Tackling the Atonement

Posted on 01/19/2015 by Paul Pavao

I tried twice to day to write this post, and I deleted what I had both times. Then I found an email from a couple days ago that was sent to me by a regular reader and commenter, and I am going to answer it publicly.

I can’t share the email. It was sent privately for a reason, I assume, but the questions asked were perfect. I hate to write a long, private response that would interest those that read and commented on my post on penal substitution.

Please note: By “tackling” the atonement, I mean that I am giving it a whirl. Except for my staunch opposition to the paid penalty theory, which I defined in a previous post, I am trying to work my way through this subject. I appreciate all the challenges, which is why I posted it here.

In the first post I was mainly obecting to one narrow–though extremely popular–view of the atonement. That wasn’t too hard. It’s easier to prove something false than to prove something true.

For example, the writer of that email said, “We cannot willfully refuse the work of God in our lives and be saved.” That very thought disallows penal substitution. If Jesus “paid the penalty” then there should be no penalty for disobeience in those who believe Jesus died for their sins. That is exactly what a lot, perhaps most, evangelicals believe.

If we are going to address the questions from the email, we need to have a better foundation than the penal substitution view. Let me lay that foundation by addressing the first question I was asked.

To whom was the price paid?

If I run in front of a bus to save a child, but I’m hit by the bus, then I sacrificed myself. I paid a price in suffering or maybe death to save the child. But did I pay the price TO someone? Or, take into account a soldier in Afghanistan. He pays a terrible price in the name of defending our country, but to whom is he paying it? He’s not paying it to anyone.

In Jesus’ case, we have something different. Jesus did not just pay a price of pain in order to sacrifice himself for us. He also purchased us, redeemed us, and ransomed us. All three are good Scriptural terms (e.g., Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 1:18; 1 Tim. 2:6). The result of that purchase, in Scripture, is that we are freed from the law of sin and death, we are freed from death itself, and we are freed from the dominion of the devil.

Redeem, purchase, and ransom are slave words. We were in bondage, and redeeming or purchasing us requires a price paid to someone. That someone, of course, is whoever is currently holding us in bondage.

I am going to assume that it’s a horrifying thought to you, like it is to me, that Jesus paid a price to the devil, or to death or sin. I think, however, I can get us past this horror when we consider what actually happened.

Man, by disobedience, sold himself to sin and death. We became slaves to sin.

As by one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, so death passed to all men because all sinned. (Rom. 5:12)

I am carnal, sold under sin. (Rom. 7:14)

And you … who were dead in your trespasses and sins. (Eph. 2:1)

… who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. (Heb. 2:15)

You get the idea. We were slaves. Slaves, if they are to be free, need to be purchased, redeemed, or ransomed.

Jesus, however, being the eternal Lord of Glory had a better way to purchase us than paying a price to our slaveholder, the devil. Jesus became man. He became one of us. He entered into human bondage, though he refused to be bound.

I find it interesting that Philippians 2:7 says Jesus took upon himself “the form of a servant.” Jesus came as a free man, not as a servant. However, all of us, all of mankind, were enslaved, and just by becoming man, he took on the form of a servant.

Jesus then had a task in front of him. Just as Adam led us into slavery through sin, Jesus had to break our slavery through obedience. His triumph, his deliverance, began the moment he put on human flesh.

In fact, perhaps it began before.

The fall in the garden began not with the disobedience of Adam, but with the disobedience of the woman, Eve, who was at that time still a virgin. The redemption of mankind began with the obedience of Mary, also a virgin. Her obedience and faith in the promise of God was directly counter to Eve’s disobedience and lack of faith.

Jesus faced a temptation, just like Adam did. Jesus, however, chose obedience to God over the temptation of Satan. Throughout his life, he overcame sin in all its forms, but he directly undid what Adam did when Satan threw the three temptations in the wilderness at him. Adam and Eve gave in to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life. Jesus obeyed God when tempted with the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life (1 Jn. 2:16).

So first, Jesus began the atonement by undoing what Adam did, obeying where Adam disobeyed. That is one reason he had to die on a tree. Just as Adam sinned through a tree, so Jesus had to obey through a tree.

Throughout his life, he was overthrowing the power of sin. Man was subject to sin, but Jesus was breaking its power.

God was in the King, reconciling the world to himself … for he has made him sin for us, who knew no sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. 5:19)

Overcoming Death

Sin was not the only tyrant over man, however. There was also death, and there was also the devil. To overthrow those, he would have to enter into their bondage.

Inasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also partook of the same so that through death he might destroy the one who had the power of death, that is, the devil. (Heb. 2:14)

Jesus went into the realm of the dead, to face not only death but the principalities and powers who ruled over death.

Having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a display of them openly, triumphing over them in it. (Col. 2:15)

1 Corinthians 2:8 tells us that if the princes of this world had known the hidden wisdom of God, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. They did not know, however. They thought that in the depths of Hades they would be able to hold on to their captive, the Son who came willingly to die on our behalf. They thought they had triumphed, when in fact he was about to vanquish them and triumph himself.

Jesus gave them fair warning. He said that no one can rob a strong man’s house unless he first binds the strong man (Matt. 12:29). He said it in the context of what he was doing, casting out demons. He was already setting man free, even before he died and entered the realm of death. He was casting out demons, delivering the human race, and so the devil was happy to put him to death and get him into his clutches, for Hebrews 2:14 tells us that the devil had the power of death.

What they did not expect, nor foresee, was Jesus turning the tables on them. He not only came out of Hades himself, completely overthrowing the devil and his power of death, but he “led captivity captive.” His overthrow of death was so potent and so thorough that Matthew tells us that graves opened up and saints walked in holy city when he rose (Matt. 27:52-53).

Thus, Jesus ransomed us. Thus, he overthrew death. In this way, he triumphed over sin, brought forgiveness, and brought mankind into fellowship with God through his obedience.

I am by no means saying that by writing this I have covered the fullness of Jesus’ atonement. I’m not sure that is even possible.

Almost 2,000 years ago, Christians emphasized Jesus conquering sin, death, and the devil as the foundation of the atonement. So let’s let you see the things the early Christians taught, and in the next post, we will address the rest of the questions that were put to me.

Early Christian Quotes on the Atonement

Letter of Barnabas, AD 80-130

If the Lord endured to suffer for our soul, he being Lord of all the world … understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men … that he might abolish death and reveal the resurrection from the dead, endured in order that he might fulfil the promise made to the fathers. By preparing a new people for himself, he wanted to show—while he dwelt on earth—that he, when he has raised mankind, will also judge them. (ch. 5)

Justin, c. AD 150

He became man by the virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same way in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived by the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced the good news to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Highest would overshadow her. Therefore, also, that which was begotten by her is the Son of God. … By her has he been born … by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him, but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe in him. (Dialogue with Trypho 100)

Irenaeus, c. AD 185

In the beginning [the devil] enticed man to transgress his Maker’s law and got him under his power, yet his power consists of transgression and apostasy. With these he bound man. So again it was necessary that through man himself he should, when conquered, be bound with the same chains with which he had bound man, in order that man, being set free, might return to the Lord and leave to him those chains by which he himself had been fettered, which is sin. For when Satan is bound, man is set free … Afterward, the Word bound him securely as a fugitive from himself and made spoil of his goods, which were those men whom he held in bondage and whom he unjustly used for his own purposes. (Against Heresies V:21:2-3)

Clement of Alexandria, c. AD 190

Man, that had been free by reason of simplicity, was found fettered to sins. The Lord then wished to release him from his bonds and, clothing himself with flesh—O divine mystery!—vanquished the serpent and enslaved the tyrant death. Most marvelous of all, man that had been deceived by pleasure and bound fast by corruption had his hands unloosed and was set free. O mystic wonder! (Exhortation to the Heathen 11)

Posted in Modern Doctrines | Tagged , | 3 Comments

James 1:5-7 Revisited: Nothing Doubting

Posted on 01/16/2015 by Paul Pavao

We talked once about James 1:5-7 and how frightening it is that our prayers might not be answered because of a little doubt. What we determined was that the issue was not a little doubt that our prayers might be answered, but the issue is those who have not given themselves wholly over to God. Those doubters are double-souled because they can’t decide whether to follow God or not.

Here’s a confirmation of that idea that is over 1,800 years old. It’s from an unlikely source, The Shepherd of Hermas, which is known as a very harsh and demanding early Christian work. The passage that follows, however, seems remarkably kind and gives us a look at the merciful side of our Lord.

It also agrees with our conclusion in the previous post!

Put away doubting from you, and do not hesitate to ask of the Lord, saying to yourself, “How can I ask of the Lord and receive from him, since I have sinned so much against him?” Do not reason with yourself in this way, but turn to the Lord with all your heart and ask of him without doubting, and you will know the multitude of his tender mercies; that he will never leave you, but fulfill the request of your soul. He is not like men, who remember evils done against them. He does not remember evils and has compassion on his own creation. Cleanse, therefore, your heart from all the vanities of the world and from the words already mentioned and ask of the Lord and you will receive all. In none of your requests will you be denied, which you make to the Lord without doubting. But if you doubt in your heart, you will receive none of you requests, for those who doubt are double-souled and obtain not one of their requests. Those who are perfect in faith ask everything, trusting in the Lord, and they obtain because they ask nothing doubting, not being double-souled. …
   If at any time, after you have asked of the Lord, you are slower in obtaining your request, do not doubt because you have not soon obtained the request of your soul. Invariably, it is because of some temptation or some sin of which you are ignorant that you are slower in obtaining your request. Therefore do not cease to make the request of your soul, and you will obtain it. If you grow weary and waver in your request, blame yourself, and not him who did not give it to you. (Shepherd of Hermas. Commandment 9th. Ch. 1.)

Posted in Miscellaneous, prayer | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Staying on the Subject: Penal Substitution

Posted on 01/14/2015 by Paul Pavao

If you read this blog much, you know how much I dislike the doctrine of penal substitution. Not only does it justify a Christian living as an enemy of Jesus, but it makes a monster out of God.

Proving penal substitution false is easy if it’s properly defined.

Penal substitution means that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. Sin requires death, so Jesus died in our place. Therefore, all sins are now paid for.

If you pay attention, you will see that they are not really forgiven. The penalty has been paid. If a murderer is put to death for his murder, he is not forgiven. Due justice has been had.

Thus, penal substitution removes all mercy from God. There is no mercy involved. Instead, there is the fulfillment of justice.

We know that this cannot have happened, though, because there is plenty of reference to both Christians and non-Christians having to face penalties for their sins. 2 Corinthians 5:10 tells us that we will all stand before the judgment seat of the King, and we will receive the deeds done in the body, whether good or bad. Whatever punishment you think we might receive for those bad deeds, they are a penalty. If Jesus had really paid the penalty for those bad deeds, they should not come up. Justice has been done, the evil deed should be off the books.

Some take the idea of penal substitution so far as to say that the unrighteous are punished not because of their sin, which has been paid for, but because they do not believe in Jesus. The Bible directly contradicts this, mentioning sexual immorality, uncleanness, and greed, then saying, “Because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience” (Eph. 5:6).

Galatians 6:7-9

This passage is critically important concerning all the things evangelicals say about faith and works. The problem lies in the fact that verse 9 is almost never included with verses 6-8.

Do not be deceived. God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows, that will he reap. He who sows to the flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but he who sows to the Spirit will reap everlasting life from the Spirit. Let us not grow tired in doing good, for in due season we will reap if we do not lose heart.

I highlighted a couple important phrases for us. We are warned not to be deceived about this. There are several passages important to the evangelical view of faith and works that are preceded this way (e.g., Eph. 5:6; 1 Jn. 3:7).

Second, notice the word “reap.” What possible context could reap have here?

I argue that it is obvious to the unbiased reader that Paul is equating sowing to the Spirit with not growing weary in doing good, and that what is to be reaped is eternal life. Thus, if you want to reap eternal life, you need to continue to do good without getting tired.

This is further justified by Paul’s statement in Romans 2:7 that God will reward eternal life to those who “patiently continue to do good.”

In this post, we are not talking about faith and works, however, but penal substitution. Clearly, if we need to do good without growing tired in order to reap eternal life, and if we are going to reap corruption for sowing to the flesh, then all our sins have not been paid for. We are reaping a penalty for sowing to the flesh, which is stated again in Romans 8:12-13.

Paul is very consistent about contrasting eternal life for spiritual living versus corruption or death for carnal living. There are those who interpret this death and corruption as being mere physical death. I consider this grossly inaccurate, but it’s irrelevant to penal substitution. No matter what penalty is meant by “death” and “corruption,” there is a penalty, which means the penalty has not been paid.

Jesus Paid

A quick searh for the phrase “Jesus paid” will show us that it occurs in the Bible exactly zero times. Those two words are a catch phrase among the evangelicals, but the the only purchase that the Bible itself ever hints at is Jesus’ purchase of us (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 1 Pet. 1:18-19). The response Paul suggests when he mentions this purchase is far different than what evangelicals suggest when they mention Jesus paying a penalty.

Paul says, “Therefore, glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:21).

Trying to Justify Penal Substitution

I have asked for verses on penal substitution, and since there are none, usually none are provided.

Today, someone provided a whole list of verses supposedly supporting penal substitution. I’m just going to show you one of them.

In [Jesus] we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins. (Eph. 1:7)

The list had several other verses, most of them even further from addressing penal substitution than this one is, which is my point. In what way does this verse suggest that Jesus suffered a penalty equal to that demanded by God for every sin ever committed, past, present, or future, which is what penal substitution teaches?

It doesn’t. It says that our redemption was accomplished through Jesus’ blood, which includes the forgiveness (not the satisfied justice) of sins.

Jesus’ blood was indeed shed for our sins. The Bible says that over and over again, and Ephesians 1:7 is just one example. We celebrate the fact that Jesus’ blood is “the blood of the New Covenant” whenever we gather in his name and eat the Supper in his name.

To transform that great truth into the troubling idea that God does not—or worse, cannot—forgive sins without demanding justice is an incredible insult to God, is it not? Am I taking it too far to say such a thing?

The rest of the verses that were given to me were the same, saying nothing at all on the subject of penal substitution. Instead, each verse taught only that Jesus’ blood had everything to do with our salvation.

Jesus’ blood does have everything to do with out salvation. It is the blood of the New Covenant. But let’s not transform that truth into the falsehood of penal substitution, nor let anyone else make that transformation.

I’m being treated for lymphoma, and I just received my third round of chemotherapy. I was released from the hospital yesterday to “stew” for a couple weeks. The chemo is still kicking around, getting stronger in my body. Please forgive any poor wording or writing today, as I am slightly “muddled.” I think the point I am making is easy enough to understand that I am going to leave the post like this after one edit to correct spelling.

God bless you, and may all of you who have believed the Gospel that Jesus is Lord honor and glorify him with your lives, knowing what a great price he paid to purchase you and make you his own.

Posted in Evangelicals, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , | 23 Comments

Isaiah 22:11-14

Posted on 01/13/2015 by Paul Pavao

Don’t make the mistake of choosing your own way to worship God.

Isaiah 22:11-14:

You also made a reservoir for yourself between the two walls of the inner old pool. But you did not look to Him who made it from the beginning, nor did you perceive Him who created it. In that day the Lord of hosts called for weeping and mourning, for baldness and for girding with sackcloth. But instead, they celebrated in joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, so as to eat and drink wine, saying, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” These things are revealed in the ears of the Lord of hosts, for this sin shall not be forgiven you until you die. (OSB)

I've been reading the Orthodox Study Bible, at least when I read the Old Testament, because it uses the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation that was the Bible of the early church. In this case, it is very similar to our Masoretic text, but that is not always true, especially in Jeremiah, where seven entire chapters are different.

Anyway, I think the message of this text is plain. We have ideas on how to worship God. The rebuilding of Jerusalem always represents the building of the church of God, which has to be rebuilt here and there in history. Even my Catholic and Orthodox readers may agree with that, for surely the church needs revival and repentance often.

When we rebuild, though, we have to look to him who created it from the beginning. We cannot do our own thing. When God is calling for weeping, it is not the time to sing, just as when he is calling for singing, it is not the time to weep.

It is not enough to hold the Scriptures and regard yourself, or even your church, as their skilled interpreter. We must know Jesus, and the church must know Jesus.

[Jesus speaking.] “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have life, but these are they which testify of me, and you refuse to come to me so that you may have life. (Jn. 5:40)

I have written these things to y’all concerning those who are trying to seduce you, but the Anointing which y’all have received from him remains in you, and y’all don’t need anyone to teach you. As the Anointing teaches y’all about everything, and is true and not a lie, just as it has taught y’all, you will remain in him.(1 Jn. 2:26-27)

Sorry for how that sounds with plural yous. Every “you” in that passage is plural, and the plural yous are important. Too many people think that last passage is talking about individuals, and they regard themselves too highly, thinking they know something and not trusting what God reveals to the church, which is the pillar and the support of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), something no individual can be.

In the church, though, we can hear God. We can look to the Creator when we rebuild, and by the Anointing we can rebuild what is true and not a lie. We can know, together, whether to fast or sing.

Let us not be deceived into thinking it does not matter, and let us be diligent followers of the One who is the living and eternal Word of God, lest we, too, be found sinning a sin which shall not be forgiven until we die.

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Romans 5:17-18: The Gift of Righteousness

Posted on 01/11/2015 by Paul Pavao

I have been having a great discussion about the definition of “grace” in the Bible. In the midst of it I ran across Romans 5:17-18 and was really touched by it.

I am pretty sure I have read those two verses at least 50 times.

I’m sure you know how those things are. You can read a Scripture all your life, and then one day it suddenly comes alive. The Scriptures are indeed an infinite treasure.

The passage says:

For if by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; so much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ. So then as through one trespass, all men were condemned; even so through one act of righteousness, all men were justified to life. (WEB)

We all know about Romans 3. We all blame it on the fall. Sin and death work in us, passed on from Adam, who chose the lust of the flesh over the fellowship of God. We all are quick to claim “I’m just human” when we make a mistake or even when we rebel and sin.

But “even so” through one act of righteousness we can be made righteous. Just as the one act of unrighteousness of Adam cursed the sons of Adam, so if we follow in the steps of the last Adam, we can die to Adam and be part of the new man, the little Christ, the Christian, a younger brother of the Firstborn, our Lord Jesus.

If that is so, then just as we used to be human, inheriting the sin and death of Adam, we can be children of God, and what will work in us is righteousness toward life. As Paul put it, “The law of the Spirit of life in King Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2).

It’s over folks. Follow Jesus into his death, rise again in him, and you can live by his life and growing righteousness. You can quit saying you’re just human, but you can say righteousness is working in you because of the unbelievable love that would have God not only calling us his children, but making us his children in the growing righteousness of his Son and our King, Jesus.

Posted in Holiness, Modern Doctrines, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 14 Comments

Misunderstanding Paul

Posted on 01/09/2015 by Paul Pavao

I wrote a post on mortal and venial sins two days ago. I got a great comment from “Jody,” which included a suggestion that “this may explain why some people accused Paul of preaching an ‘anything goes’ type message.”

I think there’s a better explanation.

I think it is fair to say that almost across the board evangelicals, as I believe most of my readers are, equate salvation/justification with “going to heaven.” That being the case, it follows naturally from much of what Paul says in the first few chapters of Romans that “heaven is a free gift.” If heaven is a gift that is “apart from works,” then Paul did preach an “anything goes” type message.

We can argue that Paul’s message wasn’t an “anything goes” message because he strongly promoted righteousness (e.g. Rom. 6:13), but if heaven is a free gift, apart from works, then righteousness is optional. Anything really does go.

The problem is, evangelicals are wrong. Salvation/justification is not equivalent to going to heaven. That is why Paul can say we are justified apart from works (Rom. 3:28), yet go on to tell us that inheriting the kingdom of God requires avoiding sin (e.g., Eph. 5:5). That is also why Paul can say we are justified apart from works and James can say we are not justified apart from works (Jam. 2:24). That is why Paul can say we are justified apart from works, and Jesus can say only those who feed the hungry will inherit the kingdom (Matt. 25:31-46).

The Jews in Rome in Paul’s day, the ones who would have accused him of an “anything goes” gospel (Rom. 3:8), were not focused on “going to heaven” like evangelicals are. They already had an idea of justification as being a good citizen of God’s nation, Israel, in this life. That good standing required doing something. For most first-century Jews it was tied up in four things: circumcision, the Sabbath and feasts, sacricifes, and kosher foods.

Paul was telling Gentiles they needed to do none of these things. All they needed to do was believe, repent, and be baptized, and boom, they were in; they were good members of the kingdom of God here on earth without being circumcised or changing what they eat! Horrifying!

None of that, however, was about “going to heaven.” It was about right standing with God, right here, right now, in God’s kingdom on earth.

That’s why everything Paul says in the first few chapters of Romans is in the past tense. We were justified apart from those works of the Law of Moses. That’s done. We’re in. We’re born again, and we’re members of the kingdom of God based purely on believing the Gospel proclamation of a new King, the Lord Jesus. No works, just faith.

Paul only speaks in the future tense a couple times in the first part of Romans. In Romans 2:5-8 he mentions the future judgment, and works are right at the forefront. In fact, he says God is going to give eternal life to those who “patiently continue to do good.”

The second time he speaks in the future tense the “works” are not as easy to see. In Romans 5:9-10, Paul writes:

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Here both things are in view. We are already justified and reconciled. This happened by Jesus’ blood and Jesus’ death. However, there is still a judgment coming, a judgment according to works, and the salvation from wrath needed at that judgment is provided not by his death, but by his life.

Paul explains in the next chapter that we died to sin in baptism and rose again to newness of life in King Jesus. Just as Paul did not live by his own life anymore (Gal. 2:20), so we put off the old man and put on the King to live a life of righteousness in him.

In this way, Jesus saves us by his life. Our good works are done by the power of his life—his Spirit—in us.

Most evangelicals are familiar with Galatians 6:7-8, where Paul tells us that there is punishment (death) for sowing to the flesh and reward (eternal life) for sowing to the Spirit. They are not so familiar with the next verse, where sowing to the Spirit is described as “do not grow weary in doing good.”

Evangelicals have taken the things Paul said about our “having been saved” and tried to apply it to our “shall be saved.” We shall be saved by his life. Sow to the Spirit, Paul says, and you shall, in the future, reap eternal life. To get his life, so that you can sow to the Spirit, you did (in the past) nothing but believe. He forgives, redeems, renews, and makes holy completely apart from works, based on faith.

That does not change the fact that there is a judgment waiting for all of us. It is impartial, and it is according to works, and Christians and non-Christians alike are warned of it (e.g., 2 Cor. 5:10-11; 1 Pet. 1:17).

Thus we see the real reason that Paul was accused by first-century Jews of teaching an “anything goes” gospel and why evangelicals misinterpret him as preaching an “anything goes” gospel. The Jews could not understand how Gentile Christians could gain good standing (justification/righteousness) in God’s kingdom without circumcision, kosher food, Sabbaths and feasts, and sacrifices. Evangelicals have no concept of the difference between justification and “going to heaven.”

Posted in Evangelicals, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , | 8 Comments

Mortal and Venial Sins?

Posted on 01/07/2015 by Paul Pavao

Roman Catholicism distinguishes between mortal sins, which lead to hell, and venial sins, which lead to “temporal punishment.” Is this distinction scriptural?

Note: This post is the result of thinking about a recent discussion with “Jon.” He mentioned once that his questions had inspired 2 blog posts in response. I’m pretty sure this will make 5 over the last 3 or 4 years.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us—that is, charity—necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation. (Par. 1856)

This means that a mortal sin is a sin so egregious that unless a person is restored to the church by this “sacrament of reconciliation,” they will have lost their salvation (“baptismal grace” and “justification”). A link at the end of Paragraph 1856 sent me to Paragraph 1446 for clarification:

Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification.

Venial sin, then, is:

One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent. (Par. 1862)

Venial sin only merits “temporal punishment” (par. 1863), which means discipline in this world or in Purgatory.

That is what the Roman Catholic Catechism says, but …

What Do the Scriptures Say?

Those of you who read this blog regularly are surely expecting me to disagree.

Nope.

In some sense, the distinction between mortal and venial sins is Scriptural. No matter how we interpret the passage, the apostle John mentions and distinguishes between “sin toward death” and “sin not toward death”:

If anyone sees his brother sin a sin not toward death, he will ask, and he will give him life for those that are not sinning toward death. There is a sin toward death. I am not saying he should pray for it. (1 Jn. 5:16)

Note: Sorry for the awkward wording. John is very careful with his verb tenses, so I made sure to differentiate between continuous and one-time action. Also, John refers to sin toward (προσ) death, not into (εισ) death. (I am not a Greek expert, but this is simple and noncontroversial.)

John does not explain the distinction between these two types of sin. He just gives the fearful advice not to bother praying for a sin toward death.

Here’s my interpretation: If someone commits a sin that is not likely to get them condemned at the eternal judgment, then it’s okay to just pray for them, both to be forgiven and to be strengthened in the faith. If they are committing sin that does lead to death—say, adultery—you have to do more than pray. You have to go to the brother or sister, you have to tell them what you saw/know, and you have to get them help.

Whether my interpretation is accurate or not, neither I nor the Roman Catholics are the first to distinguish between sins based on 1 John 5. Clement, teacher of seekers and new converts in Alexandria in the late 2nd century, references not only 1 John, but Psalm 32 (quoted in Romans 4:7) as well:

Mistake is a sin contrary to calculation; and voluntary sin is unrighteousness; and unrighteousness is voluntary wickedness. Sin, then, is on my part voluntary. … These differences in sin are alluded to by the Psalmist, when he calls those blessed whose iniquities God has blotted out, and whose sins are he has covered. Others he does not impute, and the rest he forgives. … John, too, clearly teaches the differences of sin, in his larger epistle … (Miscellanies. II:15)

Clement then goes on to quote 1 John 5:16.

Jesus himself distinguishes between sins, saying the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable in this age and the next (Matt. 12:31, which is possibly what 1 Jn. 5:16 is referring to as well).

Jesus also distinguishes between sins committed in ignorance and willful sins, saying, “And that servant, who knew his Lord’s will and did not prepare nor do his will, shall be beaten with many stripes, but the one that did not know and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few” (Luke 12:46-47, emphasis added).

That one word, “prepare,” brings us to the point of this post.

Preparing for Judgment Day

Jesus did not only complain that the servant, the one who will be beaten with many stripes, did not do his Lord’s will, he also complains that this servant did not prepare.

That’s an interesting thought, isn’t it? That there is preparation involved in doing our Lord’s will?

Clement, in the same chapter I quoted earlier says:

Sinning arises from being unable to determine what ought to be done, or being unable to do it. Doubtless, one falls into a ditch either through not knowing [it is there], or through inability to to leap across through feebleness of body. But application of training ourselves and subjection to the commandments is in our own power. If we will have nothing to do with this, instead abandoning ourselves wholly to lust, we shall sin—no, rather, wrong our own soul.

I would argue from the Scriptures that Clement is obviously correct. In fact, training ourselves for godliness is a Biblical command (1 Tim. 4:7-8). Peter tells us to consider the judgment “throughout the time of our sojourning here” (1 Pet. 1:17).

I have to pause here. I am continually amazed, in conversations with evangelicals, how they simply reject Peter’s teaching in 1 Peter 1:17. They tell me, “Well, if we’re going to be judged by works, then we would live in fear all the time.”

I never know what to say to this. Isn’t that what the verse says to do: “conduct ourselves throughout the time of our sojourning hear in fear”?

So far, I have a 100% fail rate in getting evangelicals to agree 1 Peter 1:17 is true. I’m at a loss to know what to say about that.

Fear vs. Fear

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. We all know that saying, which is in Scripture several times.

Peter applies that to considering, throughout our life, that we will be judged at the end of it. Paul applies that to disciplining his body and bringing it under subjection so that he is not disqualified (1 Cor. 9:27). In fact, he forgets everything in the past, and he presses on toward the finish line. Why? “If by any means I may attain to the resurrection of the dead,” which he immediately says he has not attained (Php. 3:10-11).

I am writing this post hoping to mitigate any hopelessness we might feel, believing that if the great apostle Paul had to discipline his body, reach forth, and press toward the finish line, then what hope is there for us?

Or, as Peter puts it, “If the righteous are scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and sinner?” (1 Pet. 4:18).

I want to relieve hopelessness, but thinking my audience is mostly evangelical, I do not want to relieve a non-existent fear, nor assure anyone who rejects the direct teaching of the apostles that they are somehow safe.

Mortal and Venial Sins and the Judgment

No one but the Roman Catholics accept the idea of mortal and venial sins.

Everyone accepts the idea of mortal and venial sins.

Posted in Modern Doctrines, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Two Acts of Unbelief You Do Not Want to Commit

Posted on 01/05/2015 by Paul Pavao

Paul jumped on the Corinthians for acting like humans (1 Cor. 3:3).

Why?

I have heard people say that Jesus was the second Adam. Jesus was not the second Adam. He was the last Adam. According to 1 Corinthians 15, he was the second “man,” but he was the last “Adam.”

The idea behind that Scripture is simple. In Jesus, Adam and his descendants died. For those of us who have left our old lives to live inside of Jesus, we are no longer the descendants of Adam. We put off the old man, and we put on the new man: the “second man.” We put on Jesus.

One act of unbelief we should never commit is regarding ourselves as humans, beset with human weaknesses.

Yes, we have to overcome the flesh. We have to put it to death by the power of the Spirit, but the very first step in overcoming the flesh is believing in is possible. Do not regard yourself as merely human. Put off the old man, put on the new man, and regard yourself as a child of God over whom sin does not have power.

A Clean Slate

The second act of unbelief I want to cover today is not believing that you have a clean slate … today, now.

When Peter asked how often to forgive someone who had wronged him and then repented, Jesus told him 70 x 7 times … per day.

If he is asking this of us, then surely he is offering that from himself.

The Scriptures say that his mercies are new every morning (Lam. 3:22). We see from the above that he will forgive us 490 times a day.

Two of your strongest weapons are regarding yourself like God regards you (cf. Rom. 6:11; 2 Pet. 1:3-4) and starting each day in confidence that our God is the merciful God he claims to be.

That’s not everything, but train with those weapons and you will find their power nothing short of amazing.

Posted in Holiness | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Second Most Important Question Ever

Posted on 01/01/2015 by Paul Pavao

I just began reading Christus Victor last night. In it, author Gustaf Aulén writes, “There are not different theories of the atonement in the Fathers, but only varient expressions of one and the same idea.”

I want to argue that whether he is correct or not, as long as the quote is applied to all the major doctrines of the fathers, is the most important question a Christian can answer other than “Is Jesus Lord?”

Irenaeus, around AD 185, makes this bold claim about Christians:

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith … the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. (Against Heresies I:X:1-2)

Irenaeus had reason to know. As a youth, he sat under the teaching of Polycarp, in Smyrna in Asia Minor. Polycarp had been appointed, it is said, by apostles. Irenaeus left Asia Minor as an adult for Gaul, to evangelize the barbarians, which he did successfully, living among them for the rest of his life. He kept close contact with both Rome (to whom Against Heresies was addressed), the closest apostolic church, and Asia, where his home lay.

If anyone had the ability to know the universality and content of the teaching of the late second century churches, it was Irenaeus.

He was not the only one to say such things. Just a few years later, Tertullian—of Carthage in North Africa—would base his entire argument against gnostic heretics on the unity of the apostolically founded churches in his legal brief, The Demurrer Against Heretics:

Is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can anyone, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition? (ch. 28)

Yes, Tertullian. Not just anyone can be that reckless, but in our day, everyone can.

Eighteen centuries later, churches that have been dividing and divided for centuries, whose worldliness—nay, whose defense of worldliness—would have astounded you and aroused the ire of your pen at least as much as the gnostic heretics you combatted, would freely and recklessly charge your churches, united and known everywhere for love, with error in handing on the tradition.

One Faith or Many?

Does it matter whether Irenaeus or Tertullian were right or wrong?

If the churches were not united, if there were different theories of the atonement—of salvation, of faith, of works, of the Trinity—then there is room for the development of doctrine. If one church of Irenaeus’ time believed one thing and was right, and another believed another thing and was wrong, then there is room for a church from the fourth century to believe one thing and be right, while a church from the second century believed another and was wrong.

If, then, it is possible for a church of the fourth century to hold a true doctrine, while a second century church held a false one, then it is possible for a church of the twenty-first century church to hold truth in contradiction to churches of the second.

But if Irenaeus and Tertullian are correct, and all the churches of the second century believed one thing on all these doctrines, and if the only reason that these churches believed one thing was because all their doctrines descended from one common source, then there is no room for a twenty-first century church to believe one thing and be right, while a second century church believed another and was wrong because all second century churches believed the same thing.

Development of Doctrine

We love the development of doctrine in church history.

We must. If there is no development of doctrine, but only corruption of doctrine, as Irenaeus and Tertullian argue, then the rug has been pulled out from under many, or even most, of the traditions of modern Christianity, no matter which branch we care to defend, because most of our traditions have no foundation in the united churches of the second century. This would mean that they have no foundation in the apostles, who passed on the fullness of the faith to those second century churches.

That is, if Irenaeus and Tertullian are right.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some [gnostics] do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. (Against Heresies III:I:1)

What is development of doctrine, if it be claimed that doctrine has developed to more accuracy, more fullness, or a better explanation, than improving upon the apostles, the very thing Irenaeus found “unlawful to assert”?

Conclusion

I wrote an entire book, Decoding Nicea, arguing that the doctrine of the Trinity did not develop, but was one united message from the time of the apostles until fourth century battles over the Trinity after the Council of Nicea (where the bishops confirmed and codified what all the fathers had said before them). By producing a deluge of quotes, so copius and so widespread among pre-Nicene authors as to confirm themselves as universal, I showed that there was not diverse, nor even advancing, opinions among the fathers, but harmony, many voices singing one song.

Now I have found Christus Victor, which argues that the multiple voices found among early fathers concerning the atonement are another myth, vapor vanishing in the gust of a closer look.

Perhaps it is time to consider that Professer Aulén is correct or, even more importantly, that Irenaeus and Tertullian were correct.

In fact, perhaps the greatest concern of all is that Jesus was talking about us when he said, “They worship me to no purpose, teaching teachings that are the sayings of men” (Mark 7:7).

Postscript

It is said that I sometimes kick the foundation out from under my readers or hearers, leaving nowhere for them to stand. I’m sure that is true, as I expect those who find that their foundation is crumbling under them to look, or at least ask, for a firmer place to stand.

My expectations, however, need not be met, only our Lord’s. So let me direct you to safer ground.

The foundation of God stands sure, having this insignia: “The Lord knows those who are his” and “Let those who name the name of the King depart from inquity.” (2 Tim. 2:19)

We have time to sort out these things, my friends, as long as we who call upon the name of Jesus will obey him.

Oh, that’s right. Many of you have no good idea of what it means to obey him, and you fear you will not obey him enough. Stick around. There is nothing we talk about more around here.

Oh, and happy New Year!

Posted in Evangelicals, Modern Doctrines, Protestants, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , , | 19 Comments

“Shepherds” Came to Jesus?

Posted on 12/30/2014 by Paul Pavao

I was doing other work, but I had to stop when I saw this article about the “shepherds” who came to see Jesus.

However, in a biblical times like today, preteen girls are usually shepherds. Sometimes they shepherd with an even younger brother sitting on the donkey with her. They lead the family’s flocks for 20 or more miles from home to find food.

The article goes on to give an excellent and poignant description of how a real set of sheep followed one modern shepherd girl, highlighting the difference between sheep and goats, and urging us to both follow like sheep and to recognize the voice of our heavenly shepherd.

It’s a great article, but it reminded me of Megan Rebeckah Cupit’s The Promise, which tells the story of another young shepherd girl whose trip back from the sheepfold was interrupted by news that would transform history.

“Hail, highly favored one. The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women.” … “You will bring forth a Son, and you will call his name Jesus.”

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , | Leave a comment