Knowledge, Truth, and Christianity’s First Critics

by David Bishop

In his book “The Christians as the Romans Saw Them”, Professor Robert Louis Wilken examines some of the complaints and arguments of some of the more veracious first and second century critics of Christianity.  Like Celsus, for example, who labeled Christ a magician and called the gospels incredulously and historically unreliable; or Porphyry, who attacked Christian orthodoxy as irrational.

In his examination of the critics, Wilken manages to show the epistemological foundation upon which Christians rested even from the very start. 
It was a central theme that ran throughout every critic’s line of reasoning – outrage and incredulity at the Christian’s blanket dogmatic appeal to Scripture as the sole authority.   Consider, for example, Galen’s comparison of Christianity to a particular school of philosophy he found unreasonable in his book, “On Hippocrates’s Anatomy”:

“They compare those who practice medicine without scientific knowledge to Moses, who framed laws for the tribe of Israel, since it is his method in his books to write without offering proofs, saying, ‘God commanded, God spake.’”

Another critic, Celsus, complained that Christians sought out gullible and uneducated people, “because they were unable to give reasons for their beliefs . . .they asked people to accept what they said solely on faith.”

Celsus went on to write that the gospels themselves were based only on hearsay, arguing,  “Why should we give greater credibility to what is written in them than to other stories about Jesus?  The accounts in the gospels were written solely by Christians and passed on in Christian circles.  Should the legends there be taken with greater seriousness than the many legends in Greek literature?  The Christian Gospels offer no reliable basis on which to establish the truth of the accounts about Jesus . . . there is no proof except for your word”

Still another critic, Lucian, wrote of the Christians, “The poor wretches have convinced themselves that they are going to be immortal and live for all time.  They despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definite evidence.”

We find time and again, no matter the critic, no matter the date, the theme remained the same.  Christians based the foundation for their claims entirely upon the authority of Scripture alone.  It was a commonly held “scientific” belief, for example, during the first, second, and third century that God (or gods) had created the world using preexisting material.  The Christians resolutely rejected this however, arguing instead that that God had created the world from nothing.  When asked to provide evidence that God had created the world from nothing, the Christians simply referred to the first chapter of Genesis.

This dogmatic appeal outraged their critics.  So much so that Pliny, a Roman governor, had the Christians quietly put to death for fear of what he believed their dogmatism might mean for the trade unions and for the Roman peace.

Even more than the doctrine of creation stood the Christian’s attitude toward death and resurrection.  Celsus found himself so infuriated by their dogmatic appeals on this subject that he wrote:

“What sort of body, after being entirely corrupted, could return to its original nature and that same condition which it had before it was dissolved?  As they (the Christians) have nothing to say in reply, they escape to a most outrageous refuge by saying that ‘anything is possible to God.’”

As for the Christians themselves, they encouraged the dogmatism.  The early Christian writer, Hippolytus, for example, addressing a sect that followed the critic Galen, wrote in his book, “The Little Labyrinth”:

“Instead of asking what Holy Scripture says, they stain every nerve to find a form of syllogism to bolster up their impiety (atheism).  If anyone challenges them with a text from divine Scripture, they examine it to see whether it can be turned into a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism.  They put aside the holy scriptures of God, and devote themselves to geometry, since they are from the earth and speak from the earth, and do not know the one who comes from above.”

Oxford professor J. N. D. Kelly echoes Wilken’s examination in his book, “Early Christian Doctrines.”  Kelly gives further testimony from early Christians like Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, and John Chrysostom, to name just a few.

From the start, gospel believers were always Scripturally dogmatic.   It is a far different matter in most churches today.  The modern Christian today, for instance, insists that truth can be known apart from Scripture.  He insists that some knowledge of God transcends the propositional knowledge of Scripture.    Or to put it in the modern jargon of American Churchianity, he insists that people can “know about God in their head, but not know Him in their heart.”

The Modern Christian

Celsus fell silent long ago, but the critics haven’t.  Alongside Celsus today stands the modern Christian.  The modern Christian presupposes that knowledge exists in forms other than propositional, and that truth can sometimes be known apart from Scripture.  The modern Christian no longer thinks, but rather feels.  He no longer analyzes, but rather intuits.   He no longer studies the Scriptures systematically, but rather waits upon the Lord for a word.  In short, the modern Christian has exchanged the systematic and intellectual foundation of Scriptural dogmatism for the anti-intellectual, self-refuting romanticism of emotionalism.   Why?  How did we go from the strict scriptural dogmatism of the first three centuries to this sappy, anti-intellectual, anti-scriptural emotionalism that we are forced to deal with today?  What happened?

A lot happened.  Constantine happened.  The pope happened.  War, plague, and the Vikings happened.  Of course, ten centuries of rabid anti-intellectualism  didn’t help matters either.  Most importantly, however, existentialism happened.

Nietzsche, Nihilism, and the Foundation of Existentialism

“Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher,
“Vanity of vanities! All is vanity.”
– Ecclesiastes 1:2

Nietzsche had declared God dead.  What he meant, among other things, was that there was no point in people believing in God anymore.  God had outlived His usefulness, in other words.  What Nietzsche had done was take Materialism to its fullest and most logical conclusion.  If matter is eternal and matter is all there is, then all the matter in the universe is pointless and without meaning.  

Nietzsche had concluded that if nature is all there is, then nature and everything a part of her is a meaningless, pointless machine.   Since humans just were, they were just machines.   Nothing we do matters, argued Nietzsche.   Nothing we do is good, ugly, beautiful or bad.  Everything just is.   Machines just are.   We just are and there is no point to why we just are.

Stuck with such a bleak outlook to life (Nietzsche died insane, driven mad by his own conclusions), philosophers began struggling to transcend Nihilism.  Enter existentialism.

Existentialists began to argue that there are at least two kinds of knowledge – personal and impersonal, or objective and subjective.  Impersonal knowledge, said the existentialist, is the knowledge of propositions. A proposition is a statement (verbal, written or contemplated) that is either true or false.  2 + 2 = 4, birds fly, grass is green.  This knowledge, said the existentialists, is pointless, it has no personal value.  So what that the grass is green? So what that birds fly? What does that mean for me?

For the existentialist, propositional knowledge is as meaningless as Nietzsche’s machine.   It is without value for the individual UNTIL the individual chooses to give it value by giving it personal meaning (hence, personal knowledge).

Western churches, plundered by false doctrine, slipped as easily into existentialism as one might slip a hand into a glove.  The Existential Theist began to view orthodoxy and doctrine as pointless.  Confessional Christianity became to the existential theist as meaningless as Nietzsche’s machine.

“What I really need is to become clear in my own mind what I must do, not what I must know – except in so far as a knowing must precede every action.  The important thing is to understand what I am destined for, to perceive what the Deity wants me to do, the point is to find the truth for me, to find that idea for which I am ready to live and die.  What good would it do me to discover a so-called objective truth, though I were to work my way through the systems of the philosophers and were able, if need be, to pass them in review?”
– Soren Kierkegaard, A Short Life of Kierkegaard, pg 82

What good would it do me to discover objective truth, asks Kierkegaard.  And in the question we catch the echo of Nietzsche’s plight; God is dead and no one cares, if there is a hell I’ll see you there.  Grass is green, birds fly, trees have branches, Christ died to redeem His people from their sins.  So what?  That’s all just dead orthodoxy if it doesn’t mean anything for me.

We might ask the existential theist what it means for him to hear the news that it is true that Christ satisfied God’s wrath on behalf of His elect?   The existentialist might answer, it means nothing until I first give it meaning.

For the existential theist, doctrine has no value UNTIL the individual chooses to give it value by giving it personal meaning.  What does this mean?  It means that for the existential theist, sin has no value while it is understood to mean violating God’s law.  Sin only has meaning once it understood to mean the betraying of a relationship with God.

For the existential theist, repentance is no longer admitting guilt, but rather sorrowing over the act of committing a personal betrayal.  Forgiveness is no longer cancelling a penalty, but rather renewing a fellowship.  Faith is no longer agreeing with a set of propositions, but rather committing oneself to a person.  And the gospel is no longer the news that Christ has accomplished the redemption of His people by dying for His people on a cross, but rather the announcement that Christ has died for you.
The Self-Refuting Center of Theistic Existentialism

Recall that I said a proposition is a verbal, written, or contemplated statement that is either true or false.  The Bible is a book of propositions.  Some of its propositions state that the Bible is the only source and judge of truth.

If some knowledge is non-propositional, as the existentialist claims, then how would the Bible judge something known this way as either true or false?  It couldn’t, because only a proposition is a statement that is either true or false.   Knowledge that cannot be stated as either true or false cannot be stated as either true or false.  And therein lies the self-refuting irrationality at the core of existentialism.

The existentialist attempts to lay claim to something he says is true, but cannot say is true, because it cannot be stated as truth.  If that doesn’t sound like a dog chasing its tail, then I don’t know what does.

In contrast to this insanity is the real truth.  The real truth is that all knowledge is propositional, for all truth is propositional.

The existentialist rejects the truth that all knowledge is propositional though, because he does not like where it leads.

Since all knowledge is propositional because all truth is propositional, then it stands to reason that faith is nothing more than intellectual agreement with a system of propositions.  This throws the existential theist into fits, because he finds himself trapped once more by the emptiness of his Nihilism.  After all, if cold, unfeeling intellectual agreement with an impersonal system of propositions is the foundation and definition of a transformed life, then what’s the point?  Where’s the meaning?  Where’s the significance?  The Christian life has become for the existential theist nothing more than God sovereignly ordaining machines to agree with facts about Him.  Might as well paraphrase Kierkegaard at that point and ask, what good would it do me to discover God?

The existential theist wants more.  He wants to feel significant, because he secretly suspects that God really is sovereign and that everything the individual does he does just as God has ordained him to do.  The existentialist cannot stand for this, because the serpent promised him that he could be as God, and by gum he intends to be just that.

Life does have significance and meaning, but only when it’s taken up into the fact that God has created it all for His glory.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.  For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and for him. – Colossians 1:15-16

Propositional truth has significance, because it glorifies Him.  Doctrine has significance, because it glorifies Him.  Orthodoxy and biblical confessions have significance, because they glorify Him.  Birds fly because flying birds glorify Him.  Grass is green because green grass glorifies Him.  Agreeing with Him that these things are true glorifies Him, because He has said He is trustworthy and He has said these things are true.

If His glory is not the point though, if instead my glory is the point, then nothing that serves to glorify Him matters until it first glorifies me.   Hath God said you shall not eat of any of the trees in the garden, asked the serpent.  And the existentialist nods; God lies, for He knows that in the day you eat of it you shall be like Him, knowing good and evil.

The Truth About Paul Washer

by David Bishop

Paul Washer is another Arminian Southern Baptist preacher masquerading as a Calvinist.   Of course, what is Calvinism today but Arminian Southern Baptist?  I suppose it just as well to say Washer is just another common, modern day, garden variety Calvinist.

Washer believes regeneration is the gospel.  And like MacArthur, Piper, White, Conway, and the many more Lordship Salvationists who have come before him, he believes his performance, in cooperation with the Holy Spirit, is the grounds upon which God is just to justify him.  Washer writes in his book, The Truth About Man:

Even though the reality of the wrath of God is undeniable, we should also understand that He is merciful. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but will delay His wrath and give the sinner ample opportunity to turn away from his sin. – pg 94

A few pages later in the same chapter, he writes:

Although God is longsuffering toward the objects of His hatred and holds out to them the offer salvation, there will come a time when He will withdraw His offer, and reconciliation will not longer be possible. Sinful men should consider this truth with fear and trembling. – pg 98

In Washer’s view, God’s wrath can be avoided simply by deciding to turn away from sin.   What must I do to be saved?  Washer answers, turn away from your sin.

There is no room in Washer’s gospel for a God who did not turn away His wrath, but rather sent His Son to satisfy that wrath by becoming the object of that wrath on behalf of those whom He had chosen from before the foundation of the world.  Washer’s idolatrous object of faith is a christ who turns away God’s wrath on the condition that we devote ourselves to performing for God.    A man with a legal sentence of guilt hanging over him cannot please God.  Not even by turning from his sin.  Do you hear that, Paul Washer?  Not even by turning from his sin!  Nothing that an unjust man sets his mind and will to do and accomplish can please God.  Washer has no room for this.  It is utterly alien and opposite his gospel.  He writes in his book:

While all men are the special creation of God’s handiwork, and in that sense His children (Acts 17:24-29), the Scriptures deny any further sense of the universal fatherhood of God. In fact, Jesus authoritatively divides Adam’s race into two categories: The children of the devil are those who refuse God’s offer of mercy and remain in their rebellion. They show themselves to be children of the devil in that they practice the sinful works of the devil.  The children of God are those who receive God’s forgiveness and the adoption of sons through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.  They show themselves to be the children of God in that they practice the righteous works of their Father. – pg 71

This appears to be an affirmation of the doctrine of unconditional election and even limited atonement, doesn’t it?  And yet several chapters earlier, Washer asserts the following:

We know from the Scriptures that the creation of the universe, the fall of man, the nation of Israel, the cross of Christ, the Church, and the judgment of the nations have one great and final purpose.  It is that the fullness of God’s attributes be revealed to His creation and that all creation know Him, glorify him, and fully enjoy Him as God.  – pg 28

This assertion is in direct competition with and in contradiction to the doctrine of unconditional election.  God has not at all purposed that all creation know Him, glorify Him, and fully enjoy Him as God.  Rather, He has purposed unconditionally from before the foundation of the world that only the elect shall know Him, glorify Him, and fully enjoy Him as God.   When Washer says the children of God are those who show themselves to be children in that they practice the righteousness of their Father, what he means is that they look to their works for evidence that Christ’s atoning death applies to them.   And when he says the children of God are those who show themselves to be children in what they practice, he means anyone who names the name of Jesus; Arminian, Pelagian, Calvinist, it doesn’t matter.  In Washer’s view, you can pretty much have whatever doctrine you like just as long as you also have works.  Again, consider his words.

Although God is longsuffering toward the objects of His hatred and holds out to them the offer salvation, there will come a time when He will withdraw His offer, and reconciliation will not longer be possible. Sinful men should consider this truth with fear and trembling. – pg 98

We know from the Scriptures that the creation of the universe, the fall of man, the nation of Israel, the cross of Christ, the Church, and the judgment of the nations have one great and final purpose.  It is that the fullness of God’s attributes be revealed to His creation and that all creation know Him, glorify him, and fully enjoy Him as God.  – pg 28

Throughout his book, from beginning to end, Washer maintains that God created everyone to enjoy Him, that God offers the cross to everyone, that salvation is dependent on a choice we make, and that reconciliation is ultimately dependent on our decision to be better moralists.   TULIP, for Washer, is nothing more than a dusty old, half-forsaken, nearly forgotten doctrine that is better left buried on a bookshelf somewhere in the backroom.

As far as atonement goes, Washer believes that the cross was necessary only in the sense that it makes it possible for him to please God by performing, because it allows God to accomplish the righteousness by helping him to perform better.  In this he is exactly like every other modern day, garden variety, Calvinist.  He has his TULIP buried somewhere on a bookshelf in the back room.  Sure, it’s there should anyone come knocking with questions, but it’s not something that one bothers to think about.   Certainly it’s nothing that one takes with them when the time comes again to travel the evangelism circuit.

Washer has no idea how the doctrines of TULIP fit with the gospel, which is no surprise as he has no idea what the gospel is.  He writes:

Adam and Eve were tempted and disobeyed the command.  Because of the disobedience, their fellowship with God was broken and they fell from their original state of righteousness and holiness. – pg 21

Christ was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.  God has from eternity always identified Christ’s death alone as the righteousness.  If Adam had been in a state of righteousness prior to the fall, then he would not have fallen, for Christ’s righteousness would have already been imputed to him and he would already have been declared righteous as a result.

Adam was not in a state of righteousness prior to the fall.  Adam was not in a state of anything.  Upon his disobedience he was imputed guilty and then later imputed with the righteousness. Prior to this though, he was not imputed with anything.

Washer does not understand the gospel.  He does not understand TULIP.  He does not even understand the nature of faith.  He utterly refutes his definition of faith in two short paragraphs.  He writes:

Only the truths of Scripture, understood with the mind and communicated through doctrine, can provide that sure foundation upon which we should establish our beliefs and behavior as well as determine the validity of our emotions and experiences.  The mind is not the enemy of the heart, and doctrine is not an obstacle to devotion . . .

Yet, in the very next paragraph, he writes:

The study of doctrine is both an intellectual and devotional discipline.  It is a passionate search for God that should always lead the student to greater personal transformation, obedience, and heartfelt worship   Therefore, the student should be on guard against the great error of seeking only impersonal knowledge and not the person of God.   Neither mindless devotion nor mere intellectual pursuit is profitable, for in either case God is lost. – pg viii

Here we have it, Washer’s complete circle of self refutation.   On the one hand, the truths of Scripture are communicated through doctrine that is understood with the mind.  And yet on the other hand, the student must be on guard against seeking impersonal knowledge rather than the person of God.  On the one hand, mindless devotion is not profitable.  And yet on the other hand, neither is intellectual pursuit profitable.  Where I come from, we call this damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Mere intellectual pursuit, Washer argues, is not profitable.  The Pentecostals I grew up with said knowing about God is not the same as knowing Him.  Washer agrees with them.

The fatal flaw in Washer’s argument lies in his appeal to another epistemology.  He insists that we do not only know God dogmatically, but rather, we also know Him either empirically.  He insists that the knowledge we gain experientially trumps the knowledge we gain dogmatically.  In other words, I might learn something true about God by studying His Word, but I still won’t know this as true until I have also experienced it with my senses.  “Mere intellectual pursuit is (not) profitable.”

What is it that Washer argues we learn about God with our senses?  Only this, that He is telling the truth about us.  Here again, listen to his words:

The study of doctrine is both an intellectual and devotional discipline.  It is a passionate search for God that should always lead the student to greater personal transformation, obedience, and heartfelt worship.

In Washer’s mind, intellectual pursuits and devotional pursuits are two different things.  Sure, one can be devoted to pursuing God intellectually, but in Washer’s mind, one must also be devoted to pursuing God devotionally.   We would do well to ask though, how does one search for God devotionally?  According to Washer, we search for God devotionally turning our attention to our behavior.

You see, God may have stated in His Word that Christ’s death alone is the only effectual cause of His people’s salvation.  And He may have stated that Christ’s death alone is the only righteousness that He identifies as the righteousness.  And He may have stated that Christ’s death alone fully satisfied God’s wrath against the sins of His elect.  But in Washer’s mind, simply agreeing with God that these things are true does not mean they are true about you.  Rather, to know whether they are true about you, you must also check in with your behavior for signs of change in order to know what God says is true is true about you.

What Washer is really saying here is that we cannot take God at His word.  God may have stated it, and you may agree that what He stated is true, but so what?  Simply agreeing with Him that what He said is true does not mean that what He said is true, is true about you.

Romans 4:5-8 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.  And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one who whom God counts righteousness apart from works:  “Blessed are those who lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

God says A-B-C is true.  I agree with Him that A-B-C is true.  Doesn’t this mean I believe God?  Isn’t that what faith means?

Washer does not deny this.   Washer does NOT deny this.  He agrees, this is what faith means.  What he denies is that faith alone is the means by which you are assured that A-B-C is true about you.  What he insists instead is that behavior change is the means by which you are assured that A-B-C is true about you.  And the reason he insists this is because he insists that behavior change is the gospel.

What must I do to be saved?  Answers Washer, change your behavior.

How can I know I’ve been saved?  Answers Washer, check your behavior.

He does not deny the necessity of Christ’s death.  Oh no, he insists that Christ needed to die for His people.   Who exactly those people are, Washer never tells us.   Nevertheless, Christ having died for them, Washer then asks us, how can you be saved?  He answers, by changing your behavior.  The death itself did not save you.  Rather, it only made it possible for the Holy Spirit to help you save yourself.

Man’s problem is not behavioral, but rather forensic.  Man has a legal sentence of guilt hanging over his head.  He is guilty because God has charged the guilt of Adam’s disobedience to him.  As a result, God has declared him to be guilty.

If God has changed His declaration about someone, then He must have had a just reason to do so.   God is not arbitrary.  He cannot simply change what He says about someone for no reason at all.  He cannot declare something just that He earlier declared unjust simply because He had nothing better to do.  No, He is a just God.  He must have a just reason for changing His opinion about someone.

That just reason is Christ’s death.  That just reason is not my behavior.  Why?  BECAUSE MY BEHAVIOR IS NOT THE REASON WHY GOD DECLARED ME UNJUST TO BEGIN WITH!!! God declared me unjust from the moment of my conception.  God declared me unjust while I was still in the womb (Ps 51:3).  I had no behavior to show.

God declared me unjust because He had charged me guilty with the guilt of Adam’s sin.  I did not do the sinning, and yet I got charged with the guilt of it anyway.  Washer says he believes this.  Washer is a blatant liar.  He does not for one moment believe this is true.  He knows it, but oh with all of his might he despises it.

My behavior is not the reason why God declared me unjust.  My behavior then cannot be the reason why God declares me just.  Why?  Because I cannot change God’s opinion.  Only God can change His opinion.  And God, being a holy God, does not change His opinion for unjust reasons.

God chose from before the foundation of the world that He would change His opinion about me.  And He chose that the reason He would change His opinion about me would be because He would send His Son to earth to die in my place.  And the way He did this was by charging my sins to Christ at the cross, and then later by charging Christ’s death to me.  Upon this basis alone, He then declared me just.  And having declared me just, His Spirit opened my mind to understand this good and glorious news and to agree with Him that it is true.  This agreeing with Him is the means by which I am now sure that He died for me, and that His death alone shall preserve me at the day of judgment.

Washer is not a believer.  He is just another Calvinist preacher who plays at pretending to be a brother.  Probably makes a sizeable living from doing it too.

The Experience of King Saul

by David Bishop

Had he cared to, King Saul might have tried counting an experience with God as righteousness.

1 Samuel 19:22-24  Then he himself went to Ramah and came to the great well that is in Secu.  And he asked, “Where are Samuel and David?”  And one said, “Behold, they are at Naioth in Ramah.” And he went there to Naioth in Ramah.  And the Spirit of God came upon him also, and as he went he prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah.  And he too stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay naked all that day and all that night.  Thus it is said, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”

King Saul had a real encounter with God.  The Spirit of God actually came upon him.  He prophesied.  He prophesied a full day and night.  And yet this same man who had a real encounter with God, this same man upon whom the Spirit of God came, did not have a righteous status before God, was not regenerate, was not one of God’s elect.  Worse still, he had actually been on the hunt to murder one of God’s elect at the very moment the Spirit of God came upon him!  Had he fellowshipped with some of the people I used to fellowship with, he might have counted himself blessed by God as evidenced by this “power encounter”.

I’m not concerned at the moment with the question of how this could happen.  I would rather address the fact that it continues to happen today.

I continue to meet people who insist that either they or someone they know will be saved because of an encounter they or someone they know had with God.  They sensed His presence or they were convicted of sin in their life, they felt a sudden closeness to God or found themselves acknowledging their need for Christ; something always along those lines.  When asked how they can be so sure they will be saved, they will usually launch into some tale that concludes with the story of their experience.

“I drank a case of beer every day for twenty years, my wife left me, my dog left me, I lost everything and everyone I ever cared about.  And then one day I went to church and I heard the preacher say this and that and the other, and suddenly it was like I just felt warm all over, and it was like I was hearing God say, ‘I love you, Jesse, just the way you are’.  Lemme tell you, I ain’t never had a drop to drink since then.  Ain’t had no need for it.  You ask me how I know I’m gonna be saved?  Lemme tell you, brother, I know for a fact God loves me.”

Had he cared to, King Saul might have said the same thing.   He could, after all, have pointed to a specific date and time when the Spirit of God came upon him and caused him to prophesy.   How do you know you’ll be saved, Saul?  Well lemme tell you, brother, it started when the Spirit of God came upon, see.

People who live by their experience do not believe, not for one second, that Christ’s death is the only work that God will accept as the righteousness.  I know, because I used to fellowship with people like this back when I was still lost and abiding under God’s wrath.  I used to stand with them out in front of the Wal-Marts on Kemper Road in Tri-County giving away free hot chocolate and Snickers bars “to show God’s love in a practical way.”  I used to stand with them at certain busy intersections in downtown Cincinnati, readying myself to scurry out with them into traffic when the traffic light turned red so that I could help give away free cans of Coke and diet Coke to thirsty motorists.   I used to go with them door to door, giving away free groceries and prayer.   In some of these instances, even I myself experienced mighty works, moments of the miraculous, an instance where I prayed for someone to be healed and they were indeed healed right there in front of my eyes.  And yet it was all self righteousness. It was all an experience that I counted as my righteousness. All of these moments of “showing God’s love in a practical way” were nothing more than attempts to establish an experience that I could then count as my righteousness.

People who live by their experience do not believe that Christ’s death is the only work that God will accept as the righteousness.  And the immediate reason they don’t believe this is because they believe instead that God has worked inside of them to produce something that God will accept as the righteousness in the place of Christ’s death alone.

People like this will confess to need Christ’s death, but what they mean by this is that God needed to start with Christ’s death only in order to get the ball rolling so that He could produce a righteousness in them that is more than Christ’s death alone.  They believe the righteousness in them that God produced was their experience of showing God’s love in a practical way, or their experience of giving up a particular sin, or even just a feeling of closeness to God.  This is why the Calvinist and Reformed persuasion of these people will confess to believe Arminians are brothers, because although the Arminian may have his doctrine all screwed up, he nevertheless has had “the experience” that they believe is the proof that God has worked in them to produce a righteousness that is more than Christ’s death alone.

Speaking of these people, the apostle Paul writes in the third chapter of his epistle to the Philippians, “they walk as enemies of the cross of Christ, their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.” (Phil 3:18-19)

They glory in their shame.  That shame, as Paul shows a little earlier in the same chapter, is their flesh.  Their attempts to convert their behavior or their feelings or their experience into a work that God will accept as the righteousness, in other words.   They glory in their attempt to convert their works into a righteousness that God will accept as the grounds for their justification.  Rather than standing ashamed of these attempts, rather than taking sides against them, they boast in them instead.   They take great pride in them.  They judge lost and found by them.  It would be like King Saul taking pride in the fact he had prophesied.  How do you know you’re going to be saved, Saul?   Glory be, hallelujah, lemme tell you, I know I’ll be saved because I prophesied.

Matthew 7 contains a stern warning for these people.  Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter into the kingdom of heaven.  Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not do many mighty works in Your name? Did we not prophesy in Your name?  Did we not cast out demons in Your name?

To this we might add a whole litany of attempts to make the work of human hands the grounds for justification.  Lord, Lord, did we not stop drinking?  Did we not stop smoking?  Did we not stop cussing? Lord, Lord, did we not memorize our confessions?  Did we not work to prove we have the right epistemology and the right foundation for understanding Your word?  Did we not study our Gordon Clark?  Lord, Lord, did we not feel Your presence?  Did we not sense Your love for us?  Did we not go up to the altar and repeat the sinner’s prayer?  Lord, Lord, did we not do this and did we not do that?  Did we not do everything humanly possible to convert our behavior and our feelings and our thoughts into a work that You would accept as the grounds for our justification?  Lord, Lord, did we not spend all day and all night prophesying after Your Spirit came upon us?

Matthew 7:21-23 And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.”

The only ground for justification is Christ’s death.  God will accept nothing else.  Absolutely, positively nothing else, no matter how sincere the effort.  If you are one of those people who has not taken sides against yourself in this matter, then I tell you now that God commands you to repent and believe the gospel.