone and then applied to the believer, via his faith. Meanwhile, the Catholic view makes justification dependent on the (subjective) cooperation (co-work) of the believer with God.

• Justification in the biblical view is final and complete at the very moment God declares it. Meanwhile, justification in the Catholic view can be gained, lost, regained, increased and decreased over time according to the actions of the believer.

• The Catholic church has pronounced anathemas (excommunication) against anyone who disagrees with its position on the above points. These anathemas are seen as infallible and therefore cannot be revoked by the Catholic church.

From the above considerations, I conclude that the official Catholic view of justification is fundamentally and definitively incompatible with the biblical view of justification.

And so, coming back to our first question: How did all the people in Revelation 7:9 get into Heaven? John records the answer in the verses which follow:

Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, “Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?” I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”

Revelation 7:13-14 (ESV)

How can all of these people stand before a Holy God who judges the slightest sin?

All of them are wearing ‘white robes’ - perfect, moral righteousness.

And how did their robes become white? They ‘made them white in the blood of the Lamb’.

These robes of righteousness cover them with the finished work of Jesus on the Cross, where he paid for all of their sins.

Hence their righteousness is not internal, but external. Not something in them but something on them. It is not a result of their good works, but a result of Christ’s good work on the Cross. And so their confidence before God does not come from their past co-work with God’s grace. Rather it comes from the complete payment for sin that Jesus made on the Cross, once and for all.

May we all put on those perfect robes of righteousness, so that our own filthiness might be covered, and we might stand before God in perfect confidence when we arrive at his gates:

Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. And the angel said to those who were standing before him, “Remove the filthy garments from him.” And to him he said, “Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments.”

Zechariah 3:3-4 (ESV)

Thoughtful Reformed

Subscribe now

Appendix

The Second Vatican Council and Justification

While the clearest and most definitive Catholic statements concerning justification are found in the documents produced by the Council of Trent, there have been two Catholic ecumenical councils since then.

While neither of those councils addressed justification to a significant degree, the Second Vatican Council represented a shift in Catholic theology which has implications for their view of justification:

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*)

The Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 1629

Here, we find a shift in language from the definitive, either-or statements made at the Council of Trent. The ‘plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator’, including:

• The Jewish people who ‘remains most dear to God’

• The ‘Muslims’ who ‘along with us adore the one and merciful God’

• Those who follow ‘shadows and images’ of the ‘unknown God’

Specifically:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

Ibid

The council focusses on those who ‘do not know’ about Jesus and the Catholic church. For these peoples, if they ‘sincerely seek’ God via the ‘dictates of conscience’ they ‘can attain to salvation’.

How do the above statements fit with the Council of Trent?

There is a strong case to be made that the two are mutually incompatible, especially when focussing on the original intent of the Council of Trent. While those who do not have an ‘explicit knowledge of God’ are not specifically referenced in the Sixth Session, its scope is both universal and unqualified:

If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

The Council of Trent, The Sixth Session, Canon I (emphasis added)

Here the ‘teaching of human nature’ includes the content of a man’s natural ‘conscience’. Equally, ‘grace’ is communicated necessarily through the physical act of a Catholic baptism:

Of this Justification the causes are these: … the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified;

Ibid, Chapter VII (emphasis added)

One way to try to reconcile Lumen Gentium 16 with the Council of Trent is to say that God’s ‘grace’ can be given to someone without their knowledge or awareness of it:

… moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

The Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 16

And yet the Council of Trent uses the precise language of being ‘moved towards God’ only in the context of ‘hearing’ and ‘believing’ what God has ‘revealed’ about the ‘redemption that is in Christ Jesus’:

Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised, - and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;

The Council of Trent, The Sixth Session, Chapter VI (emphasis added)

Beyond these serious tensions, Lumen Gentium cannot be applied to anyone currently reading this article.

If you have read this article then you have read the Catholic understanding of the Gospel and so cannot claim that you ‘do not know the [Catholic] Gospel of Christ or His Church’.

Thus I would suggest that the Second Vatican Council introduces, at best, unclear tensions with the Council of Trent that do not apply to those who have been exposed to Catholic teaching.

Therefore, the clear and unambiguous teachings found in the Council of Trent concerning justification are to be preferred for summarising the official Catholic understanding of justification.

The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

In 1999 the Catholic Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Lutheran World Federation produced a document called the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.

The document begins by acknowledging mutual condemnation between the Catholic and Lutheran churches at the time of the Reformation concerning the doctrine of justification:

Doctrinal condemnations were put forward both in the Lutheran Confessions and by the Roman Catholic Church’s Council of Trent. These condemnations are still valid today and thus have a church-dividing effect.

The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, 130

However, the document goes on to state that the Catholic and Lutheran churches have reached a ‘common understanding’ of justification such that the ‘remaining differences are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations’:

The present Joint Declaration has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ. It does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations.

Ibid, 5 (emphasis added)

How does the document claim to do this?

In their respective histories our churches have come to new insights. Developments have taken place which not only make possible, but also require the churches to examine the divisive questions and condemnations and see them in a new light.

Ibid, 7 (emphasis added)

It is important to note that the Lutheran churches are descendants of Martin Luther’s theology, which corresponds in large part to the biblical view of justification outlined in this article.

And so does this document manage to reconcile the mutually incompatible Catholic and biblical views of justification by ‘new insights’?

By way of example, here is how the document seeks to reconcile the Lutheran and Catholic understandings of being declared righteous:

We confess together that God forgives sin by grace and at the same time frees human beings from sin’s enslaving power and imparts the gift of new life in Christ. When persons come by faith to share in Christ, God no longer imputes to them their sin and through the Holy Spirit effects in them an active love. These two aspects of God’s gracious action are not to be separated, for persons are by faith united with Christ, who in his person is our righteousness (1 Cor 1:30): both the forgiveness of sin and the saving presence of God himself. Because Catholics and Lutherans confess this together, it is true to say that:

Ibid, 22 (emphasis added)

So far, there is nothing written that was not already present in the Council of Trent. Paragraph 22 talks about being ‘born again’ by God’s ‘gracious action’ by ‘faith’ for the ‘forgiveness of sin’.

After this, we see how the question of declared righteousness is handled by the Lutheran and Catholic sides:

When Lutherans emphasize that the righteousness of Christ is our righteousness, their intention is above all to insist that the sinner is granted righteousness before God in Christ through the declaration of forgiveness and that only in union with Christ is one’s life renewed. When they stress that God’s grace is forgiving love (“the favor of God”), they do not thereby deny the renewal of the Christian’s life. They intend rather to express that justification remains free from human cooperation and is not dependent on the life-renewing effects of grace in human beings.

Ibid, 23 (emphasis added)

The Lutheran position remains unchanged: ‘righteousness’ comes from a ‘declaration of forgiveness’ which is ‘free from cooperation’ and does not ‘depend’ on any goodness in the human being justified.

When Catholics emphasize the renewal of the interior person through the reception of grace imparted as a gift to the believer, they wish to insist that God’s forgiving grace always brings with it a gift of new life, which in the Holy Spirit becomes effective in active love. They do not thereby deny that God’s gift of grace in justification remains independent of human cooperation. [cf. Sources for section 4.2].

Ibid, 24 (emphasis added)

Meanwhile, the Catholic view remains the same. Only the initial ‘grace’ of God is ‘independent of human cooperation’ as a ‘gift of new life’.

So what has changed?

The first change is the addition of the term ‘emphasizes’. Instead of portraying the two positions as being substantially different, their difference is reduced to an ‘emphasis’.

Meanwhile, there are significant omissions: the Catholic view does not address the ‘declared forgiveness’ in the Lutheran view. It also does not address the lack of human cooperation in justification according to the Lutheran view (remember the difference between God’s initial ‘grace’ and actual ‘justification’ in the Catholic view).

The two views speak past each other, while all differences are attributed to different emphases.

And so the ‘common understanding’ proposed is not a resolution of differences, but rather a statement that those differences do not truly matter.

I am afraid that this is an unfair treatment of both the historic Lutheran and Catholic views.

The entire crux of the disagreement was precisely over such issues as ‘declared righteousness’ and ‘human cooperation’ in justification.

The Lutherans and Catholics understood each other only too well.

And so by stating that these difference are not significant, the document does not actually fulfil its initial claim to maintain that the original ‘condemnations are still valid today and thus have a church-dividing effect.’

In fact, the project undertaken in this joint declaration is not possible because there is a logical contradiction between the Lutheran and Catholic positions. Both cannot be held simultaneously to be true.

And so, by seeking to reconcile the two views without actually denying any of the specific content present in either view, the document is unable to effect any resolution.

At best it is able to reproduce instances of ‘talking past’ one another.

At worst, it actually disregards the content of both views.

Therefore, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification does not present any significant modifications to the inherent opposition between the biblical and Catholic views of justification presented in this article.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

2 Timothy 3:16

There is an old saying in Christian circles:

Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.

Its surprising simplicity hides a significant statement - that we can find true knowledge about God in the Bible.

But how can we know what the Bible actually says?

In our time, there seem to be two extreme solutions to this problem.

On the one hand, we have individualism which claims that you are able to understand the Bible on your own and don’t need help from anyone.

On the other hand, we have communitarianism which claims that you cannot understand the Bible for yourself, but need to rely on your community to interpret it for you.

Examples of individualism are quite common in the West and can be heard in statements such as:

• ‘Well, that’s what the passage means to me.’

• ‘That’s just your interpretation.’

• ‘I don’t need anyone to tell me what the Bible says.’

On the other hand, communitarianism is present in communities such as the Roman Catholic church, which decreed at the Second Vatican Council that:

The task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ

Dei Verbum 10.2

In the Catholic view, there is only one place you can look with confidence for knowing what the Bible says - the teachers of the Catholic Church (its magisterium).

While each extreme position provides a clear-cut answer, most people are somewhere in-between the two - and that can be confusing.

Scenario: James the Confused

Consider the following practical illustration:

James felt confused. It was Sunday afternoon and he had just finished having a meal with his family, but the minister’s words from his sermon were still ringing in his ears:

In Jesus, God’s answer is always yes! He will always say yes to everything you ask him in prayer!

James had trouble swallowing this - there were quite a few times he had prayed and God’s answer was actually ‘No’. Sometimes the prayer was not super serious, like that time he wanted to go out with Stacey. Other times, the prayers were deep and heartfelt - when his grandmother fell ill and he desperately prayed for her to get better. She never did.

How could God’s answer always be ‘Yes!’ when they had not always been ‘Yes’?

Bothered by these thoughts, James went and spoke to his minister after the sermon:

James: Thank you for the sermon! But I didn’t understand what you meant by saying that God answers all of our prayers with ‘Yes’?

Minister: I meant that God answers each real prayer with a ‘Yes!’.

James: But what about the times I have prayed for something and it hasn’t happened?

Minister: If God hasn’t answered your prayers, you shouldn’t blame him. The problem is with your prayers - not with him.

James remembered feeling hurt and slightly offended by the minister’s response. At the same time, he didn’t trust what his minister was saying:

James: Is there a Bible passage you could point me to?

Minister: Of course! It’s what I preached on this morning! 1 Corinthians 1:19 says:

‘For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we proclaimed among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No, but in him it is always Yes.’

You see? God always says yes. So the problem is not with him.

At that point, James wasn’t sure what to say. The minister had just quoted Scripture and it seemed to say exactly what he claimed. But something didn’t feel right.

The Role of Bible Teachers

I think many Christians experience something similar to James.

Your minister says something you find wrong or offensive. Your denomination makes a public statement that you disagree with. Your older brother invokes the privileges of the firstborn from the book of Deuteronomy.1

When that happens, what should you do?

On the one hand, you could just dismiss it: ‘The minister doesn’t really know me or my situation. Who is he to tell me what to believe?’

On the other hand, you might question your own disagreement: ‘Surely, they know more about God than I do. Who am I to question them? What if I’m missing something and they just want to make sure I believe the right thing?’

These are hard questions. And they have a significant impact on the life of a Christian.

In order to address them, I am going slightly modify the well-known saying above into a question:

Jesus loves me, this I know, because the Bible teacher tells me so?

In this article, I am going to try and answer that question. What is the legitimate role of a Bible teacher? If any?

In order to do that, I am going to work through what Paul says to the Corinthian church in 2 Corinthians 2:12-4:12.

Paul the Bible Teacher

From the beginning of 2 Corinthians 2:12-4:12, it is clear that Paul has a habit of teaching people about God: he shares the gospel (2:12), speaks in Christ (2:17), states the truth (4:2) and proclaims Christ (4:5). As a tidy summary of his teaching role, Paul says:

But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere.

2 Corinthians 2:14

Paul isn’t sharing his mere opinions or ideas here, he is sharing the actual ‘knowledge’ of God. What does that mean? If you reject Paul’s teaching, then you reject the knowledge of God.

Application to James the Confused

Could James simply not listen to his minister? Could he just say: ‘I know God personally so I don’t need to listen to you’?

If James were living in Corinth when Paul visited, this attitude would actually keep him from gaining the ‘knowledge’ of God that spread ‘through’ Paul and his co-workers.

As we find throughout the Bible, God normally uses Bible teachers to spread knowledge about himself.2

If James simply dismisses what his minister says, he runs the risk of actually dismissing the knowledge of God.3

Who Does Paul Think He Is?

But how can Paul claim that he is spreading the actual knowledge of God? After all, the knowledge of God is a question of life and death (2:15-16). As Paul himself says: ‘Who is sufficient4 for these things?’ (2:16)

Is Paul actually qualified to be spreading this knowledge? How can someone be qualified to spread the greatest and most valuable knowledge in human history?

Actually, the Corinthians had a few qualifications in mind:

• letters of recommendation (3:1)

• skill in speaking (11:6)

• strong bodily presence (10:10)

• being good enough to charge visitor speaking fees (11:7)

At the time, letters of recommendation were key to being esteemed and well regarded. Equally, only a great teacher could charge money for the privilege of being his audience.

And yet, Paul wasn’t just any teacher. He claimed to be teaching the knowledge of God out of the Jewish Scriptures. Surely, the following qualifications could bolster his pedigree:

• being a Hebrew (11:22)

• being an Israelite (11:22)

• being a descendent of Abraham (11:22)

Underlying the question of Paul’s qualifications is a deeper concern: Can the Corinthians trust what Paul is saying?

Paul rhetorically voices this concern:

Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you?

2 Corinthians 3:1

A written ‘letter of recommendation’ is the kind of proof that the Corinthians were looking for.

The diagram below represents the logic behind the Corinthians’ view:

(‘Authorises’ is another word that could be used to describe the relationship between these circles.)

At its heart, the Corinthian view seeks ‘Man’ (leftmost circle) to authorise or validate their faith. The final authority in this picture is human.

It is interesting to note that Paul could have provided the Corinthians with a potent letter of recommendation from the council in Jerusalem.5 Paul also had plenty of other qualifications that he could have used to convince the Corinthians of his validity.6

Yet Paul sidesteps these opportunities entirely:

You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

2 Corinthians 3:2-3

In other words, the Corinthians were looking for the wrong kind of letter.

A physical ‘letter of recommendation’ would validate Paul’s message on the basis of the authority of the humans who wrote it. Whereas a spiritual letter validates Paul’s message on the basis of the authority of the Holy Spirit who wrote it.

The diagram below represents the logic of Paul’s source of validation:

The Holy Spirit ‘writes’ his message on the ‘hearts’ of the Corinthians. This message is valid simply because it comes from the Holy Spirit. And so the Corinthian’s faith is valid because it is an inscription of the Holy Spirit’s message.

Meanwhile Paul is only valid because the message he preaches is valid (resulting in a valid faith among the Corinthians).

In other words, it is Paul’s message (and the effects of that message) that validate his role. It is not Paul’s role that validates his message.7

The final authority in this picture is the Holy Spirit, not men.

Application to James the Confused

So James should not just dismiss what his minister is saying.

Does that mean he should just accept it then?

James might have many reasons for just accepting what his minister says. For example, maybe his minister is:

• a biblical scholar with many published papers to his name

• a well-known speaker who has published several bestsellers

• ordained in a church with deep historical roots with established biblical interpretations, developed over the centuries (eg the Roman Catholic Church)

• just a minister while James is not

If James chooses to accept what his minister says because of one of the reasons above, he would see his minister (or his church) as the source of validation for God’s message.

Ironically, if James took such an attitude in Corinth, it would have kept him from gaining true knowledge of God.

Reviewing Paul’s qualifications, he might have concluded with the other Corinthians that:8

‘His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account.’

2 Corinthians 10:10

And so, James can’t resolve his problem by simply dismissing (individualism) or accepting (communitarianism) what his minister said.

James has no choice but to try and find out if his minister’s message itself is valid.

True Understanding of Scripture

But then how does someone find out if a teacher’s message is from God?

Paul makes this question quite difficult to answer since he removes the possibility of looking at the qualifications of a teacher as a measure of his message.

Even more challenging is the evidence that he does provide: Paul says that ‘you yourselves are our letter of recommendation’ (2 Corinthians 3:2). So he uses the fact that the Corinthians were convinced by his message as proof that they should be convinced by his message. Isn’t that a circular argument?

Meanwhile, the other evidence that Paul provides is that his sufficiency and the message itself come directly from God the Holy Spirit:

Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

2 Corinthians 3:4-6

But how does this constitute evidence? One could imagine a rival teacher to Paul saying exactly the same thing.

Who is right if two people disagree while both claiming to be messengers from the One God? Again, there appears to be a form of circularity here: ‘This message is from God because it is from God’.

At this point, it might be tempting to escape the circularity by introducing other criteria for measuring Paul’s message (apart from Paul’s own qualifications). For example:

• Does the message itself make sense?

• Is it logically coherent, or are there contradictions?

• Does the message work in practice?

• Does the message feel right?

The above criteria and their relationship to the message could be represented as the diagram below:

(Again, the term ‘validates’ could equally be replaced with the term ‘authorises’.)

Interestingly, this diagram again places man as the source of validation for the message. The final authority in this picture is still human.

Looking back to our two extremes, this approach represents individualism, while the Corinthians’ approach above represented communitarianism. However, both these views actually share the same core assumption: authority ultimately comes from humans.

And yet Paul does not appeal to any of the above (individualist) criteria.

Instead, Paul proceeds to build an argument that takes the truth of his original message for granted: he has been given a ‘ministry of the Spirit’ and ‘righteousness’ which must ‘far exceed’ another ministry in ‘glory’:9

Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

2 Corinthians 3:7-11

It is significant that here Paul actually acknowledges the existence of a rival message: there is another message which was ‘carved in letters on stone’ and undergirds a ‘ministry of condemnation’.

Even more significantly, these two different messages derive from the same words of Scripture, originally written by Moses:

Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

2 Corinthians 3:12-18

In other words, Paul is presenting to the Corinthians a different interpretation of the ‘old covenant’ which is heard when the books written by ‘Moses’ are ‘read’.10 Paul describes these two interpretations of ‘Moses’ as:11

1. Interpretation by the Letter: The ‘old covenant’ is understood in a way that brings ‘condemnation’, misses ‘Christ’ and does not take place by the ‘Spirit’ of God.

2. Interpretation by the Spirit: ‘Moses’ is understood in a way that brings ‘righteousness’ as it reveals the ‘glory of the Lord’ by the work of the Holy ‘Spirit’.

And so, getting back to our question: how is a member of the Corinthian church supposed to know which of these interpretations is the right one?

Paul’s answer here is profound: Those who follow the interpretation by the letter are actually unable to realise that they are wrong. Their ‘minds’ are ‘hardened’ and a ‘veil lies over their hearts’. The diagram below represents an interpretation by the letter:12

One could use words to explain what a sunrise looks like to a person born blind, but such words would never be able to transmit actual sight of that sunrise. A blind person does not receive sight via letters and words, and indeed cannot.

Those who follow the interpretation by the letter are simply blind.

This handicap puts into context the futility of a ‘hardened’ person relying on his own abilities or the qualifications of others for understanding God’s message correctly. Both individualism and communitarianism are doomed to failure.

On the other hand, those who follow the interpretation of the Spirit have ‘all’ been given ‘freedom’ for ‘beholding the glory of the Lord’. The diagram below represents an interpretation by the Spirit:

Each man is not blind, but individually sees the correct interpretation when ‘Moses’ is ‘read’, since it is the Holy Spirit who is interpreting and teaching the Scripture to him. The individual is active, but not as his own authority.13

Equally, the teacher passes on a correct message to the man because the Holy Spirit first teaches the teacher via Scripture and then teaches the man via his teacher. The community is active, but does not act as its own authority.14

In other words, the correct interpretation of Scripture is a ‘light bulb moment’:

For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 4:6

So correct interpretation happens when the Holy Spirit reveals his message internally to a man, whether by the direct reading of Scripture or the relaying of Scripture through a teacher.

Paul’s description of the work of the Holy Spirit explains his earlier unflinching circularity: the messages of God authenticate themselves by the work of the Holy Spirit. True messages from God are neither validated by, nor interpreted by man: they are validated by the Holy Spirit and interpreted in the mind of man by the Spirit.

As Paul so clearly states in his earlier letter to the Corinthians:

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:12-14

Application to James the Confused

So James doesn’t simply ignore or take his minister’s word for it. He wants to know if the message itself is true: does God answer every prayer with ‘Yes’ if we pray ‘correctly’?

But how will he find that out?

At this point, James might be tempted to use some individualist criteria: does the message feel right? Does it work out practically? Does it ‘make sense’?

Yet relying on such an analysis of his minister’s message is foreign to what Paul did with the Corinthians. Quite simply, Paul opened Scripture to and with the Corinthians, showing from the Scriptures the ‘glory of the Lord’.

In other words, James needs to do a Bible study.

Should James do the Bible study on his own, or with other people (his minister included)?

Paul’s approach with the Corinthians makes it clear that the answer is both! On an individual level, the Holy Spirit revealed the ‘glory of the Lord’ to ‘all’ as ‘Moses’ was ‘read’. And on a community level, the Corinthians did not see this interpretation in Scripture before Paul came and showed it to them - the Holy Spirit worked through Paul to teach them.

Yet there are warnings here for James. While studying Scripture individually, is he actually relying on the Holy Spirit to interpret it for him? Is the Holy Spirit his final authority? Or does he have a veil over his heart that keeps him from seeing God’s message while he relies on himself and his own interpretations, thereby establishing himself as the final authority over his interpretation?

Equally, when he studies the Bible via the teaching of others, is he actually relying on the Holy Spirit to ultimately interpret and teach it to him? Is the Holy Spirit his final authority? Or does he have a veil over his heart that keeps him from seeing God’s message for himself, so instead he merely goes along with what someone else says about the Bible, treating others as the final authority over his interpretation of Scripture?15

If James refuses to study the Bible in a community (for example out of pride and self-sufficiency) he is denying one of the ways that the Holy Spirit teaches - via teachers in the church. On the other hand, if James refuses to study the Bible individually (for example, out of fear that he will get it wrong or fear of becoming self-sufficient) he is also denying one of the ways that the Holy Spirit teaches - via the individual reading of Scripture.

Finally, James might fear standing in ‘judgement’ over his minister - thereby not respecting the minister’s authority. And yet that hesitation contradicts the role of the Holy Spirit in correct interpretation. If James is being taught a correct interpretation by the Holy Spirit, then his judgement of his minister would not be on his own authority, but on the authority of the Holy Spirit.16

Bible Teachers Are Jars of Clay

At this point, another question arises: if it really is the Holy Spirit who teaches someone the correct interpretation of Scripture, what is the role of a teacher in a church? Is a teacher redundant? Equally, if it really is the Holy Spirit who teaches me the knowledge of God, why should I read the Bible? Isn’t Bible reading then redundant?

You could imagine Paul entering a form of despair at this point: ‘There is nothing I can do to make someone understand God’s message, only the Holy Spirit can do that. So why should I keep teaching if what I do does not determine whether someone believes?’

Instead of following such logic, Paul does the exact opposite:

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, Let light shine out of darkness, has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 4:1-6

Paul does not lose heart. Instead, he has ‘renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways’. He does not ‘practice cunning’ or ‘tamper’ with God’s word.

Why would Paul be tempted to use underhanded ways to convince people of God’s message?

Referring back our earlier discussion of validity, if Paul were to derive the validity of his message from his own qualifications, then the cogency of his message would depend on his own ability to convince others of its truth. Such a situation could be represented as the following diagram:

In this situation, God’s message is not transmitted untarnished and intact to a man. Instead, the teacher changes the message into his own. More specifically (especially when the hearer is hesitant to accept it) the teacher will ‘tamper’ with God’s original message through ‘cunning’ and so use ‘underhanded’ ways in his teaching.17 Such an approach is ‘disgraceful’.

But Paul says that he has ‘renounced’ such ‘underhanded’ ways. He and his co-workers ‘refuse’ to ‘tamper’ with ‘God’s word’. Instead he makes an ‘open statement of the truth’ in the ‘sight of God’. Paul’s approach could be illustrated with the following diagram:

Instead of trying to manipulate the message, Paul seeks to keep the message completely intact and unchanged. Not only this, he seeks to express the message as an ‘open statement of the truth’: as clear, understandable and public as possible.18 Unlike the ‘cunning’ of the false teachers, Paul’s approach has a clear simplicity to it: what you see is what you get.

The end result is that Paul can say:

For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.

2 Corinthians 4:5

In other words, a false teacher wants you to put your faith in the false teacher. He wants to be your Lord. So he blocks your view of Jesus and does not say ‘Listen to Jesus’ but rather ‘Listen to me’.

Meanwhile, a true teacher wants you to put your faith in Jesus. He wants Jesus to be your Lord. So he works as hard as possible to get out of the way. He does not say ‘Listen to me’ but rather ‘Listen to Jesus’.

This understanding is precisely what enables Paul to ‘not lose heart’. His role is not to gain authority over his listeners, control their response to his message or even get them to understand his message. Rather his role is simply to ‘make an open statement of the truth’.

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4

Which leads us to Paul’s well known metaphor of the role of a teacher:

But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.

2 Corinthians 4:7-10

The Holy Spirit’s message, the ‘gospel’, is a ‘treasure’ that comes with ‘surpassing power’. But it is delivered through weak, unimpressive and not very valuable containers: ‘jars of clay’.

Why does God choose containers essentially made of dirt? Paul says:

To show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.

2 Corinthians 4:7

Imagine if an invaluable treasure were hidden inside a beautiful, gold-painted, ornamental vase - itself worth a fortune. Could a casual observer mistakenly be distracted by the glory of the vessel and forget to look inside? Paul says ‘Yes’.

Therefore, Paul puts on full display that he is ‘afflicted’, ‘perplexed’, ‘persecuted’ and ‘struck down’. Not a very impressive vessel. But by carrying this ‘death’, the ‘life of Jesus’ may be clearly seen by the Corinthians:

For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you.

2 Corinthians 4:11-12

In summary: Paul shows the Corinthians how unimpressive he is, so that the Corinthians focus on Jesus and his message instead.

Application to James the Confused

After the sermon, James asked his minister if he could show his views from the Bible.

This put his minister to the test. How will he react? Will he:

• Say that James should not question those in authority over him?

• Compare his theological qualifications to James’s?

• Bring to bear the authority of the church tradition that the minister is ordained in?

• Backtrack and qualify what he said previously?

Will James’s minister present himself as an empty, unimpressive vessel but point James to the surpassing treasure of God’s message, found in Scripture? Or will the minister seek to hide that treasure from James and encourage James to focus on how glorious and impressive the vessel is?

Will James’s minister open a Bible and study it openly, simply and clearly with James and point him to the message contained therein? Will he act like a true Bible teacher?

If his minister does not do so, then he is out of step with Paul. Whether he realises it or not, such a minister will be ‘proclaiming’ himself (or his church19) as ‘Lord’ over James instead of Jesus. He will just be getting in the way.

A Real Life Example

The above analysis of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is both deep and, at times, abstract. Do we have any examples of Paul practising what he preaches in these passages?

The book of Acts contains many such rich examples, one of which being when Paul teaches in Thessolonica and Berea.

Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ. And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the crowd. And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city authorities, shouting, These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus. And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard these things. And when they had taken money as security from Jason and the rest, they let them go. The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also, they came there too, agitating and stirring up the crowds. Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there. Those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens, and after receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they departed.

Acts 17:1-15

By way of highlighting pertinent parts of this passage:

• It was Paul’s ‘custom’ to go to a synagogue and then ‘[reason] with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving’ the message about Jesus. Pointing people to Scripture and seeking to have them see that message of Jesus for themselves is not just one of many approaches that Paul takes - it is the very bedrock of his ministry practice.

• In Thessalonica, there were those who did in fact see the glory of Christ for themselves in the Scriptures, and there were those who were blind to that glory. Instead of trying to assert his authority over those who rejected his message or trying again with a modified version of the message, Paul went ‘away by night to Berea’. His role began and ended with an open statement of the truth.

• Paul does not lose heart after being persecuted and chased out of Thessalonica. He does not start to doubt his message due to not having the esteem of men. Rather, he knows that rejection of God’s message is fundamentally a rejection of God and only incidentally of him.

• Paul goes to Berea and again goes to a synagogue to explain from the Scriptures God’s message about Jesus.

• The Bereans are praised by the author of Acts as being ‘more noble’ than those in Thessalonica because ‘they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.’ Through constant study of the Scriptures, the Bereans sought to see for themselves in the Scriptures whether Paul’s interpretation was true. They were not content to just take Paul’s word for it and did not take into account Paul’s qualifications or status. Instead, the core question was: ‘What has God said in Scripture’? Instead of being a vehicle for pride or self-sufficiency in their reading of Scripture, this was in fact a vehicle by which the Bereans received Jesus as their Lord: ‘Many of them therefore believed’. The Holy Spirit taught them through Paul and they submitted to the Holy Spirit’s message.

Application to James the Confused

James should not hesitate to imitate what happened in Acts 17:1-15. The open study of the Scriptures in community as we seek to know God’s message is intended by God to be a normal part of church life.

At the same time, James should not be surprised if the open reading of Scripture still leads to unreasonable and strong rejection by others of what is clearly written. Blindness to what is clear in Scripture is not a new phenomenon and has continued to be motivated by entrenched religious traditions and jealousy since the time of Paul.

So James should not lose heart. The Holy Spirit is at work today to give ‘the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’ to all believers.20

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing

2 Corinthians 4:3

Conclusion

So, can a Christian say:

Jesus loves me, this I know, because the Bible teacher tells me so?

Well, it depends. What does the word ‘because’ mean here? There are two options:

1. ‘Because’ means that ‘Jesus loves me’ is true simply because my teacher said it was true.

2. ‘Because’ means that I learned the truth that ‘Jesus loves me’ through a vessel (a Bible teacher) who carried that message from God to me.

If ‘because’ is used in the first sense, then I believe that 2 Corinthians 2:12-4:12 clearly condemns the statement. According to Paul, a Christian should believe the message of God on the authority of the Holy Spirit alone. It is ‘self-authenticating’ and does not need the competencies or authority of a church teacher to be true.

If however, ‘because’ is used in the second sense, then I believe that 2 Corinthians 2:12-4:12 clearly justifies this sentence. God used Paul as a vessel to bring the good news of Jesus to the Corinthians, and he continues to do this through his elect teachers today.

Let us not deny either the individual reading of Scripture or the communal reading and teaching of Scripture as means by which the knowledge of God is passed on. At the same time, let us not fool ourselves into thinking that my mere reading of Scripture or the mere teaching of Scripture leads to our knowledge of God. Rather, it is solely the work of the Holy Spirit, through each of these means, that reveals to us God’s message in our hearts.21

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:12-14

Thoughtful Reformed

Subscribe now

Your word is a lamp for my feet,
    a light on my path.

Psalm 119:105

The unfolding of your words gives light;
it imparts understanding to the simple.

Psalm 119:130

The law of the Lord is perfect,
    reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
    making wise the simple;

Psalm 19:7

There is something I have never understood about flashlights. We used to keep one in our cupboard in case the power went out. But, if the power goes out, how are you going to find the flashlight? Don’t you need another flashlight to find the first one?

Light has a way of doing that. You need light before you can see. Not after.

So it is pretty astounding that the Christian Bible claims to be light.

Many people claim to tell the truth.1 How many people claim that you can’t know any truth unless you first listen to them?

By claiming to be light, the Bible asserts:

1. You can clearly know the Bible (just like you can see the lamp itself).

2. You can clearly know everything else via the Bible (just like the lamp enables you to see everything else in the room).

In other words, the Bible is clear and makes everything else clear.2

The Bible is Clear

My children love hiding from me. When I walk downstairs from my office, I often hear the pattering of feet, the rustling of cushions on the sofa, and muffled giggling.

The problem is that they’re not very good at it.

9 times out of 10, when I get to the family room, I find them on the sofa - in plain sight - desperately holding their eyes closed.3

Why doesn’t their strategy work? Or, more importantly, why do they think it would?

It’s quite natural to confuse our perception of something with its reality. It’s even more natural to think that there is nothing wrong with our perception - that we see everything just fine. If I can’t see something no one can.

So when someone says that the Bible is clear, the smart aleck at the back of the classroom says: ‘What about Exodus 23:19b?’

You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk.

Exodus 23:19

To which the teacher replies: ‘Which part don’t you understand? The goat and its mother’s milk? Or the fact that you are being told to not do something?’

More seriously though, if you have spent time reading the Bible, you have likely found some parts of it to be less clear than others. You might have even found some parts to be opaque.

But maybe that experience says more about us, than it does about the Bible.

In fact, if we let it speak, the Bible does have a few things to say to us on the topic:

Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes, but see not, who have ears, but hear not.

Jeremiah 5:21

Instead of assuming that our perception of things is fine, the Bible assumes the opposite: that there is something deeply dysfunctional about the way we naturally see everything, including the Bible itself.4

And yet, the Bible doesn’t leave us there. Even in Jeremiah 5:21, it is commanding deaf people to ‘hear’.

In fact, it makes a promise, that God will actually remove this dysfunction:

Their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant,5 that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.

2 Corinthians 3:14-16, 18

It is uncomfortable to admit that you could never do something naturally. And yet, that is precisely the claim being made here: that you cannot understand the Bible, that it will never be clear to you, unless God supernaturally removes your dysfunctional perception of it.6

Via supernatural intervention, your dysfunction is healed, and you begin to see what was clearly there all along.7

The law of the Lord is perfect,
    reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
    making wise the simple;

Psalm 19:7

The unfolding of your words gives light;
it imparts understanding to the simple.

Psalm 119:130

The Bible Makes Everything Else Clear

And yet, when you turn on a lamp, you don’t just see the lamp itself. You end up seeing everything else in the room. Light has a way of doing that.

In the Hebrew Bible, the entirety of life is often times depicted as a journey along a path.8

And so it is of particular importance that Psalm 119:105 talks about a path:

Your word is a lamp for my feet,
    a light on my path.

Psalm 119:105

In ancient (and modern-day) Israel, paths were known for having rocks that would trip you up.9

Since having children, I have had some fun surprises walking through the house with the lights off - legos, hot wheels, wooden blocks, bits of food. All of these, thoughtful gifts left behind by my children, for me to trip over while they enjoy being sound asleep.

Sometimes, lack of clarity isn’t a big deal. I don’t know how many albums Taylor Swift has released. I don’t think I’ll ever be bothered enough about it to find out.

At other times however, lack of clarity can be deadly. Like when you are walking along a path in the dead of night, and trip over a rock that you can’t see, hitting your head on another one you can’t see.

Seeing the world clearly, especially when there are serious consequences at play, is vital.

And yet, when the Bible claims to be light, it implies that you cannot even see the world clearly without it. In a profound way, you will misjudge all of reality without knowing the Bible.

How can this be? Surely when you are researching cars to buy, you don’t need to know anything from the Bible?

Well, let’s dive into that example of purchasing a car. On one level, there are many facts about cars that are not explicitly in the Bible: number of seats, mileage, colour, reliability, model10. And yet, underlying the purchase of a car, there are many unspoken assumptions:

• Why am I buying a car?

• What should I use the car for?

• How much effort and resources should I put into the purchase?

• What attitude should I have about the car?

• Does the car exist?11

These underlying assumptions have a greater, and more fundamental, impact on your purchase than any of the particular car specs involved.

There is a world of difference between the sports car enthusiast who wants to show off, and the homeschooling mom who wants to fit everyone into a single vehicle.

A popular term used to describe these underlying assumptions about reality is someone’s worldview.12 In Christian contexts, the term presuppostions is used.13

And so, what is offered by the Bible is not just a particular set of facts about the world,14 but an entire perspective of reality based on those facts.

As a sample of such far-reaching knowledge, consider the following:

Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.

Matthew 10:29

The least significant yet sad event in this world only happens via the personal knowledge and control of a God who calls himself Father. Such a view instantly infuses every aspect of life with a deep and profound meaning. Nothing is random. Everything is on purpose. Even the seemingly insignificant things. Even the sad things.

Without such light being shed on our everyday situations, the Bible claims we will profoundly misunderstand them. And the consequences will be grave.15

What if everything were well and truly random? What if nothing had any real significance? What if it just didn’t matter? If you follow that perspective to its logical conclusion, it becomes very difficult to get up in the morning. It becomes very hard to believe that doing the right thing is worth it, especially when doing the wrong thing is easier.

Conclusion

There is one thing I have yet to mention: the Bible is not actually unique in claiming to be light.

As the analysis of worldview above shows, all of our core beliefs play this role. Our assumed perspective on the world is not only ‘obvious’ (clear) to us, but it makes sense of (clarifies) the rest of the world for us.

We can’t see unless we put on a light.

And so, when someone approaches the Bible, you cannot simply say that they either see the light of the Bible or not. You must also ask: do they have another light, by which they are trying to see the Bible?16

When I was at university, I remember hearing a curious argument, which went something like this:

Every miracle recorded in the life of Jesus only appeared to break the laws of physics. In reality, no physical laws that we know of were broken.

In particular, I remember an alternative explanation of Jesus walking on the Lake of Galilee17, whereby he had found stepping stones, just underneath the surface of the water, so it only looked like he was walking on water.18

What I like about this argument is how it clearly shows the presence of another light: namely, the laws of physics.

In this argument, the unspoken assumption behind Jesus walking on stepping stones is the unquestioned belief that the laws of physics,19 as we know them, govern all of physical reality without exception.

And so instead of the Bible shedding light on the way the physical world works, this perspective used an assumption about how the physical world works to shed light on the Bible.

We need a light. It’s inevitable.

And so, the question is, which one will we have?

Thoughtful Reformed

Subscribe now

Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good.

1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 (ESV)

One of the key sticking points when a Protestant considers Roman Catholicism is the Roman view of Mary, the mother of Jesus.1

In Roman Catholicism, Mary is given a number of lofty titles (such as Queen of Heaven) and is an integral part of Catholic spiritual practices. In a recent poll, 55% of Italians said that the first person they normally pray to is Mary.2

These facts make a Protestant uncomfortable. Yet, underlying this discomfort is the conviction that Catholic teachings about Mary are not found in the Bible.

Which is where Scott Hahn comes in. Dr Hahn is a theologian and speaker who often seeks to show how Catholic beliefs are derived from the Bible.3

Hail, Holy Queen seeks to do this for the Catholic view of Mary, and so is aptly subtitled ‘The Mother of God in the Word of God’.4

Which leads to the central question of this book review:

Is the Catholic view of Mary actually found in the Bible?

Explicit Catholic Arguments from the Bible

I wondered what would be the best way to organise this review. Hahn includes a large number of arguments for the Catholic view, many times quoting the same parts of the Bible in several different places.

For the sake of simplicity, I decided to organise his arguments around the Bible passages that they refer to.

The first category of Bible passages are ones that explicitly mention the historical person Mary.5 In the next section, I will look at the passages that Hahn says implicitly refer to Mary.

Mary Asks Jesus to Provide More Wine (John 2:1-5)

In John 2:1-5, Mary asks Jesus to provide wine at a wedding after it has run out. Specifically, she appears to ask for the wine on behalf of the host’s servants, later telling them to ‘Do whatever he tells you’. In response, Jesus miraculously turns water into wine, making up for the lack of wine.

What does Hahn derive from this passage? He says that it represents Mary’s mediation between the church and Jesus: that Christians should ask Mary to forward their prayers to Jesus.

At first glance, his argument appears quite tenuous. The passage is a narrative with no explicit teachings apart from John’s statement in verse 11, that this was a sign that manifested Jesus’ glory. Why should this particular event define who Christians pray to?

Hahn seeks to justify his interpretation by relying on a theological method called ‘typology’ which he explains in Chapter 1. Typology is an implicit approach to finding meaning in the Bible, which I will discuss in the following section.

After this, Hahn addresses the thorny issue of Jesus’ response to Mary: ‘Woman, what does this have to do with me?’

From a plain reading, Jesus’ response to Mary is not positive. He does not address her as ‘mother’ (which would imply a recognition to honour and obey her as his mother) but rather as ‘woman’. He then questions her request: ‘What does this have to do with me?’

In response, Hahn interprets ‘woman’ as referring back to Eve in the garden. He then states that the phrase ‘What does this have to do with me?’ actually conveys ‘respect and deference’.6 In support of his claim, he says that the phrase is used in a number of places in the Old Testament,7 New Testament and outside of the Bible to show respect. However, he only quotes the use of this phrase by a demon in Luke 8:28.8

Both of the above approaches unfortunately represent a wider pattern in the book: the use of implicit and merely possible connections to overturn what is quite explicit and plain. It is a bit strange that the sentence ‘Woman, what does this have to do with me?’ (when spoken to one's own mother) would actually be a show of great honour and deference.

Drawing on a wider biblical context, Hahn argues that Jesus’ would have shown respect and deference to Mary out of obedience to the 5th Commandment (‘Honour your Father and Mother’). This would be a strong argument if Jesus were only Mary’s son. However, Jesus is also Mary’s Lord and God. Fundamentally, Jesus is in charge of Mary, not the other way around.9

Why then was Jesus’ response negative? After questioning her, Jesus says ‘My hour has not yet come.’ In the Gospel of John, Jesus’ hour refers to his moment of being glorified.10 After the miracle, the master of the feast ‘tasted the water now become wine’, but he ‘did not know where it came from’. Instead of Jesus being publicly recognised and praised by the host for his provision of wine, the bridegroom is asked why ‘he has kept the good wine until now’.

While Mary’s request for wine showed faith, it was also an attempt to move God’s timetable forward. Jesus graciously responded to the need for wine while reproving Mary for attempting to rush his hour of glorification forward.11

Jesus Gives His Mother to John while on the Cross (John 19:25-27)

John 19:25-27 recounts how Jesus, while dying on the cross, commanded the disciple John to take care of Mary as if she were his own mother.

What does Hahn derive from this passage? He believes that John represents the church. Therefore, when Jesus says to John ‘Behold, your mother!’ he is actually saying to each individual Christian that Mary is their mother.

Again, this is a narrative passage with no explicit teaching. So how does Hahn conclude that John represents the church and that Jesus’ command ‘Behold, your mother!’ applies to each individual Christian throughout the ages? Here again, he uses typology, which is an implicit approach to finding meaning in a passage.

Apart from this implicit connection, Hahn does not derive any other positive teaching from the passage.

Instead, he addresses a tension that arises in the context of his interpretation: Jesus does not call Mary his mother, but merely ‘woman’.12

How does Hahn resolve this tension? By appealing once again to an implicit connection: 'woman’ actually refers to Eve. And so Jesus was showing more honour (not less) by calling her ‘woman’.

Again, Hahn’s interpretation seems to conclude the opposite of the passage’s plain meaning.

Meanwhile, other explicit passages of the Bible can illuminate this passage: in the New Testament church, widows were taken care of by members of the congregation as if they were their own mothers (1 Timothy 5:1-3). Jesus here is setting the precedent for this practice.

The Angel’s Visit to Mary (Luke 1:26-38)

Luke 1:26-38 describes how the angel Gabriel visited Mary, sharing the news that she would become pregnant while still a virgin. The angel also provided details concerning how this would happen (via the Holy Spirit) and what it meant (her son would be God’s chosen Messiah).

The first Catholic teaching that Hahn derives from this passage is the first part of the ‘Hail Mary’ Catholic prayer:

Hail, Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death. 
Amen.13

Specifically, the words ‘Hail, Mary, full of grace’ are meant to be a translation of verse 28b.

However, when you look up this verse in any of the modern Protestant translations, you find different words:

“Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” Luke 1:28b (ESV)

Equally, the standard Catholic translation of the Bible used in North America14 renders it as:

“Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” Luke 1:28b (NABRE)

Why the discrepancy?

Underlying these English translations we have:

• ‘Hail’ or ‘Greetings’ as a translation of the Greek term chairo which literally means ‘rejoice’.15 However, when used as a greeting, it is employed both by superiors addressing their inferiors and vice-versa.16 Without further context, the term chairo does not carry the connotation of ‘showing honour’, in contrast to the term ‘hail’.

• ‘Full of Grace’ or ‘Favoured’ as a translation of the Greek term charitoō which literally means:

  charitoō: to favour. To give graciously, to show acts of kindness by freely giving; (n.) one highly favored17

  The root of this term is the word charis which is normally translated as ‘grace’. And yet the shift from ‘full of grace’ to ‘favoured’ marks a shift in meaning. The angel’s greeting does not refer to anything good or meritorious about Mary herself, but rather refers to God’s ‘kindness’ in ‘freely giving’ something good to Mary.

Hence the Hail Mary, specifically in its intent to show special honour due to Mary, contains an inaccurate translation of Luke 1:28, which does not respect the meaning of ‘favoured’ and the ambiguity of ‘greetings’.

At the same time, there is a second Catholic view that Hahn seeks to derive from Luke 1:28: namely that Mary herself was without sin from birth. Hahn argues that being ‘full of grace’ corresponds to Mary being ‘free from all stain of original sin’ by God’s ‘sanctifying grace’.18

And yet, the plain meaning of being ‘favoured’ in this passage refers to God’s kindness in choosing Mary to carry his Son. If we look at other explicit passages that use the root of ‘favoured’ in the context of a greeting, we find Paul using the term at the beginning of almost every single one of his epistles.19 While God’s favour had indeed been poured out on the churches that Paul wrote to, they were not thereby sinless.20

Beyond the actual content of the Hail Mary, Hahn also seeks to justify the Catholic use of the Hail Mary (as a prayer) from this passage.21

Again, the plain meaning of the passage is that an angel spoke the words ‘Greetings, O favoured one’ to Mary. So how does Hahn justify the use of these words by every individual Christian as a prayer to Mary? As in other places, he will rely on an implicit argument based on typology (see below).

Another Catholic view that Hahn seeks to show from this passage is that Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life.

While there is clear textual support for Mary’s virginity at the time of Jesus’ conception:

And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

Luke 1:34 (ESV)

Hahn argues that, implicitly, Mary’s question only makes sense if Mary had no plans to be sexually intimate with anyone for the rest of her life.22

I confess I found this argument hard to follow. The only conclusion I could draw from his line of reasoning is that Mary believes she will not have sex with anyone until some point in the future, after the fulfilment of the angel’s promise. Moreover, the phrase translated as ‘I am a virgin’ literally means ‘I do not know a man’, where the verb ‘to know’ is in the present indicative active23 form, which corresponds to ‘I am not currently knowing’. In other words, Mary does not say ‘I will not know a man’, but ‘I am currently not knowing a man’.

Finally, Hahn makes an implicit connection between Mary’s choice to accept God’s word, and Eve’s decision to do the opposite (see the following section).

Elizabeth Greets Pregnant Mary (Luke 1:39-45)

In Luke 1:39-45, Mary goes to stay with her relative Elizabeth. When Mary arrives, Elizabeth exclaims:

Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Luke 1:42b-43 (ESV)

What does Hahn derive from this passage?

First, he seeks to provide biblical support for the Hail Mary by noting that the Hail Mary contains verse 42.

Yet even here there is nuance. The words ‘blessed… among women’ in the Hail Mary are normally understood as highlighting how special and unique Mary is. However, the term translated ‘blessed’ in verse 42 is the Greek word eulogeō which comes from the words ‘speak well’. The passive sense (used here) means 'to receive a blessing’.24 Therefore, in their preceding context, Elizabeth’s words describe how Mary has received a blessing by God’s free (unmerited) favour.

In terms of the use of the Hail Mary as a prayer, Hahn’s argument faces the same challenge as Luke 1:28 (see above).

Finally, Hahn finds an implicit connection between Elizabeth’s greeting of Mary, and the welcoming of the Ark into Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6 (see below).

Mary’s Song to God (Luke 1:46-56)

In Luke 1:46-56, Mary sings a song of praise to God in response to what he has done for her:

And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.

Luke 1:46-49 (ESV)

In this passage, Hahn emphasises the words ‘from now on all generations will call me blessed’ as a justification for holding Mary in supremely high regard, due to her own unique and holy nature.

On this occasion, the word ‘blessed’ translates the term makarizō which has the root meaning ‘happy’.25 It is the same term that Jesus uses in the beatitudes. So the term ‘blessed’ again has the connotation of receiving something good from someone else, as opposed to being uniquely qualified to receive it.

On the other hand, Hahn’s interpretation introduces significant tensions with other explicit portions of the same passage: Mary refers to herself as having a ‘humble estate’, ‘hungry’ and receiving God’s ‘mercy’.

Implicit Catholic Arguments from the Bible

At this point, it might appear that Hahn’s arguments from the Bible for the Catholic view of Mary are quite weak. The passages that explicitly reference Jesus’ Mother either contain no explicit Catholic teachings, or heavily qualified ones. Meanwhile, Catholic views often introduce significant tensions with the explicit content of those passages.

And yet, Hahn himself admits that the Bible lacks explicit Catholic teachings about Mary. Quoting Cardinal Newman:

“It is sometimes asked, Why do not the sacred writers mention our Lady’s greatness? I answer, she was, or may have been alive, when the apostles and evangelists wrote” (Ibid, Chapter 3)

As a mother ‘par excellence’, Mary is supremely ‘elusive’.26

If Hahn does not support his views with explicit teachings from the Bible, how does he make his overall case?

In his first chapter, Hahn outlines the core of his argument. Here he introduces the theological category of ‘types’ in the Bible:

So what is a type? A type is a real person, place, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something greater in the New Testament. (Ibid, Chapter 1)27

He then provides explicit biblical support for ‘types’ by quoting passages such as:

Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Romans 5:14 (ESV)

So, can we derive Catholic teachings about Mary from New Testament passages (like the one above) that discuss how Mary fulfills Old Testament types? Not quite:

‘In addition to Old Testament types explicitly discussed in the New Testament, there are many more that are implicit but obvious.’ (Ibid, Chapter 1)

Types of Mary are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Their existence itself is also implicit.

Hence, the core of Hahn’s argument in his book can be summarised as:

The Bible contains implicit types of Mary, which contain the Catholic teachings about her.

In this section, I will summarise the implicit types of Mary that Hahn finds in the Bible.

Type #1: Eve

The first type of Mary that Hahn identifies is Eve, the first woman. In order to do this, Hahn points out God’s words to the serpent in Genesis 3:

I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

Genesis 3:15 (ESV)

Hahn says that this promise was fulfilled in Mary, because she bore Jesus who would ‘bruise’ the head of the serpent (Satan).

He goes on to show how Mary reversed Eve’s sin. Instead of listening to the serpent, Mary listened to and received God’s words. And so, instead of bringing sin into the world, Mary bore a Saviour who would reverse the effects of sin.

By implication then, Mary is the ‘New Eve’, just like Jesus is the ‘New Adam’ (Romans 5:14). Which, Hahn argues, implies that Mary is now the mother of every Christian, just like Eve was the ‘mother of all living’ (Genesis 3:20).

Beyond this, since Eve was Adam’s wife, Hahn argues that Mary must also be Jesus’ wife. And so:

[God] is at once her Father, her Spouse, and her Son. The mystery of divine maternity runs deep, because the mystery of the Trinity runs still deeper.’ (Ibid, Chapter 2)

While a typological relationship between Eve and Mary is quite clear, Hahn seems to extrapolate it into unwarranted and strange territory.

His extrapolation seems especially unwarranted since the Bible actually provides an explicit typology for Eve. Quoting from the description of Adam and Eve in Genesis chapter 2, the Apostle Paul writes:

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

Ephesians 5:31-32 (ESV)

The Bible explicitly states that Eve is a type of the church. And so, the role of Eve as ‘mother of all living’ and ‘wife of Adam’ is fulfilled in the church, who is the bride of the New Adam and mother of every Christian.

If the church is the actual fulfilment of Eve’s type, then the church is also the fulfilment of Mary’s type.

Here again, we observe Hahn’s use of implicit and tenuous arguments, in favour of explicit statements in the Bible.

Type #2: The Woman in Revelation 12

In Revelation 12, the Apostle John describes his vision of a woman and her conflict with a dragon.

Hahn notes two parallels between Mary and this woman:

• The woman gives birth to a child who will ‘rule all the nations’

• The woman flees the dragon who wants to ‘devour’ the child

He identifies the child as Jesus, while pointing out the parallel between Mary’s flight from Herod to Egypt, and the woman’s flight from the dragon into the the wilderness. Hence, Hahn argues, this woman is a type of Mary.

From the above typological relationship, Hahn concludes that Mary is the ‘Queen of Heaven’ since the woman is ‘clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars’ (Revelation 12:1).

Equally, he concludes that Mary is the mother of every Christian since the ‘offspring’ of the woman are ‘those who keep the commandments of God’ (verse 17).

He also concludes that Mary's body was assumed into heaven (like Jesus) since this woman is in heaven.

However, Hahn’s interpretation evokes a number of tensions.

The woman ‘was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth’ (verse 12). Meanwhile Catholic tradition holds that Mary did not experience any pain while giving birth. Hahn tries to reconcile this tension by stating that Mary experienced ‘spiritual suffering’ later in her life due to her motherhood (Ibid, Chapter 3). Again, Hahn uses an implicit understanding to deny the explicit and plain reading of the passage: namely these are ‘birth pains’.

The woman also does not stay in heaven but ‘fled into the wilderness’ (verse 6). Hahn connects this to Mary’s own sojourn in Egypt, which means that the woman’s story is in reverse chronological when compared to Mary’s (there is first an ascension, then a flight).

At the same time, there is a clearer and more natural typological fulfilment of the woman in Revelation 12: the church. In particular, the church is identified as the ‘bride of the lamb’ later in John’s Revelation. She ‘comes down out of heaven’. And she is inscribed with the ‘twelve tribes of the sons of Israel,’ just as the woman has 12 stars in her crown.(Revelation 21:9-14)28 Equally the church is oppressed by Satan throughout the book of Revelation and every Christian comes from (is an ‘offspring’) of the church. Finally, Jesus was ‘born’ from the lineage of God’s people (the church).29

Hahn recognises that the church is a typological fulfilment of the woman in Revelation 12, but argues:

Mary is a central figure in the Apocalypse because—assumed into heaven, where she reigns—Mary is now the fulfillment of the reality of which the Church itself is merely a type. (Ibid, Chapter 6)

Hahn argues that the church is a type of Mary, not the other way around.

And yet, as a typological fulfilment, the church introduces no tensions (unlike Hahn’s view) and has explicit support from the same book of the Bible (also unlike Han’s view). Hence, the church is a more fitting typological fulfilment of the woman in Revelation 12.

Type #3: The Queen Mother

In the book of 1 Kings, Hahn points out a moment where Solomon’s mother is invited to sit at the right hand of Solomon’s throne:

So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her and bowed down to her. Then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the king's mother, and she sat on his right. Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you.”

1 Kings 2:19-20 (ESV)

Hahn notes that Solomon’s mother speaks to him ‘on behalf of Adonija’, that Solomon accepts her intercession and seats her in a position of honour.

From this, Hahn concludes that Bathsheba was a ‘Queen Mother’, which he describes as a common practice in the Ancient Near East:

In the ancient Near East, most nations were monarchies ruled by a king. In addition, most cultures practiced polygamy; so a given king often had several wives. This posed problems. First, whom should the people honor as queen? But more important, whose son should receive the right of succession to the throne? In most Near Eastern cultures, these twin problems were resolved by a single custom. The woman ordinarily honored as queen was not the wife of the king, but the mother of the king. (Ibid, Chapter 4)

He then parallels this with how Mary asked Jesus for more wine on behalf of the host of the Wedding of Cana (see above).

Therefore, Hahn argues, Mary is the ‘Queen Mother’ of Jesus, who sits at his right hand, in a privileged position of authority over all of Jesus’ subjects. More specifically, she is in a unique position to intercede on behalf of Jesus’ subjects.

While there are parallels between Bathsheba and Mary, these parallels are not necessarily positive.

Right after Bathsheba sits next to Solomon, she asks Solomon to give David’s old concubine in marriage to his half-brother Adonijah. In response, Solomon severely rebukes her (since this would be a sign of giving up his throne) and then has Adonijah killed. (1 Kings 2:21-25)

Solomon’s rebuke parallels Jesus’ rebuke of Mary at the Wedding of Cana (see above). In both instances, the request was presumptuous and against the will of the King.

At the same time, the description of Mary as a ‘Queen Mother’ (gebirah) is troubling. Every use of this term in the Bible is in a negative or ambiguous context.30 Meanwhile, the idea that the ‘Queen Mother’ arose in pagan cultures as a way of coping with polygamy suggests that it is actually sinful, and not part of God’s original design.31

Type #4: The Ark of the Covenant

The final type of Mary that Hahn seeks to show is the Ark of the Covenant.32

Out of every possible type that Hahn mentions, this was the hardest for me to see.

He begins his argument by connecting the revealing of the Ark within the temple in Revelation 11:19 to the appearance of the woman in heaven in Revelation 12:1. However, while the Ark is seen in God’s temple, the woman is a ‘great sign’ that ‘appeared in heaven’, with the dragon being ‘another sign’ that ‘appeared in heaven’ (verse 3). Grammatically there is no connection between the woman and the Ark and chapter 12 actually marks a shift in literary focus and theme (from the temple to the apparition of signs in heaven). Hahn’s argument also depends on identifying the woman as a type of Mary (which was addressed above).

The next typological connection that Hahn presents was even harder for me to see.

Hahn points to a number of parallels between the way David brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6, and the way Mary travelled to and was greeted by Elizabeth in Luke 1:39-45. David and Mary both ‘arose and went’, both Mary and David travelled through the hill country, both David and Elizabeth expressed a sense of unworthiness when seeing the Ark and Mary respectively, David danced while baby John leaped in Elizabeth’s womb. Finally the ark remained in the hill country for 3 months while Mary spent 3 months with Elizabeth.

These parallels are in themselves quite tenuous: David, Mary, the Ark, Elizabeth and baby John all play interchangeable roles with one another - there is no one-to-one mapping between the type and its fulfilment, which is normally expected in typological fulfilment.

At the same time, there are many events that take place in 2 Samuel 6 which have no parallels in Luke 1, such as the death of Uzzah for touching the Ark, David getting angry with God, Michal reproaching David and Michal becoming infertile.

The final parallel that Hahn draws between Mary and the Ark is that the Ark held the 10 Commandments and Mary carried the ‘Word of God’ in her womb.

Catholic Arguments from Outside the Bible

At this point, it appears that Hahn has not shown Catholic teachings about Mary as coming from the Bible. The explicit passages about Mary show little support, while the implicit passages are quite tenuous.

So in an important sense, Hahn has not been able to deliver on the subtitle of his book:

The Mother of God in the Word of God

And yet, there is a last resort for Catholic teachings about Mary.

In Chapter 5, Hahn introduces the role of Catholic dogmas, acknowledging that:

‘Without the dogmas, Mary becomes unreal: a random female body from Nazareth, insignificant in her individuality, incidental to the gospels’ narrative.’ (Ibid, Chapter 5).

He then defines a dogma:

What is dogma? A useful definition comes from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who
wrote that “dogma is by definition nothing other than an interpretation of Scripture.”… Dogma, then, is the Church’s infallible exegesis of scripture. (Ibid, Chapter 5)

The Catholic dogmas contain, in written form, the Catholic teachings about Mary. The dogmas are also considered by the Catholic Church to be infallibly true.

By identifying dogma as an ‘interpretation of Scripture’, Hahn seeks to support his view that the Catholic Mary is found in the Bible.

Yet, the interpretation of a text normally means you can point to specific parts of that text as the basis of your interpretation. Equally, the term ‘exegesis’ literally means to ‘lead out from’.33

Whereas, when referring to dogmas, Hahn does not quote Scripture, but rather theologians and church decrees from history. Those quotes, incidentally, do not include references to (or expositions of) specific verses from the Bible. Instead, they normally include blanket theological assertions.

While you might find support for your views from past theologians and church decrees, it is important to not confuse such a practice with actually finding a teaching in the Bible.

With the above caveat, Hahn’s quotations of past theologians and Catholic church decrees do contain explicit Catholic teachings about Mary. In the entirety of the book, this was the only place where I found explicit Catholic teachings about Mary that were not written by Hahn himself.

Explicit Bible Passages That Were Not Addressed

At this point, it appears that Catholic views of Mary are not found in the Bible. However, you could wonder whether such views are simply next to the Bible. Could you say that the Catholic view of Mary is compatible with the Bible, even if you cannot clearly derive it from the Bible?

Interestingly, there are a number of biblical passages about Mary that were left largely unaddressed by Hahn (apart from a few passing comments here and there).

The most prominent of those unaddressed passages can be found in all three synoptic gospels:

And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

Mark 3:31-35 (ESV)

Like the Wedding in Cana, Jesus publicly denies honour to Mary as his mother. Instead, he says that his followers are his true ‘brother and sister and mother’. The explicit teaching here is that Jesus’ spiritual family is greater than his biological one.

With regards to typology, Jesus also explicitly identifies the church as his ‘mother’.

Looking back to Jesus’ childhood, we again find tension between Jesus and his mother in a public setting, where he does not show her honour as his mother:

And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it… And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.” And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?

Luke 2:43, 48-49 (ESV)

In this account, Jesus does not honour Mary by returning home with her, but stays behind to publicly engage with the teachers of the Law in the Temple. When Mary seeks to rebuke Jesus for his behaviour, Jesus ends up rebuking her: she should have known that Jesus was with God his Father.

The primacy of one’s spiritual family over one’s biological family is explicitly taught by Jesus in Matthew:

For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 10:35-37 (ESV)

And Jesus applies this specific tension to himself in Mark:

And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.”

Mark 6:4 (ESV)

Instead of a perfect mother-figure, the gospels present a more realistic picture of Mary: she had good moments and bad moments. She initially received God’s word from the angel, but then found herself opposing his mission and identity later on in his life. Her presence at Jesus’ crucifixion and among his disciples reassures us that her faith was genuine, but her absence from the rest of the New Testament (Acts 2 and onwards) shows that her role in salvation history was limited.

Cause for Serious Concern

At this point, I could finish writing this review, having answered my central question:

Is the Catholic view of Mary actually found in the Bible?

And yet, it would be remiss of me to not share some of the deep concerns raised by both this book, and wider Catholic views of Mary.

In chapter 6, Hahn says:

If you want to judge how well people grasp the gospel in its essence, find out how much they make of having God as their Father—and Mary as their mother.

Here, Dr Hahn places Mary at the very centre (the ‘essence’) of the Christian faith. God as Father and Mary as Mother are in the same category. In other parts of the work, Hahn says that:

• Mary is God’s greatest creation34

• Salvation is inconceivable without her35

• Jesus’ existence depends on the ongoing consent of Mary36

• God gave all of his glory to her37

• She is the human who most perfectly manifests God’s work38

• Mary should be a starting point, and integral component of evangelising others39

• Mary providentially intervenes in the world40

In fact, throughout Hahn’s book, Mary often finds herself in the same category as the three members of the Trinity. In chapter 1, Hahn first writes:

“God in His deepest mystery is… a family.” God Himself is Father, Son, and the Spirit of Love

and then, a few lines later he says:

Every family needs a mother; only Christ could choose His own, and He chose providentially for His entire covenant family… For a family is incomplete without a loving mother.

The implication is that God himself, as a family, is incomplete without Mary.

The number of places where the Catholic Mary naturally fits within a divine category unfortunately abound:

• King of Heaven (God) ⇢ Queen of Heaven (Mary)

• Father of the Church (God) ⇢ Mother of the Church (Mary)

• Mediator (Jesus) ⇢ Mediatrix (Mary)

• Advocate (Jesus, Holy Spirit) ⇢ Advocate (Mary)

• Firstborn over Creation (Jesus) ⇢ Greatest of God’s Creations (Mary)

• Dispenser of God’s Favour (Jesus) ⇢ Dispenser of God’s Glory (Mary)

• Divine Conception (Jesus) ⇢ Immaculate Conception (Mary)

• Sinless (Jesus) ⇢ Sinless (Mary)

• Assumption into Heaven (Jesus) ⇢ Assumption into Heaven (Mary)

• Receiver of Prayer (God) ⇢ Receiver of Prayer (Mary)

• Object of Worship (God) ⇢ Object of Supreme Veneration (Mary)

• etc…

If there were a single passing reference to one of these statements in a book, I would begin to deeply question the biblical views of the author.

The fact that such views abound and permeate Hahn’s book caused serious alarm.

The Bible explicitly and abundantly teaches:

There is none like you among the gods, O Lord,
    nor are there any works like yours.

Psalm 86:8 (ESV)

While Dr Hahn denies the charge of idolatry by differentiating between ‘veneration’ and ‘worship’,41 I am afraid that this amounts to a distinction without a difference.

Read for example the following worship song to the ancient Egyptian goddess Isis:

I call upon you, Isis, most graceful and high of the High Ones
Hear your lowly servitor and grant your blessings
Most full and gentle
You whose crescent moon and stars
Encompass the world…

Smile down upon us, that we may see you, great mother
Set foot upon a flower, wife and lover of sunlight
Spread your innocent radiance through the skies, untouched one
That the earth may resound with your praises.42

As far as I can tell, the only substantial difference between the Catholic Mary and what is written in this hymn, is the name ‘Isis’.43

Meanwhile, such hymns are precisely condemned by innumerable passages throughout the Bible:

For great is the Lord and most worthy of praise;
he is to be feared above all gods.
For all the gods of the nations are idols,
but the Lord made the heavens.

Psalm 96:4-5 (ESV)

Ultimately though, I am most concerned by the fact that Dr Hahn found explicit support for all of these teachings from official Catholic theologians and decrees. I wish Dr Hahn’s views were an outlier in Catholicism; the opposite appears to be true. Moreover, the Catholic view of Mary has been encoded as infallible dogma; the Catholic church cannot revoke it.

Final Evaluation

In conclusion then, as an answer to my original question:

Is the Catholic view of Mary actually found in the Bible?

Scott Hahn’s book leads me to a firm ‘No’.

While he is able to draw many implicit and tenuous connections between the Catholic Mary and the Bible, these are unconvincing. You could try and soften Hahn’s position by saying that the Catholic view is next to the Bible (not derived from it, but still compatible with it). However there are too many explicit passages that undermine the Catholic view.

Interestingly, Dr Hahn himself did not become convinced of the Catholic view of Mary via theological ‘scruples’, but via a ‘very personal, seemingly impossible intention’:

The proof of her maternity would come, for me, only when I made the decision to let myself be her son. Despite all the powerful scruples of my Protestant training— remember, just a few years before, I had torn apart my Grandma’s beads—I took up the rosary one day and began to pray. I prayed for a very personal, seemingly impossible intention. On the next day, I took up the beads again, and the next day and the next. Months passed before I realized that my intention, the seemingly impossible situation, had been reversed since the day I first prayed the rosary. My petition had been granted. (Ibid, Introduction)

It seems that the Catholic view of Mary (despite its theological expression) does not appear as a logical conclusion drawn from a study of the Bible. Rather, it is primarily derived from a personal and emotional decision, rooted in the practice of religious rites.

Beyond Dr Hahn’s own perspective, he sadly gave me little assurance that Catholics in general do not idolise Mary. Quite the contrary, Hahn’s book showed me that the idolatry of Mary in Catholicism is both deeper and wider than I once believed.

As the Catholic Catechism says:

The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.44

If you are interested in learning more about the Catholic view of Mary, ‘Hail, Holy Queen’ is an accessible and well-written volume.45

However, if you are a believer in the Bible, seeking spiritual encouragement and a closer walk with the Lord, I cannot recommend it.

We should heed Paul’s command to ‘not go beyond what is written’ (1 Corinthians 4:6).

Thoughtful Reformed

Subscribe now

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.

Ephesians 1:11 (ESV)

The Christian Bible says that God is in charge of the world.

But what does that mean?

There has been a surprising amount of debate over that question over the years. There has equally been a lot of misunderstanding.

In this post, I will try to add some clarity.

I will offer two simple descriptions of the strongest view you can hold on this issue, which is also my own view:1

God is in charge of and controls every aspect of reality, without exception.

I will then use each of those descriptions as a framework to compare differing views.

Description #1

My first description of the strongest view you can hold on this issue is actually a question-answer pair:

Question: What is the fundamental reason that x happened?

Answer: God decreed that x would happen.

This pair can be used in the following manner: if someone is happy to replace x with anything in Creation, then they believe that God is fully in charge and in control of everything.

Examples

By way of examples:

1. Q: What is the fundamental reason that the universe exists? A: God decreed that the universe would exist.

2. Q: What is the fundamental reason that you were born? A: God decreed that I would be born.

3. Q: What is the fundamental reason that you got out of bed this morning? A: God decreed that I would get out of bed this morning.

4. Q: What is the fundamental reason that you became a Christian? A: God decreed that I would become a Christian.

5. Q: What is the fundamental reason that Adam disobeyed God? A: God decreed that Adam would disobey him.

6. Q: What is the fundamental reason that evil things happen in the world? A: God decreed that evil things would happen in the world.

These examples have been listed in increasing order of controversy. While most Christians would agree with the first question-answer pair, some Christians might feel uncomfortable with pair number 4. Even more Christians might be uncomfortable with pair number 6. Yet, if you believe that God is truly in charge and in control of everything, I believe that you will agree with every example above.

Objecting Views

Discomfort with one or more of the statements above can be expressed in many ways. For example, discomfort with example 4 could be expressed as:

1. 'While I believe that God is in charge of me being a Christian, the fundamental reason I became a Christian was because I chose to do it.'2

2. 'God always knew that I would become a Christian but I made the decision for it to happen. God just knew beforehand what I would choose.'3

3. 'God doesn't know what someone will choose and he does not control it.'4

What is common to all these objections is that they deny God's decree as the fundamental reason that something happened. God's decree might be a secondary reason (the first objection) or it might not be a reason at all (second and third objections).

Description #2

Another way to illustrate the view that God is fully in charge and in control of everything is to use a diagram:

The arrow between the two circles means 'causes' or 'is the reason that'.

Example

The advantage of using a diagram is that we can also show more complex situations. For example, many Christians would say: 'I chose to follow Jesus because God changed my heart'. As a diagram, this could be represented (according to the view that God is fully in charge) as:

This diagram helps illustrates God's decree as the fundamental reason for someone choosing to follow Jesus. It also shows how secondary reasons can come into play (in this example, the change of heart).5

Objection 1

Meanwhile, the first objecting view in the preceding section could be represented as:

'While I believe that God is in charge of me being a Christian, the fundamental reason I became a Christian was because I chose to do it.'

According to this view, God's sovereignty becomes a secondary reason while my choice to follow Jesus is the fundamental reason I am a Christian. As a corollary, this view also means that God would not be in charge of me being a Christian, unless I had first chosen to be a Christian.

Objection 2

The second objection from the preceding section could be represented as:

'God always knew that I would become a Christian but I made the decision for it to happen. God just knew beforehand what I would choose.'

Here God's knowledge is not a reason for anything that happened. It exists separately from the core event of my choice to follow Jesus and my becoming a Christian.

Objection 3

The third objection from above could be represented in the following way:

'God doesn't know what someone will choose and he does not control it.'

According to this view, God plays no part in (he does not know or act) when I choose to become a Christian. Rather, the act is autonomous and happens apart from him.

Conclusion

While our understanding of things can always be improved, sometimes a simple model can really help clarify what our thinking is (and what it is not).

It is my hope that the above descriptions and examples are helpful in bringing greater clarity to our discussions about God's rule over the world.

Thoughtful Reformed

Subscribe now

Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Matthew 7:9-11

It can be hard to trust other people.

How many times has someone promised you something, and then let you down? This hurts even more when it’s your mother or father.

The latest US Census shows that 25% of children live every day without a father.1 That means you probably know (or are) someone who grew up without a father present in your life.

During my life, it has been hard to shake the feeling that something bad was always just around the corner. That somehow, reality had it in for me. Many times, I felt this most strongly when something good happened. If you let your guard down when things are good, it will hurt that much more when it goes wrong.

Where did those feelings come from? Well, let’s just say there were quite a few authority figures in my life who let me down. I wanted to trust them - that they would keep their promises. But they didn’t. And it hurt.

So when I would read Jesus’ words - that I have a ‘Father who is in heaven’ who ‘[gives] good things to those who ask him’ - I spent more time thinking about those snakes and stones.

Intellectually, I could agree. God is good. Therefore He gives good gifts. But emotionally, I couldn’t accept it. What if God was actually holding a snake behind His back? What if, at the last moment, He pulled out some rocks instead of a nice meal?

I couldn’t shake the feeling.

That is, until I became a father.

When my first child was born, I cried for the better part of an hour in sheer thankfulness and joy for this precious life that had been given to us.

In that moment, every fibre of my being started to reorient itself to this single thought: ‘How can I love this precious life?’

And since then I have had many thoughts like it:

• ‘I would do anything to protect my precious child.’

• ‘I will use all my resources, all my strength, all my ability to bless this baby who is sleeping, with complete trust, in my arms.’

• ‘How can I make him smile, laugh, giggle?’

• ‘How can I comfort him, reassure him, provide for him?’

And then it hit me:

If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Here I was, a broken, sinful, mess of a man - and yet I loved this child with every fibre of my being.

How much more must God love me?

Thoughtful Reformed

Subscribe now

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

2 Corinthians 2:12-14 (ESV)

There are two unsettling things about this blog.

The first is how I put the word ‘believe’ before the word ‘think’. Surely that’s the wrong order. Doesn’t everyone first think about something, and then decide what to believe?

The second is that I started with a quote from the Christian Bible. Some people believe in the Bible, but not everyone. Isn’t that a bit alienating?

I agree. Both of those things are a bit weird. But I also believe that both of them are right. Why?

There is an old (but pretty cool) theologian called Anselm of Cantebury (cue the Wikipedia link) who said something quite profound (as old theologians tend to do):

"And I do not seek to understand that I may believe but believe that I might understand. For this too I believe since, unless I first believe, I shall not understand."

Anselm of Canterbury

What is he talking about? An illustration might help: imagine your lovely neighbour (Joe) says to you ‘Stop stepping on my grass’. In order to understand what he’s talking about, you have to first believe quite a few things:

• You need to believe that Joe exists and is his own person. If he was just a figment of your imagination, then it would be your grass - not his.

• You need to believe that when someone else says something, you can understand what they mean. If this wasn’t true, you might conclude that Joe is inviting you to a nice meal at the local restaurant.

• You need to believe in the idea of property. That when one person owns something, he has rights to it.

If you don’t have these beliefs before Joe starts yelling at you, you won’t understand what he is talking about.

Which brings us to our passage from the Bible. It was written by another (even cooler and even older) theologian called Paul of Tarsus in the 1st century (ie before cell phones). In that last verse he says that the ‘natural person’ ‘is not able to understand’ the ‘truths’ that come from God.

Notice those words: ‘not able’ - as in, he can’t - as in you can’t read Phoenecian.1

But what does enable someone to understand? They first need to be changed by the Spirit of God. Something supernatural needs to happen. More specifically, the Spirit of God actually ‘[interprets] spiritual truths to those who are spiritual’.

That’s a lot more than you signed up for when you started reading this - but as a final point: According to Paul, first our beliefs get changed supernaturally by the Spirit of God. Then we can understand what in the world he’s talking about.

Belief comes before understanding.

So, as an annoying question: what are the things that you believe? Would the world still make sense to you if you didn’t believe them? And where did you get those beliefs (pro tip, Star Wars is a bad answer).

Thoughtful Reformed

Subscribe now