Between God and Mammon

A blog about religion, politics, business, and economics.

Is Full Inerrancy Necessary for Biblical Authority?

May 21, 2025 / / 0 Comments

Introduction

This paper will examine the authority of Scripture, biblical inspiration, and various views of biblical inerrancy and infallibility. It looks at whether full inerrancy as defined in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is essential for establishing the authority of Scripture or whether infallibility (including “limited” or “flexible” inerrancy) is sufficient. It will analyze the Scriptural basis for plenary and verbal inspiration, which underlies the argument for inerrancy and considers the phenomenology of Scripture. Finally, the paper examines the benefits and problems of full inerrancy.  The paper argues that “full” inerrancy is not essential for establishing the authority of Scripture and that infallibility of Scripture is sufficient.

The Authority of Scripture is Essential

The authority of Scripture is essential for the health of the church. In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Paul praises Timothy for knowing the Holy Scriptures which can make him “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”[1] If the authority of Scripture is lost, the church has no basis for its teaching and no authority for rebuking and correcting. Scripture gives us objective standards for righteousness, makes us wise for salvation, and equips us for “every good work.” A society without objective standards of correct behavior will descend into chaos, and the same applies to the church. Moreover, Christians who reject the authority of  the Bible will regard their own preferences as the highest authority, even if they violate the clear word of Scripture or the teachings of the church. As Australian theologian Michael Bird notes, without a clear acceptance of Scripture’s authority, only those parts of the Bible will be treated as authoritative that “agree with a particular political ideology, whether that is the identity politics of the radical left or the syncretistic mix of nationalism and civil religion of the religious right.”[2] British theologian N.T. Wright argues that the authority of Scripture is delegated, that is, it is “the authority of God exercised through Scripture.”[3] Wright notes that Jesus insisted on Scripture’s authority in his interactions with Pharisees and Sadducees (e.g. Matt 15:6-9, Matt 22:9, John 10:35).[4] Bird argues that “treating the Bible as God’s word, a word that is authoritative, normative, and to be obeyed, is the evangelical view.”[5] Elsewhere, Bird notes that the Holy Spirit “is the authority that establishes the Word itself.”[6]

The early church affirmed the authority of Scripture. Oliver and Oliver write: “The idea or principle of Sola Scriptura in the writings of the Church Fathers was expressed in (at least) three ways, namely the supreme authority, self-sufficiency, and clarity of Scripture.”[7] This authority was linked to the apostolic tradition.[8] The authors buttress this argument by quoting Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Hilary of Poitier, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine, who in the City of God deemed it the paramount authority.[9]

The Reformation clearly affirmed the authority of Scripture, as is apparent in the term Sola Scriptura. According to Oliver and Oliver, both Luther and Calvin treated Scripture as the primary theological resource. They also made use of the Church Fathers, but as subsidiary resources.[10] “Luther applied the idea/principle of Sola Scriptura in his arguments. For him, the authority of Scripture was above everything.”[11] Robert Kolb notes that throughout his career, Luther referred to Scripture as the Word of God.[12] Kolb likewise writes that “Calvin regarded the Bible as God’s Word while simultaneously honoring its human authorship.”[13] Roman Catholics also affirmed the authority of Scripture at the time of the Reformation, but they granted the Pope authority over its proper interpretation and Scholastics pressed it into an Aristotelian framework, essentially making the Pope and Aristotelianism the ultimate authority.[14]

D.A. Carson attributes the decline in acceptance of Scripture’s authority to the Enlightenment and especially the historical-critical method applied in German biblical studies beginning in the nineteenth century. He cites the conclusions of Klaus Berger, professor at Heidelberg, about the results of German New Testament scholarship. “Berger concludes by insisting that historical criticism in Germany has promoted atheism, splintered churches, and converted no one to Christ.”[15] This is not limited to Germany. Michael Bird quotes a statement from Union Theological Seminary in 2018: “While divinely inspired, we deny the Bible is inerrant or infallible. It was written by men over centuries and thus reflects both God’s truth and human sin & prejudice. We affirm that biblical scholarship and critical theory help us discern which messages are God’s.”[16] The results will tend to confirm the political and theological preferences of the scholars. Bird is not arguing that everything in the Bible is equally authoritative for us today. He lays out six principles that determine whether a specific biblical statement is applicable as a command to us, with the most important being the “unique and final authority of Jesus.”[17]   

Inspiration of Scripture

Theories of Inspiration

The authority of Scripture depends on its inspiration, which is the justification for deeming it the word of God. The word “inspiration” is a translation of the Greek theopneustos, which can literally be rendered “God-breathed,” as is done in the NIV translation of 2 Timothy 3:16 quoted earlier. Article VI of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (hereafter CSBI), issued in 1978 by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, affirms that “the whole of Scripture all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.” This is the definition of plenary (the whole of Scripture) and verbal (its words) inspiration.

It is difficult to formulate a well-developed doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture, since the Bible “does not present a full-fledged doctrine of Scripture,” according to Millard J. Erickson.[18] He identifies five theories of inspiration common in the literature.[19] The “intuition” theory, common among liberal theologians, is that inspiration refers to a high degree of insight by the authors, but not the direct working of the Holy Spirit. The “illumination” theory proposes that the Holy Spirit influences the writers to heighten their normal powers, so that they have an increased sensitivity to spiritual matters. In the “dynamic” theory, the Holy Spirit directs writers to thoughts or concepts, but the writers choose their own words and so maintain their own styles. The “verbal” theory extends the work of the Spirit to include selection of the words used to convey the message. Finally, the “dictation” theory argues that God dictated the entire Bible to the largely passive authors. Erickson’s view is that God directed the thoughts of the writers (dynamic theory) but at times was so precise that He chose the very words the writer used (verbal theory).[20] The Bible at times even suggests that God dictated specific passages, such as Revelation 2 and 8.

Michael Bird examines difficulties with plenary and verbal inspiration in light of the phenomena of Scripture, such as the different styles used by the authors, and concludes that the dynamic view is the best model for inspiration and not the verbal theory that the CSBI seems to affirm.[21] Bird cites Benjamin B. Warfield in arguing that Scripture results from the confluence of the Holy Spirit and human authors in writing the text.[22] A problem with the doctrine of plenary and verbal inspiration is that, in practice, it is difficult to distinguish it from the dictation theory, which essentially eliminates the human element that Article 8 of the CSBI affirms. Philosopher William Lane Craig offers a “middle knowledge” view of inspiration that, he argues, allows for both plenary and verbal inspiration as well as free human agency. Craig writes, “God knew what the authors of Scripture would freely write when placed in certain circumstances. By arranging for the authors of Scripture to be in the appropriate circumstances, God can achieve a Scripture which is a product of human authors and also is His Word.”[23] Mark D. Thompson argues that Warfield would go further. To achieve the Pauline epistles, God prepared a Paul who “spontaneously would write just such letters.”[24] This is in line with Craig’s middle-knowledge argument. But Warfield also asserted “throughout the whole of his work the Holy Spirit was present, causing his energies to flow into the spontaneous exercises of the writer’s faculties, elevating and directing where need be, and everywhere securing the errorless expression in language of the thought designed by God.”[25] This would be consistent with the dynamic theory. Warfield does not explain how the Holy Spirit superintends this, only that He does. Article VII of the CSBI affirms that “the mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.”

Deductive Support for Plenary and Verbal Inspiration

The doctrine of plenary and verbal inspiration is deductively derived, that is, based on what Scripture says about itself. John Feinberg, who affirms verbal and plenary inspiration, identifies 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21, John 10:35, and John 17:17 as the didactic passages that establish the doctrine.[26] Like Feinberg, Erickson argues that inspiration is plenary, that is, that all of Scripture is inspired. While this might seem obvious from 2 Timothy 3:16, an examination of the Greek text raises doubts. The verse is normally translated as “All Scripture is God-breathed …,” but it could also legitimately be translated “All God-breathed Scripture …”.[27] Erickson points to 2 Peter 1:19-21 and John 10:34-35, coupled with Luke 24:25-27 and Luke 24:44-45, as indicating that the entire Old Testament is God-breathed.[28] Moreover, he argues, 2 Peter 3:16 as well as 1 John 4:6 extend Scripture from the prophetic period into their own time.[29] In 2 Peter 1:19-21, Peter affirms that the prophetic message is completely reliable and that “no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” This clearly indicates a strong divine influence, but it neither teaches that all Scripture is prophetic nor is it specific enough to show that the Holy Spirit gives the prophets the very words that they use. In John 10:35, Jesus says that even a single word, “gods,” in Psalm 82:6 is authoritative and notes that “Scripture cannot be set aside.” This verse is powerful support for the authority of Scripture and that even the specific words can have authority. It does not, however, say that all words in Scripture have the same authority. One should also note that Jesus used it to disarm His opponents who were ready to stone Him for blasphemy. Finally, in John 17:17, Jesus prays to the Father and says, “your word is truth.” This verse can be used to argue for Scripture as being the word of God and true but is not sufficient to establish plenary and verbal inspiration.

To summarize, the doctrine of plenary and verbal inspiration is affirmed in the CSBI and derived deductively from Scripture using four main verses. A closer examination of these verses leaves some doubt about whether Scripture teaches that inspiration was plenary and that every word in Scripture was given by the Holy Spirit. The dynamic theory of inspiration would allow the writers to choose their own words, at least in many cases, and would explain the differences in authorial styles.

Inerrancy and Infallibility of Scripture

Definition of Inerrancy and Infallibility

The basic meaning of “inerrancy” is “without error.” Erickson defines the inerrancy of Scripture as meaning that “the Bible is fully truthful in all of its teachings.”[30] It is similar to “infallibility,” which used to mean the same thing but in recent years “has been used as an alternative to ‘inerrancy,’ meaning in some usages that the Bible was not necessarily accurate in all of its factual references, but that it accomplished the divine purpose.”[31] Michael Bird also defines “infallibility” as being more flexible than inerrancy: “Biblical teachings are true and without falsehood in all that they affirm, with specific reference to God’s revelation of himself as Savior.”[32] The question of inerrancy is very important among American evangelicals. According to Bird, the issue of inerrancy has been “the defining issue within the evangelical camp” in America, leading to “all sorts of debates, denominational breakups, and institutional divisions.”[33] He further writes, “For many American evangelicals, inerrancy is kind of like your passport and residency visa within the evangelical tribe; without it you can expect to be deported.”[34] In number 4 of its short statement, the CSBI affirms that “Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.” This is what Erickson describes as “full inerrancy.”[35]

David S. Dockery, a renowned theologian and now president of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, developed a typology of the positions on inerrancy held by Christians. Gabriel Desjardins lists them as “(1) mechanical dictation, (2) absolute

inerrancy, (3) critical inerrancy, (4) limited inerrancy, (5) qualified inerrancy, (6)

nuanced inerrancy, (7) functional inerrancy, (8) inerrancy is irrelevant, and (9) biblical

authority.”[36] According to Dockery, fundamentalists essentially affirm mechanical dictation (1),[37] while evangelicals accept either absolute inerrancy (2) or critical inerrancy (3), and moderates the positions of limited inerrancy (4), qualified inerrancy (5), nuanced inerrancy (6), or functional inerrancy (7). Liberals, on the other hand, reject the word inerrancy and take positions (8) “inerrancy is irrelevant” or (9) “biblical authority,” which is really a misnomer.[38] Absolute inerrancy (2) and critical inerrancy (3) both affirm inerrancy as defined by the CSBI, but differ in their use of critical methodologies, such as form and redaction criticism.[39] Inerrancy types (4) through (6) would fall under Erickson’s category of “limited inerrancy.”[40] Limited inerrancy (4) affirms that the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith, salvation, and ethics, but not in other matters.[41] Qualified inerrancy (5) is similar to limited inerrancy (4), but adherents affirm the Bible’s veracity as a presupposition of faith.[42] Nuanced inerrancy (6) argues that different forms of inspiration, and hence inerrancy, should be applied to different texts. This ranges from dictation for the Ten Commandments to authorial freedom for poetry.[43] Functional inerrancy (7) affirms that the Bible is infallible in its purpose, which is to bring people to salvation and helping believers grow in godliness but is not inherent in factual matters.[44] Erickson applies the term “inerrancy of purpose” to this position.[45] Positions (8) “inerrancy is irrelevant” and (9) “biblical authority” reject inerrancy. Those who hold position (8) point to the divisions that inerrancy disputes cause in the church and argue that a focus on inerrancy hinders serious biblical scholarship.[46] Finally, position (9) “biblical authority” affirms that the Bible contains errors, but these do not limit its authority as a sacred text.[47]

Views of Various Theologians

Full inerrancy, or Dockery’s positions (1) through (3), is based on a deductive approach.[48] R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes: “Do we really believe that God breathed out and inspired every word of the Bible? Do we believe that the Bible, as the Word of God written, shares God’s own perfection and truthfulness? Do we believe that when the Bible speaks, God speaks? If so, we affirm the inerrancy of Scripture without reservation or hesitation.”[49] New Testament scholar and apologist Mike Licona describes the deductive argument for full inerrancy in a syllogism:[50]

  1. God cannot err.
  2. The Bible is God’s Word.
  3. Therefore, the Bible cannot err.

The argument depends on how inspiration is understood. If plenary and verbal inspiration is correct, then the argument appears impeccable. If, however, God permits the human authors more freedom and only ensures that Scripture achieves His purposes, then some form of limited inerrancy or infallibility is more likely correct.

Licona argues for what he calls “flexible inerrancy,” which he defines as follows: “the Bible is true, trustworthy, authoritative, and without error in all that it teaches.”[51] While this conforms to Erickson’s basic meaning of inerrancy,[52] it is broader than the CSBI definition and probably falls in the category of Erickson’s “limited inerrancy” but possibly Dockery’s “critical inerrancy”. Licona affirms the divine inspiration of Scripture but questions whether it is plenary and verbal. Instead, he affirms the middle knowledge view of William Lane Craig, which allows the authors much freedom in what they write. Licona argues that this is more consistent with what we see in Scripture, and so his view is partly phenomenological.

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, a theologian at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, supports an “Augustinian” concept of inerrancy, by which he means “faith seeking understanding.”[53] He argues for a “well-versed” doctrine of inerrancy, arguing that we must first understand the author’s intent and be “alert to the importance of rhetoric as well as logic.”[54] He emphasizes that the Bible must be properly interpreted and “is true not in everything it mentions but in what it affirms.”[55] Accordingly, his definition of inerrancy is that “the authors speak the truth in all things they affirm (when they make affirmations), and will eventually be seen to have spoken truly (when right readers read rightly).”[56] By “right readers” he means “right-hearted and right-minded readers: those who read in faith and humility, not to mention the general prerequisites for literary competence.”[57] This means understanding not only the language but also the literary form.[58] While he affirms the truth of the literal sense of a passage, by this he means the “speech act content,” that is, what the author intends to say.[59] For example, when Jesus said that the mustard seed is the smallest seed (Matt 13:31), He was “not affirming as scientific fact the proposition semantically expressed by his sentence” but “communicating truth about the kingdom in terms his audience could understand.”[60]

Michael Bird argues that the discussion about inerrancy reflected in the CSBI is a uniquely American phenomenon. “For the most part,” he argues, “global churches have focused on Scripture as ‘infallible’ and ‘authoritative.’” By ‘biblical infallibility,’ we mean that the biblical teachings are true and without falsehood in all that they affirm, with specific reference to God’s revelation of himself as Savior.”[61] His quarrel with “inerrancy” is that it often means “freedom from error in all that is mentioned in Scripture – regardless of whether it pertains to historical, scientific, or theological claims – while infallibility is more modest in scope and pertains only to matters of faith and doctrine.”[62] More specifically, Bird objects to the CSBI’s view of the genre of Genesis 1-3, which he terms defective.[63] He also objects to the implicit assumption reflected in Article 14 that biblical veracity “rests on the harmonization of discrepancies” and cites the minor differences between the synoptic Gospels regarding the healing of a blind man near Jericho .[64] He also objects to the assumption in Article 16 that inerrancy has always been “integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history,” arguing that its current form results from debates in the modern context. Finally, he accuses the CSBI of “theological colonialism,” arguing that most evangelicals outside of the United States are content with the concept of “infallibility.”[65]

Full Inerrancy or Limited Inerrancy/Infallibility?

Which view is preferable: full inerrancy or limited inerrancy/infallibility? A problem in defining the question should be noted at the outset: Those who affirm full inerrancy would also affirm infallibility. If the Bible is “free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit” (CSBI Article 12), it will also be without error in all that it teaches, as the CSBI’s Article 11 affirms. In this paper, infallibility refers to a position that rejects “full inerrancy” but affirms “infallibility” as Michael Bird defines it. Another problem is with the lack of nuance. Bird, for example, prefers the term “infallible” to “inerrancy,” yet his views would probably fit Dockery’s definition of “limited inerrancy” or possibly “critical inerrancy.” Licona’s views likewise fall under the term “infallible” but can also be classified as “limited” or “critical” inerrancy. Similarly, Vanhoozer affirms the CSBI, but his emphasis on understanding literary forms or genres puts him in the “critical inerrancy” camp. In fact, Vanhoozer writes that his well-versed approach is a combination of Dockery’s third and sixth types (critical inerrancy and nuanced inerrancy).[66] Mohler’s more hard-line view clearly falls under “full inerrancy,” but his staunch positioning might go beyond even the CSBI and reflect his interpretation of certain texts, such as the account in Joshua 6 of the Battle of Jericho, as Vanhoozer points out.[67]

Phenomenological Arguments Against Full Inerrancy

There are many differences between parallel accounts in Scripture. This is not necessarily bad: if all accounts of the same event were identical, one could conclude that the authors copied each other. Still, these differences are a challenge for the doctrine of full inerrancy and must at least be harmonized.

Mike Licona argues that the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography, and that the authors used the conventions common for such biographies.[68] The purpose was to “reveal the character of the subject through the person’s sayings and deeds.”[69] The genre “provided authors a license to depart from the degree of precision in reporting that many of us moderns prefer.”[70] Licona examines fifteen parallel pericopes in the Gospels. One example is the account of Jesus’s healing of the centurion’s servant. In Matthew 8:5-6, the centurion asks Jesus directly to heal his servant. In Luke 7:3, on the other hand, the centurion sends some Jewish elders to ask on his behalf. Licona explains the difference this way: “Because Matthew tends to present abbreviated versions of stories paralleled in Mark and Luke, this is likely an example of Matthew compressing the narrative and transferring what a messenger had communicated to the literal mouth of the one who had sent the messenger.”[71] Compression was a literary device that Greco-Roman biographers used. Vern Poythress makes much the same argument in his analysis, although he begins with the possibility of several stages of events: First the representatives came, then the centurion himself.[72]

It should be noted that some discrepancies between the Gospels are harder to harmonize. An example is the healing of the blind man or men at Jericho. In Mark 10:46-52, Jesus heals a blind man, Bartimaeus, as Jesus leaves the city. In Luke 18:35-43, the (unnamed) man is healed as Jesus enters the city. In Matthew 20:29-34, the healing takes place when Jesus leaves the city, but here He heals two blind men. Licona argues that ancient biographers did not emphasize chronological accuracy, and so this could explain the difference on whether the healing took place as Jesus entered or left. As for one- or two blind men, Licona suggests it could be Matthew’s preference for doublets.[73] Poythress also examines these passages and offers conjectures by Calvin and Craig Blomberg but concludes that we do not have the final solution.[74]

The question is whether these differences are compatible with full inerrancy of the CSBI. Article 12, which states that Scripture is “free from all falsehood, fraud, and deceit,” would suggest they are. In all cases, there are differences in details that could be considered falsehoods (though not fraud or deceit). But Article 13 denies that Scripture should be evaluated “according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose.” As Greco-Roman biographies, the Gospels’ purpose is not to provide a precision of detail that modern standards would require. Many supporters of full inerrancy would not accept this argument. 

Another difficulty is the differences between Scripture’s accounts of creation and prehistory in Genesis 1-11 and the findings of modern science. If Genesis 1-11 is treated as history, there are obvious contradictions, as young earth creationists affirm and so reject any form of evolution. If Genesis 1-11 is treated as a different genre, such as an etiological myth, as William Lane Craig suggests, the problem disappears.[75] This appears to violate Articles 12 and 18 of the CSBI, so it is probably incompatible with full inerrancy. Less rigorous definitions of inerrancy or infallibility see no contradiction. There are likewise differences between the history of Israel as recorded in the Bible and the findings of modern archaeology. For example, most archaeologists argue that Jericho was not a walled city at the time of Joshua’s conquest reported in Joshua 6. Moreover, many scholars wrestle with the morality of the biblical accounts of Israel’s genocide in Joshua.

Benefits and Problems with Full Inerrancy

The greatest benefit of the “full inerrancy” position is certainty. If one affirms with Mohler that “When the Bible speaks, God speaks,” the Bible’s authority is unquestioned.[76]  It serves as a bulwark against theological liberalism. Norman Geisler and William Roach argue that the CSBI “helped reverse decades of the drift from inerrancy in one of the largest Protestant denominations in the United States— the Southern Baptist Convention. Other crucial schools and denominations that were drifting in the wrong direction were also influenced to change course.”[77] These included Bethel Seminary in Minneapolis, Gordon Cromwell Seminary, and Wheaton College, but not Fuller Seminary, which has not affirmed the CSBI. Moreover, if the Bible is fully inerrant, preachers and teachers need not fear that they are passing on incorrect information when they affirm the events of      Genesis 1-11.

Some full inerrantists talk about a “slippery slope,” the end of which is abandonment of the historic faith. Mohler, for example, argues: “I do not believe that evangelicalism can survive without the explicit and complete assertion of biblical inerrancy. If we question full inerrancy, we will stumble down a slippery slope.” Similarly, “Without a total commitment to the trustworthiness and truthfulness of the Bible, the church is left without its defining authority, lacking confidence in its ability to hear God’s voice. Preachers will lack confidence in the authority and truthfulness of the very Word they are commissioned to preach and teach.”[78]

There are also problems with the “full inerrancy” stance. First, the doctrine of full inerrancy is not explicitly taught in Scripture but is “a corollary of full inspiration.”[79] If our understanding of inspiration is faulty, so is our doctrine of inerrancy. It was argued earlier that the didactic verses on which plenary and verbal inspiration is built do not teach this unambiguously. Second, it has been argued that the phenomena of Scripture do not support full inerrancy. Third, the doctrine of full inerrancy causes fissures in the church and hinders scholarship. J.  Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett recount how New Testament scholar Robert Gundry was forced out of the Evangelical Theological Society for asserting that parts of Matthew’s infancy narratives were midrash and hence not intended as historical fact.[80] Norman Geisler attacked Mike Licona for arguing that the account of the saints rising from the dead when Jesus died (Matt 27:52-53) was not historical but used as an apocalyptic device.[81] has been attacked for arguing that. Fourth, emphasis on inerrancy can cause Christians to focus on propositions and learning correct information rather than “submitting to the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.”[82] Fifth, a focus on full inerrancy entails a “slippery slope” of its own. Michael Bird argues that it is pastorally dangerous. “It means that if some young Christian comes across a passage of Scripture that is historically or ethically challenging, then they are faced with the choice between belief and unbelief.”[83] A sixth problem is practical: We do not have the original manuscripts but copies, which are good but not inerrant. Finally, the doctrine of inerrancy does not guarantee orthodoxy, as Jehovah’s Witnesses, who deny the Trinity, show.

Both full inerrancy and infallibility affirm an authoritative Bible. The problems described above for full inerrancy do not apply for infallibility.

Conclusion

This paper argued that the authority of Scripture is essential, since the church needs an authority for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” (2 Tim 3:16). It examined the inspiration of Scripture and concluded that the didactic verses on which the deductive argument is based (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21, John 10:35, and John 17:17) are insufficient to establish the doctrine with certainty. It also examined various views of inerrancy and infallibility and examined the phenomenology of Scripture, which poses difficulties for the doctrine of full inerrancy. The paper looked at benefits of the doctrine of full inerrancy but also at the problems it poses. Given that both full inerrancy and infallibility affirm the authority of Scripture, the paper concludes that evangelicals can in good conscience abandon full inerrancy, although this is not mandatory, but they must uphold the infallibility of Scripture.

[1] Quotes are from the New International Version of the Bible.

[2] Michael F. Bird, Seven Things I Wish Christians Knew about the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2021), 72.

[3] N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today, (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2013), 22 (italics his).

[4] Ibid., 42.

[5] Bird, Seven Things I Wish Christians Knew about the Bible, 72.

[6] Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 705.

[7] W.H. Oliver and E. Oliver, “Sola scriptura: authority versus interpretation?” Acta Theologica, 40(1) (2020): 105.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 106-107.

[10] Ibid., 111.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Robert Kolb, “The Bible in the Reformation and Protestant Orthodoxy,” in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scripture, ed. D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 95.

[13] Ibid., 105.

[14] Ibid., 93.

[15] D.A. Carson, “The Many Facets of the Current Discussion,” in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scripture, ed. D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 18.

[16] Bird, Seven Things I Wish Christians Knew about the Bible, 70.

[17] Ibid., 78.

[18] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 172.

[19] Ibid., 174-175.

[20] Ibid., 184.

[21] Ibid., Evangelical Theology, 714-718.

[22] Bird, 708.

[23] William Lane Craig, “‘Men Moved By The Holy Spirit Spoke From God’(2 Peter 1:21)
A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Biblical Inspiration,” in Philosophia Christi, Vol. 1, Issue 1 (1999), 45.

[24] Mark D Thompson, “Warfield on Inspiration and Inerrancy,” The Reformed Theological Review,. 80, no. 1 (2021): 43.

[25] Ibid.

[26] John S. Feinberg, Light in a Dark Place: The Doctrine of Scripture, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 94.

[27] Erickson, Christian Theology, 177.

[28] Ibid., 178.

[29] Ibid., 178-179.

[30] Erickson, Christian Theology, 189.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Bird, Michael F. “Inerrancy is Not Necessary for Evangelicalism Outside the USA,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 145-173, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 163.

[33] Bird, Seven Things I Wish Christians Knew about the Bible, 55.

[34] Ibid., 58.

[35] Erickson, Christian Theology, 191.

[36] Gabriel A. Desjardins, “The Spectrum of Inerrancy: An Exploration of David S. Dockery’s Typological Contributions to the Inerrancy Debate in Evangelicalism,” Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai, 66/1 (2021), 70.

[37] Dockery, David S. “Biblical Inerrancy: Pro or Con?” The Theological Educator 37, (December 1988), 18.

[38] Desjardins, “The Spectrum of Inerrancy,” 70.

[39] Ibid., 82-83.

[40] Erickson, Christian Theology, 191.

[41] Desjardins, “The Spectrum of Inerrancy,” 85.

[42] Ibid., 86.

[43] Ibid., 87.

[44] Ibid., 89.

[45] Erickson, Christian Theology, 191.

[46] Desjardins, “The Spectrum of Inerrancy,” 91.

[47] Ibid., 92.

[48] Desjardins, “The Spectrum of Inerrancy,” 71.

[49] Mohler, R. Albert Jr. “When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks: The Classic Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 29-58 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 30.

[50] Licona, Michael R. Jesus, Contradicted: Why the Gospels Tell the Same Story Differently, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2024), 194.

[51] Ibid., 206.

[52] Erickson, Christian Theology, 189.

[53] Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Augustinian Inerrancy: Literary Meaning, Literal Truth, and Literate Interpretation in the Economy of Biblical Discourse” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 199-235 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 206.

[54] Ibid., 200

[55] Ibid., 207.

[56] Ibid., 207.

[57] Ibid., note 24, 207.

[58] Ibid., 211.

[59] Ibid., 220.

[60] Ibid., 221.

[61] Bird “Inerrancy is Not Necessary for Evangelicalism Outside the USA,” 163.

[62] Ibid.

[63] Ibid., 147.

[64] Ibid., 148.

[65] Ibid., 154-155.

[66] Vanhoozer, “Augustinian Inerrancy,” note 42, 214.

[67] Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Response to R. Albert Mohler Jr.” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. J. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 71-76, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 74.

[68] Michael R. Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017), 3-4.

[69] Ibid., 4.

[70] Ibid., 5.

[71] Ibid., 130.

[72] Vern S. Poythress, Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 22-27.

[73] Licona, Why Are There Differences, 135.

[74] Poythress, Inerrancy and the Gospels, 229-234.

[75] Craig, William Lane. In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2021), 160.

[76] Mohler, “When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks,” 29.

[77] Geisler, Norman L, and William C Roach. Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011.

[78] Mohler, “When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks,” 31.

[79] Erickson, Christian Theology, 200.

[80] J. Merrick with Stephen M. Garrett, “Introduction: On Debating Inerrancy,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 9-25, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 11.

[81] Michael R. Licona, “When the Saints Go Marching In (Matthew 27:52-53): Historicity, Apocalyptic Symbol, and Biblical Inerrancy,” https://www.risenjesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011-eps-saints-paper.pdf.  Accessed March 1, 2025, 3:00 p.m. CET.

[82] Merrick and Garrett., “Introduction: On Debating Inerrancy,” 14.

[83] Michael F. Bird, “Response to R. Albert Mohler Jr.” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 65-70, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 68.

Bibliography

Bird, Michael F. Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020.

Bird, Michael F. “Response to R. Albert Mohler Jr.” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 65-70. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013.

Bird, Michael F. “Inerrancy is Not Necessary for Evangelicalism Outside the USA,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 145-173. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013.

Bird, Michael F. Seven Things I Wish Christians Knew about the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2021.

Carson, D.A. “The Many Facets of the Current Discussion,” in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scripture, ed. D.A. Carson, 16-50. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978)

Craig, William Lane. “‘Men Moved By the Holy Spirit Spoke From God’(2 Peter 1:21)
A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Biblical Inspiration.” Philosophia Christi, Vol. 1, Issue 1 (1999): 45-82.

Craig, William Lane. In Quest of the Historical Adam : A Biblical and Scientific Exploration. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.

Feinberg, John S. Light in a Dark Place: The Doctrine of Scripture. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018.

Geisler, Norman L, and William C Roach. Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011.

Kolb, Robert. “The Bible in the Reformation and Protestant Orthodoxy,” in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scripture, ed. D.A. Carson, 93-116. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016.

Licona, Michael R. Jesus, Contradicted: Why the Gospels Tell the Same Story Differently. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2024.

Licona, Michael R. Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Licona, Michael R. “When the Saints Go Marching In (Matthew 27:52-53): Historicity, Apocalyptic Symbol, and Biblical Inerrancy.” Risen Jesus website: https://www.risenjesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011-eps-saints-paper.pdf.  Accessed March 1, 2025, 3:00 p.m. CET.

Merrick, James R.A. with Stephen M. Garrett, “Introduction: On Debating Inerrancy,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 9-25. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013,

Mohler, R. Albert Jr. “When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks: The Classic Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 29-58. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013.

Oliver, W.H. and E. Oliver. “Sola scriptura: authority versus interpretation?” Acta Theologica, 40(1) (2020): 102-123.

Poythress, Vern S. Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012.

Thompson, Mark D. “Warfield on Inspiration and Inerrancy.” The Reformed Theological Review. 80, no. 1 (2021): 29–48.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Augustinian Inerrancy: Literary Meaning, Literal Truth, and Literate Interpretation in the Economy of Biblical Discourse” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. J. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 199-235. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013.

Wright, N. T. Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today. New York: HarperOne, 2013.

Sermon: God Cares for His Church.

May 11, 2025 / / 0 Comments

May 11, 2025              Fourth Sunday of Easter

Acts 9:36-43; Psalm 23; Rev 7:9-17; John 10:22-30

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of our hearts be acceptable in your sight, O Lord. Amen.

Please be seated.

Throughline of the Readings

Pentecost, the birthday of the church, is still a few weeks away, and we’re still in the Easter season, when our focus is on the Resurrection of our Lord. Still, the throughline of our readings seems to be the church and how God cares for it and its members.

When you think of the church, what comes to mind? For many people, it’s a building, like ours in Wiesbaden. You might also think of Sunday services, hymns, (hopefully) interesting sermons, and youth programs. We might also mention denominations, like the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion. But this is not what the Bible means. The Greek word for church used here, ekklesia, refers to an assembly of people, that is the people of God. In the Apostles Creed, we say “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints.” The catholic or universal church is the communion of saints, comprising all believers, past, present, and future. The church is God’s people.

The Readings

Let’s take a closer look at our readings.

Acts 9:36-43

The first reading recounts how Peter raised Tabitha, a disciple in Joppa. Tabitha, who was “devoted to good works and acts of charity,” had become ill and died. Peter was in nearby Lydda, where he had just healed a paralyzed man who had been bedridden for eight years (Acts 9:33-35). News of this miraculous healing caused many to turn to Christ and also reached the disciples in Joppa, who sent two of their number to fetch Peter. Peter came, prayed, and told Tabitha to get up, and she did. As a result of this miracle, many in Joppa came to Christ. This is one of many examples in Scripture where God takes care of His people

Psalm 23

This psalm is perhaps the most beloved one in the Bible. David calls the Lord his shepherd, the one who protects him, takes care of him, and comforts him. As with David, God protects and cares for us in His church.

Revelation 7:9-17

Today’s passage in Revelation begins with “A great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” (Rev 7:9). This multitude represents the triumphant church. “These are they who have come out of the great ordeal; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the lamb” (Rev 7:14). God promises to rescue His people from their trials and tribulations. This doesn’t mean we are immune to persecution and suffering. But it does mean that we will triumph if we remain in Jesus Christ.

The text also says that God’s people come from all tribes and languages. The gospel of Christ doesn’t eliminate nations and cultures. New Testament scholar Craig Keener writes, “This text suggests that, far from obliterating culture, God takes what is useful in each culture and transforms it into an instrument of praise for his glory.”[1] The multitude of cultures enriches the church.

The passage ends with a promise that echoes today’s psalm: for the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of the water of life, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.” This echoes Christ’s promise to the faithful church at Smyrna: “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Rev 2:10).

John 10:22-30

In the Gospel reading, Jesus was in Jerusalem at the Feast of Dedication, which we know today as Hannukah. The leaders confronted Him and asked if He was the Messiah. Jesus replied that His works testify to him, but they do not believe, because they are not among His sheep.  In words reminiscent of today’s psalm, He then says, “My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand.” This is an amazing promise! If we are in Christ Jesus, He will not let anyone take us away from Him: not Caesar, not Putin, nobody! As Paul writes, “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:38-39). Our ultimate triumph with Jesus is assured.

In the last verse of the passage, Jesus says, “The Father and I are one.” Here He claims equality with God. Since Jesus is God, one with the Creator of the universe, He has the power to keep us in His hand.

Characteristics of the Church

Our readings show that God cares for His church and His people. But He also expects things from us.

The People of God

Systematic theologian Millard Erickson writes, “The church is constituted of God’s people. They belong to Him and He belongs to them.”[2] God will shield them, care for them, and guard them “as the apple of his eye” (Deut. 32:10). But in return, God expects that they will be his people without reservation and without dividing their loyalty.”[3] This final point is important. Our first loyalty must be to God, not to country, political party, denomination, not even our family.

The Body of Christ

The church is how God normally builds His kingdom. Anglican theologian Michael Bird writes, “the church is the physical and visible locus of Jesus’s current activity on earth (Eph 1:22-23).”[4] Professor Christopher Moody writes, “We are the hands and feet of Jesus to a needy world, and He supplies us both life and leadership as our head.”[5] The church is one body, with Christ as the head, and is made up of many parts (1 Cor 12:12). We are those parts. Just as each part of the body is different but essential for the body’s proper functioning, so the Holy Spirit gives us all different gifts (1 Cor 12:11). We should endeavor to discover what those gifts are and use them to pursue God’s purposes. The Holy Spirit also enables the church to preach the gospel “with great power” (Acts 4:33) and, sometimes, even to perform astonishing miracles, as Peter performed in Joppa.

Discipleship

            Jesus calls us to be His disciples. In fact, that was the main description of believers in the New Testament. Disciples are learners, but not just of facts, although that is necessary. Disciples put what they learn into action. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury from 2002 to 2012, wrote an excellent short book, Being Disciples. He emphasizes that discipleship is “about how we live; not just the decisions we make, not just the things we believe, but a state of being.”[6] It’s “a relationship that continues.”[7] Williams writes about the things we should emphasize as disciples, including forgiveness, holiness, social engagement, and cultivating life in the Spirit. But he places special emphasis on three indispensable qualities: faith, hope, and love.

Faith is more than acceptance of certain propositions, such as those laid out in the Nicene Creed, as important as this is. Williams defines faith as “dependable relationship” with Jesus, “who does not change or go away.”[8] In turn, we as Christ’s disciples are called to embody this dependable relationship and offer it to others.[9]

Hope is like faith: it is in relation to the One who does not go away, who sees our past, present, and future. As Jesus said in today’s Gospel reading, “No one will snatch them out of my hand” (John 10:28). Our hope is secure in Christ.

Williams describes love as more than doing good. It is “a deep contemplative regard for the world, for humanity in general and for human beings in particular, and for God.”[10] Our love for God and others comes from knowing that God first loved us.

Finally, Williams notes that “disciples watch; they remain alert, attentive, watching symbolic acts as well as listening for instructive words, watching the actions that give the clue to how reality is being reorganized around Jesus.”[11] That’s good advice. If we watch and listen attentively, our Master will teach us much and, through the Holy Spirit, make us more the people He wants us to be. So, let’s take time out of our busy lives to watch and listen, so we can learn what Christ is teaching us. And let us resolve to live as the people of God, placing Christ first, using our gifts for God’s kingdom, and cultivating the fruits of the spirit. Amen.

Bibliography

Bird, Michael F. Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.

Keener, Craig S. Revelation: From Biblical Text– to Contemporary Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.

Moody, Christopher. Disciple-Making Disciples: A Practical Theology of the Church. Franklin, TN: Carpenter’s Son Publishing, 2021.

Williams, Rowan. Being Disciples: Essentials of the Christian Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016.

[1] Craig S. Keener, Revelation: From Biblical Text– to Contemporary Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 264.

[2] Ibid., 957.

[3] Ibid., 959.

[4] Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 815.

[5] Christopher Moody, Disciple-Making Disciples: A Practical Theology of the Church (Franklin, TN: Carpenter’s Son Publishing, 2021), 32.

[6] Rowan Williams, Being Disciples: Essentials of the Christian Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 1.

[7] Ibid., 2.

[8] Ibid., 25.

[9] Ibid., 27.

[10] Ibid., 33.

[11] Ibid., 7.

Justification and Sanctification in the Work of Salvation: A Comparison of Church Teachings

May 10, 2025 / / 0 Comments

Introduction

In Acts 16:30, the jailer in Philippi asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” For the next two millennia, people have asked the same question. It is the most important question one can ask. Justification, and its companion sanctification, are at the core of the Christian faith. This paper examines the relationship of justification and sanctification in the work of salvation. It begins with a working definition of justification, sanctification, and salvation, then looks at them in the order of salvation (ordo salutis). It discusses the differences between the historic Protestant traditions (Lutheran, Calvinist, Arminian) and Roman Catholicism on justification and sanctification and examines the recent rapprochement between Catholics and Protestants. The paper argues that there are minor differences between Arminians and other Protestants on justification and sanctification but, despite recent rapprochement, more significant differences with Roman Catholics.

Overview of Justification and Sanctification

Justification by faith is at the heart of the Protestant Reformation. Mark Lamport writes: “For Martin Luther, the article of justification was not one among many Christian teachings but instead the indisputable key by which all other Christian truths were to be understood and evaluated.”[1] Anglican theologian Anthony Lane writes that John Calvin identified justification as “the main hinge on which religion turns.”[2] Sanctification is related to justification in the economy of salvation, but there is disagreement about their relationship.

Definitions: Salvation, Justification, and Sanctification

At its most basic, salvation refers to rescue from peril. While liberal theologians, liberal theologians, and Christian existentialists use different definitions, theologian Bruce Demerest defines the traditional view of salvation as “negatively, deliverance from sin, death, and divine wrath and, positively, bestowal of far-ranging spiritual blessings both temporal and eternal.”[3] This paper uses this traditional view of salvation, which can be summarized as reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins, and eternal life.

Justification is at the heart of salvation. Systematic theologian Millard J. Erickson writes, “Justification is God’s action pronouncing sinners righteous in his sight.”[4] Anglican theologian Michael F. Bird equates it with reconciliation and salvation.[5] At a minimum, justification refers to forgiveness of sins. Sanctification is connected to justification. Erickson writes, “Sanctification is the continuing work of God in the life of believers, making them actually holy.”[6] Bird writes, “sanctification denotes progress in personal holiness, ethical righteousness, godliness, resistance to temptation, and increasing Christlikeness.”[7] Since both justification and sanctification are closely related to salvation, they are included in what theologians call the ordo salutis, or order of salvation, which is discussed below.

Order of salvation (ordo salutis)

Orthodox Christians of all varieties teach that salvation is grounded in Christ’s crucifixion and Resurrection, which make reconciliation between God and humanity possible. Christ’s work must still be applied to individuals, which is laid out in the order of salvation.[8] Paul wrote, “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom 29-30).

According to Demarest, Lutheran theologians define the order of salvation as follows:[9] (1) calling, in which people are called to believe through proclamation of the gospel; (2) illumination, which allows listeners to comprehend the benefits of the gospel; (3) conversion or repentance, when the Holy Spirit leads listeners to have remorse for their sins; (4) regeneration, or new birth, in which the person now believes the gospel; (5) justification, whereby God forgives the new believer his or her sins; (6) mystical union, in which the believer is brought into a supernatural union with Christ; (7) sanctification, the lifelong process in which believers, with the help of the Holy Spirit, become more holy; (8) conservation, in which believers persist in the faith despite the possibility of falling away.

Reformed theologians argue for this order: (1) calling, (2) regeneration, (3) faith, (4) repentance, (5) justification, (6) sanctification, (7) perseverance, (8) glorification.[10] It differs from the Lutheran by placing regeneration before faith and repentance, which regeneration enables, and in the teaching of perseverance. Calvinists believe that if a person really is one of the elect, the Holy Spirit will ensure his or her perseverance until death.[11] This is often termed, “once saved, always saved.” Arminians disagree, arguing, like Lutherans, that believers can fall away.[12] Arminians also argue that people are granted “prevenient grace,” which enables them to respond to the gospel, if they so choose. This is similar to the Lutheran concept of “illumination,” mentioned above. Some evangelicals, such as the Anglican theologian J.I. Packer, place regeneration after conversion and justification, not prior to conversion.[13] This reflects a different view of regeneration from Lutherans and Calvinists, who emphasize that people need to be “born again” (regenerated) in order to believe the gospel. Packer and others assert that being born again begins the process of sanctification for those who already believe the gospel. Gregory Parker and Cameron Clausing argue that “adoption” should have a separate entry between justification and sanctification.[14] Being taken into God’s family provides a motivation for Christians to live as God wants. “Because the Christian has been adopted into the family of God, they are to bear a family resemblance.”[15]

According to Demarest, Roman Catholics also have an order of salvation, which is focused on the sacraments: (1) baptism, which regenerates the soul, unites it with Christ, and works forgiveness of all sins prior to the sacrament; (2) confirmation, in which the young believer receives power from the Holy Spirit; (3) the Eucharist, which provides spiritual nourishment; (4) penance, which remits guilt and punishment for mortal sins after baptism; (5) extreme unction, at the time of death, which pardons all sins not yet forgiven through confession.[16]

Views of the Churches

Relationships of justification and sanctification        

The following is a partial list of relationships between justification and sanctification that can be found among Christians, and is followed by a more detailed discussion:

  • Justification by grace through faith, which is the work of the Holy Spirit. Justification results in sanctification, a process that is the work of the Holy Spirit but requires human cooperation and is necessary for salvation. Many Lutheran and Reformed Christians as well as Anglicans believe this, although some tend to the Arminian view discussed below.
  • Justification by grace through faith, with simultaneous infusion of righteousness (sanctification). Believers must then cooperate with the Holy Spirit to grow in charity, which is mandatory for salvation. This is the traditional Roman Catholic view.
  • Justification by grace through faith, which requires human cooperation. Justification simultaneously begins sanctification, which is necessary for salvation and is the work of the Holy Spirit with our cooperation. This is the Arminian position, which is also common among Lutheran and Calvinist Christians.
  • The following are considered heretical:
    • Justification by grace through faith. Sanctification is not necessary for salvation (antinomianism). Sanctification (good works) is a precondition of justification (synergistic salvation). This is a caricature of the Arminian position, which argues that prevenient grace enables people to believe the gospel. Some Catholics also believe this, but it is condemned by the Council of Trent.[17]Universalism: all are justified regardless of faith.
    • “Good people go to heaven,” a popular variant of universalism.

Lutheran and Reformed Christians

The teaching of the Reformation, which began in the first part of the 16th century, is summarized in the “three solas”: sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fides (scripture alone, salvation by grace alone, through faith alone). According to Alister McGrath, there is a “reformation doctrine of justification” that is shared by both Lutherans and Calvinists. It consists of these three fundamentals:[18]

  1. A forensic declaration that believers are righteous, rather than a process by which they are made righteous.
  2. A systematic distinction between justification (the declaration of righteousness) and sanctification (the process by which believers are made righteous).
  3. Imputation of God’s righteousness to believers based on their faith. This righteousness is not inherent to them.

Sanctification results from justification. Lamport writes, “Luther believed that love for God and neighbors spontaneously arises from those who are grateful to God for their salvation.”[19] Berndt Hamm writes, “All the great reformers emphatically taught that justification, the absolution and acceptance of godless man, is fundamentally connected with man’s sanctification and renewal in love and the works of love.”[20] He quotes John Calvin’s Institutio: “Christ justifies no one whom he does not at the same time (simul) sanctify.”[21] Millard Erickson writes: “If there are no good works, there has been neither real faith nor justification. We find support for this contention in the fact that justification is intimately linked with union with Christ. If we have become one with Christ, then we will not live according to the flesh, but rather by the Spirit (Rom. 8:1–17). The union with Christ that brings justification also brings the new life.”[22]

Lutherans and Calvinists agree on these fundamentals: justification is by God’s grace, received through faith, which is enabled by the Holy Spirit; in justification, God forgives sins and imputes Christ’s righteousness to the believer; justification results in union with Christ; sanctification is separate from justification but essential for salvation. Someone who rejects the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctification has not really repented and so does not have faith. Hence, that person is not justified.

Roman Catholics (Council of Trent)

Theologian and historian Anthony Lane notes that, at the time of the Protestant Reformation, there was no consensus in the medieval church on the doctrine of justification.[23] The Council of Trent, attempting to counter the Reformation, formulated the official Catholic doctrine. The Council of Trent rejected the Protestant separation of justification and sanctification. Michael Steinmetz writes, “From the Protestant perspective, justification is separate from sanctification, while Roman Catholics see a continual process of co-operation: ‘Jesus Christ himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified’ (The Council of Trent, 6.16).”[24] Steinmetz concludes that the Lutheran and Calvinist distinction between justification and sanctification is “incongruent with the Council of Trent.”[25] Similarly, Trent taught that good works are necessary for justification.[26] On the other hand, Canon 1 of Session VI clearly states that man cannot be justified by his own works without divine grace through Jesus Christ.[27] Moreover, Chapter VIII affirms justification by faith:

we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.[28]  

Lane understands chapter VII of Session VI as follows: “At conversion we receive a true and Christian righteousness and we need to keep the commandments and preserve our righteousness spotless for the day of judgement and thus gain eternal life (ch.7)”[29] This reflects the medieval church’s teaching: “God’s forgiveness of sins and justification of man is made possible by the granting of grace to man and by his subsequent good works and freedom from acts of mortal sin; these aspects of his nature then also become the condition of his sanctification after death.”[30] For Lutherans and Calvinists, on the other hand, the only condition for salvation is faith, not continued good works. They do, of course, insist that someone who has faith will strive to do good deeds and cooperate with the Holy Spirit in sanctification, but this is a result of justification, not a condition for it.

Trent teaches that Christians can lose their justification, and hence salvation, by committing a mortal sin and can only regain justification through the sacrament of penance, in which they confess their sins, receive absolution, and perform appropriate works to make satisfaction.[31] Similarly, Trent teaches that one cannot be certain that one has “obtained the grace of God (ch. 9).”[32] This contrasts with the Calvinist teaching of the perseverance of the saints. It also differs from Lutheran teaching, which does not condition salvation on avoidance of unconfessed mortal sins. Unlike Calvinists, Lutherans reject the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, arguing that Christians can fall away. For assurance of salvation, Lutherans look to the promises of God, who made them His own in the sacrament of baptism.[33]

In summary, the Council of Trent affirmed that justification and sanctification are not distinct and that salvation is a synergistic process that involves the efforts of both the person and God. At conversion, God’s righteousness is imparted to the believer, not just imputed. Believers must then avail themselves of the sacraments offered by the Church to maintain their salvation. Trent affirms that faith is a prerequisite for justification, and so affirms justification by faith, but it must be followed by good works or salvation is lost.

Arminians

Arminianism originated in the Dutch Reformed church and is associated with Jacob Arminius (1560-1609). According to Arminian theologian Roger Olson, Arminians include Methodists, Restorationists, and Pentecostals, and “many if not most Baptists.”[34] Olson also suggests that later Lutherans, following Melanchthon, agree with Arminians on human participation in conversion.[35] Arminius defended “an evangelical form of synergism (belief in divine-human cooperation in salvation) against monergism (belief that God is the all-determining reality in salvation, which excludes free human participation).”[36] Arminians likewise reject unconditional election, whether to salvation or damnation.[37] Unlike Calvinists, Arminians believe that people can choose to accept the gospel thanks to prevenient grac,. On the other hand, Arminians do not deny total depravity or the need for “supernatural grace for even the first exercise of a good will toward God.”[38]

Arminianism affirms the Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers.[39] The difference between Arminians and other Protestants is with a purely forensic righteousness. Olson writes, “Arminians have always been uncomfortable with a purely forensic (declaratory) righteousness and have attempted to balance that with an inward, imparted righteousness that actually begins to transform a sinner into a righteous person.”[40] This comes close to the Roman Catholic understanding expressed at the Council of Trent. Some Arminians go further, adhering to the teaching of Philip Lohrbach, who taught that “saving faith is an act of our own obedience and our own work.”[41] Arminius affirmed the separation of justification from sanctification, and did not teach that justification depends in any way on sanctification.[42] Similarly, Wesley distinguished between justification and sanctification, which is “not the cause but the effect of justification.”[43]

Wesley emphasized sanctification, partly in reaction to antinomianism, which claimed “free grace as license to sin.”[44] Similarly, New Testament scholar and Methodist elder David A. deSilva strongly emphasizes the importance of sanctification. He writes: “The sanctifying work of the Spirit is not an ‘add-on’ here, but prerequisite to salvation—along with our conscientious alignment of ourselves with the Spirit’s leading at every step along the way.”[45] This appears inconsistent with the Reformation teaching of the distinction between justification and sanctification and appears to contradict the principles of sola gratia and sola fide. On the other hand, deSilva argues that “We are not relying on ourselves; we are relying on what Paul has promised that the Spirit will do within us and, in this meanwhile, we are positioning ourselves day-by-day to discern and yield to the Spirit’s work.”[46] He defines this as part of genuine faith.[47] To the objection that we cannot know how much transformation is enough for salvation, deSilva replies, “We don’t know, and we don’t have to know, because God is good, generous, and invested in our deliverance.”[48] This brings deSilva back to the Reformation understanding of reliance on God.

According to Anglican theologian William H. Petersen, Anglicans agree with the Lutheran teaching on justification, but add that “the concept ‘salvation’ has been more expansive in Anglicanism than in Lutheranism, extending beyond forgiveness of sins to include a call to and promise of sanctification.”[49] This brings Anglicans close to the Arminian view.

Other Perspectives

Other perspectives on justification and sanctification have arisen throughout the history of Christianity. One of them is antinomianism. As Uche Anizor, Robert Price, and Hank Voss write that many believers have “perished on the cliff of antinomianism—the belief that Christians have a ‘license to sin,’ since laws no longer apply to them.”[50] At the time of the Reformation, Johannes Agricola challenged Luther and Melanchthon with an antinomian argument, arguing that “no law is given to the righteous.”[51] This resulted in a series of disputations between Luther and Agricola and culminated in Luther’s writing of Against the Antinomians in 1939.

Christian Universalism assumes that every person will be justified regardless of faith or works. Michael Bird notes that Origen (185-253) taught apokatastasis, which is the belief that God would ultimately restore all things to their original state before the fall of Adam.[52] This view was condemned at the Synod of Constantinople (AD 543) and the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (AD 553).[53] Universalism has cropped up repeatedly over the years but remained a minority view until recently.[54] Michael McClymond argues that, “Most ministers and laypersons in the older, established, or so-called mainline Protestant churches—Lutheran, Reformed, Episcopal, Congregationalist, Methodist—no longer argue much about eternal salvation and the possibility of eternal punishment. The general presumption is that everyone, sooner or later, will be saved.”[55] A light form of universalism is that “good people go to heaven.” While widely accepted among the general population, this view has little support in Scripture.

Catholic-Protestant Rapprochement

On October 31, 1999, after extensive dialog, the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church issued a Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. This Declaration was subsequently ratified by the Anglican Communion, the World Methodist Council, and the World Communion of Reformed Churches. The fifth clause of the Preamble states that 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,” and that the remaining differences “are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations.”[56]

South African theologian Peter Langerman notes that the churches that ratified the Joint Declaration were not required to accept one another’s positions but merely needed to tolerate them.[57] Clause 40 or the Joint Declaration states: “In light of this consensus the remaining differences of language, theological elaboration, and emphasis in the understanding of justification described in paras. 18 to 39 are acceptable.”[58] Clause 41 declares that the condemnations issued by both churches in the 16th century are inapplicable, but clause 42 states that “they remain for us ‘salutary warnings’ to which we must attend in our teaching and practice.”[59] The teachings of the Council of Trent and of the Augsburg Confession regarding justification remain unchanged.

Not all Lutheran churches are members of the Lutheran World Foundation and so have not ratified the Joint Declaration. Conservative or confessional Lutheran churches normally belong to the International Lutheran Council (including the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) or the Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference (including the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) and have not ratified the Joint Declaration.

Discussion

The differences between Lutherans and Reformed Christians on justification and sanctification are minor. The differences between Arminians and both Lutherans and Calvinists are somewhat greater, with Arminians including imparted righteousness with imputed righteousness in the act of justification. Arminians connect justification and sanctification more closely and so come closer to the Roman Catholic teaching. As a practical matter, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Arminians affirm justification by grace through faith as well as the need for sanctification, in which believers cooperate with the Holy Spirit.

Despite the consensus found in the Joint Declaration, significant differences between Protestant and Roman Catholic teaching on justification-sanctification remain. One difference is terminology. Lane writes, “that the Protestant understanding of justification relates more to the Catholic understanding of sacramental reconciliation and the Catholic understanding of justification relates more to the Protestant understanding of sanctification.”[60] Unlike Protestants, Catholics do not systematically distinguish between justification and sanctification.[61] Lane explains this difference as whether “we are accounted righteous because of Christ’s righteousness imputed to us (Reformers) versus imparted to us (Trent).”[62] This has practical consequences. Catholics fear that imputed righteousness can cause believers to ignore sanctification, while Protestants fear that imparted righteousness can cause believers to depend on their own righteousness and lead to a loss of assurance as well as a weak view of sin.[63]

The Catholic view results in a major practical difference: the sacrament of penance and belief in punishment in purgatory. Chapter XIV of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent declares that those who have fallen away can be restored through the sacrament of penance. In addition to confession and repentance, penitents must perform “satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life.”[64] The eternal punishment is remitted, but the temporal punishment is not. Finnish Catholic Emil Anton writes: “the truly decisive element in standard Catholic soteriology is the dynamic of mortal sin and confession. What really determines one’s standing before God and one’s eternal destiny is whether one lives and dies in ‘the state of (sanctifying) grace’ – the term that Catholics normally use instead of ‘justification’ or ‘righteousness’.”[65] If Christians commit a mortal sin, they lose the state of sanctifying grace, which is only restored through confession and penance.[66]

Catholic theologian Matthew Levering argues that penitence is needed to enable us to break free from our vices, which involves suffering. We must “‘suffer with him [Christ] in order that we may also be glorified with him’ (Rom 8:17)”[67] If the temporal punishment is not satisfied at death, this suffering can carry over into purgatory.

Kevin Vanhoozer responds that this makes sense “only if one assumes that justification includes actually becoming holy (i.e., inner transformation).” He further argues, “to say that the merits of the saints are necessary is tacitly to deny the infinity of Christ’s merits and the sufficiency of his work.”[68]

The Catholic requirement for penance to restore a state of grace is foreign to Protestant teaching on justification. While Protestants affirm the need for repentance, they trust in the mercy of Christ for forgiveness. Protestants must renounce sin and repent but trust in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for full remission of sins.

Conclusion

After defining relevant terms, the paper looked at justification and sanctification in the order of salvation, examined similarities and differences between the historic Protestant traditions and Roman Catholicism, and examined recent rapprochement between Roman Catholics and Protestants. This rapprochement has resulted in greater mutual respect and cooperation, but significant differences remain. While Catholics affirm justification by faith alone, their insistence on the sacrament of penance for forgiveness of mortal sins and affirmation of continued temporal punishment of sins, including in purgatory, are serious differences that weaken the power of Christ’s atonement. While there are minor differences between Arminians and other Protestants on justification and sanctification, significant differences with Roman Catholics remain.

Bibliography

Anizor, Uche, Robert B Price, and Hank Voss. Evangelical Theology. First edition. London: T&T Clark, 2020

Anton, Emil. “The Catholic Trouble with Justification: Comments on Scott Hahn’s Romans.” Theology. 122, no. 5, 2019: 355–62.

Bird, Michael F. Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020.

Council of Trent, Session VI, “Decree Concerning Justification and Decree Concerning Reform.” Trent, 1547.

deSilva, David A. “The Spirit, Sanctification, and Salvation: What Paul Has Joined, Let No Theologian Rend Asunder.” Bulletin for Biblical Research / 33, no. 3, 2023: 304–23.

Demarest, Bruce A. The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of God. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2006.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.

Hamm, Berndt, and Robert James Bast. The Reformation of Faith in the Context of Late Medieval Theology and Piety: Essays by Berndt Hamm. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2004.

Judisch, Neal. “Persevering Most Assuredly: One Reason to Prefer Luther over Calvin,” Called to Communion: Reformation Meets Rome. Apr 6, 2009. https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/04/persevering-most-assuredly-one-reason-to-prefer-luther-over-calvin/ accessed May 2, 2025 11:59 p.m. CEDT.

Langerman, Peter D. “The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and Social Ethics.” Verbum Et Ecclesia, 42(1), 2021.

Lane, Anthony N. S. Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment. London: T&T Clark, 2006.

Lamport, Mark A., ed. Encyclopedia of Martin Luther and the Reformation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017.

Levering, Matthew, and Kevin J Vanhoozer. Was the Reformation a Mistake?: Why Catholic Doctrine Is Not Unbiblical. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.

McGrath, Alister E. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Fourth edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.

McClymond, Michael J. The Devil’s Redemption.2 volumes. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018.

Olson, Roger E. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities /. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.

Parker Jr., Gregory and Cameron Clausing. “Is There Room in the Inn?: Visiting Adoption in Herman Bavinck’s Ordo Salutis.” Perichoresis, Volume 22. Issue 1. March 2024: 4-20.

Petersen, William H. “The Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification: Soteriological and Ecclesiological Implications from an Anglican Perspective.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies. 38, no. 1. Winter 2001.

Simuț, Corneliu C. “J. I. Packer’s Theology of Justification—His Reception and Appropriation of a Classic Protestant Doctrine.” Religions 14, no. 12. 2023: 1-12.

Steinmetz, Michael N. “Redemption unto Life: Kierkegaardian Anthropology and the Relation Between Justification and Sanctification.” Religions, 15: 1455. November 2024: 1-12.

The Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, 20th Anniversary Edition. Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 2019.

[1] Mark A. Lamport, ed. Encyclopedia of Martin Luther and the Reformation (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017), 392.

[2] Anthony N. S. Lane, Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment (London, UK: T&T Clark, 2006), 141.

[3] Bruce A. Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of God (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2006), 24.

[4] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 883.

[5] Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 594.

[6] Erickson, Christian Theology, 897.

[7] Bird, Evangelical Theology, 595.

[8] Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 31.

[9] Ibid., 32.

[10] Ibid., 33.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Simuț, Corneliu,C. “J. I. Packer’s Theology of Justification—His Reception and Appropriation of a Classic Protestant Doctrine.” Religions 14, no. 12 (2023): 7.

[14] Gregory Parker Jr. and Cameron Clausing. “Is There Room in the Inn?: Visiting Adoption in Herman Bavinck’s Ordo Salutis.” Perichoresis, Volume 22. Issue 1 (March 2024), 16.

[15] Ibid., 18.

[16] Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 32.

[17] Council of Trent, Session VI, “Decree Concerning Justification and Decree Concerning Reform,” (Trent, 1547), Canon 3.

[18] McGrath, Alister E. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Fourth edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 188.

[19] Lamport, ed. Encyclopedia of Martin Luther and the Reformation, 393.

[20] Berndt Hamm and Robert James Bast, The Reformation of Faith in the Context of Late Medieval Theology and Piety: Essays by Berndt Hamm (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2004), 191.

[21] Ibid. Hamm’s citation: Inst. (1559), III, 16, 1 (OS IV, 249, 8–11).

[22] Erickson, Christian Theology, 890.

[23] Lane, Justification by Faith, 46.

[24] Michael N. Steinmetz, “Redemption unto Life: Kierkegaardian Anthropology and the Relation Between Justification and Sanctification.” Religions, 15: 1455, (November 2024), 2.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Council of Trent, Session VI, “Decree Concerning Justification and Decree Concerning Reform,” (Trent, 1547), Canon 1.

[28] Ibid., Chapter VIII.

[29] Lane, Justification by Faith, 75.

[30] Hamm, The Reformation of Faith, 192.

[31] Lane, Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue, 76.

[32] Ibid., 77.

[33] Neal Judisch, “Persevering Most Assuredly: One Reason to Prefer Luther over Calvin,” Called to Communion: Reformation Meets Rome, (Apr 6, 2009), https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/04/persevering-most-assuredly-one-reason-to-prefer-luther-over-calvin/ accessed May 2, 2025 11:59 p.m. CEDT.

[34] Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 12.

[35] Ibid., 12.

[36] Ibid., 11.

[37] Ibid., 17.

[38] Ibid., 15.

[39] Ibid., 194.

[40] Ibid., 195.

[41] Ibid., 203.

[42] Ibid., 201.

[43] Ibid., 205.

[44] Ibid., 206.

[45] deSilva, David A. “The Spirit, Sanctification, and Salvation: What Paul Has Joined, Let No Theologian Rend Asunder,” Bulletin for Biblical Research / 33, no. 3 (2023), 319.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid., 320.

[48] Ibid., 322.

[49] William H. Petersen, “The Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification: Soteriological and Ecclesiological Implications from an Anglican Perspective,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 38, no. 1 (Winter 2001), 3.

[50] Anizor, Uche, Robert B Price, and Hank Voss. Evangelical Theology. First edition (London: T&T Clark, 2020), 168.

[51] Lamport, Encyclopedia of Martin Luther, 8.

[52] Bird, Evangelical Theology, 639.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Michael J. McClymond, The Devil’s Redemption: 2 Volumes (Grand Rapids, M): Baker Academic, 2018), 59.

[55] Ibid., 59.

[56] The Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, 20th Anniversary Edition, (Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 2019), cl. 5, 8-9.

[57] Peter D. Langerman, P. D. “The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and Social Ethics.” Verbum Et Ecclesia, 42(1), (2021), 2.

[58] Joint Declaration, cl. 40, 19.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Lane, Justification by Faith, 153.

[61] Ibid., 154.

[62] Ibid., 159.

[63] Ibid., 160.

[64] Council of Trent, Session VI, “Decree Concerning Justification and Decree Concerning Reform,” (Trent, 1547), Chapter XIV.

[65] Emil Anton, “The Catholic Trouble with Justification: Comments on Scott Hahn’s Romans.” Theology. 122, no. 5 (2019), 357.

[66] Ibid.

[67] Matthew Levering and Kevin J Vanhoozer, Was the Reformation a Mistake?: Why Catholic Doctrine Is Not Unbiblical (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 138.

[68] Ibid., 195.

Atonement Theories

May 10, 2025 / / 0 Comments

A.    Background.

  • Humanity has a problem: sin. We are all sinners, and God hates sin. Yet God loves us.
  • God had a plan to redeem us. The Father sent His Son to become a human. This man, Jesus of Nazareth, lived a sinless life, taught us what God expects of us, then died and rose again bodily from the dead. Jesus was not only a man, he was and is God, the second Person of the Trinity.
  • Jesus died for us. Paul writes: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Jesus said this about Himself, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13).
  • How did Christ’s death and resurrection rescue us from our plight? Over the centuries, theologians have developed theories or models to explain this. These are called “atonement theories,” for they explain how Christ’s death atones for our sins and reconciles us to God.

B.     The most common atonement theories.

  • Michael Bird discusses numerous atonement theories.[1] For the most part, they are based on Scripture and supplement, but do not contradict each other. Each emphasizes a different aspect of atonement.
  • The recapitulation theory originated with Irenaeus, the 2nd century theologian and bishop of Lyon. Irenaeus argued that sin and death entered the world through Adam. Jesus, the new Adam, lived the sinless life that Adam should have lived, and through His obedience to the Father made us righteous (Rom 5:17). Bird writes: “When the Son of God became a human being, he was obedient to God, gathered the whole of humanity to himself, stood as their representative, and liberated them from death and sin into a restored divine destiny.”[2] This theory is true and biblical, but it does not explain why Christ’s death was necessary.[3]
  • The ransom theory was popular in the early church. Jesus said that He had come to offer his life as a “ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45). Advocates argued that, through sin, humanity “passed into the jurisdiction of the devil.”[4] God offered the death of His Son as a ransom to the devil, who accepted it in return for humanity. The devil failed to understand that he could not keep Jesus in his power, as became clear when Jesus rose from the dead. Theologians who advocated this view included Origen (AD 185-254), Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330-395), and Augustine (AD 354-430). Gregory of Nazianzus (Ad 330-389), on the other hand, argued that God would not pay a ransom to the devil.[5] This objection still holds.
  • Another ancient theory, called Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulen, emphasizes Christ’s victory over the forces of evil. Many passages in Scripture attest to this. For example, Paul wrote, “And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Col 2:15). Michael Bird argues that this describes the fact of Christ’s victory over evil but does not explain how the victory was won nor how it resulted in payment for our sins. Accordingly, it is not really an atonement theory.[6] 
  • The satisfaction theory of St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) rejects the idea that Jesus paid a ransom to the devil. Instead, Christ’s death is a ransom paid to God the Father. Anselm argued that sin is a failure to give God His due. By dying on the cross, Jesus, the sinless representative of humanity, paid the debt owed to the Father. Millard Erickson points out that this theory treats God as a feudal lord and fails to consider God’s love as a motivation for the atonement.[7]
  • The moral influence theory, attributed to Peter Abelard, emphasizes the change in the believer. According to Bird, “Abelard taught that while Christ’s cross delivers us from sin, nonetheless, when people look at the cross, they behold the greatness of divine love, a love that delivers them from fear and produces in them an unwavering love in return.”[8] Bird argues that the theory, while true, fails to explain how the Cross deals with our sins.[9] Hence it is inadequate.
  • The Socinian theory of Faustus and Laelius Socinus is similar to Abelard’s moral influence theory but rejects any form of substitutionary atonement. It teaches that God forgives us freely, and so there is no need for anyone to pay for our sins. This theory, Erickson writes, teaches that “the real value of Jesus’s death lies in the beautiful and perfect example of the type of dedication we are to practice.”[10] It, too, fails to explain how the Cross covers our sins.
  • The exemplary theory argues that Christ’s obedience, including death on the cross for others, is an example that we should emulate.[11] While this is true, it does not explain how His death atoned for sin.
  • The governmental theory of Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) developed Anselm’s satisfaction theory to explain why God’s justice demanded punishment. As ruler of the universe, God had to uphold His laws. If He had simply forgiven people for their sins, that would undermine the seriousness of the law. Erickson writes, “What God did through Christ’s death was to demonstrate what God’s justice will require us to suffer if we continue in sin. Underscoring the seriousness of breaking God’s law, the heinousness of sin, this demonstration of God’s justice is all the more impressive in view of who and what Christ was.”[12] This is a strong argument for why God could not simply ignore human sin, but it does not explain how the Cross redeemed humanity from sin.
  • The penal substitution theory teaches that Christ substituted Himself for us and bore our sins on the cross, thus experiencing the penalty that we deserved. Bird writes, “penal substitution was at the heart of the atonement according to the Reformers.”[13] The theory predates the Reformation. Bird argues that Clement of Rome (1st century AD) affirmed a precursor of penal substitution. It is the atonement theory favored by evangelical Christians, including John Stott, who describes it in his chapter, “The Death of Christ.”[14] Penal substitution is similar to the ransom theory in that Christ paid the price to redeem us, but the price was paid to satisfy God’s justice, not to ransom humanity from the devil. Penal substitution is often confused with Anselm’s substitution theory, but with penal substitution God’s motive is love for humanity, not restoration of His honor.

C.    Which atonement theories best explain our redemption?

  • Penal substitution plausibly explains how Christ’s death on the cross paid for our sins. Sin violates God’s justice. Jesus, as a human, could represent us, and because He was sinless, He could substitute for us. As God, His death had infinite value and so was able to make full payment for our sins. Anselm’s substitutionary theory, which is very similar, explains this as well but fails to take God’s love into account. The drawback of the ransom theory is that God would not pay a ransom to the devil. If the ransom is paid to God to satisfy justice, that describes the penal substitution theory.
  • Michael Bird argues that penal substitution explains our redemption from sin, but Christus Victor is even more central to the work of Christ. Christ on the cross not only paid the penalty for our sins, He defeated the power of death and the devil. Our redemption is part of that victory.
  • The other atonement theories are also correct and tell part of the story of Christ’s victory. Jesus did recapitulate the story of Adam; He demonstrated God’s great love for humanity and set an example for us to follow; and as ruler of the universe God upheld His justice. These theories are helpful supplements to the core theories of penal substitution and Christus Victor, but they are insufficient of themselves.

D.    Is penal substitution “divine child abuse”?

  • In recent years, many theologians have begun to question penal substitution. They argue that it is unjust of God to punish the innocent Jesus for the sins of others. They also argue that the whole idea of divine judgement contradicts the argument that “God is love.” That the Father took out humanity’s sins on His Son is, they argue, “divine child abuse.”[15]
    • The first counter to this argument is that God is loving but also just. If He had simply ignored human sin, He would betray His justice (as Grotius’s government theory explains).
    • Secondly, God is triune. Hence, when God the Son in Jesus Christ bore the sins of the world, it was God Himself who bore the sins. All three Persons of the Trinity were involved in redemption: the Father sends the Son; the Son goes voluntarily to the cross; and the Spirit empowers the Son to suffer and raises Him back to life. Our redemption was motivated by God’s love for us, and it was God Himself who paid the penalty in our place. It is like a judge who condemns a man, then takes the man’s place and has himself executed in the man’s stead.
    • Michael Bird concludes: “The problem is that this ‘divine child abuse’ argument is filled with so much straw that you could literally take that argument, put a costume on it, and audition it for the role of the scarecrow in a Broadway production of The Wizard of Oz.”[16]

V.        Discussion questions

[1] Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 440-466.

[2] Ibid., 441-442.

[3] Ibid., 443.

[4] Ibid., 443.

[5] Ibid., 446.

[6] Ibid., 450.

[7] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 729.

[8] Bird, Evangelical Theology, 453.

[9] Ibid., 454.

[10] Erickson, Christian Theology, 716.

[11] Bird, Evangelical Theology, 454.

[12] Erickson, Christian Theology, 721.

[13] Bird, Evangelical Theology, 462.

[14] John R. W. Stott, Basic Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 83-99.

[15] Bird, Evangelical Theology, 464.

[16] Ibid.

Faithful Unto Death: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church in Nazi Germany

February 10, 2025 /

Introduction

This paper will examine the heretical, pro-Nazi “German Christian” movement during Nazi rule and the faithful Confessing Church that resisted it. It will show that the German Christians were able to gain power in the Church by conforming to public opinion and attaching to the Nazi regime but were swept away when the regime fell. The paper will also examine Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s participation in the resistance against Hitler and the plot to kill him as well as his theological justification for doing so, based on his concept of costly grace. The paper argues that Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church laid the foundation for the rebirth of the Protestant Church after World War II.

The Church Struggle Under Nazi Rule: 1933-1939

Introduction to the Church Struggle

On January 30, 1943, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor of Germany. The Nazis quickly seized total control. After the Reichstag fire on February 27, which the Nazis blamed on the Communists, a rigged vote in parliament passed the Enabling Law (Ermächtigungsgesetz), which gave the chancellor and his cabinet dictatorial powers for the next four years.[1] On April 7, Hitler decreed a law establishing Reich Governors over the federal states. On the same day, the Aryan Paragraph took effect, which required all government employees to be of “Aryan” stock. This meant there could be no Jews in their lineage as far back as their grandparents. This applied to “non-Aryan” baptized Christians as well.

Matthew D. Hockenos writes, “The Protestants split into essentially three groups – the ultra-nationalist, antisemitic, and pro-Nazi German Christian movement; the somewhat oppositional Confessing Church; and the uncommitted neutrals.”[2] Of the eighteen thousand pastors, less than one-third were in the German Christian movement, while those in the Confessing Church numbered less than five thousand. About “80 percent of the laity were in the middle, subscribing to neither the beliefs of the German Christians nor the Confessing Church.”[3]

The German Christians

The origin of the “German Christians” is sometimes traced to a meeting in Berlin on June 6, 1932, but the movement can be traced back earlier to the antisemitic Federation for German Church, established in 1921.[4] One of the goals of the German Christians was a Reichskirche (ReichChurch), a national Protestant church headed by a Reichsbischof (Reich bishop). At their Reich conference of April 3-5, the delegates declared: “For a German, the church is the community of believers who are committed to fighting for a Christian Germany. The goal of the “German Christians” faith movement is a Protestant Reichskirche. Adolf Hitler’s state calls for this church; the church must hear his call.”[5]

The Reich Church was established at a meeting of bishops in May. The elected bishop was Friedrich von Bodelschwingh, not Hitler’s preferred German Christian Ludwig Müller.[6] The German Christians harassed von Bodelschwingh, and were assisted by the Nazi paramilitary storm troopers (SA), known as the “brown shirts.” Hitler announced church elections for July 23, and the German Christians won about 70 percent of the votes. Ludwig Müller was elected Reich bishop.[7] The German Christians wanted the Aryan Paragraph to apply to the church, eliminating racially impure pastors from a racially cleansed church.

The German Christians’ theology was Nazi-based and devoted to purging the church of Jewish influences. Many German Christians rejected the Old Testament for being too Jewish and depicted Jesus as an ardent non-Jewish antisemite.[8] In their ten guidelines from 1932, they wrote: “We see in race, Volkstum, and nation laws of life that God has bequeathed and entrusted to us. It is God’s law that we concern ourselves with their preservation. Mixing of the races, therefore, is to be opposed.”[9] “Volkstum” refers to German identity and culture, including tales and folklore. According to Doris Bergen, the German Christians wanted an inclusive church comprising all ethnic Germans but did not care for doctrine as it caused dissension.[10] Some German Christians redefined the sacraments in nationalist terms. At a gathering in the Sportpalast stadium in Berlin in November 1933, Reinhold Krause, leader of the German Christians in Berlin, rejected the cross and the “Rabbi Paul.”[11]

German Christians tried to remove Jewishness from the New Testament as well. Passages that referred to Jewish lineage, such as Mary’s Magnificat, were ignored.[12] They rejected the authenticity of Scripture passages that invalidated their position.[13] They even revised or rejected hymns to remove “all Israelite elements.”[14] The Reich bishop Müller declared that the “love” of German Christians “ hates everything soft and weak.” Eric Metaxas argues that “Müller was hardly alone in thinking that the love and grace of traditional Christianity had no place in the positive Christianity of the German Christians.”[15] Bergen notes that German Christians rejected the notion of human sinfulness as a Jewish accretion to the true gospel and “inimical to the needs of the people’s church.”[16] Both Metaxas and Bergen note parallels between the racialist theology of the German Christians and liberal theologians, such as Schleiermacher and von Harnack, who rejected much of the Old Testament. Both groups shared a willingness to jettison traditional teachings to suit their beliefs, but neither Schleiermacher nor von Harnack could be called Nazis. Bergen notes, “Most German Christians themselves denied ties to theological liberalism.”[17]

The Confessing Church

More orthodox Protestants were quick to oppose the teachings of the German Christians. At the synod of the Reich Church on September 5, the delegates, most of them wearing the brown shirts of the Nazi storm troopers, voted to apply the Aryan Paragraph to future pastors, but did not apply it retroactively to pastors already ordained.[18] In reaction to this “Brown Synod,” Protestant pastors Martin Niemöller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer drew up a statement that affirmed their commitment to the Scriptures and the historic confessions of the church as well as their readiness to support those persecuted by the new Aryan Paragraph and violence. The statement affirmed their firm rejection of the Aryan Paragraph.[19] Pastors from across Germany signed this statement and on October 20 formed the Pastor’s Emergency League (Pfarrernotbund), which would develop into the Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche).[20]

In May 1934, the leaders of the Pastor’s Emergency League held a synod in the German city of Barmen and issued what became known as the Barmen Declaration. The main author was the Swiss theologian Karl Barth, although he did not sign it as he was not one of the “Council of Brethren” (Bruderrat)[21] The Declaration protested the use of “false doctrine, force, and insincere practices” to establish the unity of the Protestant Churches in Germany. Rather, unity could only “from the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit.” The Declaration said that the unity of the church was threatened by the “teaching methods and actions of the ruling church party of the ‘German Christians’ and of the church administration carried on by them.” The Declaration confessed “evangelical truths” and rejected the false teaching and actions of the German Christians, in particular that: they accepted sources of proclamation other than the Word of God; there are areas of life that would not need justification and sanctification through Christ; they could abandon the form of the church’s message and order “to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions;” they believed the state “could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the church’s vocation as well;” the church “could place the word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.”[22] The Barmen Declaration established the Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche), which did not, however, officially separate from the German Protestant Church (DEK). The Declaration was published in the London Times on June 4.[23]

In July 1934, Interior Minister Frick decreed discussion of church disputes illegal in public assemblies and in the press.[24] Moreover, every new pastor, on ordination, had to swear an oath of service to Adolf Hitler.[25]

In late 1934, a follow-up synod was held in Pastor Niemöller’s church in the Berlin suburb of Dahlem. According to Hockenos, the resulting Dahlem resolutions “declared an outright schism in the church between the Confessing Church and the Reich church controlled by the German Christians. In so doing they also caused a rupture between radicals and conservatives in the Confessing Church.”[26] The conservative faction in the Confessing Church was not ready to break from the German Protestant Church. The radical faction began to act on its decision. On April 26, 1935, Dietrich Bonhoeffer established a seminary for the Confessing Church, which had twenty-three ordinands in its first year.[27] In June, the new seminary moved to Finkenwalde. In 1936, the leaders of the Confessing Church wrote a letter to Hitler criticizing treatment of the Jews and the German Christians’ “positive Christianity.” When there was no response, the letter was leaked to the international press.[28] The Gestapo arrested three people associated with the leak and sent them to the concentration camp at Sachsenhausen.[29] The Confessing Church then released the letter to its congregations, many of which read it from the pulpit on August 23.[30]

In 1937, the Nazis cracked down on the Confessing Church. During the year, they arrested more than 800 pastors and lay leaders of the Church. Martin Niemöller was arrested on July 1, 1937, “for his outspoken criticism of the state’s church policy and charged with causing unrest.” Hitler ordered him locked up indefinitely. Niemöller was sent to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp and later to Dachau, where he remained until freed by the Allies at the end of the War.[31]  The Nazis shut down the seminary at Finkenwalde.[32] On January 11, 1938, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was arrested and banned from Berlin. Bonhoeffer continued to train pastors in an underground seminary.

On November 11, 1938, the Nazis launched the infamous Kristallnacht, the Night of the Broken Glass. Jewish homes and businesses were destroyed and looted, synagogues were burned, Jews were beaten and killed, and 20,000 Jews were arrested.[33] The Confessing Church largely stayed silent.[34] Still, some elements of the Confessing Church reacted to assist Jews. Hockenos writes, “With institutional support from the leadership body of the Dahlem wing of the Confessing Church, Martin Albertz, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Heinrich Grüber (1891–1975), Hermann Maas (1877–1970), and others provided relief and help with emigration for Jews and Christians of Jewish descent.”[35]

Bonhoeffer and the Plot to Kill Hitler

After the start of World War II, the Abwehr, German Military Intelligence, grew increasingly opposed to the Nazi regime, especially in response to “monstrous” SS atrocities in Poland. After the fall of France, the Abwehr recruited Dietrich Bonhoeffer as a confidential agent.[36] He now joined the active resistance. It was not an easy step. Victoria Barnett writes: “The Confessing Church sought neither to overthrow Nazism nor even, on the political level, to undermine it. It viewed its purpose, as a Christian church, as helping those (in Bonhoeffer’s words) ‘under the wheel.’ Bonhoeffer decided that his duty was to go beyond this purpose, to political resistance — a position that makes him unique even among the martyrs of the Confessing Church.”[37]

In The Cost of Discipleship, published in 1937, Bonhoeffer contrasts “cheap grace” and “costly grace.” Bonhoeffer writes: “Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.”.”[38] Costly grace, on the other hand, “is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. … Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life.”[39]

 Bonhoeffer’s resistance to Hitler was consistent with his concept of costly grace. As a pastor, he did not take the decision to assassinate a head of state lightly. But the escalating persecution and evil of the Nazi regime compelled him to see that. in Eric Metaxas’s words, “at some point merely speaking the truth smacked of cheap grace.”[40] Ferdinand Schlingensiepen describes Bonhoeffer’s participation an ethical decision. “Hitler, along with his countless fanatical supporters, had to be prevented from committing further crimes, and the only way of stopping him that was left was to eliminate him altogether.”[41] Bonhoeffer’s task in the conspiracy was to use his contacts in the ecumenical movement abroad to influence foreign governments to make peace with Germany after the planned coup.[42]

Bonhoeffer was arrested on April 5, 1943, in an SS crackdown on the rival Abwehr. He never came free again. On July 20, 1944, Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg planted a bomb to kill Hitler, who survived. The SS found a secret archive which implicated Bonhoeffer in the conspiracy to kill Hitler.[43] Bonhoeffer was hanged at the Flossenbürg concentration camp on April 9, 1945.[44] On May 7, Germany surrendered.[45]

The Legacy

Hockenos writes, “When the war ended in 1945, the discredited German Christians stepped aside, most often without a struggle, from positions of power. Pastors and church leaders who had to varying degrees supported the Confessing Church assumed the leadership of the postwar Evangelical Church in Germany (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, EKD).”[46] The reborn Protestant Church quickly reestablished relationships with the ecumenical movement outside Germany. At a meeting with ecumenical representatives in Stuttgart in October 1945, the Church Council issued the “Stuttgart Confession of Guilt,” which admitted “through us has endless suffering been brought to many peoples and countries.” The Confession further said, “we accuse ourselves for not witnessing more courageously, for not praying more faithfully, for not believing more joyously, and for not loving more ardently.[47] Cooperation extended to the Allied occupation. Tobias Cremer notes that “almost the entire leadership of the military and civil resistance … saw themselves in one way or the other as Christian martyrs. … It was for this reason that once the allied troops had defeated the Nazis and occupied Germany that they turned to the Church and to clergymen … for aid in the reconstruction of a new Germany.[48]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, though dead, influenced the post-War church, both in Germany and abroad. Wolfgang Huber writes: “His relevance for public ethics relates first of all to his importance as a role model. To trust in God and to act responsibly in the real world are the two basic elements of a way of life that inspired people to follow Bonhoeffer’s example under quite different circumstances.”[49] Part of Bonhoeffer’s legacy comprises the pastors he educated in his underground seminary, the people he helped escape Germany, and the example he set for persecuted churches in the future. As a martyr, Bonhoeffer is cited by people with very different political and theological persuasions to justify their resistance to authority. His theology, especially the concept of “cheap grace” and “costly grace,” is still influential.

Discussion

The church struggle between the pro-Nazi “German Christians” and the Confessing Church during the Nazi dictatorship is instructive for other times and places, including today. Ever since Constantine issued the Edict of Milan that legalized Christianity, Christians have had an ambiguous relationship with the state. Christians are often tempted to align themselves closely with the power of the state and public opinion, which gives them power, privileges, and protection against persecution.

This is what the German Christians did. They were caught up in the wave of nationalism and antisemitism that washed across Germany after the country’s defeat in World War I and the chaos of the Weimar Republic. In doing so, they jettisoned many of the teachings of historic Christianity. They gained control of the German Protestant Church and remained there while the Nazis stayed in power. But when the Nazis fell, they were swept away. The Confessing Church, led by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth, and Martin Niemöller, remained faithful to the Word of God. They were persecuted, sent to prison, and some, including Bonhoeffer, were killed. But when the Nazis were swept away, the faithful Confessing Church triumphed and rebuilt the post-War Protestant Church in Germany.

Churches today likewise face the temptation of going along with public opinion and associating with the powerful. One example is the theological liberals in the second half of the Twentieth Century, such as the Anglican bishop John Robinson and Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong, who reflected the secular age of skepticism with their modernist denial of historic Christian truths. Alister McGrath writes: “A generation later, Robinson’s work feels like an exhibit in a museum of historical theology – a fascinating account of the cultural mood of a bygone era and the failed strategy to respond to it.”[50] More recently, Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church has hitched his church’s fate to Vladimir Putin and blessed the monstrous invasion of Ukraine. Christians in the United States are also not immune from this. Evangelical author Michael L. Brown writes: “we became way too identified with Donald Trump and way too caught up in a partisan political spirit. Worse still, the incendiary rhetoric at events like the December 2020 Jericho March did, in fact, reflect the sentiments of a significant portion of evangelicals.”[51] When Putin’s regime falls, as it someday will, Patriarch Kirill will fall with it. In Revelation 2:10, Jesus tells the faithful church at Smyrna: “Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown.”         

Conclusion

This paper discussed the heretical, pro-Nazi “German Christian” movement during the Nazi regime and the faithful Confessing Church that resisted. It showed that the German Christians were able to gain power in the Protestant Church by conforming to public opinion and attaching to the Nazi regime but were swept away when the regime fell. The Confessing Church maintained orthodox Protestant teaching in the struggle against the German Christians and emerged triumphant when the Nazi regime was swept away and so led the rebuilt Protestant Church in post-War Germany.

The paper also examined Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s participation in the resistance against Hitler and the plot to kill him as well as his theological justification for it based on his concept of costly grace. Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s greatest contributions to the post-war church were his theological writings, especially his concept of “cheap grace” vs. “costly grace”; his teaching of pastors in the underground seminar, who would help rebuild the Church after the War; and his moral example of Christian faithfulness under persecution, made more plausible by his martyrdom.

Finally, the paper showed that the example of the compromising German Christians and faithful Confessing Church repeats itself today.

Bibliography

Barnett, Victoria. For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest against Hitler. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Bekenntnissynode der Deutschen Evangelischen Kirche, “Barmer Erklärung.” English translation, https://www.ekd.de/en/the-barmen-declaration-303.htm, accessed December 5, 2024, 10:50 p.m. CET.

Bergen, Doris L. Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1996.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. New York: Touchstone, 2018. (English translation of Nachfolge, published in 1937).

Brown, Michael L. The Political Seduction of the Church: How Millions of American Christians Have Confused Politics with the Gospel. Washington, D.C.: Vide Press, 2022.

Cremer, Tobias. “The Resistance of the Protestant Church in Nazi Germany and Its Relevance for Contemporary Politics.” The Review of Faith & International Affairs 17 (4) (2019): 36–47.

DFG-VK Darmstadt, “Deutsche Christen”in DFG-VK Darmstadt “Von Adelung bis Zwangsarbeit – Stichworte zu Militär und Nationalsozialismus in Darmstadt” https://dfg-vk-darmstadt.de/Lexikon_Auflage_2/DeutscheChristen.htm, accessed December 5, 2024, 5:00 p.m. CET.

Hockenos, Matthew D. A Church Divided: German Protestants Confront the Nazi Past. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2004.

Hockenos, Matthew D. “The Church Struggle and the Confessing Church: An Introduction to Bonhoeffer’s Context”. Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations 2, no. 1 (2007): 1-20.

Huber, Wolfgang. “Inspiration, Controversy, Legacy: Responses to Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Three Germanys” in Clifford J. Green and Guy Christopher Carter, edited. Interpreting Bonhoeffer: Historical Perspectives, Emerging Issues. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013: 3-14.

Kirchenrat der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland, “Stuttgarter Schuldbekenntnis der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland,” translation in Hockenos, A Church Divided, Appendix 4.

McGrath, Alister. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution—A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First. New York, NY: HarperOne, 2008.

Metaxas, Eric. Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy. Rev. Nashville, TN: Nelson Books, 2020.

Schlingensiepen, Ferdinand. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 1906-1945: Martyr, Thinker, Man of Resistance. Translated by Isabel Best. London: T&T Clark, 2010.

Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York, NY: RosettaBooks, 2011.

[1] William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York, NY: RosettaBooks, 2011), 290.

[2] Matthew D. Hockenos, “The Church Struggle and the Confessing Church: An Introduction to Bonhoeffer’s Context”. Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations 2, no. 1 (2007): 3.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Doris L. Bergen, Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich, (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), 5.

[5] DFG-VK Darmstadt, “Deutsche Christen”in “Von Adelung bis Zwangsarbeit – Stichworte zu Militär und Nationalsozialismus in Darmstadt” https://dfg-vk-darmstadt.de/Lexikon_Auflage_2/DeutscheChristen.htm, accessed December 5, 2024, 5:00 p.m. CET.

[6] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Nelson Books, 2020), 176.

[7] Ibid., 181.

[8] Ibid., 171.

[9] Bergen, Twisted Cross, 23.

[10] Ibid., 46.

[11] Ibid., 146.

[12] Ibid., 155.

[13] Ibid., 157.

[14] Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, 171.

[15] Ibid., 173.

[16] Bergen, Twisted Cross, 23.

[17] Ibid., 144.

[18] Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, 186.

[19] Ibid., 187.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid., 222.

[22] Bekenntnissynode der Deutschen Evangelischen Kirche, “Barmer Erklärrung.” English translation, https://www.ekd.de/en/the-barmen-declaration-303.htm, accessed December 5, 2024, 10:50 p.m. CET.

[23] Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, 225.

[24] Ibid., 235.

[25] Ibid., 235.

[26] Matthew D Hockenos, A Church Divided: German Protestants Confront the Nazi Past (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2004), 29.

[27] Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, 261.

[28] Ibid., 287.

[29] Ibid., 288.

[30] Ibid., 289.

[31] Hockenos, A Church Divided, 34.

[32] Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, 298.

[33] Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 623.

[34] Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, 317.

[35] Hockenos, A Church Divided, 36.

[36] Ferdinand Schlingensiepen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 1906-1945: Martyr, Thinker, Man of Resistance. Translated by Isabel Best (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 245.

[37] Barnett, Victoria. For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest against Hitler. 1st ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 181.

[38] Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. New York: Touchstone, 2018. (English translation of Nachfolge, published in 1937), 38.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, 360.

[41] Schlingensiepen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 246-247.

[42] Ibid., 249.

[43] Ibid., 359.

[44] Schlingensiepen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 378.

[45] Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 1615.

[46] Hockenos, A Church Divided, 4.

[47] Kirchenrat der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland, “Stuttgarter Schuldbekenntnis der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland,” translation in Hockenos, A Church Divided, Appendix 4.

[48] Cremer, Tobias. “The Resistance of the Protestant Church in Nazi Germany and Its Relevance for Contemporary Politics.” The Review of Faith & International Affairs 17 (4) (2019): 4.

[49] Wolfgang Huber, “Inspiration, Controversy, Legacy: Responses to Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Three Germanys” in Clifford J. Green and Guy Christopher Carter, edited. Interpreting Bonhoeffer: Historical Perspectives, Emerging Issues (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013), 5.

[50] Alister McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution—A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First, (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2008), 399.

[51] Michael L. Brown, The Political Seduction of the Church: How Millions of American Christians Have Confused Politics with the Gospel, (Washington, D.C.: Vide Press, 2022), 14.

God is near, and He is powerful.

February 10, 2025 /

February 9, 2025                     Fifth Sunday after Epiphany

Isaiah 6:1-8, [9-13]; Psalm 138; 1 Corinthians 15:1-11; Luke 5:1-11

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of our hearts be acceptable in your sight, O Lord. Amen.

Please be seated.

We live in very uncertain times. The threat of trade wars in North America, wars in Ukraine and the Holy Land, and the upcoming elections in Germany are making many people uneasy. The people in Judea and Galilee in Jesus’ time also had much to worry about: Roman occupation, periodic uprisings, brutally high taxes, self-centered elites. Many Jews longed for the coming of the Messiah, who they believed would put all things right. Why is God waiting so long to rescue us, they asked? For many people, God seemed so far away, just as God does for many today. But God wasn’t far away. God the Son became incarnate in the man Jesus of Nazareth. He lived and walked with the people on earth, making His plan of salvation a reality.

Both today’s Gospel and epistle readings recount miracles of Jesus. Luke tells us about one of Jesus’ early miracles, in which He filled Simon Peter’s nets with fish. In the epistle, Paul tells the Corinthians about Jesus’ greatest miracle, His resurrection and subsequent appearances.

Did Jesus really perform the miracles reported in the New Testament? The Enlightenment philosopher David Hume defined a miracle as a violation of a natural law and argued that our uniform experience is that natural laws are never violated. Accordingly, he asserted, no account of a miracle can be credible. C.S. Lewis disagreed with Hume’s definition. “I use the word Miracle to mean an interference with Nature by supernatural power.”[1] Even if we assume that natural laws cannot be violated, and I see no compelling reason why God can’t violate the laws He created, Lewis’ broader definition of miracles allows them to occur. For example, the law of gravity predicts that if I drop a coin, it will fall to the ground. So, if I drop a coin and it lands in my outstretched hand, does the coin violate the law of gravity? No, I simply intervened in its fall. If God created the Universe, He could certainly intervene in the process of natural laws.

There is good reason to believe that miracles not only occurred in Jesus’ day but continue to occur today. New Testament scholar Craig Keener has written a two-volume scholarly work on miracles and a shorter follow-on book. Both works are carefully researched and documented. One of the most striking examples is Delia Knox, who was injured in a car accident and was confined to a wheelchair for more than 22 years. Her healing in a revival service was captured on video.[2] Church leaders and members vouch for her paralysis and healing.[3] If you want to see the video, go to YouTube and enter “Delia Knox healing.” Were all the events described in Keener’s book real miracles? I’m not sure, but they’re well documented. It’s hard to believe that these were psychosomatic illnesses.

Now, I’m not calling for Christians to reject modern medicine in favor of faith healing. Modern medicine is one of God’s great gifts to humanity and should be received with thanksgiving. But even today’s medicine has its limits.

Why don’t we see more miracles today? Craig Keener believes healing miracles are more common in Africa and Asia than in the more secular West in part because people in the majority world are more open to the possibility of miracles. Matthew 15:38 tells us that Jesus did not do many miracles in his hometown of Nazareth “because of their lack of faith.” Also, God uses miracles to get people’s attention and add credibility to His message. In many parts of the world, the Gospel is just getting established, and so God may use miracles to add credibility to this new teaching. We see this reflected in the New Testament. Jesus used the miracle of the full nets to persuade Simon Peter to follow Him, which was a critical event in Christian history. The book of Acts shows that miracles accompanied the apostles, which lent credibility to the new message and so persuaded many of them to come to faith.

The epistle reading gives us what is probably the first written account of the greatest miracle of all: Christ’s Resurrection. Paul probably wrote 1 Corinthians in 53-54 AD, that is, about 20 years after the Resurrection. But 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 goes back much earlier. Scholars believe it is a creedal statement that Paul received from Peter and James when they met in Jerusalem three years after Paul’s conversion, which would place it within five years of the Resurrection.[4] Since the passage was already in the form of a creed, N.T. Wright argues that it was probably formulated within two or three years of the Resurrection.[5] This means, the belief in Christ’s bodily Resurrection could not have been a legend: There was simply not enough time for a legend to develop, and most of the eyewitnesses were still around. New Testament scholars consider it strong evidence of what the earliest Christians believed. Let’s take a closer look at this passage.

“Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” Paul is saying that Jesus, the Messiah, died to redeem us from sin and that it was in accordance with the scriptures. N.T. Wright argues that Paul is not referring here to individual proof texts from the Old Testament but to “the entire sweep of biblical narrative,” which has been fulfilled in Christ.[6] The creed continues: “and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,” which again refers to the entire sweep of the biblical narrative. Jesus’ death and Resurrection fulfilled God’s overarching goal in the history of Israel, which was the plan of salvation. Paul continues: “and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.” The resurrected Christ didn’t just appear to a small group of insiders but to many of his followers, many of whom still lived and could testify to what they saw. Jesus also appeared to His brother, James, who was an unbeliever prior to the Resurrection.

Paul continues: “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain.” Acts chapter 9 tells us that the resurrected and ascended Jesus appeared to Paul, who was traveling to Damascus to arrest believers and take them back to Jerusalem for punishment. Christ forgave Paul, a persecutor of the church. Accordingly, Paul writes, “I worked harder than any of them — though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.”

Christ’s Resurrection from the dead is the most important event in human history, and its significance is broad. It means Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins was accepted by the Father, and so we are reconciled to God. It means that death and the grave have been defeated, and so those who are in Christ will rise with Him to eternal life. It means the powers and principalities that for so long controlled the world have been defeated. It means that the reign of God has been inaugurated on earth, so Jesus is Lord, and Caesar isn’t. That includes today’s Caesars. Of course, we live in what theologians have called the “already and not yet” era of history. The reign of God has already begun, but the powers of evil are still with us. God’s people still have much to do, spreading the Gospel, making disciples of all nations, and working for freedom, justice, and peace for all.

The world today seems totally out of joint and chaotic, and we have no idea what the future will bring. Many of us experience chaos and uncertainty in our daily lives. Some of us may have suffered terrible loss and are unable to understand why. But Romans 8:28 tells us, “We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” We should remember Jesus’ words at His Ascension: “And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt 28:20). Jesus’ life, death, and Resurrection show that God is not far from us but is always with us. And our God is a powerful God, as His miracles show. As Paul writes, “If God is for us, who is against us?” (Rom 8:31). Ultimately, no one. Not even Caesar. Amen.

[1]  C.S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study, (San Francisco; CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 5.

[2]“Delia Knox healed and she sings at Bay Revival 2010” YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNg7GWnXV_c&t=580s Accessed on Sep. 9, 2023, 2:30 p.m. (CET)

[3] Craig S. Keener, Miracles Today, (Grand Rapids, MI, 2021), 51-54

[4] Gary R. Habermas and Mike Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 52.

[5] N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God,(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 319.

[6] Ibid., 320-321.

Faith and Reason

December 17, 2024 /

Introduction

This paper examines the relationship between faith and reason. It takes as its starting point Dr. Rich Holland’s three-fold categorization of the relationships:[1]

  1. Faith and reason in conflict
  2. Faith and reason independent of each other
  3. Faith and reason working together

The paper describes and analyzes each of these general relationships. It concludes that faith and reason should work together for the glory of God. Christians should use reason to serve faith by illuminating the meaning of Scripture, ensuring the coherence of Christian teaching, defending the faith, and preparing unbelievers to hear the Gospel.

Definitions

Reason

J.P. Moreland defines reason as “all our faculties relevant to gaining knowledge and justifying our beliefs about different things.”[2] This is a broad definition, but “knowledge” is at its core. J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig write that the standard definition of “knowledge” is “justified true belief.”[3] Craig Boyd offers three definitions of reason.[4] In his first definition, reason is how people use science and logic to understand the world. In the second definition, reason is “the sinful attempt of human creatures to demand that reality conforms to their prior expectations.”[5] His third definition, which he prefers, is that reason is how one comes “to understand, process and decide how to live one’s life given the multiform ways in which reality can be apprehended.”[6]

As will be discussed below under “Faith and Reason in Conflict,” many Christians believe that “reason” is opposed to faith or, in Martin Luther’s famous words, “reason is the devil’s whore.” It should be noted that the Bible praises proper use of the mind. For example, Paul writes that we should be transformed “by the renewing of your mind” (Rom 12:2 NIV). Jesus tells us we should love God “with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matt 22:27). The mind is expressly included.  Peter told his readers to be prepared “to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15). Peter here is telling Christians to use reason to explain why they believe. Since reason is needed to gain knowledge, that is, to discern truth, it should be a tool that Christians use to “speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15). The Bible clearly teaches that faith and reason should work together, but Christians must not place reason above faith.

Faith

J.P. Moreland defines faith as “trust in what we have reason to believe is true.”[7] The author of Hebrews writes, “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (Heb:11:1). Craig Boyd defines faith as “a commitment to belief based upon the testimony of God.”[8] He divides faith into three components: faith as content, faith as act, faith as habit.[9] The first of these components is relevant for this paper. Carl Raschke, on the other hand, emphasizes that faith is a personal relationship with God.[10] Similarly, Randolph Richards and Brandon O’Brien argue that the words grace and faith – charis and pistis in Greek – were used to describe the patron-client relationship. The patron or benefactor offered unearned gifts to the client – grace – and the client or servant responded with faithfulness and loyalty – faith.[11] Faith involves believing the truth of propositions, but it is also a relationship with the living God.

What do Christians believe? While there is a wide variety of beliefs among Christians, the core of the faith is described in the Nicene Creed, adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This creed proclaims that God is triune (One God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit); that the Son, eternally begotten of the Father, became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Virgin Mary); He did this for us and our salvation (atonement); He was crucified, but rose again on the third day, as foretold by the Scriptures; He ascended to heaven, but will come again to judge the living and the dead; the holy Spirit, who spoke through the prophets, gives life; there is one apostolic Church, one baptism, and Christians await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come (eternal life).

            Faith and Reason: Three Main Relationships

Faith and reason in conflict

Many people believe that faith and reason are in conflict and cannot be reconciled. If this is true, people must choose between faith and reason. Atheists believe that there is no evidence for the existence of any god, and so religious faith is irrational. In the 19th Century, William K. Clifford argued that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”[12] He then argues that we are not justified in believing “the truth of any statement which is contrary to, or outside of, the uniformity of nature.”[13]  Since Christianity is based on the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which violates the uniformity of nature, Clifford implied that one is not justified in believing it. Similarly, critics of Christianity have argued that the fundamental doctrines of the incarnation and the Trinity are logically contradictory.[14]

Some self-professed Christians accept that there is conflict between faith and science or reason, and so faith must be altered to conform to reason. For example, James Robinson as well as the Jesus Seminar have denied the historicity of most of what the Gospel writers wrote about Jesus, because the events and sayings attributed to Him did not meet their very rigid criteria. Moreover, the many miracles attributed to Him were declared inauthentic, since miracles cannot occur.[15] 

Many more orthodox Christians, adherents of fideism, believe there is conflict between faith and reason, and so they rely on faith and ignore reason. Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman define “fideism” as “an approach to apologetics that argues that the truths of faith cannot and should not be justified rationally. Or, to look at it another way, fideists contend that the truths of Christianity are properly apprehended by faith alone.”[16] Fideists argue that, because of the fall, the human capacity to use reason is woefully inadequate to discover the truth about God. They argue that “some truths of Christianity are beyond our capacity to understand or express in a logically definitive fashion.”[17]

This perspective has a long pedigree, going back to Tertullian (AD 160-220) and running through Martin Luther (16th century), Blaise Pascal (17th century), Søren Kierkegaard (19th century), and Karl Barth (20th century).[18] Reformed apologists, such as Cornelius Van Til and Alvin Plantinga have also been called fideists, but Boa and Bowman disagree because Reformed apologists make truth claims that are rationally consistent within a Christian system of thought.[19] The anti-intellectualism that took over evangelical churches in the U.S. during the 19th century, which Moreland decries, is consistent with fideism.[20]

Fideists can point to numerous Scripture passages. For example, Paul quotes Isaiah that God will destroy the wisdom of the wise (1 Cor 1:19).  Paul continues, “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Cor 1:20). God saves those who believe “through the foolishness of what was preached” (1 Cor 1:21). Similarly, Paul warns the church to make sure they are not captured through “hollow and deceptive philosophy” that depends on “human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ” (Col 2:8). The list could be continued.

Carl Raschke, writing from a Christian postmodernist perspective, makes similar arguments, although he claims not to be a fideist “in the stereotypical sense.”[21] He argues that faith is “in the final analysis not rational but relational. What does this contention imply philosophically? There is no such thing as a ‘relational proposition,’ unless one of course is talking about a marriage proposal.” This indicates that reason is not adequate to explain faith. Further, faith as a relationship with God “opens our understanding to things we cannot necessarily anticipate or understand from the propositional perspective.”[22] This does not mean that philosophy is useless, however. If it accepts its subordinate role, it “can serve its own ‘apostolic’ role in dealing with the ‘Gentiles,’ as Paul conceived it.”[23] This opens the door for the use of reason in evangelism and apologetics, but not in formulating Christian doctrine. Moreover, even Martin Luther, who called reason “the devil’s whore,” saw reason as a useful “tool or source of understanding when grounded in Christ and the gospel,” according to Allan G. Padgett.[24] Ultimately, then, Martin Luther, Carl Raschke, and others who focus on conflict between reason and faith probably accept the “faith and reason working together” perspective as long as reason is subordinate to faith.

Faith and reason independent of each other

In this view, reason and science are useful for understanding the world of the senses, and faith and theology are in separate spheres. They cannot conflict with each other, since they refer to entirely different things. Writing from a secular perspective, American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould argued that “science and religion were ‘non-overlapping magisteria’: distinct fields of human activity that need not – should not – encroach on each other’s territory.”[25] According to this view, the natural world is the province of science. Religion, on the other hand, focuses on morals and spiritual meaning. It was an attempt to disarm the conflict between faith and science over the theory of evolution. The “New Atheists,” such as Richard Dawkins, have clearly rejected Gould’s approach.

The views regarding “non-overlapping magisteria” among Christians are mixed. Some fideists accept the value of reason and science in understanding the natural world but reject their use in the realm of theology. Carl Raschke’s views could be characterized in this way. J.P. Moreland decries the withdrawal of many Christians from the life of the intellect. This began in the 19th century in response to Enlightenment philosophers, such as Hume and Kant, and “German higher criticism” of the Bible.[26] As a result, “fewer and fewer people regarded the Bible as a body of divinely revealed, true propositions about various topics that requires a devoted intellect to grasp and study systematically. Instead, the Bible increasingly was sought solely as a practical guide for ethical guidance and spiritual growth.”[27] Similarly, he argues, “There has emerged a secular/sacred separation in our understanding of the Christian life with the result that Christian teaching and practice are privatized and placed in a separate compartment from the public or so-called secular activities of life.”[28] This is a very good description of the “non-overlapping magisterial” perspective, which is very common in American churches today. The Pew Research Center reported that 63% of U.S. Christians said in a survey from 2015-2016 that science and religion do not conflict.[29] This does not mean, however, that all of them believe that faith and science are separate realms. Some of them likely believe that science confirms the truths of Christianity.

A useful test case for the non-overlapping magisteria approach is acceptance of neo-Darwinism, which conflicts with a literalistic understanding of Genesis 1-11. A book edited by J. B. Stump and Stanley N. Gundry presents four views common among evangelical Christians regarding evolution. Young Earth Creationists reject neo-Darwinism and argue for a literalistic understanding of Genesis 1-11. Progressive creationists accept what science says about an old earth and “evolution” of living things over time but reject common descent from a single ancestor and so reject a fundamental tenet of neo-Darwinism.[30] Instead, they argue, God intervened to create various kinds of flora and fauna at appropriate times in earth’s history.

Evolutionary Creationists, as exemplified by BioLogos, accept neo-Darwinism as how God created the variety of living things that we find in the world. Deborah Haarsma, for example, argues that God wrote two books: the book of Scripture, which tells of theological and moral matters, and the book of nature, which science reads to tell us about the natural world.[31] There can be no conflict between the two, since God is the author of both. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, avoids discussing faith at all. This viewpoint uses scientific evidence, such as the information content of DNA, to argue against neo-Darwinism and for a designer. Stephen Meyer emphasizes that it is “not based upon religious belief.”[32] It does, however, “affirm a key tenant of a biblical worldview – namely, that life and the universe are the products of a designing intelligence.”[33]

Young Earth Creationists clearly reject the concept of “non-overlapping magisteria.” They believe there is a conflict between faith and the modern scientific consensus, and they choose faith, although they use the tools of science to argue against the scientific consensus, Progressive Creationists acknowledge no conflict between Genesis 1 and the results of science and so might be in the “non-overlapping magisterial” category. On the other hand, they do reject a fundamental tenet of neo-Darwinism, common descent, and so one can argue that they use science and reason to support their theological beliefs. In that case, they would fall under the category of “faith and reason working together.” Evolutionary Creationists best exemplify the “non-overlapping magisteria” perspective. They fully accept what mainstream science says about evolution. If there is a connection between faith and reason, they use science (reason) to help them interpret Scripture. The fourth group, Intelligent Design, stays within the realm of reason, but its adherents use it to argue for the truth of theism, and so it might best be described as belonging to the “faith and reason working together” category.

Faith and reason working together

Catholic apologists Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli write, “Faith and reason can never contradict each other.”[34] This statement sums up this third category. Of the three categories discussed, this is probably the one most Christian apologists prefer. In this view, faith and reason work together to discover truth.

One approach in this category is exemplified by Alan G. Padgett’s “Faith Seeking Understanding.” Padgett argues that “right reason, grounded in Scripture and Christian faith, plays an essential role in critical reflection upon Christian faith and life for individuals and communities of faith.”[35] Moreover, both faith and reason are “essential to full discipleship and mature Christian wisdom.”[36] Reason must, however, have its “foundation in Christian, biblical faith, which then leads to a discipleship of the mind, seeking greater wisdom and understanding of God, ourselves and creation.”[37] Padgett contrasts this with “classical Thomism or natural theology,” which he says moves “from human understanding of the world to faith in God.”[38] Padgett cites numerous Scripture passages to support his view. For example, Proverbs 1:7 states “fools despise wisdom and instruction,” which suggests an appreciation of wisdom. Paul writes that he speaks “a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age” (1 Cor 2:6). This passage sums up Padgett’s position well: Christians should pursue and speak wisdom, but not subordinate it to the preferences of secular society.”

In “The Synthesis of Reason and Faith,” Craig A. Boyd argues for the perspective of Thomas Aquinas, often called the Thomistic synthesis. Boyd writes, “God has endowed human beings with rational capacities, and these capacities can, and do, lead us to truth. However, these rational capacities do not, and cannot, by themselves offer us salvation.”[39] In the “synthesis” view, human nature retains some continuity with its original state before the Fall, “because it reflects the goodness of God. It has been damaged by sin, but it retains its created integrity.”[40] Human nature can be healed by divine grace. Hence, for Christians, reason “discovers basic moral truths and facilitates the understanding of Christian faith.”[41]  Reason can, of course, also be misused to “come up with reasons for rejecting God as well as rationalizations for our immoral behavior.”[42] Boyd, too, quotes scripture to support his perspective. He focuses heavily on John 1, which introduces Jesus as the “logos,” the divine Word. This “true light” gives “light to everyone” (John 1:9). “Word” and “light” can also refer to wisdom, which the early church recognized. For example, the Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (now Istanbul) is the Church of Holy Wisdom.

Analysis

While there are enormous differences between atheists and orthodox Christians, the differences in perspectives on faith and reason between orthodox Christians are relatively minor. Those who represent the “faith and reason in conflict” perspective argue that, while reason in fallen humans is adequate to understand the natural world, it is woefully inadequate if unaided to understand the things of God. But Allan Padgett, who represents the “faith and reason working together” perspective, would heartily agree. We understand the things of God through revelation, not reason. Even the Christians who view reason most favorably, such as Craig Boyd, would agree. Unaided human reason could never discover the Trinity or atonement, for example. Similarly, Carl Raschke, who represents the most skeptical view of reason in fallen humanity, agrees that reason can be useful in apologetics and evangelism if it accepts its subordinate status to faith.

The perspectives are also blurred on specific issues, such as neo-Darwinian evolution. Young Earth Creationists completely reject an old earth and neo-Darwinism, and so represent the “faith and reason in conflict” perspective. Yet even they try to muster evidence from nature to argue their position. Progressive Creationists, such as Hugh Ross, and Intelligent Design advocates, such as Stephen C. Meyer, attempt to reconcile faith and reason without sacrificing faith. The Evolutionary Creation perspective of BioLogos could be characterized as “Faith and reason independent of each other,” as they accept the scientific consensus on evolution as well as God’s revelation in Scripture. Even they, however, do not subject Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity, atonement, and resurrection, to the dictates of reason.

A more pragmatic way to understand the relationship of reason and faith is to ask how Christians can use reason to support faith. Here the advantages of a faith-directed use of reason are readily apparent. Christians can use reason to examine doctrinal statements for coherence. Are they self-refuting, and hence false, or are they merely paradoxical, such as the doctrine of the Trinity? Reason can also be used to illuminate the meaning of Scripture. While this seems at first to place faith under reason, which orthodox Christians do not advocate, that is not the case. For example, in Isaiah 55:12, it says “the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.” Reason makes it clear that mountains and hills do not literally sing, and trees have no hands with which to clap. The author of Isaiah 55:12 certainly knew this, and so one can conclude, through reason, that he meant it metaphorically.

Reason can also be used in apologetics and evangelism. Faith comes from the Holy Spirit working through the Word of God. But to hear the word of God, people must first be willing to listen. They will not listen to God’s Word without first being convinced it is worth hearing. If they believe that Christian faith is irrational, as many people do, they will not give the Word a fair hearing, and so will not come to faith. Apologetics, which uses reason to argue for the reasonableness of Christian faith, can open people’s ears so they listen to the Word, permitting the Holy Spirit to work. Reason is also useful in a defensive role to reinforce Christians confronted with arguments against the faith.

Conclusion

The paper examined the relationship between faith and reason from three different perspectives:

  1. Faith and reason in conflict
  2. Faith and reason independent of each other
  3. Faith and reason working together

The paper discussed various perspectives among Christians and non-Christians. The differences between Christians and non-Christians cannot be reconciled, but the differences between Christians can. For Christians, faith should never be subordinate to reason, but reason can be a useful tool to help Christians correctly understand the Christian faith and argue for its veracity. For Christians, faith and reason can work together for the glory of God. Christians should use reason to serve faith by illuminating the meaning of Scripture, ensuring the coherence of Christian teaching, defending the faith, and preparing unbelievers to hear the Gospel.

Bibliography

Boa, Kenneth, and Robert Bowman. Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith. Second edition. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Books, 2005.

Boyd, Craig A, Alan G Padgett, Carl A Raschke. Faith and Reason: Three Views. Edited by Steve Wilkens. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2014.

Clifford, William K. “The Ethics of Belief” in Lectures and Essays by the Late William Kingdom Clifford. 2nd ed. London, UK: Macmillan and Co. 1886, pp. 339-363.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008

Ham, Ken, Hugh Ross, Deborah B Haarsma, and Stephen C Meyer. Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. Edited by J. B. Stump and Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2017.

Holland, Rich. “Faith & Reason,” https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/643171/pages/watch-faith-and-reason?module_item_id=69959347, course video, accessed July 27, 2024.

Kreeft, Peter, Ronald K. (Ronald Keith) Tacelli, and Peter Kreeft. Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Moreland, J. P.  Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2012.

Moreland, J. P. and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd Edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017.

Pew Research Center, “On the Intersection of Science and Religion,” https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/08/26/on-the-intersection-of-science-and-religion/, accessed August 11, 2023, 5:30 p.m. CEST.

Richards, E. Randolph and Brandon J. O’Brien. Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2012.

Senor, Thomas D. “The Incarnation and the Trinity” in Reason for the Hope Within, ed. Michael J. Murray, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 238-260

Spencer, Nick. Magisteria: The Entangled Histories of Science and Religion. London, England: Oneworld Publications, 2023.

[1] Rich Holland, “Faith & Reason,” https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/643171/pages/watch-faith-and-reason?module_item_id=69959347, course video, accessed July 27, 2024.

[2] J. P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul, (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2012), 44.

[3] J. P. Moreland und William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd Edition. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 63.

[4] Craig A. Boyd, “Chapter 3: The Synthesis of Reason and Faith”, in Faith and Reason: Three Views, ed. Steve Wilkens, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 137.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind, 19.

[8] Boyd in “Faith and Reason” 150.

[9] Ibid., 138.

[10] Carl A. Raschke in Boyd, Craig A, Alan G Padgett, Carl A Raschke. Faith and Reason: Three Views. Edited by Steve Wilkens. (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2014), 64.

[11] E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2012), 71-72.

[12] Clifford, William K. “The Ethics of Belief” in Lectures and Essays by the Late William Kingdom Clifford, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan and Co; 1886), 346.

[13] Ibid., 363.

[14] Thomas D. Senor, “The Incarnation and the Trinity” in Reason for the Hope Within, ed. Michael J. Murray, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 238.

[15] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 292-294.

[16] Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman. Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith, (Second edition. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Books, 2005), 390.

[17] Ibid., 390.

[18] Ibid., 392-414.

[19] Ibid., 391.

[20] Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind, 15ff.

[21] Carl A. Raschke in Boyd et al. Faith and Reason: Three Views, 160.

[22] Ibid., 66.

[23] Ibid., 67.

[24] Allen G. Padgett in Boyd et al. Faith and Reason: Three Views, 160.

[25] Spencer, Nick. Magisteria: The Entangled Histories of Science and Religion, (London, England: Oneworld Publications, 2023), 17.

[26] Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind, 17.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid., 21.

[29] Pew Research Center, “On the Intersection of Science and Religion,” https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/08/26/on-the-intersection-of-science-and-religion/, accessed August 11, 2023, 5:30 p.m. CEST.

[30] Hugh Ross in Ham, Ken, Hugh Ross, Deborah B Haarsma, and Stephen C Meyer. Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. Edited by J. B. Stump and Stanley N. Gundry, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2017), 72.

[31] Deborah B. Haarsma in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, 126.

[32] Stephen C. Meyer in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, 207.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Peter Kreeft, Ronald K. Tacelli, Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

[35] Allen G. Padgett in Boyd et al. Faith and Reason: Three Views, 87.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid., 86.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Craig A. Boyd in Boyd et al. Faith and Reason: Three Views, 133.

[40] Ibid., 135.

[41] Ibid., 147.

[42] Ibid., 159.

God never promised us a rose garden

November 18, 2024 /

Church of St. Augustine of Canterbury, Wiesbaden, Germany November 17, 2024                  Twenty-sixth Sunday after Pentecost

Daniel 12:1-3; Psalm 16; Hebrews 10:11-14 (15-18) 19-25; Mark 13:1-8

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of our hearts be acceptable in your sight, O Lord. Amen.

Please be seated.

Some of us are old enough to remember a song by Lynn Anderson, “I Never Promised You a Rose Garden.” When we look around at the state of the world, many of us don’t see a rose garden. We just went through a pandemic that killed millions throughout the world and disrupted our lives. This was followed by a nasty bout of high inflation. There are horrific wars going on in Ukraine and the Middle East, and many in Western Europe might be worried about them spreading to our still-safe countries. Of course, even here, we live with more and more uncertainty. Germany’s government has collapsed, and new elections are on the horizon. The elections in the U.S. have just taken place, and some of us are worried about the outcome. Elections are a time of change, which can be frightening.

The Lord has also never promised us a rose garden on earth in this age, before His second coming. He does, however, encourage us to start planting and caring for one! This is what N.T. Wright calls, “building for the kingdom.”

In our Gospel reading, Jesus is with His disciples in Jerusalem, in what we now call Holy Week just before His crucifixion. When they marvel at the massive stones of the Temple, Jesus tells them that the Temple will be destroyed and “Not one stone will be left upon another.”

Christ’s prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD, less than 40 years after His death and resurrection. The First Jewish-Roman War began in 66 AD, when the Roman governor seized money from the Temple treasury and arrested numerous Jewish leaders. The Jews revolted and won some initial successes, but were ultimately defeated by the Romans, who set fire to Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple. The war ended in 73 AD, when the Romans took the last Jewish fortress of Masala. The aftermath of the war was catastrophic for the Jews: an estimated one-third of the population was killed or enslaved. The Romans later built a pagan colony, Aelia Capitolina, on the ruins of Jerusalem and erected a shrine for worship of their god Jupiter on the Temple Mount.

In the Gospel reading, Jesus tells the disciples about other problems: wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, famines. We see these troubles today everywhere in the world around us.  Just as an aside, I’m not predicting the imminent end of the world; we’ve had these troubles throughout history. And Jesus said this was just the beginning of the birth pangs, not that the end was imminent. Christ’s return will be like a thief in the night, when no one is expecting it. Anyway, back to the passage. Jesus also tells us there will be many who come in His name “and say, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray.” There have been many false prophets throughout history, and some who have falsely claimed to be the Messiah. Bar Kochba, for example, led a revolt in 132 AD with initial success. Much of the populace hailed him as the Messiah, who would reestablish King David’s rule.  Bar Kochba was killed in 135 AD, and the revolt was completely crushed a year later. The Jews suffered an even worse demographic catastrophe than the destruction of Jerusalem brought, with most Jews in Judea killed or sold into slavery. The Romans renamed Judea  Syria Palaestina, in an effort to erase all memory of the region’s connection to the Jewish people.

Imagine that you were a Jew or Jewish Christian in 70 AD, when the Temple was destroyed. Imagine that you were a Jew in the diaspora, who heard about the slaughter of your people in Judea at the end of the Bar Kochba revolt. It would seem like the end of the world. But the world did not end. We today can learn from this. No matter how bad things look, it’s not the end of the world. Or if it is, it’s because Jesus has returned to establish His visible reign over the new heaven and new earth.

I’m not saying that we should just keep smiling because everything will be OK. History shows us that countries can grow and flourish but also decline and fall. This includes Christian countries. The Roman Empire officially became Christian in 380 AD under Emperor Theodosius. A century later, the Western Roman Empire fell to Aryan Germanic tribes. In the seventh century, invading Muslim Arab armies wrested historic Christian lands – Palestine, Syria, Egypt, North Africa – from the Eastern Roman Empire, and ultimately went on to conquer Spain. In the 13th century, Mongols vanquished the Christian Kievan Rus, today’s Russia and Ukraine, and in the 15th century, the Ottoman Turks occupied Constantinople and reigned over much of the Christian Balkans. In the 20th century, Communism took over the Russian Empire and then subjugated Eastern Europe, brutally suppressing Christianity. And here in Christian Germany, the atheist-pagan Hitler seized power in 1933. Hitler’s Thousand Year Reich fell 12 years after it began, leaving Christian Germany devastated and divided and millions of innocent people dead.

Almost two thousand years after the destruction of Jerusalem, a Jewish state has reappeared in Judea and Galilee. But the Jewish Temple has not been rebuilt, even though Israel controls Jerusalem. There is an important Moslem Mosque, the Dome of the Rock, on Temple Mount, and destroying it to make room for a Jewish Temple would mean war with the entire Moslem world. The reading from Hebrews tells us that the Temple is no longer needed anyway. The primary purpose of the Temple was to offer sacrifices to God for the sins of the people. Hebrews 10:12 tells us, Jesus Christ offered “for all time a single sacrifice for sins” and so made any further sacrifices superfluous. According to Psalm 51:17, the sacrifice God wants from us is “a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart,” that is, repentance, which God, will not despise.

God never promised us a rose garden. But in John 16:33, Jesus tells His disciples, “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” Paul writes, “We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Rom 8:28). When Jesus gave Simon the name Peter, meaning rock, He told him the gates of Hades would not prevail against His church (Matt 16:18). Roman emperors like Nero and Diocletian tried to destroy the church but failed. Shortly after Diocletian’s terrible persecution at the end of the third century, the Emperor Constantine I issued the Edict of Milan, which legalized Christianity. Later, in 380 AD, the Roman Empire officially became Christian. The Empire that had crucified Jesus and destroyed Jerusalem now bowed the knee to Him. Closer to home, under the Nazis, the so-called German Christians accepted Hitler’s anti-Semitism and made it their own. Some even rejected the Old Testament and the “Rabbi Paul” as too Jewish. The German Christians won the church elections in 1933 and so dominated the Protestant church. The Nazis persecuted the faithful remnant, the Confessing Church, which included Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemöller. But when World War II ended, the Confessing Church took the reins of the new Protestant church. Here, too, the gates of Hell did not prevail.

Someday, according to today’s Old Testament reading, God’s people will be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book. The saints who have already died will not be forgotten: “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever” Daniel’s prophecy is that we will receive eternal life, and Jesus promises it anew in John 3:16.

So, no matter how bad things get, let us persevere in faith. Jesus tells us, “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Rev 2:10). We have our orders, the Great Commission. Shortly before His ascension, Jesus told the eleven remaining apostles, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt 28:19-20). All authority in heaven and earth has been given to Jesus (Matt 28:18). Christ is Lord, and Caesar isn’t. His victory over the powers of evil is assured, and if we remain faithful, we, too, will share in His victory. There really is a rose garden in our future after all. Amen.

Paradox

August 27, 2024 /

September 1, 2024                  Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost

Deut 4:1-2, 6-9; Psalm 15; James 1:17-27; Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of our hearts be acceptable in your sight, O Lord. Amen.

Please be seated.

The Cambridge Online Dictionary defines paradox as “a statement or situation that may be true but seems impossible or difficult to understand because it contains two opposite facts or characteristics.” Now, this does not include direct contradictions, such as “1 plus 1 equals 2 AND, simultaneously, 1 plus 1 equals 3.” That is a contradiction, and both statements can’t be true. But if I say, “Last Sunday was a sunny day” AND “Last Sunday was a rainy day,” both statements might be true. For example, last Sunday was a sunny day in Wiesbaden, which made our picnic memorable. But in Hawaii, not only did it rain, but the big island got hit by the edges of Hurricane Hone. When I was a schoolchild, we read a story about a spoiled prince who wanted a dessert that was both hot and cold. A contradiction? Well, he was served a hot fudge sundae, which was both hot and cold, so it was a paradox, not a contradiction. For contradictions, we talk about “either-or.” For paradoxes, we talk about “both-and.”

            Christians are familiar with paradox. The nature of God, the Holy Trinity, has a paradox at its core. In the Godhead, there are three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But the three persons share the same Being or essence, hence God is one. Similarly, the nature of Jesus appears at first glance to be a contradiction: How can Jesus simultaneously be both truly God and truly human? God and humans are of two very different natures, yet Jesus combined both natures in Himself. Christian theologians have struggled with these paradoxes for centuries but have been unable to find simple answers that satisfy the human intellect. That’s because God is so much greater than our finite human intellects can comprehend.

            Today’s readings present a similar paradox when it comes to our salvation, although this is not immediately apparent. The Old Testament reading tells us that we should not add or subtract from God’s commands and must observe them diligently. A bit later, in Deuteronomy 6:5, we are told to Love the Lord our God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our strength. Jesus repeats this later in Mark 12:30. He then adds, quoting Leviticus 19:18, that we should love our neighbor as ourselves.

            Today’s Psalm tells us, “Whoever leads a blameless life and does what is right, who speaks the truth from his heart” may abide on God’s holy hill. In the epistle, James tells us we must rid ourselves of all sordidness and wickedness. Religion, he continues, consists of caring for orphans and widows in their distress and keeping ourselves unstained by the world. In the Gospel reading, the Pharisees confront Jesus, because some of His disciples were eating without washing their hands, which contradicted the tradition of the elders. Jesus replied that it is what comes out of our hearts that defiles us, not what comes from outside. Simply following rules is not enough: Our hearts must be righteous.

            So far, you might wonder, “Where’s the paradox?” God is telling us we need to obey His commands, put Him first, love our neighbor as ourselves, lead a blameless life, and have a righteous heart. That sounds clear enough! Here’s the problem: we can’t do it! The first of the Ten Commandments tells us, we should have no other gods before Him. Well, we don’t worship Baal or any other deity. But if a “god” is whatever we put first in our lives, do we worship money, success, power, fame, social status? If so, we’ve broken the first Commandment. Let’s not even talk about the other nine! Have we observed God’s commands diligently? Have we led blameless lives? If we’re honest, I think the answer must be “no.” Have we done enough for the needy and kept ourselves unstained by the world? For most of us, very much including myself, the answer again is “no.”

            Do I love the Lord my God with all my heart and with all my soul and with all my strength? Realistically, no. I might ask, is half of my heart and soul and strength enough? The answer should be obvious. Why should my Creator settle for half? Do I really love my neighbor as myself? No, not even close. I might comfort myself and point to someone who is even worse than I am. But does God grade on a curve? In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us to be perfect, just as our heavenly Father is perfect (Matt 5:48). Perfection is God’s standard, so He doesn’t grade on a curve. We might also comfort ourselves by saying there are some terrible sins we have never committed, such as murder. But God’s standards are higher than ours. Jesus tells us, “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment” (Matt 5:21-22). Have I ever been angry with a brother or sister? The answer is obvious. And James writes, “whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it” (Jas 2:10, NIV).

            So, to sum up the problem: we can’t meet God’s standards. And realistically, there’s nothing we can do to meet them. That’s what God’s Law and today’s readings teach us.

            Here’s the paradox: God demands that we obey his Law perfectly, but we can’t do it. But God loves us and wants everyone to be saved and spend eternity with Him. Jesus tells us, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). So, even though I don’t come close to meeting God’s standard, I can still “abide on God’s holy hill,” in the words of the Psalmist. I have been promised everlasting life. Why? Because God loves me, so He offers me the gift of salvation if I believe in His one and only Son. That’s it. Paul writes, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph 2:8-9, NIV).

            Now it’s important to be clear: faith is more than just intellectually accepting some propositions, although that’s part of it. To have faith means to enter a relationship with Jesus, in which we accept Him as Both Savior and Lord. Accepting Him as Savior is critically important but not enough. It’s not enough to just receive the gift of salvation that Jesus earned for us on the cross. We need to follow Him as Lord. What does this mean? Jesus tells us, “If you love me, keep my commands” (John 14:15). His commands can be summarized in the Law of Love, mentioned above: Love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves. Gospel singer Amy Grant recorded a song called “Fat Baby,” in which a man “knelt at the altar and that was the end, he’s saved and that’s all that matters to him.” He accepted Jesus as Savior, but as Lord? No. Is he really saved? I don’t know.

            And so now we return to today’s readings. In these passages, and many others, God lays out His standards, which we can’t meet. God offers us a way out: He sends His only son, Jesus, to bear the consequences for our sins in our place, and so offers us the gift of salvation. But God expects us to make progress to meet His standards. That’s what accepting Jesus as Lord means. We should strive to follow Him and do what He wants us to do.

And so, our salvation and God’s standards are a paradox. Salvation is a free gift that Jesus offers to sinners: We can do nothing to earn it, and we need do nothing to earn it. God accepts us as sinners but still expects us to meet His standards, which we can’t do on our own. The good news is that God doesn’t leave us helpless in our efforts to meet His standards. The Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, helps us not only to believe but to move along the path of sanctification.

            In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes, “God is easy to please, but hard to satisfy.” God is “delighted with the first feeble, stumbling effort you make tomorrow to do the simplest duty. … On the other hand, you must realise from the outset that the goal to which He is beginning to guide you is absolute perfection; and no power in the universe, except you yourself, can prevent Him from taking you to that goal.” [1]

             May God work in us to make us more like the people He wants us to be: People who love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves. Amen.

[1] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (London: William Collins, 2012), 203

A Critique of Scientific Naturalism

August 2, 2024 /

Introduction

This paper argues that scientific naturalism makes inaccurate predictions regarding the origin and fine-tuning of the universe, the origin and development of life, and miracles and that Christianity makes correct ones.

Analysis of Scientific Naturalism

Scientific naturalism, or ontological naturalism, assumes that the natural realm is a closed system and that all physical effects have physical causes. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, David Papineau, writes about ontological naturalism: “The ontological component is concerned with the contents of reality, asserting that reality has no place for “supernatural” or other “spooky” kinds of entity.”[1] This view is sometimes called physicalism or materialism. Ontological naturalism differs from methodological naturalism, which assumes that to do science, one must look for physical or natural causes of phenomena but does not deny the possibility of the supernatural.

Michael Shermer, founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, defines scientific naturalism this way: “Scientific naturalism is the principle that the world is governed by natural laws and forces that can be understood, and that all phenomena are part of nature and can be explained by natural causes, including human cognitive, moral and social phenomena.” [2] Shermer includes methodological naturalism in the category of scientific naturalism, but this is controversial, as theist scientists may also apply methodological naturalism in their research but accept its limitations.

More specifically, ontological naturalism asserts that there is no God and no supernatural. The following specific assumptions follow from this:

  • The universe has always existed and/or is the result of purely natural processes, and its apparent fine-tuning can, in principle, be explained by natural processes.
  • Life on earth arose through natural processes or was planted by an advanced alien civilization, which in turn arose through purely natural processes.
  • Unguided Darwinian Evolution (mutations and natural selection) explains the appearance of design among living creatures.[3]
  • Miracles are impossible, since supernatural intervention cannot occur (no supernatural, no intervention) and natural laws are immutable.
  • Scientific naturalism assumes that there is no purpose (no teleology) in the universe.

Critique of Scientific Naturalism

Description of Theist’s God

Let us begin with an understanding of what the theist’s God is. Stated simply, God is a mind, consciousness, one that has always existed (eternal), is very powerful (omnipotent), and can make decisions (personal). Such a being would not be subject to the laws that govern matter and energy. In fact, such a being would establish those laws. Since the universe as we know it is contingent, that is, it could have been very different, philosopher Keith Ward argues that the simplest reason for our universe to exist as it does is that an immaterial, eternal, powerful, and personal being willed it into existence. All other explanations add a great deal of complexity. And so, it is highly probable that God exists.[4]

Origin of the Universe: the Kalam Cosmological Argument       

But let us get more specific. The Kalam Cosmological Argument[5] uses two premises and a conclusion:

  1. (premise) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. (premise) The universe began to exist.
  3. (conclusion) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The nature of the cause had to be external to the universe, that is, it had to transcend space and time. This means it had to be timeless (eternal) and not material. It must be exceedingly powerful to create a universe. It must also be personal, that is, capable of deciding to create a universe. All this is a good description of the theistic God.[6]

            A naturalist counterargument is that the universe has always existed. This was the belief that many philosophers and scientists held from the time of Aristotle. But in the 20th century, the Big Bang model established itself as the Standard Model of cosmology. In this model, our universe began about 14 billion years ago. The evidence for this is very strong: our universe is expanding, which means it had to have been much smaller in the distant past. Also, background microwave radiation, a remnant of the Big Bang, was discovered in the 1960s. Since then, the Big Bang has been almost universally accepted.

            But naturalists have not given up. One proposal is the oscillating universe, in which the universe expands up to a point, but then, due to gravity, collapses in on itself. This is followed by a new Big Bang, then another Big Crunch, forever. But there are two big problems with this. The expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, in which case it will not collapse. Also, the second law of thermodynamics states that, in a closed system (such as the universe), entropy (disorder) will increase. What level of entropy would have been necessary at the “beginning” (and there would have been no beginning!) of the process?

A more recent theory is that the universe has always existed in the form of a quantum vacuum. In this vacuum, particles randomly come into existence and then disappear again. The theory is that these random fluctuations would somehow be pulled together by “quantum gravity” (which is not well understood) to form the precursor of the Big Bang. But is this a reasonable argument? The amount of matter and energy in our universe is huge. How could enough random fluctuations occur for quantum gravity to pull together and cause the Big Bang? Moreover, why do we not observe new universes popping randomly into existence?

Fine-Tuning of the Universe

Another problem from a naturalist perspective is that the universe appears to be designed – fine-tuned – to permit life. Cosmologist Paul Davies calls this the “Goldilocks Factor”.[7] Physics tells us four fundamental forces govern matter and energy: the strong force, which binds quarks into protons and neutrons and holds the nucleus together; the weak force, which governs radioactive decay and, more specifically, governs the fusion of hydrogen into helium; the electromagnetic force, which governs the attraction between differently charged particles (such as protons and electrons) and the repulsion between same-charged particles (e.g. electrons and electrons); and gravitational force, which governs the attraction between particles and larger objects. All of these consist of variables and a constant. For example, the gravitational force is described as F = G(m1m2)/R2, where m1 is the mass of object 1, m2 is the mass of object 2, R is the distance between them, and G is the gravitational constant. These constants are critical values, and we do not yet understand why they have the values that they do.

            John Lennox notes that if the ratio of the strong force constant to the electromagnetic force constant had been different by 1 part in 1016, no stars could have formed.[8] If the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational force constant had been greater by 1 part in 1040, only small stars could exist.[9] Decrease the ratio by the same amount, and only large stars can exist. But both types of stars are essential for life: large stars produce the elements that the universe needs, and only small ones burn long enough to permit life to develop. There are other critical ratios as well, such as the ratio of the expansion forces and contraction forces at the Planck time (10-43 seconds after the origin). If the ratio of the expansion forces to the contraction forces had been greater by 1 part in 1055, the early universe would have expanded too quickly, and no stars or galaxies would have formed. If the ratio had been smaller by 1 part in 1055, the early universe would have immediately collapsed. These improbabilities, as great as they are, are dwarfed by the entropy calculation. Sir Roger Penrose, a Nobel laureate mathematical physicist, has estimated that the probability of the universe having a sufficiently high entropy at its origin to explain its current entropy is 1 part in 10 to the power of 10123.

            There are, of course, naturalistic counterarguments. One is that these constants are somehow determined by more fundamental principles, such as may someday be discovered in M Theory or String Theory. That, of course, cannot be ruled out. But it seems to be the mirror of the well-worn “God of the gaps” argument. Here, it would be a “naturalism of the gaps” – even if we do not understand it, there must be a naturalistic explanation. This is circular reasoning, not logical inference. Another possibility trumpeted more recently is the multiverse. If there are an infinite number of universes, there will have to be at least one in which the variables fall within the necessary range to support life. And sentient life would have to be in that universe. There is no evidence for a multiverse, but it is theoretically possible. Still, there are problems with this theory. A major objection is that a universe with just the right conditions for intelligent life would be far more probable if it was very small, even as small as can be filled by a single brain (the Boltzmann brain objection).[10]

Origin of Life on Earth

Naturalism assumes that life on Earth arose through natural processes. Inorganic molecules formed by chance into organic molecules, such as amino acids, which then formed into living cells with RNA (a different type of molecule altogether) and DNA. Scientists have been conducting origin-of-life research for many decades. They have not yet succeeded in creating even a very simple form of life. Philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer has calculated the odds of getting a single functional protein of 150 amino acids by chance alone at one chance in 10164.[11] And one functional protein is a far cry from a living cell. DNA (and its companion RNA) are information storage molecules that form the genetic code of living cells. Meyer asks how the functionally specified information in DNA could arise. Our uniform experience is that functionally specified information comes from intelligent beings, not from chance.

Some naturalists propose that life on earth was “planted” from outer space. Indeed, some meteorites have been found to contain organic (that is, carbon-based) compounds, but no functional proteins. Still, even if life on earth originated from meteors or aliens, that would raise the question of how life arose on their planet of origin, so it would only push the question backward. Philosopher and former atheist Antony Flew credits his conversion to deism to the immense unlikelihood of life arising strictly by chance.[12]

The Design of Living Creatures

Naturalists, such as Richard Dawkins, admit that living creatures have the appearance of design. But, he argues, this appearance is fallacious.[13] Instead, natural selection guides purely natural processes, such as random mutations, to create living beings with apparent design. The deleterious mutations are weeded out and the beneficial ones are kept. We see this process at work in the natural world – at least at the sub-species level. Bacteria, for example, develop resistance to antibiotics through random variation and natural selection. It is, of course, a massive extrapolation to conclude that this alone explains how living creatures went from simple one-celled organisms to complex human beings. Still, the fossil record shows conclusively that the world of plants and animals today is very different from what it was millions of years ago. If we define “evolution” as change in characteristics of living things over time, then evolution clearly has occurred.

But is the Darwinian model of natural selection working on random mutations sufficient to explain this change? Mathematical analysis suggests it is not, according to Stephen C. Meyer. He cites David Axe as having estimated that, for every short functional protein fold of just 150 amino acids, there are 1077 nonfunctional combinations. Over the course of life on the earth, there have been an estimated 1040 individual organisms. If we take the number of individual organisms as the number of trials and divide it by the number of possible sequences, we still have 1 chance in 1037. Those are very low odds! And, of course, one functional protein is not enough to create a living cell: we still have the problem of information. It is highly improbable that the functionally specified information present in the DNA of even the simplest single-celled organism could have arisen by chance.[14] Meyer also discusses the Cambrian explosion of animal life, in which new forms of animals appeared over a relatively short period of time. This would have required a simultaneous explosion of information. A fair conclusion is that unguided evolution, defined as natural selection working on random mutations, is inadequate to explain the apparent design of living creatures.

A further problem for the Darwinian model is irreducible complexity. The Darwinian model is based on numerous small changes that accumulate over time to make large changes (changes in species and higher taxonomic classifications). But numerous organs display irreducible complexity. These consist of multiple components that have no function except in combination with other components. Michael J. Behe explains the concept with the example of a mousetrap, which has only five components: a platform, a spring, a hold-down bar, a hammer, and a catch. Each of these components is useless by itself, but working together, the components form an effective system.[15]  Behe identifies some systems that display this kind of complexity: the cilium, bacterial flagellum, and blood clotting cascades.[16] The human eye is also often cited as an example of irreducible complexity. The concept of irreducible complexity is not universally accepted. Darwinists have launched severe counterattacks on it as well as on the entire field of Intelligent Design, of which it is a part. This is unfortunate. Science advances when scientists challenge existing dogma. The sharpness of Darwinists’ attacks on Intelligent Design reminds one of the Roman Catholic Church’s attacks on Galileo in the 17th century (it has now admitted that Galileo was right).

Miracles

Since David Hume made his famous argument in the Enlightenment, naturalists have been confident that miracles are so unlikely that ANY alternative explanation is more credible than an account of a miracle. Hume defined a miracle as a violation of a natural law, and argued that our uniform experience is that natural laws are never violated. Accordingly, no account of a miracle can be credible. But C.S. Lewis disagrees. “I use the word Miracle to mean an interference with Nature by supernatural power.”[17] Even if we assume that natural laws cannot be violated, this broader definition allows for miracles to occur. A simple example should suffice. The law of gravity predicts that, if I drop a coin, it will fall to the ground. I drop a coin and it lands in my outstretched hand. Did the coin violate the law of gravity? No, I simply intervened in the process. God, if he exists, can certainly intervene in the process of natural laws, which then absorb and continue with the intervention. For example, when Jesus turned the water into wine, that was a divine intervention. But if people then drank too much of it, they would have gotten drunk, as the laws of nature would predict.

There is good reason to believe that miracles can and still do occur. New Testament scholar Craig Keener has written a two-volume scholarly work on miracles and a one volume follow-on book for the general public. Both works are carefully documented. This does not mean that all reports represent real examples of divine intervention – readers should come to their own conclusions. Perhaps the most convincing accounts are those of miraculous healings that contain the testimony of medical records before the healing and after. Some of these healings might have been spontaneous (cancer remission) or the healing of psychosomatic illnesses in response to prayer. But some are simply hard to explain.

One example is the story of Brielle Bratun, who was born with abnormally short arms. In church, her mother prayed, and Brielle’s arms grew. This case is medically documented.[18] Another case is that of Jeremiah Wiederhold. While in his mother’s womb in the third trimester, an ultrasound revealed a tumor in his heart, which would likely cause mental problems and multiple seizures daily. His parents prayed fervently. When Jeremiah was born, the doctors found no tumor, even though the ultrasound clearly showed it had existed. This case, too, is medically documented.[19] Dalia Knox was injured in a car accident and was confined to a wheelchair for more than 22 years. Her healing in a revival service was captured on video.[20] Church leaders and members vouch for her paralysis and healing.[21]

Purpose

The discussion so far does not cover all criticisms of scientific naturalism. Many could be added, such as the nature of human consciousness, morality, rationality, and the Ontological Argument. Nor has direct evidence of God and the supernatural been discussed, except for miracles. This evidence includes spiritual experiences, near death experiences,[22] demonic possession, and parapsychological phenomena, many of which have been scientifically investigated and documented. But one final, more personal critique of naturalism seems appropriate here: it assumes that there is no purpose in the universe. If the universe has no purpose, life is meaningless and absurd. Our lives will end at death, and even the universe will eventually end. It is hard to understand how anyone can find this attractive.

Defense of Christianity

The defense of Christianity has already been implied in the critique of scientific naturalism, as theism in general, and Christianity in particular, is the only reasonable alternative to it.[23] Christianity has no difficulty with the objections to naturalism raised in the critique. At the core of Christianity is the claim that God and the supernatural exist, and that God is active in the affairs of the world. This God is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and personal and can easily have created the universe. Likewise, Christianity predicts that the universe would be fine-tuned to permit life, as the creation of life, and of human beings in particular, would be at the core of God’s purpose. God would not have chosen to make a universe that could not support life.[24] Similarly, the God of Christianity would have no difficulty creating life on earth, by whatever process he chose, without being constrained by random processes. Similarly, Christianity easily and directly explains the design of living creatures. God could, of course, have used mutations and natural selection to develop life, especially to ensure that all creatures fit together well in the environment. But God would not be constrained by Darwinism’s limited processes. Regarding miracles, Christianity records them in the Bible and predicts that miracles can occur if God chooses to do them.[25]

Finally, with Christianity, life has meaning, because a benevolent God has created the universe with a purpose. Our purpose as human beings is to know, love, and serve God and love our neighbor as ourselves. If Christianity is true, believers survive physical death and enjoy eternal life. Could anything be more meaningful?

Bibliography

Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box : the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press, 1996.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith : Christian Truth and Apologetics. Third edition. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2008.

Dawkins, Richard. Outgrowing God : a Beginner’s Guide. First U.S edition. New York: Random House, 2019.

Flew, Antony, and Roy Abraham. Varghese. There Is a God : How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. 1st ed. New York: HarperOne, 2007.

Habermas, Gary R., and James Porter Moreland. Immortality: the Other Side of Death. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1992.

Keener, Craig S. Miracles Today : the Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2021.

Lennox, John C. Cosmic Chemistry: Do God and Science Mix? London: Lion Hudson, 2021

Lewis, C. S. (Clive Staples). Miracles : a Preliminary Study. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996.

Meyer, Stephen C. Return of the God Hypothesis : Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe. First edition. New York, NY: HarperOne, an imprint of HaperCollinsPublishers, 2021.

Papineau, David. “Naturalism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Shermer, Michael (2017) “Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism”, Theology and Science, 15:3, 220-230

Ward, Keith, Why There Almost Certainly Is a God : Doubting Dawkins. 1st ed. Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2008.

[1] David Papineau, “Naturalism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

[2] Michael Shermer (2017) “Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism”, Theology and Science, 15:3, 220-230

[3] Dawkins, Richard. Outgrowing God : a Beginner’s Guide. First U.S edition. New York: Random House, 2019.

[4] Keith Ward, Why There Almost Certainly Is a God : Doubting Dawkins. 1st ed. Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2008.

[5] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith : Christian Truth and Apologetics. Third edition. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2008. p. 111 ff.

[6] Craig, ibid. 152

[7] Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? Mariner Books, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008, e-book. Note, this book is catalogued in the U.S. as Cosmic Jackpot.

[8] John C. Lennox, Cosmic Chemistry: Do God and Science Mix? London: Lion Hudson, 2021 p. 149

[9] Lennox, ibid. p. 149

[10] Craig, ibid. p. 150

[11] Meyer, Stephen C. Return of the God Hypothesis : Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe. First edition. New York, NY: HarperOne, an imprint of HaperCollinsPublishers, 2021 p. 175

[12] Antony Flew and Roy Abraham. Varghese. There Is a God : How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. 1st ed. New York: HarperOne, 2007.

[13] Dawkins, ibid.

[14] Meyer, ibid.

[15] Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box : the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press, 1996.

[16] Behe, ibid.

[17]  C.S. Lewis, Miracles: a Preliminary Study. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996. p. 5.

[18] Keener, Craig S. Miracles Today : the Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2021. P. 46

[19] Keener, ibid. p. 41

[20] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNg7GWnXV_c&t=580s Accessed on Sep. 9, 2023, 2:30 p.m. (CET)

[21] Keener, ibid. pp. 51-54

[22]   Habermas, Gary R., and James Porter Moreland. Immortality: the Other Side of Death. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1992.

[23] A discussion of why Christianity is superior to other theistic worldviews, such as Zoroastrianism and Islam, would focus on the Resurrection of Jesus, but that is outside the scope of this paper.

[24] Craig, ibid.

[25] Lewis, ibid.

« Older posts

© 2025 Between God and Mammon

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑