A friend wrote a private question about my references to certainty in recent posts. The concept of certainty is heavily philosophical. I am not praising doubt, or unbelief. Dietrich Bonhoeffer expressed my central point well when he wrote: “Jesus Christ alone is the certainty of faith.” What this means is that our various systems of faith are not the truth! They may help point us to the One who is the truth but when we invest the idea of final and absolute truth in these systems we create the very problems I am writing about. This leads to the idolatry of ideas, so prevalent in my generation. Young postmodern Christians are pushing back on this very point and I agree with them in their “push back.”

Further, there is “a vast ocean of what we do not know and do not understand,” wrote the late Lesslie Newbigin. This is major component of what I am arguing for in a positive way via my comments about how postmodernity can specifically help us. I have expressed strong reservations about postmodernity but then I also have strong reservations about modernity too. What amazes me is that so many in my generation want to defend modernity as if it has served Christian faith so well over the last four hundred-plus years.

Yet my comments could be taken in ways that are not faithful to my real intentions. A true friend wrote: “I understand your hesitation regarding ‘absolute’ or ‘infallible’ certainty. However, I have no hesitation whatsoever, and I hope you don’t either, in saying that a ‘professing’ Christian who denies the Incarnation of Christ is ‘preaching another gospel.’” Well, of course I have no hesitation at all. (I think those who read me carefully will see that I don’t and those who do not see this will find fault where they will.) Such a “false gospel” surely denies truths like the complete deity and humanity of Christ, his substitutionary atonement for sin (though particular theories of the work of the atonement are still open to further exploration), and his bodily resurrection. If Christ was not God, did not die in our place, and was not “raised for our justification” then we have no gospel.

The problem I was addressing in these several blogs occurs when various polemicists tell us they know who does not love Christ and thus who is not a real Christian. This happens because of inter-Christian differences over the exact nature of justification, right views of the sacraments, the nature and place of authority in the church, etc. By these means anti-Catholics regularly tell their followers that no Catholic could be a real Christian since Rome preaches a “false gospel.” (If they are real believers then they will

[indeed must] leave the Catholic Church these folks insist!) This type of approach is found among some very traditional Catholics, who reject all Protestants as schismatics and anti-Catholic, see us as those who stand against Christ’s true church, thus the true gospel. But the problem is that this type of approach occurs far more often on the Protestant side, especially since Vatican II. Subsequent events, since the 1960s, have shown how Rome can and will engage other Christians correctly and with real charity. Thankfully, mainstream Protestant evangelicals have entered this dialogue more recently and refuse to employ the old rhetoric and vituperative response of their past. The sad fact is that anti-Catholicism is still strong in some of Reformed and evangelical circles. Because I regularly say this I create new opportunities for personal and Internet opposition almost daily.

Finally, I am most definitely not saying that postmodernity has made it impossible for the church to describe or reject anti-gospel teachers, and their heresies, as “in the wrong”. As my friend puts it so well: “Not only are such folk ‘bad guys,’ they are energized by the spirit of antichrist (1 John 4:1ff.).”

My reference to the “good guys” and “bad guys” lists was in view of the kinds of lists (usually informal of course) made by anti-Catholics who do this kind of thing all the time if you read their books and blogs. Some in the Reformed community even continue to do it with regard to Arminians and sundry other “heretics” that they regularly attack. These polemicists spend countless hours attacking Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Robert Schuller, Joel Osteen, etc. (I have questioned the policies and opinions of all four of these gentlemen but I do not treat them as avowed heretics in the process!) This is the kind of misuse of Galatians 1:6-9 that I had in mind, not the correct use of this important text when used in a proper context. Since I work within mainline Protestant churches regularly I assure you that I do believe in heresy and I am more than willing to point it out when I see it. I also assure you that I have not become weak on the gospel, just more open to see it confessed by people I would not have had the time of day for a decade ago. Unless you are prepared to say that we are all finally saved by "right ideas" of doctrine (which some clearly are saying) then I do not see how you can conclude anything less.

Related Posts

Comments

  1. Phil Wyman November 26, 2006 at 11:28 am

    John,
    Have yet read the new book “How (Not) to Speak of God” by Peter Rollins? He covers this issue and is quick becoming a primary theological thinker in the emergent circles. He speaks to this idea of certainty – though from a different perspective, and attempts to take it out of the Gospel dialogue.
    It might be a good read for a group of us to consider, and toss around oour thoguhts on.
    Phil

  2. Tim November 29, 2006 at 12:51 pm

    I’m not sure I get your point. At first you say the problem is “when various polemicists tell us they know who does not love Christ and thus who is not a real Christian”, but later say you believe in heresy. So can you tell who is a real Christian or not?
    For my part I think 1) it is possible to say (in some situations) who is or isn’t saved, and 2) it matters in theology, but less so in practical ministry.

  3. John H. Armstrong November 29, 2006 at 3:48 pm

    Tim, I can tell when a particular theologial conclusion is bad, to varying degrees. For example, I can say that there are many “gospels” that are false. These include messages within and without the visible church. I can never know, however, with any certainty who is or is not a real Christian. Even those churches that interview people as to their “profession” of faith in Christ know they can’t be sure. Even Paul wasn’t sure and chose co-workers who proved to be apostates.

  4. Martin Downes December 4, 2006 at 7:33 am

    Hi John
    I have enjoyed reading your posts on these issues. The impression that I am left with is that the modernist/postmodern position that an evangelical holds is in fact irrelevant to defining orthodoxy and heresy. You can tell a heresy by its denial and departure from the gospel (as defined by the apostles). I can see that if the content of one’s definition of heresy is inaccurate (by including errors that do not overturn the gospel) then one will respond to one’s opponents inappropriately. Which is not to say that those errors are irrelevant, or not dangerous, they may well be.
    It would also mean that a changed definition of the gospel entails a changed definition of heresy.
    On a final note I found your closing comment intriguing. There is no such thing as an uninterpreted Christ. We either accept God’s interpretation of him or we have a false interpretation. And can we be saved by a falsely interpreted Christ? If the answer is no, then right ideas are an essential part of salvation. We can’t be saved without them.

  5. John December 4, 2006 at 8:25 am

    Dr. Armstrong,
    When you argue about certitude and our systems of faith I believe you go to far. There is definately a danger of holding to systems of faith so strongly that faith rest in the system and not within the Word of God. However, to embrace all forms of faith as long as they hold to the teachings of the trinity I believe is equally dangerous. There is clearly a significant difference between the gospel of evangelicals and catholocism and to label the people who see these differences as anti-catholic is making them appear to be prejudice. I do believe that “right ideas” are important in the process of salvation. Can a person who has been made alive in Christ not believe in the “right idea” of the trinity. Is there salvation for someone who believes the only way they can be saved is by their works in a church and through the grace dispensed by another human? I think these “right ideas” have a drastic effect on the salvation of a person.

  6. John Armstrong December 6, 2006 at 9:27 am

    “Right ideas” are necessary to preserve mere Christianity. False doctine is destructive. Without mere Christianity the church will lose the deposit of faith. The doctrine of the Trinity is basic to the Christian faith. Thus, non-trinitarian groups ar not Christian! But “right ideas” (even about the Trinity) do not relate one to Christ savingly. This distinction appears in both Scripture and Church tradition. I am not attempting to write a treatise on this point but asserting it as a very basic way that the Church has always thought about such matters.
    Justification by faith is extremely important but a Protestant understanding (as in Luther’s conception for example) does not constitute the last word or the word by which we are finally saved or lost. Most serious Protestant theologians would agree, with a few exceptions.

  7. Martin Downes December 6, 2006 at 10:35 am

    Is justification by faith alone, not then, in your view, the article of a standing or falling church?

  8. Adam December 6, 2006 at 11:30 am

    The question, Martin, would seem to me to be what do you mean by justification by faith alone? In a broad sense most Christians (Catholic or not) agree that justification is by faith. But there is often a language problem from that point on. Many Catholics would then say we show that faith by works or demonstrate that faith through the sacraments. Many Protestants would question whether there is any faith if a person is not acting out their faith through righteous living. In phrases like “justification by faith” we often mean a lot more than what the phrase actually says, we are using a code to “believe in a particular way.” That is not to say that many of the particulars are not important, but often we get lost in the code and forget what is behind the code words that we use.

  9. Adam December 6, 2006 at 11:31 am

    Sorry, when I put in the quotation marks I deleted a couple words.
    ___
    The question, Martin, would seem to me to be what do you mean by justification by faith alone? In a broad sense most Christians (Catholic or not) agree that justification is by faith. But there is often a language problem from that point on. Many Catholics would then say we show that faith by works or demonstrate that faith through the sacraments. Many Protestants would question whether there is any faith if a person is not acting out their faith through righteous living. In phrases like “justification by faith” we often mean a lot more than what the phrase actually says, we are using a code to say, “I believe in a particular way.” That is not to say that many of the particulars are not important, but often we get lost in the code and forget what is behind the code words that we use.

  10. Martin Downes December 6, 2006 at 11:39 am

    Adam,
    For sure. But I don’t think that John needs me to define it.

  11. Adam December 7, 2006 at 7:31 am

    You are confirming my assertion that your comments are more about evangelical code words than the problem of certainty. Young post-moderns (as I would characterize myself)are tired of arguments about truth and biblical understanding and theology. Not that there is not some importance to these, just that they are of lesser importance to living out an incarnational faith. Yes I want people to love scripture, to have good theology and to have certainty in their faith. But the last part of Martin’s first point shows where I want to disagree. If we are saved by faith alone through justification then yes people are saved in spite of a mis-interpreted Christ. That does not mean that we should be encouraging mis-interpretation of Christ, but that there may be more important things than right thoughts.
    If that is not the case then is Martin Luther King, Jr a Christian, he didn’t believe in a virgin birth, what about the large group of people that were against Luther. Many of them had missed the point of salvation. But I am not about to say that they all were unsaved. What about all of the Christians in the third world that have illiterate pastors, many of them will have distortions in their faith because of the oral nature of the gospel that is shared with them. (This doesn’t even get to the first world Christians that have a wrong understanding.)
    My point is that while words and theology are important, we (as part of the church) need to be open and inclusive as The Church, so that the world will see the results of a Christ changed world. Our petty internal differences really get in the way of that.

  12. Martin Downes December 7, 2006 at 10:09 am

    Adam
    I was specifically asking John a question. Because of that I was using shorthand that needs no explanation to him.
    The Christ who saves is the Christ of the apostolic gospel as presented in Scripture. He is the God-Man, Lord and Saviour. When these truths about him are omitted then we have a false interpretation.
    Just think of the educational background and oral culture of the New Testament churches. When they misinterpreted Christ in a way that opposed the apostolic gospel the apostles to a man used strong language to oppose those who were deceiving, and strong language to warn believers who were straying. The advent of modernity or postmodernity is irrelevant to this.

  13. john December 7, 2006 at 11:44 pm

    Dr. Armstrong,
    I think you have cut through the chase and went exactly to the heart of the issue. According to the Catholic doctrine as clarified by the council of trent and cannons 9,11,12,24,30,32 their view of justification by faith is completely different then traditional protestants. They believe is salvation through a church/organization and by works and argue that salvation outside of that church is not posible and people such as these are anathemized. Therefore, I think the “right ideas” that have been held to by the catholic church have been communicated clearly and they do in fact undermine the Biblical doctrine of Justification. Any argument to remove those distictions by someone outside the catholic church and with no authority within the church to change lacks in sense of cogency. That I am certain.

  14. Nick Morgan December 8, 2006 at 11:55 pm

    john, (not Dr. Armstrong)
    You need to read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” to understand what the official teaching of the RCC is about “Justification by grace through faith”. You will find that Trent was dealing with a particular historical situation, and that the Roman Catholic and Protestant views of Justification are not as far apart as you believe.

  15. john December 12, 2006 at 12:41 am

    Nick,
    Its interesting for you to choose the Catechism and not any of the other sources which give a much clearer definition/explanation of the doctrine of Justification. I would suggest you look into these before you are so sure of the distance between the two faiths. Oh, and what was that historical situation that trent was dealing with….

  16. thegroundworks January 24, 2009 at 12:09 am

    Love your postings – always very thought provoking. Thanks!

Comments are closed.

My Latest Book!

Use Promo code UNITY for 40% discount!

Recent Articles

Search

Archive