I heartily recommend you listen or read Rod Rosenbladt’s presentation The Gospel For Those Broken By The Church made available for free in audio and written format at this link on Monergism. Just to wet your appetite:

If the Ten Commandments were not impossible enough, the preaching of Christian behavior, of Christian ethics, of Christian living, can drive a Christian into despairing unbelief. Not happy unbelief. Tragic, despairing, sad unbelief. (It is not unlike the [unhappy] Christian equivalent of “Jack Mormons” – those who finally admit to themselves and others that they can’t live up to the demands of this non-Christian cult’s laws, and excuse themselves from the whole sheebang.) A diet of this stuff from pulpit, from curriculum, from a Christian reading list, can do a work on a Christian that is (at least over the long haul) “faith destroying.”

In this staggeringly potent presentation, Dr. Rosenbladt tackles what plagues many ‘recovering Christians’. Sticking to his unchanging theme of 200-proof Gospel, using his own history as an agnostic “outsider” to Christianity, Dr. Rosenbladt delivers the grace of the cross with all its potency, undiluted.

Are we Christians saved the same way we were when we were baptized into Christ, or when we came to acknowledge Christ’s shed blood and His righteousness as all we had in the face of God’s holy law? That all of our supposed “virtue” – Christian or pagan – is just like so many old menstrual garments (to use the Bible phrase)? But that God imputes to those who trust Christ’s cross the true righteousness of Christ Himself? We are pretty sure that unbelievers who come to believe this are instantly justified in God’s sight, declared as if innocent, adopted as sons or daughters, forgiven of all sin, given eternal life, etc. But are Christians still saved that freely? Or are we not? We are pretty clear that imputed righteousness saves sinners. But can the imputed righteousness of Christ save a Christian? And can it save him or her all by itself? Or no?

For all of you who have been given morality lessons instead of the Gospel, hear how Dr. Rod Rosenbladt succinctly presents Christianity as first and foremost a genuine truth claim about Christ as our righteous substitute, instead of a never ending list of popular religious recipes for personal success.

Gabriel

Thanks Gabriel for posting this.

I used to talk to Rod Rosenblatt about these issues when he used to substitute for Walter Martin in his weekly Bible class. What a blessing it is to have him on the White Horse Inn. He really is faithful to the gospel Martin Luther taught, and of course what the book of Romans teaches.

He is also a Lutheran scholar who has remained faithful to the conservative teachings of the Missouri Synod Lutheran church.

His theme has always been that there is grace for the Christian as well, and how we all need to hear this!

Thanks again,

Stan

It seems that a lot of people have no problem with their church and how the gospel is preached there. Perhaps they are good at their progress in sanctification and are living from victory to victory. Such type are those who are not forgetting to tell me that I’m a loser as an adventist and because I tried to make the theological system and didn’t know how to make it work, I quit. Admitting for the sake of the conversation that I lost, I wonder who’s the winner in adventism? Who’s the one who arrived at perfection and is ready to go through the time of Jacob’s trouble and stand before God without a Mediator? From the other side of the fence, such question shows a lack of respect for the sincere believer who’s striving on his path with sin, Satan et co. I wonder why somebody can classify a former adventist as a loser while not being ready to provide examples of who are the winners. If we don’t have clearly a winner, what is the logical ground to classify somebody as a loser? If somebody can be classified as a loser because of failing to attain a certain standard, what prevents this standard to be used in giving a positive evaluation and pronounce somebody as winner?

Dennis said that there is a certain class of people who has great problem in recognizing that they are sinners. Even when they do, they will qualify their statements to the degree that they will present themselves as something different than what they understood to be the normal understanding of this word, “sinner.”

Gabriel

Gabriel,

Your choice of Gresham Machen for your avatar is brilliant and revealing. He was a faithful and masterful Christian theologian who is oft quoted by Sproul, MacArthur, Duncan, etc…

A lot of imagery went through my mind while reading you last post and reconsidering your thread in its entirety. When thinking of so-called theological winners and losers, it’s easy to suppose that Saul of Tarsus saw himself as a winner.

Philippians 3:3-6 (NIV) 3For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4though I myself have reasons for such confidence.  If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

But when Saul found himself faced with the truly faultless One, the Christ, the very Son of a most Holy God, his Messiah, he finally had the ultimate standard before him and it was then that he realized the vacuous nature of his Pharisaical works.

Philippians 3:7-9 (NIV) 7But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

Is not the pursuit of “perfection” and the belief that it can be attained on earth the very definition of being Pharisaical? Is not the error of this philosophy what the Apostle Paul discovered on the road to Damascus? As it has been so well stated, many times before in this forum, there are those who transpose the act and process of justification and sanctification respectively. It is proclaimed in Scripture that we are justified once and for all by faith in Christ, and then enjoy the process of sanctification as we are lead and supported by the Holy Spirit to become more like Christ. Only to attain our full glorification and sanctification at the end of time, on the Day of the Lord… We do not attain (earn) our justification by pursuing perfection (sanctification).

Isaiah 64:6 (NIV) 6All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

I too shared a bit Dr. Rosenbladt’s experience with pietistic behavior in my later teen years of church experience.  I found it revolting and used it as a sinful excuse to reject the church entirely. Thankfully, Jesus didn’t give up on me considering how hard and fast I was running away!

May what I share here be true to the Holy Scriptures. Be it nothing from sinful me, but by the Holy Spirit alone, for His praise and His glory…

Dan Hagan - 29 May 2010 06:23 AM

Gabriel,

Your choice of Gresham Machen for your avatar is brilliant and revealing. He was a faithful and masterful Christian theologian who is oft quoted by Sproul, MacArthur, Duncan, etc…

I discovered Machen when I had started reading “Christianity and Liberalism” and I had jumped literally at some points rejoicing at how good a response he gave to theological liberalism. I realized that I’m indebted a lot to him and to the founders of Westminster Seminary for their brilliant defense of the faith. It’s an avatar chosen in his honor of his invaluable work. Even Harold Bloom who hopes that the American religion will become more gnostic in the future, made the following comment about Macher. I’m quoting from Christless Christianity, pp. 176, 177

What we call fundamentalists, says Bloom, are really Gnostics of an anti-intellectual variety. If there were a possibility of an anti-Gnostic version of fundamentalism, says Bloom, such proponents “would find their archetype in the formidable J. Gresham Machen, a remarkable Presbyterian New Testament scholar at Princeton, who published a vehement defense of traditional Christianity in 1923, with the aggressive title Christianity and Liberalism."Bloom adds, “I have just read my way through this, with distaste and discomfort but with reluctant and growing admiration for Machen’s mind. I have never seen a stronger case made for the argument that the institutional Christianity must regard cultural liberalism as an enemy to faith.” In contrast to this defense of traditional Christianity, those who came to be called fundamentalists are more like “the Spanish Fascism of Franco, . . . heirs of Franco’s crusade against the mind, and not the legatees of Machen.”

Wow, that’s from a gnostic writer, pay attention, please! Read Machen’s book and you will not be disappointed. Maybe in the future I’ll do some work and post some excellent quotations from the book. I already posted one quotation on this thread.

Dan Hagan - 29 May 2010 06:23 AM

But when Saul found himself faced with the truly faultless One, the Christ, the very Son of a most Holy God, his Messiah, he finally had the ultimate standard before him and it was then that he realized the vacuous nature of his Pharisaical works.

That’s a great point, Dan!

In the last time I immersed myself in some study regarding NPP (New Perspective of Paul) and needed some fresh air and picked up Owen’s book on Justification and he presents exactly this point from Job’s example:

So holy Job, in all his contests with his friends, who charged him with hypocrisy, and his being a sinner guilty in a peculiar manner above other men, with assured confidence and perseverance therein, justified his sincerity, his faith and trust in God, against their whole charge, and every parcel of it. And this he does with such a full satisfaction of his own integrity, as that not only he insists at large on his vindication, but frequently appeals unto God himself as unto
the truth of his plea; for he directly pursues that counsel, with great assurance, which the apostle James so long after gives unto all believers. Nor is the doctrine of that apostle more eminently exemplified in any one instance throughout the whole Scripture than in him; for he shows his faith by his works, and pleads his justification thereby. As Job justified himself, and was justified by his works, so we allow it the duty of every believer to be. His plea for justification by works, in the sense wherein it is so, was the most noble that ever was in the world, nor was ever any controversy managed upon a greater occasion.

At length this Job is called into the immediate presence of Gods to plead his own cause; not now, as stated between him and his friends, whether he were a hypocrite or no, or whether his faith or trust in God was sincere; but as it was stated between God and him, wherein he seemed to have made some undue assumptions on his own behalf. The question was now reduced unto this, — on what grounds he might or could be justified in the sight of God? To prepare his mind unto a right judgment in this case, God manifests his glory unto him, and instructs him in the greatness of his majesty and power. And this he does by a multiplication of instances, because under our temptations we are very slow in admitting right conceptions of God. Here the holy man quickly acknowledged that the state of the case was utterly altered. All his former pleas of faith, hope, and trust in God, of sincerity in obedience, which with so much earnestness he before insisted on, are now quite laid aside. He saw well enough that they were not pleadable at the tribunal before which he now appeared, so that God should enter into judgment with him thereon, with respect unto his justification. Wherefore, in the deepest self-abasement and abhorrence, he retakes himself unto sovereign grace and mercy. For “then Job answered the LORDS and said, Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no farther (Job 40:3-5) And again, “Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak; I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself; and repent in dust and ashes,” (Job 42:4-6)

Let any men place themselves in the condition wherein now Job was, — in the immediate presence of God; let them attend unto what he really speaks unto them in his word, — namely, what they will answer unto the charge that he has against them, and what will be their best plea before his tribunal, that they may be justified. I do not believe that any man living has more encouraging grounds to plead for an interest in his own faith and obedience, in his justification before God, than Job had; although I suppose he had not so much skill to manage a plea to that purpose, with scholastic notions and distinctions, as the Jesuits have; but however we may be harnessed with subtle arguments and solutions, I fear it will not be safe for us to adventure farther upon God than he durst to do.

I was not disappointed, Owen was a fresh air for those thirsty after the gospel.

Gabriel