The Teaching of the Reformation

In my last post, I looked at Luther's discovery and his desire to spread the message that the Bible was actually about God saving humans by His grace, not about humans earning God's favour through their own works. Now I'm going to look in more detail at Luther's key teaching, and the teaching of the Reformation as a whole.

Luther developed three key slogans:

BIBLE ALONE- as the sole source of teaching authority

FAITH ALONE- as the only way to be saved, not through works as well

CHRIST ALONE- as the head of the church, not the pope

Luther realised, as a pious priest, that he could never confess enough. He saw the utter sinfulness of humans, and our inability to be perfectly pure, despite our best efforts to do so. In studying the New Testament, he suddenly saw the Christ offered free forgiveness for those who would trust in Him. This both liberated Luther's sense of guilt of fears of hell, but placed a burden on him: to spread this message.

Initially, Luther acted against corruption within the church. He didn't really see that his complaint (that no extra grace could be bought or sold) attacked the whole system of church ceremony, which was designed to dispense grace. The medieval church had seven sacraments (which the Catholic church still have today), designed to impart grace in a definite, obvious activity. This is the reason the Eucharist became so important, as the sacrament which all could share on a regular basis as a church community. But it had become something almost magical, where the "host", the bread, was stored in an expensive vessel and venerated in front of the whole congregation. The idea had developed that the bread and wine, once blessed by the priest, actually turned into the body and blood of Jesus Christ (transubstantion) in a mystical re-offering of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Luther, as an early reformer, held a strong belief in the presence of Jesus Christ within communion. Other reformers like Zwingli stressed that the Lord's Supper was meant to be a memorial of Christ's death, and nothing more. All the reformers rejected the idea that the Mass was a sacrifice. This became one of the major contentions of the Reformation, because it stemmed from a deeper doctrinal issue. Reformers were teaching that men couldn't do anything to be saved, and Catholics were teaching in their use of sacraments that men obtain grace by offering God the Mass/devotions/penance.

There were certainly issues with the teachings of the Reformation. Some felt that the emphasis upon salvation by grace alone meant that the reformers were de-valuing the importance of holiness in Christian living, and loving your neighbour. Revolutionary reformers, such as the Anabaptists, stressed personal discipleship and sought to establish a church that was distinct from the state and uncontaminated by the world (the violence of Munster in 1534 showed the more extreme radicals in their worst light). But Calvin emphasised sanctification as well as justification. He taught that we are saved, and then the rest of our life is spent being renewed by the Holy Spirit and striving for holiness. Alistair McGrath points out that one of the major problems was that Catholics used the word 'justification' to mean both salvation and whole-life experience, whereas reformers used it in a narrower sense. Calvin himself wrote that "bad Christians" were the worst enemies of the gospel:

"Of what use is a dead faith without good works?"

Calvin here paraphrases the book of James, a book which Luther had problems in understanding. James' main point is that true faith shows itself in the lifestyle of the Christian. Can someone truly come to accept their sinfulness and trust in Jesus' death for them, without coming to hate their sin and striving to overcome it? Whilst we are not saved by what we do, if we truly believe, we will seek to change the way we live. This was part of Calvin's teaching, and is still part of Protestant thinking today.

Bible bashing

I typed 'Bible basher' into Google and the Urban Dictionary gave me these definitions:

A Bible Basher is someone who constantly goes around forcing the word of the bible on everyone else, and claims that everything BUT the Bible is evil.

A religious person who is obsessively you could say, and insanely into his or her religion. They tend to 'bash on' about their religion and try to feed it to you. No disrespect to their religious beliefs, but knowing a bible basher can sometimes get sticky. They tend to be very protective over their religion, and know nearly everything about it. They will argue the point, and during times of bashing, can become quite violent.

A bible basher is one who lives their life by the bible, and tries to force the bible upon all they meet.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bible+basher

Wow! I'm guessing all these people have had a pretty negative experience with Christians. Faced with this definition, who wants to be a 'Bible basher'?

Well in this post I want to try to explain why the Bible is so important to me (and therefore why so much of my blog is based on the Bible), and also try to explain how I have no intention of bludgeoning people in an insensitive and emotionally detached manner, but I do want to confront people with the truth that the Bible claims has relevance for their life as much as mine.

The Bible is a unique book. It's made up of many different types of literature, written by different people at different times in history. It makes astonishing claims about who we are, why we are here, who God is, and how we can know Him. Many people look at the world around and think 'There must be a God behind all this'. But it's only in the Bible that we find out exactly who this God is. I believe this because, having read the Bible over and over since my childhood, I have never found a book like it which holds together so well, considering it was written under so many different circumstances as I mentioned above.

I love reading. I studied English at university and read many books by the same author (Dickens and Eliot being my favourites). What has always interested me is the way that a writer's ideas change over time. Even when you find ten books written by the same author, they will not always be consistent in ideology and morality or politics. And yet, despite the fact that so many different individuals contributed to the Bible, there is a striking coherence and unity throughout the various books. The main idea is that God is real, He made everything and wants to know us. Over the centuries that the Bible texts cover, there is a recurring cycle of people turning away from God to 'do their own thing' and live life the way they want to. God is never happy with that. He keeps on calling people to follow Him and go his way. But man's disobedience has separated him from God, so God sent Jesus, His Son, to come into the world and die on the cross to be punished for the sins of the world. He raised Jesus to life and calls people everywhere to follow Him and believe that their sins can be forgiven through Jesus.

All the Bible books in some way contribute to this message. They could be establishing the fundamental disobedience of humanity, as seen in Genesis. They could be calling men back to follow God, as seen in the prophets such as Isaiah. They could be predicting the coming of Jesus, such as the prophet Micah. They could be telling the story of Jesus' life, like the gospel of Matthew. All of the books in the Bible provide a piece to the puzzle. Together, they give a wholistic picture of who God is and how we can know Him.

So really, you have to read the Bible through and through before you judge it. So many people have said to me that the Bible is not trustworthy, that it's full of contradictions. But many of these people have not read it thoroughly. Perhaps their knowledge is based on taking some words out of context. The Bible is not always easy to understand, but I have found that the more I study it, the more it makes sense. It really does fit with what I see around me: people suffering with broken lives, desperate for meaning, but unable to find that meaning in human relationships, money and status. I see a world that needs Jesus. I can testify to how He has changed my life, and the lives of many others too.

Ultimately, I follow the Bible because Jesus did. Jesus is the most impressive person that ever existed, to me. He had an astounding impact on history and on the lives of those who met Him. And He identified the scriptures as the indestructible and authoritative word of God. He upheld the Bible at every turn, as an authority about God (Mt 21:42, Mt 22:29), as true promises which will always be fulfilled (Mt 26:54), as never becoming void (Jn 10:35, Mt 5:18). He saw the Bible as coming from God, revealing the truth and being utterly reliable. His life was based on scripture, and His life was amazing. Therefore I decided to follow Jesus, and so I am trying to base my life on scripture too.

The writer of Hebrews suggests that the word of God is 'living and active', 'Sharper than any double-edged sword... it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart' (Heb 4:12). I have always found this to be true. Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 that scripture is 'God-breathed', and it certainly speaks with authority that seems to be more than human; divine. The Bible says many things which are difficult for us to accept -such as the existence of hell and the reality of God's judgement, which I have been blogging about recently- and I don't know why any human would make such terrifying stuff up! The Bible is full of genuine insight that makes sense with reality and does indeed judge the heart of anyone who reads it- again in a way that no human finds comfortable. Of course, humans physically wrote the Bible, but they were 'carried along by the Holy Spirit' (2 Peter 1:21), and it is God's words rather than the words of mere mortals.

The thing is, it's difficult to say that the Bible is only partially true and worship God. Surely you don't want to be friends with a liar? God has to be 'the true God' (Jer 10:10) or He is a false god. The Bible has to be truth, or lies. I don't think you can have it both ways.

The post-modern attitude towards texts and textual analysis is that there is no absolute truth and every reader brings something different to a text. For example, a Marxist will read Dickens and take away a Marxist message. English degrees are a lot about this! But I don't think you can approach the Bible as the same as any other text and just 'get something' from it. Either something is true, or it is false. If the Bible is true, it's worth building your life on it. If it's false, there is no point bothering.

And it follows that if the Bible is true, it is universally true. That means it's not just 'true for me'. It applies to everyone. That is why my blog is based on the Bible, and why I try to respond to people's questions, to the books I read, thinking about what the Bible says. I am sorry if it comes across as emotionally detached Bible-bashing! But in my view, what I personally say has very little value for the world. What God says does! That's why I look to Him for answers, rather than my own thinking.

Of course, I apply my thinking to the Bible. God doesn't ask us to switch our brains off when we open His word. But I think the tendency in our culture to come to the Bible with our own ideas of what is right and wrong, and judging its 'truth' on how it fits into our current worldview, is a fundamentally flawed concept. If it is the words of God, a God who is eternal and all-knowing and all-seeing, how can we possibly deem it our place to judge it against our standards? That would be like me handing my dissertation on George Eliot to a five year old who had just learned to read. My dissertation is nothing special, but I don't think the kid would have a chance of understanding it!

I don't want to bash the Bible, in both senses of the phrase. I don't want to crush people with it, but I don't want to under-value it and over-value my words and thoughts. I want people to know the truth, and I think the Bible contains better answers than my befuddled brain.

Judges: worth reading?

Judges has to be one of the most violent, gory and shocking books of the Old Testament. It gives us the famous stories of Gideon and Samson, and yet even these heroic stories are blotted by the flaws of these figures. Gideon is a man who repeatedly doubts God's promises, and his fleece experiments are definitely not an example for us to follow! Samson is meant to be delivering Israel from the Philistines, and yet lets his sexual desires over-rule his calling as he marries a Philistine woman, and later tells Delilah the secret of his strength.

So what is the value of Judges for Christians today? Well, it DOES have value- it is part of the Word of God for starters, and 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness. Judges probably tells us more what NOT to do than provide positive examples, but it is no less worthy of our attention because of this.

Judges also testifies to the extraordinary faithfulness of God. To put it into context, God has led the Israelites out of slavery to Egypt, and into the promised land. Joshua, their leader after Moses, dies, and not long after this the people begin to do exactly what they were told NOT to do. They do not drive out the other nations completely or break down their pagan altars. God's angel tells them that these nations will be 'thorns in your sides, and their gods will be a snare to you' (3). The people weep and offer sacrifices, but it is a sad fact that 'another generation grew up, who knew neither the Lord nor what He had done for Israel.' (10) Despite the Exodus and establishment of Israel in the promised land, the covenant and the law, they STILL forget God.

As soon as the Israelites worship other gods, they lose their security and are plundered by raiders. But in His mercy, God raises up judges who save them from these raiders (16). The cycle of disobedience and grace, establishing way back in Genesis 3, continues... And yet God is still loving, caring and involved in the lives of His people.

For us as Christians, we perhaps need reminding of why we need the cross of Jesus so much, and why it was such an amazing act of grace for God to send His Son into a world that had rejected Him from its very creation. Judges gives us a horrifying picture of life without God, and motivates us to cling to Jesus, a Saviour who (unlike the flawed judges) brings us perfect relationship with God.

How can I trust the Bible? #2

How can you trust the Bible when it's so unscientific?

I've been asked this question so many times.

The idea that the Bible is unscientific probably comes from people's perception of the Genesis account of creation in six days, which contradicts their evolutionary science education.

There are several different Christian responses to the whole question of creation-evolution, and I don't want to tackle that issue now. Firstly, I want to combat this common stereotype that the Bible is 'unscientific'.

Christians believe that the Bible is the 'Word of God'. This means that although men wrote it, the words they were writing were given to them by God. They were 'inspired' by the Holy Spirit. God ensured that what they wrote was free from error.

Now God is the biggest, greatest Scientist in the universe! He INVENTED science! He created this incredibly complex universe and all its natural laws and delicate eco-balances come through His design.

So it's unsurprising that the Bible contains various comments that reveal an awareness of science far beyond its historical era, pointing towards God's authorship behind the human writers.

Look at Job 38:31: 'Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?'
Only in the last 30 years have we discovered what this verse means- scientists found that Pleiades is a loose cluster of stars, whereas Orion is a tight cluster. God thus is speaking to Job about His formation of the stars, something Job would not have understood but was led to write down.

Job 26:7 states 'He hangeth the world upon nothing', a bold statement regarding the gravitation of the earth that means it doesn't have to be supported by anything physical. At the time, ancient Greeks believed the world was held up by Atlas, and the Muslims believed the world was held up by a bull. The Bible was right.

Isa 40:22 says that earth is spherical: 'He sits upon the circle of the earth'.

And to top it all off, Job 38:14 states that the earth is spinning: 'The earth takes shape like clay under a seal'. What does that mean? Well, a Hebrew seal was a cylinder that you rolled along the parchment- it rotates on its axis. Here is a perfect picture of how the earth moves through space.

Luke also shows that the earth has different timescales, a concept unknown to the people of his day. Luke 17:24-25- 'I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.'
Jesus is talking about His Second Coming, and we know there will only be one Day of the Lord. But what do these verses say? Two people are in bed, sleeping- it must be night time. But two women are going about their daily work in the daytime. Thus this shows that when Jesus returns, half the world will be in daytime, and half in night time.

These are just a few examples of how the Bible makes scientific statements that are way ahead of its time. But really, you need to read it for yourself to see how amazingly practical a book it is. Unlike the Qu'ran, which is a collection of Mohammed's sayings, the Bible is a collection of 66 inspired books, which vary in genre from history, poetry, letters and law. You need to be aware of these differences in style when you read it.

This book, 'Dig Deeper' by Nigel Beynon and Andrew Sach, is really helpful in explaining how to read the Bible:

How can I trust the Bible? #1

The Bible was written millennia ago and is translated from the original languages. There must be some element of human error within its pages.

Have you ever thought this? Or maybe been told this by someone else?

The trustworthiness of the Bible is really crucial -not only for my blog, which is based on what the Bible says, but it has huge implications for our lives.

My blog is called 'Treasuring Christ', and there is absolutely no reason why anyone should base their whole life around doing this, unless the Bible is true.

The reason that I treasure Jesus, is because the Bible teaches me that:
1. I'm separated from God by my sin
2. I've been rescued out of this separation by Jesus' death on the cross
3. I now have a place in heaven because of what Jesus has done for me

If you can identify with these three things, I'm sure you'll agree that it's essential to be able to show other people why you believe in Jesus. If you can't identify with these three things, I'm sure you're wondering why or how I can believe them. The reliability of the Bible is a key element in this discussion.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Bible far outweighs any other historical document in terms of reliability, as the table below shows:

Ancient Manuscript Date Earliest Copy No of Copies
Julius Caesar- Gallic Wars 100-44 BC 900 AD 10
Tacitus- Annals of Roman History100 AD 1100 AD 20
Plato- Tetralogies 427-347 BC 900 AD 7
Sophocles 496-406 BC 1000 AD 100
Aristotle 384-322 BC 1100 AD 5
New Testament c. 50 AD 130 AD 24, 633


We do not question the reliability of the works of Caesar, Plato and Aristotle, and yet we question the Bible when the statistics are far ahead in favour of it.

In 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, after being preserved for 1900 years. The text of Isaiah in the scrolls and in a text written 1000 years previously, only 17 letters were different- and these were mere spelling errors. No substantial changes had occurred, and the meaning was not affected. This testifies to the incredible accuracy of the Bible manuscripts. As a matter of fact, when copying Scriptures the Jews had very strict rules to abide to, such as:
The breadth of the column had to be 30 letters, length 48-60 lines
No word, letter or even a yod was to be written from memory
Only authentic copies were to be used as an exemplar
No one should take any notice of even a king when writing God's Name.

There are many more rules, and what they amounted to was not only incredible accuracy in copying, but exact spacing, so that they could instantly tell if the copy was incorrect, and if it was it would be rejected.

I thoroughly recommend this book by Amy Orr-Ewing if you have further questions about this:

Are evangelicals 'fundamentalists'? Review of JI Packer

Post 9-11, the word 'fundamentalism' gives people a new sense of fear. To modern morality, any version of religious fundamentalism MUST be a bad thing. When evangelicals claim to believe the words of the Bible as the truth, the word 'fundamentalists' is frequently flung our way. So how should we respond?

J.I. Packer's 'Fundamentalism and the Word of God' is as fresh and relevant now as it was when it was first published in 1958. He argues that fundamentalism is often brushed off as a branch of Christianity, when in fact, it is the only authentic Christianity. Authentic Christianity is a religion of biblical authority. Only truth can be authoritative; only an inerrant Bible can be used, in the way that God means Scripture to be used. Subjection to the authority of Christ involves subjection to the authority of Scripture. ‘Fundamentalism’, in so far as consistent Evangelicalism is meant by this term, is in principle nothing but Christianity itself.

Christianity is built on truth, on the content of a divine revelation. It announces salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, but faith is only possible where the truth is known. The New Testament tells us that God has made provision for the communication of this saving truth. He entrusted to the apostles, and through them to the whole church, a message from Himself which conveys it. This is the Word of God, the Bible.

At the heart of the debate is the role of the Bible. Many people who reject fundamentalism do so because they consider the uncompromising demand for submission to what the Bible says as unreasonable. And this is very serious, at it is a criticism directed at evangelical principles rather than evangelical practice. In effect, these people believe that Evangelicalism is a form of Christianity that cannot honestly be held today. We must, therefore, strive to defend the faith that we believe to be the revealed truth of God.

In the climate of the current Anglican crisis, where the evangelical wing of the Anglican church is being criticised for being 'fundamentalist' and 'separatist', it is worth remembering that the Anglican church is founded on the belief that Scripture is the ultimate authority. The liberal wing of the church is not, historically, supported by the foundation of the church and the 39 Articles.

Unity between true Christians is vitally important to the life of the Church, but what Packer refers to as 'sham unity', the unity between supposed Christians and true Christians, is not worth working for. The wall is cracked because it is not all built on the same foundation. Packer's book provides a timely read in the light of these circumstances.