The two-part article below is a keeper! (That means I agree with 97%+ of it. Of course, you may have a different definition of “keeper”!) I waited a few months to get Part 2 so I could post both of them together here.
Part 2 was worth waiting for! Don’t read it until you have time to think about it a little.
–Enjoy!
**********************************************************
What I Have Learned in 50 Years as a Theologian (Part 1)
Jack Cottrell
2/7/2010
Since receiving my AB degree from Cincinnati Bible Seminary in 1959, I have been either preparing to teach or teaching theology (Bible doctrine) in CBS’s (now Cincinnati Christian University’s) graduate school. I was recently challenged to sum up what I have learned during this lifetime of study. Here are my thoughts.
FADS vs. FUNDAMENTALS
First, I have learned that theological fads come and go, but the “fundamentals” are still fundamental. A fad is a seemingly new idea that bursts on the scene and receives lots of attention, especially by authors and publishers. Once the latter have milked the new theme for all it’s worth, it fades into the background and is replaced by something else.
Examples from the past include the “death of God” movement and secularization theology (1960s), the “Jesus movement” (1970s), liberation theology (1970s, 1980s), and the New Age movement (1980s, 1990s). Present examples include militant atheism, open theism, postmodernism, seeker-sensitive services (à la Willow Creek), and the emerging (emergent) church movement.
It is important to understand such challenges, but we must keep them in perspective. We make a big mistake when we look on such fads as either a fatal blow to Christianity or as the solution to all the church’s problems. We seriously err when we embrace such supposedly new ideas, and revise our thinking and practice to accommodate them.
For example, we must resist the temptation to redesign the church simply to fit the preferences of our pagan culture. Seeker-sensitive (i.e., evangelistic) programs are great, but they must not take the place of church services designed to edify the saints. An analysis of what the New Testament says about church assemblies shows their purpose was never evangelistic as such. The services described in the New Testament involved believer-to-God elements, God-to-believer elements, and believer-to-believer elements.
Unbelievers were welcome (1 Corinthians 14:20-25), but the services were not designed specifically to reach out to them. (For a more complete discussion of this, see chapter 26 of my book, The Faith Once for All, published by College Press in 2002.)
Even Willow Creek now realizes it was wrong to deviate from the biblical pattern: “After modeling a seeker-sensitive approach to church growth for three decades, Willow Creek Community Church now plans to gear its weekend services toward mature believers seeking to grow in their faith.”1 This fad has faded; so will the others: “This too shall pass.”
The fundamentals, however, are eternally true, having withstood one attack after another. A century ago, Christendom came under attack from within, as modernism or classical liberalism sought to strip the Christian faith of all its supernatural elements and leave it as nothing more than secular humanism disguised in biblical terminology. In response, those known as fundamentalists strongly defended orthodox Christian teachings. The term fundamentalist was not an insult then; to be a fundamentalist simply meant one was committed to believing and defending the fundamentals of the faith.
Especially in view of what liberalism was denying, the fundamentalists often compiled concise lists of the most basic doctrines—the beliefs without which Christianity simply would no longer be Christianity. The best-known list was this: the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the virgin birth of Jesus, the substitutionary atonement of Jesus, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the visible return of Jesus.
In the early 1990s, Gene Wigginton of Standard Publishing asked me if I would write a small book explaining “the fundamentals” for today. I was glad to oblige, and wrote Faith’s Fundamentals: Seven Essentials of Christian Belief (still available from Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2002). I included in one way or another the original five fundamentals in these chapters: “The Bible Is God’s Word,” “Jesus Is Our Savior,” “Jesus Is God’s Son,” and “Jesus Is Coming Again.” Having noted that the original list had nothing about salvation, I added this chapter: “We Are Saved by Grace, Through Faith, in Baptism.”
I also concluded that the original list omitted what I have discerned to be the most fundamental of all beliefs: first, the fact that there is such a thing as TRUTH as such; and second, the existence of the transcendent CREATOR-GOD of the Bible as the only possible source of such truth. This leads to the second thing I have learned in my career.
TRUTH vs. RELATIVISM
My 50 years as a theologian (43 of them as a professor) have been based on the firm conviction that there is such a thing as truth. And if there is truth, there is also falsehood. I have also worked under the conviction that human beings made in God’s image are able to receive and understand God’s communication of truth in his revealed and inspired Word.
I take seriously the teaching of Titus 1:9, that a leader in Christ’s church must be “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.”2 Thus a main task of every Bible teacher (theologian, if you please) is to discern and teach truth (“sound doctrine”), and to expose and refute false doctrine.
As I have attempted to be faithful to this mandate of the apostle Paul, I have been pleased to find widespread agreement about the reality of truth and falsehood. But I have also learned over these five decades that a great many within Christendom, including our movement, and often in positions of leadership, do not accept this most fundamental of all beliefs.
I have learned this often in very personal and painful ways. Over the years I have taken very firm stands on important issues. The very fact that I have taken these firm stands has often caused others to put me in the role of a villain or adversary or troublemaker, and to characterize me as someone who is dogmatic and opinionated in the worst sort of way.
The problem is not just that I have taken certain views with which others disagree. On a more basic level I am criticized for having the arrogance to present my views and interpretations as the right and true ones, with the implication that alternative views are actually false!
This kind of criticism is symptomatic of what I have come to regard as one of the most sinister false doctrines, namely, the myth that there is no one right view of anything, that there is no one right position on any doctrinal issue, no one right interpretation of any Scripture. This view says that all personal convictions are “just your opinion,” with one opinion being as good or as valid as any other. This is in effect a substitution of relativism for truth.
Both in my writing and in the classroom, I have never hesitated to take a position on any crucial issue, to defend it from Scripture, to declare opposing views to be false, and to identify those who teach falsely. But one thing I have learned in 50 years of “doing theology” in this way is that it makes one very unpopular in certain circles! It puts me in conflict with what some regard as a more sophisticated and scholarly teaching methodology, namely, that a teacher should simply present the various major views on any issue without stating and defending his own personal view. To do the latter is regarded as “spoon-feeding” the students, and is characterized as a sign of anti-intellectual fundamentalism.
I will not attempt to defend my methodology here. I will simply affirm that my teaching and writing will continue to be based on the presuppositions that truth is real and that it can be known. I cannot do otherwise without going against what I believe Scripture teaches about God, about itself, about the nature of human beings, about truth, about sound doctrine, and about false doctrine.
Thus I affirm today that after doing theology for 50 years, I am more convinced than ever that the following (often-challenged) doctrines are TRUE:
1. The Bible is God’s inerrant Word.
2. The only true God is the Creator-God of the Bible.
3. The transcendent Creator-God knows the future, even future freewill choices.
4. Human beings do have truly free will; Calvinism is false.
5. Jesus is the only Savior, and salvation comes only by knowing and accepting him as such.
6. The Holy Spirit does not give miraculous gifts today.
7. Demonic spirits are real and active today, even in Christian circles and in some Christians.
8. Sinners are saved by grace, through faith, in baptism, for good works.
9. Baptism in water is the point of time when God gives the saving grace of forgiveness through Christ’s blood and regeneration through the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
10. The Bible does not permit women to teach men, nor to have authority over men, in the church.
11. There is no such thing as a secret rapture.
12. The lost will suffer eternally in Hell.
13. The church is intended to be “the pillar and support of the truth” in this world of falsehood and relativism (1 Timothy 3:15).
5/30/2010
What I Have Learned in 50 Years as a Theologian (Part 2)
Previously (in the February 7 issue) I discussed what I have learned in 50 years as a theologian under two headings: Fads vs. Fundamentals, and Truth vs. Relativism. Here I will conclude by discussing Law vs. Grace.
In six years of seminary work (at Westminster and Princeton), I was especially drawn to Reformation studies and was thus introduced to the doctrine of grace in ways that were new to me. I also spent much time studying the book of Romans. In my first semester of teaching at Cincinnati Bible Seminary (fall 1967), Lewis Foster asked me to teach a course called New Testament Theology. I decided to focus on soteriology (sin and salvation), concentrating on grace and building the course on Romans 1-8.
After three years I changed the course name to The Doctrine of Grace, and have now taught it more than 70 times. I have also given scores of church seminars on grace. Thus this is the one subject I have probably learned the most about in my career as a theologian.
Reluctantly, I have concluded that traditional Restoration thinking is seriously flawed in reference to grace. We have embraced specific doctrines that are grace-denying and that communicate the idea of salvation by works. Some will feel insulted by this judgment, but I stand by my conclusion. Thus I have devoted much time and energy attempting to reshape the way we should be teaching about sin and salvation. Here I will summarize my main points.
Positive Principles
First I will list the main positive principles of grace salvation.
• Sin causes a tension within God’s nature, transforming his holiness into wrath and his love into grace—both of which are directed toward the individual sinner. The purpose of the incarnation is to resolve this tension via the substitutionary atonement of the God-man, Jesus Christ.
• Every sinner has two main problems: (a) guilt and condemnation in relation to God’s law, and (b) a sinful (depraved, sin-sick) condition of the soul. The content of saving grace is thus a double cure: (a) justification or forgiveness through Christ’s blood, and (b) regeneration and sanctification through the indwelling Holy Spirit.
• We sinners become and remain justified only by grace, through faith in Christ’s redemptive work. Everyone needs to rethink the doctrine of justification by faith. We in the Restoration Movement need to take it more seriously. Protestant churches in general need to understand it as Luther did, rather than in Zwingli’s perverted sense (which is the common view).
• Sinners are justified by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ (his satisfaction of the law’s requirement for penalty), not by our own personal righteousness or law-keeping.
• Every Christian should have assurance of salvation; a right understanding of justification by faith is the key to this assurance.
• When Paul says we are not under law but under grace (Romans 6:14), the word law does not refer to any law code (especially the Mosaic law code), but to the law system of salvation. This distinction between law codes and the law system is crucial for a proper understanding of grace.
• There are two ways to enter Heaven: through the law system or through the grace system. The problem is that the former is no longer viable for anyone who has sinned (i.e., everyone, Romans 3:23). This is why anyone who is saved (in Old Testament times and New Testament times) is not under the law system, but under the grace system (Romans 6:14).
• Though we are not under the law system as a way of salvation, we are still under a law code that we are absolutely obligated to obey. In the New Testament era our law code is the moral law in general and all new covenant teaching about how to live a righteous, holy life. The faith that justifies is a faith that works, i.e., that makes every attempt to obey these law commands.
• Sinners are saved by grace (as the basis), through faith (as the means), in baptism (as the time), for good works (as the result). See Ephesians 2:8-10; Colossians 2:12.
• For its first 1,500 years, the Christian world (including Martin Luther) saw no contradiction between salvation by grace and salvation in baptism. Huldreich Zwingli, in 1523-25, created a whole new view of baptism that separated it from salvation.
• Salvation by grace through faith in no way contradicts salvation in baptism.
• The argument that baptism is a work and therefore cannot be for salvation is based on a false definition of works as Paul uses the term. Thus the key to accepting baptism as a grace event is a correct understanding of works. The key to this understanding is Paul’s distinction between “works of law” (Romans 3:20, 28; Galatians 2:16) and “obedience to the gospel” (Romans 10:16, English Standard Version; 2 Thessalonians 1:8).
Three Serious Errors
I will now briefly explain three serious and interrelated errors about salvation that are typical of Restoration thinking.
• “How the sinner becomes saved is different from how the Christian stays saved.” The idea is that we are initially saved by grace, but we are kept saved by our works. This is called Galatianism because it was basically the view of the Judaizers, against whom Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians.
It was taught by Alexander Campbell, who said “sinners are justified by faith and Christians by works.” In the latter case, “nothing else comes in review on the day of judgment” (“To ‘Paulinus,’ Letter III,” Christian Baptist [IV:10], May 7, 1827). Campbell specifically taught that the “terms of admission” into the church are different from the terms of admission into Heaven (“The Three Kingdoms,” Christian Baptist [VI:11], June 1, 1829).
Though we probably do not realize it, our traditional “plan of salvation” implies this false distinction. We tell sinners that they may become Christians through faith, repentance, confession, and baptism (the first four fingers of the “five-finger exercise”), which in fact are the biblical acts of obedience to the gospel. But when we add the fifth finger of “holy living,” this switches gears completely, implying that we stay saved by obeying the commands of our law code (i.e., by “works of law”).
When Paul says we are justified by grace through faith apart from works of law (Romans 3:24, 28), he means we become justified and stay justified in this way. The latter point is especially important: as Christians we stay justified (forgiven) as long as we continue to trust in the saving blood of Jesus Christ.
• “Baptism is for the forgiveness of past sins only.” This false idea has been present in Christendom since the second century. It has always been common in the Restoration Movement. The idea is that in baptism all our past sins are washed away, and we thus enter the saved state. But the next time we sin, we lose our salvation status and are again under the wrath of God until we do something to become forgiven again. This unhappy cycle continues until we die, and we are constantly in fear that we will die when we are in the unforgiven stage of the cycle.
There is absolutely no biblical teaching that baptism is for the forgiveness of past sins only. We are baptized for the forgiveness of sins, period. In baptism we enter into a state of grace (Romans 5:1, 2), a state of forgiveness, a saving relationship with Jesus that continues as long as our faith in him remains alive. It is not just our sins that are forgiven; WE are forgiven persons—even when we sin—because of our faith in Jesus. One may cease believing and thus lose salvation, but individual sins cannot be equated with such apostasy.
• “Forgiveness for post-baptismal sins is possible only by obeying 1 John 1:9.” The early belief that baptism is for the forgiveness of past sins only, necessarily led to speculation as to how Christians can receive forgiveness for sins committed after baptism. This ongoing speculation ultimately led to the formulation of the Catholic sacrament of penance, which embodied most of the works-salvation views that the Reformation opposed.
In the Restoration Movement we have developed our own version of penance (a mini-penance!), based on 1 John 1:9. We have erroneously understood John to be teaching that each individual sin puts us as Christians back into the state of lostness, from which we can be rescued only by confessing that specific sin and by repentantly praying for its forgiveness. After committing such a sin, we are lost until we go through this ritual.
This false idea, along with the previous two, has probably done more to obscure grace in the Restoration Movement than anything else. And I believe it is the result of a wrong interpretation of this text. Verses 8 and 10 show that John is talking not about the confession of specific sins, but about the (ongoing) confession of the fact that we are sinners, as in the case of the tax collector in Jesus’ parable (Luke 18:9-14). In this parable, the Pharisee is the epitome of 1 John 1:8, 10 (“I have no sins!”), while the tax collector shows what 1 John 1:9 means (“I am a sinner!”).
In summary, we stay saved by continuing to trust in Christ’s atoning work; individual sins do not separate us from the grace of God. Part of this continuing trust is the continuing confession of our sinfulness and thus our continuing sense of need for grace.