I Call it Heresy! Part Two: Redefining "Faith"

Recently, a school of thought has grown up within evangelicalism that insists that repentance and acceptance of the lordship of Christ is not necessary for salvation. All that is required is faith, defined as belief and acceptance. Repentance is a necessity for discipleship. This distinction between salvation and discipleship, however, is very difficult to sustain, as for instance, in the Great Commission, in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands his disciples to "go and make disciples." [Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998. 949-950]

Introduction

In my last post, I defined the concept of heresy in terms of that which denies the fundamentals of Christianity. Then, I went on to explore three of the fundamentals of Christianity, utilizing the teaching of John MacArthur from his book Truth Matters. Over the next three posts, Lord willing, I will explore how the new "school of thought" mentioned above contradicts each of these three fundamentals of Christianity: the doctrine of saving faith, the doctrine of sin, and the doctrine of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

The Biblical Definition of Faith

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." [Romans 1:16-17 NASB]

The Gospel- or "good news"- message of Christianity is, as the verse above instructs us, a revelation of the righteousness of God. This message proclaims the righteousness of God Himself and also how sinful people can become righteous in His sight. The Gospel is the power of God for salvation from the wrath of God (cf. Rom. 1:18), but it only grants salvation to those who believe- to those who have faith. It should be obvious, then, that a proper understanding of how God has defined "faith" in His Word is absolutely crucial for peoples' eternal destiny. The new "school of thought" mentioned at the beginning of this post defines faith as "belief and acceptance". This may sound like a fine definition of faith at first, until we understand what people holding to this new view are denying in light of Scriptural teaching.
->In discussing the biblical definition of faith, it is helpful to understand the teaching of the Reformers on this issue. The Protestant Reformation, in a very real sense, was primarily concerned with the role and definition of faith in an individual's life. In debating against false teachers, the Reformers had to carefully search all of the Scriptures in order to understand the fullness of the biblical teaching on faith and to be able to give clear, concise statements of how we should properly understand "faith". During the time of the Protestant Reformation, when people were challenging the traditional Roman Catholic religion that was based on rituals and were asserting that favor with God came through faith in Christ alone, "the Reformers delimited three essential elements of saving faith. [These elements of faith are]: notitia (knowledge of the data or content of the gospel), assensus (the intellectual acceptance or assent to the truth of the gospel's content), and fiducia (personal reliance on or trust in Christ and his gospel)" [R.C. Sproul, Getting the Gospel Right. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999. 167-169].
->The categories mentioned above are drawn out from Scriptures such as the following:

Now faith is the assurance [as in acceptance or assensus] of things hoped for, the conviction [as in trust or fiducia] of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval. By faith we understand [as in "knowledge" or notitia] that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. [Hebrews 11:1-3 NASB]

Faith As More Than Intellectual Assent

The new "school of thought" mentioned at the outset of this post primarily denies the fiducia aspect of saving faith. People that teach according to this "school of thought" make statements such as:

Saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel. It is confidence that Christ can remove guilt and give eternal life, not a personal commitment to Him. [Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation. Wheaton: Victor, 1989. 156, 119. Quoted in John MacArthur, The Gospel According to the Apostles. Nashville: Word, 2000. 27]

To "believe" unto salvation is to believe the facts of the gospel. "Trusting Jesus" means believing the "saving facts" about Him, and to believe those facts is to appropriate the gift of eternal life. Those who add any suggestion of commitment have departed from the New Testament idea of salvation. [Zane Hodges, Absolutely Free! Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989. 27, 37-40. Quoted in John MacArthur, The Gospel According to the Apostles. Nashville: Word, 2000. 28]

But notice that the way in which the men quoted above define faith would not preclude each and every demon in hell from automatically partaking in salvation. For if faith is only knowledge of "saving facts" and acceptance that those facts are true without any love for or trust in the Savior, then how could we avoid the conclusion that the fallen angels have all been saved? The devil certainly knows the Scripture as demonstrated in his temptation of Jesus (Luke 4:3-13). Furthermore, the demons were among the first to recognize Jesus' true nature as the Son of God and the Messiah (Mark 5:6-10). These evil spirits knew the facts about Jesus and accepted the truth of who He was, for they begged Him, knowing that He had power over them. But they were not saved, for they desired to depart from Jesus rather than follow Him, and their master, the devil, is still "prowling around like a roaring lion, looking for anyone he can devour" (I Pet. 5:8 HCSB).

Faith in What?

After attacking this fiducia, or "trust", aspect of saving faith, the new "school of thought" goes on to undermine the notitia, or "knowledge", aspect of saving faith. The biblical presentation of the Gospel is very clear in the assertion that there is a certain core of knowledge that is crucial to saving faith. As the Apostle Paul writes of the Gospel,

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, [I Corinthians 15:1-4 NASB]

In defining "faith" as only "acceptance" or "assurance", and in their attempt to grant this "assurance" to the greatest number of people possible, professors of the new "school of thought" present a sub-biblical view of the content of the Christian Good News message. As one leading proponent of this view has written,

[I]t is possible to believe savingly in Christ without understanding the reality of His resurrection. [Bob Wilkin, "Tough Questions About Saving Faith," The Grace Evangelical Society News (June 1990):1. Quoted in John MacArthur, The Gospel According to the Apostles. Nashville: Word, 2000. 46]

By this statement, Wilkin has denied one of the doctrines that the Apostle declared to be of "first importance"- one of the doctrines that Paul clearly proclaims as necessary for salvation in the passage quoted above.

Faith As More Than Momentary Assurance

Having defined "faith" as "acceptance" or "assurance" in certain "saving facts" (which facts have been shown to be rather dubious in light of the above quote by Bob Wilkin), the new "school of thought" being examined here must account for the reality that many people, having accepted certain facts about Jesus and having come to assurance of their salvation, later reject the Gospel message or lack assurance as to their salvation. So the question is, 'according to the new view do these people who now reject the Gospel or lack assurance then lose their salvation?' The answer of the new "school of thought" would be that these people do not lose their salvation. And many of us would agree that indeed, anyone coming to true faith in Christ cannot lose their salvation. So then the question becomes, 'according to the new view do these people who now reject the Gospel or lack assurance then prove that they never had true faith?' The answer of the new "school of thought" would be that we should not question the salvation of those who utterly lack assurance or who have even completely rejected the Gospel, for in their view, if a person has ever had an intellectual assent to facts about Jesus, then they are eternally secure.
->As Bob Wilkin, who was quoted above, has clearly stated,

There is no time requirement on saving faith, the moment of faith, the believer receives eternal life once and for all, whether he dies shortly thereafter, or whether he lives for 100 more years, even if a person believes only for a while, he still has eternal life. [Bob Wilkin, Confident in Christ, quoted by Dr. James White, Dr. James White vs Dr. Robert Wilkin, "The Regeneration and Perserverance Debate"]

In the debate quoted above, Bob Wilkin gives a snapshot of how he presents the Jesus to a non-believer, saying,

One of the things that I like to do when I’m talking to people is I will say, ‘Jesus said, -He who believes in Me has everlasting life- Do you believe in Jesus?’ Oftentimes in America, people say, ‘yes,’ right? So I say, ‘well, what do you have?’ Y’know, Jesus says, -He who believes in Me has everlasting life.’ [People say,] ‘I don’t know.’ So then I say, ‘well, this isn’t rocket science- you say you believe in Jesus, and Jesus says (John 6:47) -He who believes in Me has everlasting life.’

According to Bob Wilkin, if at any time the person to whom he was speaking were to say, ‘well, I believe in Jesus, so I have everlasting life,’ then they would undoubtedly possess eternal life, no matter if they were to profess similar belief in Buddha or if they were later to become an atheist. Other proponents of this view have stated this position very clearly. Charles Ryrie wrote,

A believer may utterly forsake Christ and come to the point of not believing. God has guaranteed that He will not disown those who thus abandon the faith. Those who have once believed are secure forever, even if they turn away. [Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation. Wheaton: Victor, 1989. 141, 143. Quoted in John MacArthur, The Gospel According to the Apostles. Nashville: Word, 2000. 27]

Likewise, Zane Hodges wrote,

It is possible to experience a moment of faith that guarantees heaven for eternity, then to turn away permanently and live a life that is utterly barren of any spiritual fruit. Genuine believers might even cease to name the name of Christ or confess Christianity.[Zane Hodges, Absolutely Free! Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989. 107, 111, 118-119. Quoted in John MacArthur, The Gospel According to the Apostles. Nashville: Word, 2000. 28]

But in direct contradiction to these statements, Jesus declared,

"If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." [Mark 8:34b-38 NASB emphasis added]

Also, the Apostle John clearly stated,

They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. [I John 2:19 NASB]

Notice that the fact that the ones spoken about in the verse above left the fellowship of the body of believers is taken as absolute proof that "they were not really of us". The view of faith as momentary assurance, which guarantees salvation even to those who eventually become atheists, does not agree with the biblical presentation of a persevering faith.

Vives Fide

The Protestant Reformers were used by God to proclaim the Gospel message that justification is by faith alone to a lifeless, ritualistic church. But we must understand that the Reformers consciously made the distinction between dead rituals and what they called vives fide- or "living faith". The doctrine of sola fide- or "faith alone" preached by the early Protestants- and taught in Scripture passages such as Romans 4:1-8 or Galatians 3:6-14- was not something at which the Roman Catholic Church could merely nod her head and go on her merry way, for faith is something that utterly transforms the life of the one in whom it resides. As a blind man who has just been given sight or a deaf man who has just been granted ears to hear cannot help but to change his lifestyle, so the man who has been given faith- who has formerly possessed a heart of unbelief, yet now trusts in Christ as his only Savior- will inevitably act in a manner fundamentally different than he ever imagined.
->For this reason the Reformer, Martin Luther, wrote,

True faith, of which we speak, cannot be manufactured by our own thoughts, for it is solely a work of God in us, without any assistance on our part. As Paul said to the Romans, it is God's gift and grace, obtained by one man, Christ. Therefore, faith is something very powerful, active, restless, effective, which at once renews a person and again regenerates him, and leads him altogether into a new manner and character of life, so that it is impossible not to do good without ceasing.
->For just as natural as it is for a tree to produce fruit, so natural is it for faith to produce good works. [Martin Luther, "Justification by Faith" in Classic Sermons on Faith and Doubt, ed. Warren W. Wiersbe. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1985. 78. Quoted in John MacArthur, The Gospel According to the Apostles. Nashville: Word, 2000. 236]

Conclusion

Finally, I would like to simply close with the following statement by the apologist James White:

I’m going to gladly accept the characterization that I believe that saving faith is more than mere intellectual assent because the Protestant Reformation has condemned as a heresy that perspective from the very beginning and I join with that. [Dr. James White vs Dr. Robert Wilkin, "The Regeneration and Perserverance Debate"]

I Call it Heresy! Part One: "Can you even call it that?"

On the definition of heresy.

Looking up the meaning of the word "heresy" in most English dictionaries, one is likely to find a definition such as the following:

Heresy: 1 a) a religious belief opposed to the orthodox doctrines of a church, esp., such a belief specifically denounced by the church b) the rejection of a belief that is a part of church dogma [from "Heresy," Webster's New World College Dictionary. Victoria Neufeldt, ed. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1997. 631.]

This definition of "heresy" is defined primarily in terms of church decisions and is far more applicable in a Roman Catholic setting, which would emphasize the authority of the church, than in a Protestant setting, which would emphasize that Scripture alone is the "sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience" (1689 London Baptist Confession, Chapter One: "Of the Holy Scriptures"). The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, however, contains an article on "heresy" that is far more helpful, reading as follows:

Heresy: A view or opinion not in accord with the prevalent standards. The Greek word hairesis, meaning originally a choice, then a self-chosen belief, is applied by the Fathers as early as the third century to a deviation from the fundamental Christian faith, which was punished by exclusion from the Church.

From this article, I would like to focus on the idea of "heresy" as "a deviation from the fundamental Christian faith". This idea naturally gives rise to the question of how we should define "the fundamental Christian faith". What truths of the Christian faith are so foundational to our beliefs that they cannot even be up for debate, so that any deviation from these truths is considered heresy?

Pastor John MacArthur of Grace Community Church has done an excellent job in helping to answer the above question in a chapter titled, "What Are the Fundamentals of Christianity?" found in his book, Truth Matters. In this chapter, MacArthur writes,

All who call themselves Christian should agree that there is a body of doctrine that is nonnegotiable. The articles of faith that make up this constitutional body of truth are the very essence of "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). These are the real fundamentals of the faith. They are so indispensible to true Christianity that we ought to break fellowship with any professing Christian who denies them.

MacArthur explores the fundamentals of Christianity under five chapter sub-headings, three of which I would like to call our attention to in this post. These sub-headings are titled "Everything Essential to Saving Faith is Fundamental", "Every Doctrine We Are Forbidden to Deny is Fundamental", and "The Fundamental Doctrines Are All Summed Up in the Person and Work of Christ".

Everything Essential to Saving Faith is Fundamental

From the Fall of Man into sin recorded in Genesis chapter 3, the Bible reveals God's work in restoring Man into a right relationship with Him. In fact, it may be rightly stated that the entire purpose of the Bible is to give sinful people the message of how they may be reconciled to God. This message of reconciliation is the Good News message of Christianity. This Good News- or Gospel- message is the message of faith, which grants eternal life. So, as John MacArthur explains,

A doctrine must be considered fundamental if eternal life depends on it. Scripture is full of statements that identify the terms of salvation and the marks of genuine faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). That verse makes faith itself essential to a right relationship with God.

Every Doctrine We Are Forbidden to Deny is Fundamental

This sub-heading should be so obvious that it would not need to be mentioned, but as we shall see later in this mini-series, some people all too often overlook the fact that Scripture forbids us to deny certain doctrines. MacArthur's teaching is helpful in this area as well. Focusing on certain aspects of the doctrine of sin that we are explicitly forbidden to deny, MacArthur writes,

The apostle John began his first epistle with a series of statements that establish key points of the doctrine of sin (hamartiology) as fundamental articles of faith. "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth." (I John 1:6). That condemns wanton antinomianism and makes some degree of doctrinal and moral enlightenment essential to true Christianity.

The Fundamental Doctrines Are All Summed Up in the Person and Work of Christ

Finally and, in a sense, most importantly, the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ truly sums up all fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Christianity by its very name is manifestly focused on Christ. It is Christ alone who establishes our reconciliation with God, as mentioned above. For this reason, we can confidently affirm with MacArthur that,

Christ Himself embodied or established every doctrine that is essential to genuine Christianity. Those who reject any of the cardinal doctrines of the faith worship a christ who is not the Christ of Scripture.
...
The fundamentals of the faith are so closely identified with Christ that the apostle John used the expression "the teaching of Christ" as a kind of shorthand for the set of doctrines he regarded as fundamental. To him, these doctrines represented the difference between true Christianity and false religion.
->This is why he wrote, "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son" (II John 9). Far from encouraging union with those who denied the fundamental truths of the faith, John forbade any form of spiritual fellowship with or encouragement of such false religion (vv. 10-11).

Why "I Call it Heresy"

As I mentioned in a previous post, in this mini-series I plan to make the case that a certain new theological system that is currently popular in some corners of the blogosphere is actually a heresy that is directly contrary to the Gospel call. I will use the word "heresy" because, as I hope to demonstrate, this "new theological system" is truly "a deviation from the fundamental Christian faith", departing from true Christianity through not holding to the three fundamentals mentioned above. This "new theological system" redefines faith in an unbiblical way, denies key teachings on the biblical doctrine of sin, and even denies the Lordship of Jesus Christ. I hope that this mini-series will aid my brothers and sisters in Christ through providing resources with which to give a sound biblical answer to this heresy and I hope that those who have not yet embraced true faith in the Lord Jesus, or have accepted some cheap counterfeit, will be challenged by the teachings of Christ and will repent and follow Him.

The Impact of Reformed Theology on Church Life -by Stan Reeves

[The following article was written by Stan Reeves, an elder at Grace Heritage Church, where my wife and I are members. I would like to preface this article by giving some brief information on why the topic of "The Impact of Reformed Theology on Church Life" is so important to me personally.
->As some of my readers know, this past July I had the unspeakable joy of marrying Abby, who is the love of my life. Upon our marriage, I moved to Auburn, Alabama, where she had been living and working as a nurse at East Alabama Medical Center, having recently graduated from Auburn University. During her time at Auburn up to the point of our marriage Abby had been a member of Lakeview Baptist Church. I myself had enjoyed great fellowship with brothers and sisters in Christ each time I had visited the Lakeview congregation with Abby, but I had also learned of a congregation called Grace Heritage Church through the Founders Ministries website, and had listened to some of the Bible teaching found in the audio files of the Grace Heritage website. Though I had no specific complaint against Lakeview, I felt eager to visit Grace Heritage, which was a smaller, Reformed Baptist congregation. Immediately upon visiting Grace Heritage Church, Abby and I realized that we needed to move our membership to the GHC congregation. Since the time that Abby and I understood that we were going to join GHC- rather than Abby remaining a member of Lakeview and me joining that congregation- we have struggled to articulate how we came to our decision. Specifically, why should we have chosen to join a congregation that is self-designated as "Reformed" rather than another Southern Baptist congregation in which there are so many positive aspects to their ministry, but they avoid fully accepting Reformed theology? The three paragraphs that you are about to read have helped my understanding as to how these questions can best be answered and I hope that they are a benefit to you as well.]

Reformed theology confesses that God is sovereign and God is central. The creation and the church are for God's glory, not ours. In life we see God's mind revealed in the handiwork of his creation. Therefore, we study his world as a way of learning about God and bring order to it as a way of bringing glory to him, which is our ultimate purpose. We see God's good hand of providence in all the ordinary events of life, as well as the joys and tribulations. Our highest joy is to see God glorified in all of life.

In salvation and in church life we confess our utter dependence on him. Therefore, we dare not make the church in our image but look to God to tell us what the church should be. We will not presume to second-guess God in the methods he has ordained to build up the church. Instead, we embrace with all our energy the means that he has appointed to build his church, confident that he will be pleased to bless those means and not our personal preferences. Therefore, our evangelism is not the frantic sort that is motivated by guilt or hindered by fear but the sort that joyfully speaks the whole gospel with confidence, knowing that God is most glorified when his truth is manifested and his power rather than our persuasiveness is magnified. Our preaching depends on the power of God's Word and the working of his Spirit, not on emotional manipulation. Therefore, we give ourselves to prayer that He will own his Word and work through us as we strive to be faithful to his revelation. We dare not worship according to our own imaginations or devices, because he has told us how we are to approach him and our worship is to reflect our submission to his will. We are careful not to be driven by the desire for entertainment or social stimulation; therefore, we are suspicious of programs, structures, and activities that can function even when God has departed.

This is a vision rather than an actuality. Regrettably, we don't always act consistently with our convictions. We also gratefully acknowledge that many of these concerns are shared by non-Reformed folk. However, we believe that Reformed theology most consistently promotes this vision in a coherent and powerful manner.

The Subject of All Theology -by John Hendryx

[The following article is from John Hendryx of the Reformation Theology blog. I am posting this article here because it is so perfectly centered on the person and work of Jesus Christ -the Gospel to which I have devoted my life- that the words below are as the beat of my own heart toward God.]

Jesus Christ is the focus and subject of all theology. He is not only the author and perfector of our faith and salvation (Heb 12:2), but is the the author and perfector of all things excellent, for in Him all things are consummated (Col 1:16-20). All theology is, therefore, Christology, for what we can, and do, know about God is summed up in the person of Jesus Christ. All light concerning God is refracted only through the Christ who has worked and revealed Himself through redemptive history. This means that all attempts to try to understand God redemptively in any sense that is different than Christ is futile, for apart from Jesus Christ, He is unknowable. While reason and creation may give us an idea of God and His greatness, only in the revelation of Christ can we come to know Him. While in Romans 1:18, 21 it says that the unregenerate "know" God as well, but the text makes clear that they only know Him as an enemy. Only through Christ do we know Him as a friend.

Calvin once said, "...it is obvious, that in seeking God, the most direct path and the fittest method is, not to attempt with presumptuous curiosity to pry into his essence, which is rather to be adored than minutely discussed, but to contemplate him in his works, by which he draws near, becomes familiar, and in a manner communicates himself to us."(Institutes Book 1, Chapter 5, section 9) In other words, we should only attempt to know God as He has revealed Himself to us. Other attempts are vain speculation.

So why study theology? Because theology is an interpretation of God as He revealed Himself, a revelation which was fulfilled in the gospel-event of Christ which took place in space-time history. The gospel is a narrative of the story of Jesus as God’s historical act to which all revelation pointed. It narrates the history of Jesus as the history of redemption that culminates in Christ's physical death and resurrection. The gospel defines the God who has revealed Himself in Christ Jesus, the eternal Son of God. Incarnate to redeem His covenant people, He was executed on a cross, and was raised to life: this is the Christian definition of God which was fulfilled in His decisive act. "All the wisdom of believers", said Calvin, "is comprehended in the cross of Christ."

So it is an extremely urgent task in our era of religious chaos, that we use the word “God” only as describing the event that culminated in the history of Jesus Christ, God made flesh for His glory and our redemption. When we speak of the benefits of truths such as the doctrines of grace, they should never be spoken of as divorced from the Benefactor. And when we speak of God's various perfections, we do not simply speak in abstractions, but of a historic person who walked among us. God's love, glory, wrath, holiness are all seen to perfectly unite in the person of Jesus.