OCTOBER 31, 1517

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the
following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the
presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of
Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place.
Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and
debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite,
willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e.,
confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward
repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the
flesh.

4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self
continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until
our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties
other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by
that of the Canons.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has
been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission; though, to be
sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his
right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would
remain entirely unforgiven.

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time,
humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the
priest. 8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and,
according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his
decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of
necessity.

10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the
case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory
is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops
slept.

12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but
before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already
dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.

14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love,
of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller
the love, the greater is the fear.

15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing
of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is
very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair,
almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.

17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow
less and love increase.

18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are
outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.

19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them,
are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite
certain of it.

20. Therefore by “full remission of all penalties” the pope means not
actually “of all,” but only of those imposed by himself.

21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that
by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;

22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according
to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life. 23. If it is
at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties
whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to
the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.

24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people
are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release
from penalty.

25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is
just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way,
within his own diocese or parish.

26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in
purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess),
but by way of intercession.

27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the
money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain
and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the
Church is in the power of God alone.

29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out
of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.

30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that
he has attained full remission.

31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man
who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.

32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who
believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of
pardon.

33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s
pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to
Him;

34. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of
sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not
necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy
confessionalia.

36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of
penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the
blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God,
even without letters of pardon.

38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of
the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised,
for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.

39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one
and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and
[the need of] true contrition.

40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only
relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an
occasion [for hating them].

41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people
may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the
buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends
to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by
pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and
passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the
indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they
need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own
families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter
of free will, and not of commandment.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons,
needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the
money they bring.

49. Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if
they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through
them they lose their fear of God.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of
the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should
go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and
bones of his sheep.

51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope’s wish, as it
is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom
certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St.
Peter might have to be sold.

52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even
though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake
his soul upon it.

53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God
be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be
preached in others.

54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal
or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.

55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a
very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions
and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing,
should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a
hundred ceremonies.

56. The “treasures of the Church,” out of which the pope grants
indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of
Christ.

57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many
of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only
gather them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without
the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross,
death, and hell for the outward man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the
Church’s poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his
own time.

60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by
Christ’s merit, are that treasure;

61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved
cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.

62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the
glory and the grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first
to be last.

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most
acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they
formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.

66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish
for the riches of men.

67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces”
are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.

68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the
grace of God and the piety of the Cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of
apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend
with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of
the commission of the pope.

71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be
anathema and accursed!

72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the
pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!

73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive
the injury of the traffic in pardons.

74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the
pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.

75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man
even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of
God–this is madness.

76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to
remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not
bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against
the pope.

78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope
at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers,
gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.

79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set
up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross
of Christ, is blasphemy.

80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be
spread among the people, will have an account to render. 81. This
unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for
learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or
even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.

82. To wit:–”Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of
holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he
redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money
with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just;
the latter is most trivial.”

83. Again:–”Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead
continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the
endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the
redeemed?”

84. Again:–”What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money
they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory
the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that
pious and beloved soul’s own need, free it for pure love’s sake?”

85. Again:–”Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact
and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of
indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?”

86. Again:–”Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than
the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with
his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?”

87. Again:–”What is it that the pope remits, and what participation
does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full
remission and participation?”

88. Again:–”What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the
pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow
on every believer these remissions and participations?”

89. “Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls
rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons
granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?”

90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force
alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the
Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make
Christians unhappy.

91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and
mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they
would not exist.

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of
Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace!

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ,
“Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!

94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following
Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many
tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

The Architecture of Theology

Theology is a vast and rigorous discipline. The historicity and complexity of Christian theology as a discipline is captured by J. I. Packer’s succinct statement:

For eighteen centuries Christian thinkers have pursued a discipline – variously called first principles (so Origen), wisdom (so Augustine), theology (so Thomas Aquinas), Christian philosophy and doctrine (so Calvin), dogmatics (so Reformational and Catholic teachers since the seventeenth century), and systematic theology (so American protestant teachers since the nineteenth century) – that seeks a full and integrated account of all Christian truth. Books developing this discipline have borne a variety of titles – enchiridion (handbook), ekdosis (exposition), sententiae (opinions), summa (full statements), commentarius (survey), loci communes (topics of shared concerns), institutio (basic instruction), medulla (marrow, as in bones), syntagma (arrangement), and synopsis (overview), among others – and have been put together in many different ways.1

To simplify such complexity, Alister McGrath pictures an “architecture of theology”, a basic taxonomy that gives a theological synopsis and structure to this demanding discipline. It encompasses a number of related fields, notably that of biblical theology, systematic theology, historical theology, pastoral theology and philosophical theology.2

Defining the Theological Task

The chief task of theology, Millard J. Erickson contends, is the exercise which “strives to give a coherent statement based on the doctrines of the Christian faith…based primarily upon the Scriptures, on the culture and rooted in the issues of life.”3 Important as this task is, we must bear in mind that it is not a restricted one. Everyone has a theology, whether they know it or not, and whether they can articulate it or not. We all have a particular view of God. In this broad sense, everyone is a theologian with a privileged responsibility of thinking deliberately about God.

Theology belongs to the people. It is therefore not to be confined to the distinguished halls of intellectual institutions, sprouting long incomprehensible theological jargons from dusty large books with incredibly small print. There is obviously a significant place for theological institutions in the life of the church but a wider engagement of theological reflection, outside the hallowed halls of academia, must be encouraged to take place.

At the heart of true theology is the essential and intimate knowledge of the Almighty God. “Theology” therefore is the devout contemplation of God, by the people of God, resulting in a growing understanding of God’s essential nature and will, through the revealed Word; so that lives are transformed through the practice and teaching of that which is learnt. Such theology, with a high view of God that is informed by the Scriptures, is not dry but dynamic!

In the light of this grand theological task for the people of God, I want to briefly examine how theology should be done. There are at least six fundamental necessities for doing theology well. This paper briefly examines these six basic building-blocks; namely, (1) the necessity of theological vision, (2) the necessity of theological foundation, (3) the necessity of theological contemplation, (4) the necessity of theological pedagogy, (5) the necessity of theological holism and (6) the necessity of theological humility.

The Necessity of Theological Vision

The church faces a serious theological crisis. The ideological virus of postmodern humanism has been so entrenched in our ‘Christian’ mindsets that our ability to think deeply about the things of God has been entirely compromised, often without our realizing it. Herein lays the severity of the problem. We are unaware of the compromised extent to which our thinking has been shaped by a secular mindset. We accept as a norm the profound lack of willingness, or ability, to think deeply and consistently about truth. We are lulled into a passive mode of thinking which militates against vital theological reflection. Instead of countering the fallacy of secular philosophy with rich biblical and theological truths, and a deep life congruent with those truths, we live in a generation where a sound theological foundation is ignored; or worse, even snubbed upon.

Unexamined assumptions thus shape the intellectual contours of a lazy generation, tainting the moral and spiritual landscape of the soul. As such, one of the distinct weaknesses of the modern church is that of having zeal without knowledge. We end up with a superficial faith without a deep theological foundation. Indeed, as it has been popularly said, thinking without roots will result in flower but no fruit. In the contemporary revolution of ideas, what engages the Christian mind is no longer “what’s true” but rather “what works”. Truth has often been sacrificed upon the altar of pragmatism. Of course, pragmatism has its value. But when “what works” supersedes “what’s true”, we engage life with a severe short-sightedness that will sabotage both a deep soul and a lasting spiritual legacy. For at the root of this critical problem is the  emergent crisis of theological rootlessness in both our way of thinking and our basic orientation to life.

What the church needs today is theological vision. We must once again return to the cultivation of a right and high view of God. It is the ability to intelligently and meaningfully examine the condition of life and its presuppositions of thought in the light of who God is as revealed in the Scriptures. In Lints’ definition,

To frame a theological vision is simply to attempt to capture in a careful and deliberate manner this ‘way of thinking’ about God, the world, and ourselves. A theological vision seeks to capture the entire counsel of God as revealed in the Scriptures and to communicate it in a conceptuality that is native to the theologian’s own age.4

The church needs to think aright about God. This necessity is a critical one. A. W. Tozer, on reflecting on the attributes of God, most rightly concluded:

What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us . . . The history of mankind will probably show that no people has ever risen above its religion, and man’s spiritual history will positively demonstrate that no religion has ever been greater than its idea of God.5

Life without God is surely a contradiction of terms. Indeed, we need to think aright about God. As the book of Ecclesiastes reminds us, life without God is spiritually barren, philosophically sterile, existentially meaningless and thus ultimately futile. Right theology is certainly positive and life-giving. It affirms humanity’s destiny, addressing at its most fundamental level the theological agenda of who we are, and how we ought to live, in the light of who God is. The church needs such a theocentricity that is largely missing in our contemporary culture.

The Necessity of Theological Foundation

The very idea of the thinkability of God is both a grand and profound one. How can one possibly conceive God? How can that which is finitely finite understand the One who is infinitely infinite? The divine God is totally and eternally beyond human comprehension. To comprehend God would be exceedingly more confounding than for a toddler to understand a post-graduate philosophical discussion of Nietzsche’s impact upon the critical theories of deconstructionism and post-structuralism. It is like trying to describe three-dimensional realities to someone else if both were to have lived all their lives in a two-dimensional world.

Divine revelation is therefore the key to theology. It is centered upon the very idea of the self-disclosure of God. Thus, neither reason nor tradition nor experience is an adequate foundation for thinking aright about God; for unless God reveals himself, our human faculties fail us most miserably. The canonical Scriptures, the agent of divine revelation, are the true and God-appointed foundation for faith and theological reflection. Indeed, the most important world we live in is the unseen world, and the most precious commodity in the unseen world is truth; and this truth is founded upon the Word of God.

Yet, although sola scriptura was one of the great resounding battle-cries of the Reformation, some theologians today have misguidedly questioned the high place assigned to revelation.6 It is thus fundamental to affirm that revelation is “the primary source of theology, and is also a basic category in theological thinking.”7 The importance of biblical authority lies in the evangelical premise that “the doctrine of the Bible controls all other doctrines of the Christian faith.”8 It is most important that we get our theology right and that our theology be informed by the Scriptures, the Word of God.

Submission to the Scriptures is foundational to doing theology well. In reflecting on the epistemological issues which underlie biblical hermeneutics, Pratt reviews both subjectivism, expressed in much liberation and feminist hermeneutics (“bringing the text to our level”), and objectivism, expressed in much of most evangelical hermeneutics (“raising our understanding to the level of the Scriptures itself”); and calls for an authority-dialogue model which “keeps the Bible supreme and the reader a servant of the text.”9 Because theology is essentially centered upon God’s self-disclosure, it is obvious that the basis for doing theology should be the Scriptures.

Even so, important as the Scriptures are to doing theology well, it is not given by God to be an end in itself but for the basic purpose of revealing Jesus Christ (John 5:39; cf. Psa 40:7). One of the most remarkable tenets of Christianity is the fact that we can meaningfully think about God, not just because he has revealed his truth to us, but because he has revealed Himself to us in Christ. As far as God is concerned, ultimate truth is not merely Proposition-bound but Person-bound. Christ is the absolute anchor to doing theology well.

Hence, a strong theological foundation, both in the written Word (the Bible) and the living Word (Jesus Christ, the logos of God in John’s Prologue) must fundamentally inform and inspire our theologizing.

The Necessity of Theological Contemplation

Our generation of Christians however is largely tutored in theological content, if they are tutored at all, rather than in the art of theological contemplation. The aim of theological contemplation is not merely to help us think more deeply about God, or to think more intelligently about God, or to think more clearly about God. Rather, the aim of theological contemplation is to help us think more godly about God. That which informs the mind must also inspire the heart.

We can neither overlook nor dismiss the fact that in our milieu the theological pedagogy continues in much the same old fashion. We are still tutored by the lectio, the quaestio, and the disputatio in dogmatic theology. The doctrine of the historic Christian faith is first set forth, then defended on the basis of Scripture and the tradition of Christian thought, and then we move into theological speculations and inquiries.10

Theological content aims at imparting information about God, telling us what we should believe about him. Important as theological information might be, it is grossly inadequate to establish a vital spirituality. For at the heart of theology is thinking godly about God. To many, God is regarded as irrelevant except for emergencies only. People approach God as a “quick fix” to their problems. Many in the church have drifted from sound theological moorings, searching frantically for a quick fix to their problems. The contemporary malaise of irreverence towards God stems from the worldview that God is irrelevant to practical living. Theology thus becomes the Cinderella of the church, unwooed and unsought. At the heart of such shallowness in theological thinking is the fallacy of the truncated Gospel and the domestication of God in postmodern culture. We must return to strong theological roots for practical Christian discipleship. We have a God who is immensely relevant to every facet of life. Let us engage life theologically.

There are at least three fundamental questions to guide us in such contemplation: (1) what is the essential nature of God and his kingdom? (2) what is the fundamental purpose of God in the light of his essential nature? And (3) what are the unchanging principles by which God deals with humankind, in view of his essential Being and his essential purpose? Such theological contemplation probes the emerging realities of life in view of the sovereignty of God, which must be once again declared over human affairs and destinies.

The Necessity of Theological Pedagogy

Theology must be pedagogical. There is a vital element of teaching the truth, not just of acquiring it. To do so, we must rise above theological ambiguities. Granted that every discipline has its distinctively technical terms, there are ways of communicating the same ideas that would either unfold its meaning or confound it. I have read theological writings that are lucid and compelling (even though technical theological jargon is employed). However, I have also read some that are utterly confounding, not because the ideas are difficult to understand but precisely because the pedagogy of theology is ignored; and the author is in fact a rather poor communicator, untutored in pedagogical principles, who has confused the incoherent profusion of words for the intellectual profundity of ideas. In the twenty-first century, even homiletics has progressed to help preachers move from archaic expressions of words to connect with the contemporary audience. Why would not more theologians pay attention to the application and communication of truth rather than merely the acquisition of it (cf. Ezra 7:10)?

A worthy consideration in contemporary theological pedagogy is the narrative as a fresh conduit of truth. The story, along with the principles gleaned from the plot, becomes the central motif for theological reflection. In discussing narrative as a forum and motif of doing theology, Lints reminds us that the Bible is not “given at one time, nor in the form of a theological dictionary. . .It is a book full of dramatic interest and comes complete with major and minor plots.” (1993:274). Indeed, the Scriptures weave a narrative of God’s unfailing faithfulness and tutor our faith in him.

Consider the narrative as an essential part of theological pedagogy. The way the Jewish culture teaches about God, as opposed to the Western propositional approach, is instructive. Within the conservative Jewish culture, at least two things deserve our immediate attention. First, God was not just taught in theological schools but more significantly, in the homes. Fathers are to be the theological educators in the family! When Christian fathers abdicate this God-given responsibility, we find a generation that is biblically illiterate and theologically impoverished. The church (and theological institutions) ought to complement the home (and equip the fathers!) but the foundation of theological education rests in the home (Deut 4:9-10; cf. 32:7).

The second thing that calls for immediate attention is that within the home, theology was not taught in the Jewish family by way of propositional truth. The father did not say, “Son, let me tell you, God is good. And son, remember, God is great…” No, he tells a story! The father would narrate the accounts of Noah and the ark, Abraham and his exploits of faith, Moses and the mighty deliverance from Egypt etc. Through these great biblical narratives, their concept of God is shaped. And the wise, godly father would speak with such holy awe that it wasn’t merely the narrative plot that gripped the imagination of the child, it was the sense of the father’s reverence for God that is communicated to his children as a profound theological legacy.

Such “narrative” theology must nonetheless be applied to life and not remain merely a good story irrelevant to life. Goldberg highlights that there are three critical issues that any narrative theology must face: (1) the question of Truth – the relationship between story and experience; (2) the question of Meaning – the hermeneutic involved for understanding stories aright; and (3) the question of Rationality – the charge of moral relativism.11 Might I add a fourth: the question of Application; for it is in the application of the narrative that the greatest hermeneutical challenge lies. It is in the application that the elements of truth, meaning and rationality are caused to bear upon the circumstance or condition of life.

The Necessity of Theological Holism

Theological holism is integrating truth with life. Adapting the thought from Cole’s article on holistic spirituality in the Reformed Theological Review,12 it may be proposed that there are four basic building blocks to holistic theological integration: (1) Orthodoxy. There is a need for right doctrines of truth; (2) Orthopraxy. There is a need for right practice as a responsibility towards truth; (3) Orthokardia There is a need for right response of the heart in truth; and (4) Orthokoinonia There is a need for the right community for truth.

Obviously, theology is more than just orthodoxy, it also involves right practice (orthopraxis). In the Scriptures, right practice is both the desired outcome as well as the imperative for right doctrine (e.g. Romans 1-11 doctrine, 12-16 practice; or Ephesians 1-3 doctrine, 4-6 practice). Moreover, the aim of orthopraxis is more than just applying the truth; rather it is applying for a redemptive and transformational purpose. As Lamb puts it, orthopraxis

. . . aims at transforming human history, redeeming it through a knowledge born of subject empowering, life-giving love, which heals the biases needlessly victimizing millions of our brothers and sisters. Vox victimarum vox Dei. The cries of the victims are the voice of God. To the extent that those cries are not heard above the din of our political, cultural, economic, social, and ecclesial celebrations or bickerings, we have already begun a descent into hell. (1982:22f.)

In doing theology, the importance of community must not be overlooked. A right community (orthokoinonia) is needed for a dynamic transformational orthopraxis. For truth, and the application of it, is best done in the context of interpersonal relationships. In any theological discussion of truth, for example, due consideration might be given to earlier reflections, such as the Pennabergian, Barthian and Hegelian worldview pertinent to the rhetoric of truth, and of Niebuhr’s postulation of truth and culture. Nonetheless, I would like to contribute to this discussion a most simple observation: Truth is best communicated in the realm of interpersonal relationships.

It comes as no surprise therefore that “some of the most effective learning in systematic theology courses in colleges and seminaries often occurs outside the classroom in informal conversations among students who are attempting to understand Bible doctrines for themselves.”13 A faith community of collaborative theological learners is formed. In such a community, there is a vital non-formal aspect to theological education. There is thus a need to engage theology not just by way of individual contemplations of truth but more importantly, in a faith community of collaborative theological learning. This is how theology is best done!

The Necessity of Theological Humility

Knowledge puffs up (1 Cor 8:1) but theology that is done well humbles. For at the heart of theological education is not to exchange an empty mind for a full one, but rather to exchange an empty mind for an open yet discerning mind. And a mind that is discerningly open and openly discerning understands and appreciates the richness and depth of theological contemplation, such that it is genuinely humbled by the finiteness of the human mind to grasp and comprehend an infinite God.

The aim of theology, as Wells alluded to, is not to “master” the subject of God by the formulation of theological knowledge but rather to come to both the realization and appreciation of its utter inexhaustibility. For God, unlike the periodical table, cannot be quantified and analyzed.14 Such true and inexhaustible theology humbles us. A discerning perception of theology is the understanding that it is always an unfinished task. As Barr points out, “Cross-cultural theological discussion exposes the limits of every theological view and reminds those engaged in such discussion that theology is never, at least in this life, finished.”15

Another aspect of the humbling is that we need each other. No man is an island in the construction of informed theological thought and convictions. D.A. Carson, commenting on the integratedness of theological paradigms, compared the systematic theologian with a juggler, keeping many intellectual balls up in the air:

Unlike balls whirling through the air by the juggler’s skill, the various ingredients that constitute systematic theology are not independent. Drop a ball and the other balls are unaffected; drop, say historical theology and not only does the entire discipline of systematic theology change its shape, but the other ingredients are adversely affected. Without historical theology for instance, exegesis is likely to degenerate into arcane, atomistic debates far too tightly tethered to the twentieth century.16

As such, there is a place for humility to learn from the past as we theologize in the present for the future. The one who misguidedly spurns a theological tradition, rather than taps from it, misses doing theology well. As Cole puts it, “Theological thinking is also historical thinking. The theologian has behind him or her the great stream of Christian thought. To ignore the past would be an immense folly.”17 This thought is likewise affirmed by Spykman who declared that “tradition is the very lifeblood of theology… No healthy theology ever arises de novo. By honoring sound tradition, theological continuity with the past is assured.”18 The link with our theological roots and the ability to hear one another is a mark of theological humility.

Conclusion

To become a Christian is not to engage in intellectual suicide. On the contrary, it calls for clear thinking that stems from loving God with all that we are, including a love that is sustained and nourished by right thinking. As Wolfhart Pannenberg has aptly commented: “Argumentation and the operation of the Holy Spirit are not in competition with each other. In trusting in the Holy Spirit Paul in no way spared himself thinking or arguing.”19 There is no place for anti-intellectualism in Christianity. The greatest need of this generation is the intentional development of biblically grounded, theologically sound and spiritually vital disciples of Christ.

As such, theological leadership is vital to the health of the contemporary church. We must do what we can to strengthen the cord. Our purpose and priorities must be clear. The pulpits of local churches must make a radical shift from exhortation or worse, mere entertainment, to sound exegesis and biblical exposition. The rise of biblical illiteracy must be addressed. Sound theological thinking must be returned to the people of God. And such theology should be done contritely, conscientiously and corporately. We are grateful that we have the God-given faculty to think about God meaningfully because the Almighty has chosen to reveal himself to us and to call us into a living relationship with him. Thus, we must go beyond a mere attempt to do theology as merely an intellectual exercise; but rather to integrate it into the whole of life and faith.

We increasingly realize our inadequacy in such a profound intellectual, spiritual and communal exercise. Yet the wonderful privilege and the critical responsibility of doing theology today invite us to such a glorious undertaking. For theology done well is both the act and foundation for the true worship of God, who alone is the adored and inexhaustible subject of all our finest but finite attempts at theologizing. And in the final analysis, this is how theology should essentially be done. For the true worship of the Almighty God, who has revealed himself through the Scriptures and in Christ, is the distinguishing mark of doing theology well.

1 Packer, J. I. Is Systematic Theology a Mirage? An Introductory Discussion, p. 17.

2 McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction, p. 119-123.

3 Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 1986, p.21.

4 Lints, Richard. 1993. The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology, p. 8-9.

5 Tozer, A. W. 1965. The Knowledge of the Holy, p. 9.

6 Cf. F. Gerald Downing’s Has Christianity a Revelation?

7 Macquarrie, John. Principles of Christian Theology, p.6

8 Henry, Carl F. H. 1964. Frontiers in Modern Theology, p.138.

9 Pratt, Richard J. He Gave Us Stories, p. 33.

10 Vidales, Raul. Methodical Issues in Liberation Theology, p.35.

11 Goldberg, Michael. 1982. Theology and Narrative. Nashville: Abingdon, p. 192.

12 Cole, Graham A. At the Heart of a Christian Spirituality, p. 49-61.

13 Grudem, Wayne. 1994. Systematic Theology, p. 35.

14 Wells, David. The Theologian’s Craft, p. 171.

15 Barr, William R. Re-forming Theology in the Global Conversation, p.8.

16 Carson, D. A. The Role of Exegesis in Systematic Theology, p. 39.

17 Cole, Graham A. Thinking Theologically, p.52.

18 Spykman, Gordon J., Reformational Theology: Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics, p.5.

19 Pannenberg, Wolfhart. 1971. Basic Questions in Theology, Vol. II, p. 35.

Bibliography

Barr, William R. 1997. “Re-forming Theology in the Global Conversation” In

Constructive Christian Theology in the Worldwide Church. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans.

Carson, D. A. 1994. “The Role of Exegesis in Systematic Theology” In Doing Theology

in Today’s World, John D. Woodbridge and Thomas Edward McComiskey.

Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Cole, Graham. 1989. “Thinking Theologically.” The Reformed Theological Review. Vol.

48, No. 2

_________ 1993. “At the Heart of a Christian Spirituality.” The Reformed Theological

Review. Vol. 52, No. 2

Erickson, Millard J. 1986. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Goldberg, Michael. 1982. Theology and Narrative. Nashville: Abingdon.

Grudem, Wayne. 1994. Systematic Theology. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

Henry, Carl F. H. 1964. Frontiers in Modern Theology. Chicago, IL: Moody Press.

Lamb, Matthew L. 1982. Solidarity with Victims: Toward a Theology of Social

Transformation. New York: Crossroad.

Lints, Richard. 1993. The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology.

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Macquarrie, John. 1966. Principles of Christian Theology. New York: Charles Scribner’s

Sons.

McGrath, Alister E. 1994. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Publishers.

Packer, J. I. 1994. “Is Systematic Theology a Mirage?: An Introductory Discussion.” In

Doing Theology in Today’s World, John D. Woodbridge and Thomas Edward

McComiskey. Grand rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. 1971. Basic Questions in Theology, Vol. II. London: SCM Press.

Pratt, Richard J. 1990. He Gave Us Stories: The Bible Student’s Guide To Interpreting

Old Testament Narratives. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing.

Spykman, Gordon J., 1992. Reformational Theology: Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics.

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Tozer, A. W. 1965. The Knowledge of the Holy. London: James Clarke.

Vidales, Raul. 1979. “Methodological Issues in Liberation Theology” In Frontiers of

Theology in Latin America. Rosino Gibellini, ed. Maryknoll: Orbis.

Wells, David. 1991. “The Theologian’s Craft” In Doing Theology in Today’s World, John

D. Woodbridge and Thomas Edward McComiskey. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan.

This article can be found in the Common Ground Journal.

© Copyright 2006. Common Ground Journal. All rights reserved.
ISSN: 1547-9129. www.commongroundjournal.org

Paul continues to show the immeasurable nature of God’s redeeming grace by noting the context in which it took place.  It is as if he provides the reader with a snapshot or summary of the whole story from beginning to end.  It is because we were dead in our trespasses that God would have to forgive us by means of redeeming us from sin’s debt (1:7).  Verses 2 and 3 describe the state of what all once were prior to their adoption as sons and daughters (1:5).

Verses 1 through 3 do not distinguish between male or female, Jew or Gentile, bond or free.  All are in the same dead state brought on by trespass and sin.  Paul highlights the enemies of grace: the world, the devil, and the flesh.  All three work to overthrow and undercut the provision of God for the inability of man.  Verse 4 acts as a sharp contrast to the initial three verses.  It functions as an explosion of hope.  In contrast to all that we are, here stands God who is rich in mercy and great in love.  He does not allow us to continue as we were but sets us on a path of life and light.  Because of who God is in essence, all His actions are inseparably linked to and flowing from this abundant resource.

The text speaks to our past, what we once were (vv. 1-3).  It then addresses the present by noting how we are alive together with Christ and have been raised up with Him and seated with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus (vv. 5, 6).  We often fail to appreciate the already-not yet aspect of faith.  We are already alive, raised, and seated, yet there is more.

Verse 7 paints a picture of the future.  The Church is a trophy of His surpassing grace, a grace marked by richness and kindness.  There is something lavish about what God does for those whom He loves.

Everything the church enjoys is a result of a freely bestowed gift (v. 8-10).  This gift as such was incapable of being earned through works, thus no one can boast.  The Church is the work of His hands and through which He works His good work.  This is the story God wrote beforehand and it is in this story we are to walk.

Throughout this short letter, Paul speaks of God’s superabundant activities flowing from Himself to His people.  Such words as “rich, lavish, surpassing greatness, surpassing riches, unfathomable riches, surpasses knowledge and far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think” (1:7, 8, 18, 19; 2:4, 7; 3:8, 16, 18, 19, 20) are employed in an attempt to capture the magnitude of God’s person and work to redeem His people from sin’s debt and to adopt them as sons.  All of this was written by Him into His story (1:4, 5, 9, 11, 21; 2:7, 10; 3:11).

Paul’s opening sentence reaches from verse 3 to verse 14.  Here is an avalanche of descriptive words that unveil what God did in the securing of His people for Himself.  Here we read of God as a tri-unity working (energy) to secure for Himself worshipping sons and daughters.  Our passage speaks of God the Father blessing (v. 3), choosing (v. 4) and adopting (vv. 5, 6) trespassers into His family.  We can equally note the activity of the Son to redeem slaves by forgiving debt by means of His own substitutionary and voluntary death (vv. 7, 8).  It is the Son who makes known to us the mystery of their eternal purpose (vv. 9, 10), how from rebellion, division, and damnation He brings peace, harmony, and life.  It is through Him and in Him all things created find the object that silences the rage from within and the loneliness that robs and destroys.  What is the outcome, the inheritance of His activity?  Through Him, the alienated are adopted, the rebel is restored, the indebted are pardoned and the forsaken are chosen.

None of this is left to the recipient.  The work, all of it in every area, is left to the free bestowal and lavish dispensing of His grace.  He seals His people with the Holy Spirit of promise.  This pledge, the seal, determines ownership and guarantees the outcome (vv. 13, 14).

God’s end game is that all things would be “to the praise of His glory” (vv. 6, 12, 14).  A means to that end, at least in Ephesians, is by the redeeming of His people from sin and the adopting of the same as sons and daughters.  These redeemed trespassers constitute His body, the Church.  It is this Church that now becomes the means whereby God is glorified by all things outside of Himself.  God did/does what no one else could do.  He redeemed those who trespassed against Him, and He was fully engaged, in His essence and economy, in and during the entire process.

In this initial assault on our sensibility, there are hints given as to the extremity of His activity.  Words such as bless assumes a state of being cursed; chosen assumes rejection, adoption presupposes abandonment, redemption takes for granted debt,  making known demands previous blindness, inheritance speaks to disenfranchised, sealing and pledge contrasts with uncertainty and ambiguity.

All of the negatives are descriptive of a previously existing condition.  There was nothing the cursed, rejected, abandoned, indebted, blind, disenfranchised and unstable could do to undo their preexisting condition.  It is only as the Trinitarian God freely bestows and lavishly dispenses His resources without condition that the abandoned can become sons through adoption.

Where does this lead us?  This leads us to the foot of His cross and to the glory of His throne.  There is only one response that is appropriate and it is one of humble adoration and praise.  We have no boast but the cross.  He is our life and our living.  What can we do but praise Him.  He is the substance from which life makes sense.  May we the redeemed gladly and openly declare our eternal indebtedness to the One whose essence and economy secures us from sin’s debt and adopts us as sons.

1. Paul’s first visit to Ephesus happened in Acts 18:18-21.

This is the first occurrence of the word in the New Testament.

2. In Paul’s absence, Priscilla and Aquila instructed Apollos (Acts 18:24-28).

When you read the narrative it is straightforward and clear.

3. Paul returned to Ephesus, taught the disciples and evangelized the unbelieving (Acts 19)

1. Taught on Spirit baptism (Acts 19:1-7)

2. Taught on the kingdom God for two years (Acts 19:8-10)

3. God performed extraordinary miracles through Paul (Acts 19:11-22)

4. Challenged the cult of Artemis of the Ephesians and experienced a violent mob (Acts 19:23-20:1 [perhaps this is what Paul alluded to when he wrote, “I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus {1 Cor. 15:32}]).

4. Paul returns to Ephesus and addresses the Elders of the local churches (Acts 20:17-21:1).

Paul wished to encourage the weak and to guard them against the savage wolves who would teach perverse things.

5. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians from Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8).

Remember the content of 1 Corinthians.  Problems exist inside the community of faith and the book/letter contains his response to their questions and problems.

6. Paul encouraged Timothy to remain on at Ephesus so that he might instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines (1 Tim. 1:3).

First and Second Timothy speak to the shepherd to protect the flock of God.  Both address the ideas of biblical structure and mission.  We must note the similarity between the charges given in Acts 20:17ff and what is found in 1 and 2 Timothy.

7. Paul also speaks well of Onesiphorus who aided Paul while imprisoned (2 Tim. 1:16-18) and Tychicus who was a co-laborer (2 Tim. 4:12).

Paul was often accompanied by co-workers who labored with him in the strengthening of existing churches and the establishing of new ones.

8. The apostle John also writes specifically to the church in Ephesus (Rev. 1:11; 2:1-7).  Their orthodoxy (i.e. right belief) was impeccable, but their orthoproxy (i.e. right behavior) was challenged.  It is here we read, “You have left your first love.”

The pastoral letters are written near the end of Paul’s life (AD 64).  Thirty years later John is encouraged by their theological purity and defense of the gospel, but warns and cautions against a theology that is devoid of Christ.  It is not enough for people to know what you are against; they must know what you are for.  People should know what we are for long before they come to understand what we are against.  Neither Paul nor John would argue against doctrinal purity.  Both have much to say as it relates to correct thinking, but both are equally passionate about correct fervor manifesting itself in correct behavior.  The question they would ask and we are confronted by is simply, “Do you love Jesus?”  “Is He first in your theology, your thinking and your life?”  That thought must dominate our doctrinal discussion, and from it must flow our “good works.”

Paul had told Timothy to stay and teach in Ephesus when Paul went to Macedonia (1 Tim. 1:3). During the third journey, Paul had done the opposite, staying in Ephesus himself, and sending Timothy with Erastus to Macedonia (Acts 19:22). So First Timothy was written around 64-65 AD during a period of liberty after Paul’s Roman imprisonment of 61-63 AD. Paul said he was hoping to come to Timothy in Ephesus shortly, but may have to tarry long (1 Tim. 3:14-15). Timothy was in Ephesus where he received both 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy (1 Tim. 1:3, 2 Tim. 1:16-18, 4:14, 4:19, Acts 19:33, and 1 Tim. 1:20).

Second Timothy was apparently written from prison (2 Tim. 1:8) with Paul ready to die (2 Tim. 4:6-8), possibly about 66 AD. Yet he asks Timothy to come to him before winter (2 Tim. 4:9 and 21). Paul was probably martyred sometime around 67 AD.

The Book of Ephesians will open up to us the Word of God to the Church of God.  It is imperative that we have ears to hear.  Let us pray to the Holy Spirit to open our ears and eyes to the majesty of truth that we will encounter within the passages of holy write.

Prepared by Patrick J. Griffiths © 2009 – pastorpat@waukeshabible.org

http://www.faith.edu/seminary/faithpulpit.php?article=./faithpulpit/2001_03

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2009/julaug/platformagnostic.html

There is an element of perplexity offered to us in the text.  Is it possible for those who have the inheritance to become disinherited?  Is it possible for those who are citizens of His kingdom to be expelled from its realm?  There is a weight to what faces us in this text that must not and cannot be negated.  Paul speaks to the Ephesians and reminds them that if in Adam behavior characterizes their lives then they are in real danger of losing their inheritance and becoming outcasts of His kingdom.

Let us attempt to put his charge in its literary context.  Paul speaks of those whom God as a Trinity secured to become sons and daughters by fully engaging all that He is in His essence and all He has at His disposal.  All the resources of God were deployed for the purpose of redeeming the sinner’s debt and adopting the orphaned.  Everything in chapters 1 through 3 speaks to the new man created when God acted.  It is from this tree that unity, purity and charity now flow.  In the absence of individual purity and charity, the unity secured by the cross is in jeopardy of failing.  This failure refers to its manifestation in the community of faith.  Nothing can ever undo what God did.  Yet it is possible to speak and live so poorly as to significant obscure the manifestation of the cross in one’s community of faith.

The characteristics of what all once were in Adam no longer identify those who are in Christ.  We are to parrot God, follow God, because we are His loved children.  He loves us and the consequence of this love is unmerited adoption.  What this looks like in His children is love.  He explains what this love looks like through two venues.  First, love is explained by the cross.  Second, love is explained by contrast.

Everything about the Christian life is a consequence of the cross.  The cross causes the relationship one has with God.  The consequences of that relationship is both verbal (i.e. what you say and how you speak) and visual (i.e. how you behave).  Because you are now in Christ and have become His body, everything about you has changed forever.  If this is true, how are we to take the charge and warning of Ephesians 5:1-6?

My understanding of this is progressing, but first there is the idea expressed in Galatians where one is “severed from Christ” (Gal. 5:4).  I believe this speaks of apostasy whereby initial faith is abandoned through a persistent verbal denial.  This person once professed Christ, but through open and continued verbal denial they have abandoned Christ and have thus fallen from grace and are severed from Christ.

The second idea is of one who through their actions openly and consistently shows their in Adam identity.  There are several passages that speak to this idea.  I will note only a handful.

First, some clarity can come from the parable of the wise man building his house on the rock (Please read Matt. 7:24-29).  What is of interest is to see the parallel between hearing and doing and building on the rock.  The unwise hear but fail to do and thus build their entire lives on nothing more stable than sand.  The issue is not on how well either one built, but on what they built.  It is only because of the rock that the one stood and the other failed.

Second, some clarity can come from the parable of the four soils (Please read Mark 4:1-20).  The first three soil types did not produce an enduring crop.  As a consequence they all failed.  It is only the fourth soil that produced an enduring crop.  In the absence of this notable and enduring fruit, there can be no certainty.

Third, some clarity can come from the illustration of the dog returning to its vomit (Please read 2 Pet. 2:20-22).  This question of endurance presented in Ephesians 5:1-6 is persistent.  Matthew, Mark and Peter speak to it.  Peter’s employs two ancient proverbs, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT”, and, “a sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”  In both cases the issue is one of nature.

It is neither fair nor right for us to be dismissive with the exhortation and warning found in Ephesians 5:1-6.  It would be tragic for anyone to discharge debase behavior by assuming the lavish nature of God’s grace.  When the grace of God is promoted as an opportunity for the flesh and rank lasciviousness, then Paul warns them of God’s wrath and disinheritance.  When grace is used as an excuse, then the danger of disbarring is real.  Yet the grace of God receives the prodigal (Luke 15), releases the defiled (John 8), and restores the rejected (Mark 1:40ff).  May we flee from the wrath to come, and may we find comfort and rest in the enormity of God’s immeasurable grace.

By Pastor Patrick J. Griffiths.  For more information see the Waukesha Bible Church series on Ephesians.

The intent of this article is to show how what we once were in Adam we no longer are, but still have.  Paul’s point from the beginning of the letter all the way through chapter 3 is to note how those who were once in sin’s debt and alienated from God are now redeemed from sin and adopted into God’s family.  He is their Father and they are His children.

Paul is clear in verses 17 through 22 as to what this in Adam condition looks like both as a state and as a function.  I would like us to consider the graphic nature of Paul’s language in describing those apart from Christ.  There are several descriptive phrases that help us mark the unbelieving state and practice.

First, there is the futility of their mind (v. 17).  The word “futility” speaks to vanity, emptiness.  “The word contains the idea of aimlessness, the leading to no object or end.”[1] It is the same word used in Romans 8:20 (“For the creation was subjected to futility. . .”) and in 2 Peter 2:18 (“For speaking out arrogant words of vanity. . . ”).  There is emptiness to the conclusion drawn by those who do not and will not acknowledge God.  Because there is no fear of God within their thinking, they have no wisdom (Ps. 111:10; Prov. 9:10).  This is the manner of life that characterizes the unbelieving.

Second, they are darkened in their understanding (v. 18a).  The emphasis is on the continuing condition.  This is the stated condition of all those who are without Christ.  Notice the following verses in their depiction of the state of the unbelieving.

“to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me” (Acts 26:18).

“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom. 1:21).

Apart from Christ their understanding is without light.

Third, they are excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them (v. 18b).  Like their darkness, so also their alienation.  Emphasis is placed on the continuing state or existence.  “It does not imply that they had at one time enjoyed that life; it means simply being aliens from it.”[2] It is the same word used in Ephesians 1:12 (“remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world”) and in Colossians 1:21 (“And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds”).

Fourth, there is the hardness of their heart (v. 18c).  The hardening of heart is used throughout the New Testament to describe those who insensitive toward God.  The imagery is that of a callous.  “[It] signifies a thickening of the outward skin of any particular part, especially on the hands and feet, by repeated exercise or use, through which such parts are rendered insensible.”[3]

Fifth, they are calloused (v. 19a).  Here the idea of insensitivity is heightened.  This is the consequence of the hardness noted in verse 18.  Like the darkness and the alienation so also the insensitivity.  It is habitual and marks the state of the unbelieving.  “The translation ‘past feeling’ expresses the sense accurately.  The lack of moral feeling and discernment means that inability to exercise any restraint.”[4] This is why the following thought is true.

Sixth, they have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness (v. 19b).  This is the outcome of their calloused existence.  Their existence is marked by an “insatiable craving greed, consuming ambition, giving reign to appetites and desires which are against the laws of God and man.”[5] This idea finds fuller exposure in Romans 1.  They are neither master nor lord, but mere pawns to their fleshly appetites.  Theirs is a tragic existence whose end is marked by an eternal alienation from God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Finally, they are being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit (v. 22).  Again, this statement marks the ongoing state of those who are apart from Christ.  “The whole character representing the former self was not only corrupt but growing ever more and more corrupt.  Every trait of the old man’s behavior is putrid, crumbling, or inflated like rotting waste or cadavers, stinking, ripe for being disposed of and forgotten.”[6]

The fruit produced by the unbelieving is a natural consequence of their in Adam standing.  They can do nothing less than this.  Yet those who are in Christ still sin.  This sin is a result of the old in Adam self.  But it is no longer the tree that it once was.  This tree has been given a fatal blow at Calvary.  It is no longer capable of producing, in quantity or kind, the toxic fruit of sin.  There is a new tree growing in the believing from the seed of God, and it is this tree of life that now produces the fruit of the Holy Spirit (1 John 3:9).

This is what the unbelieving are in Adam.  Paul is not describing the believing.  Friend, what great cause we have to celebrate all God as a Trinity did for His people.  Yet I believe we mishandle this idea significantly.  Herein is my struggle.  I cannot state it any more emphatically, no Christian can be described in the manner Paul describes the unbelieving.  Because you still have what you once were there is a struggle against the old self, but this old self and its vices do not identify the Christian.  It isn’t that they cannot; they simply do not.  This is not what they are.

It is said, “If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, chances are it’s a duck.”  Even if the duck behaves like a squirrel or a dog, it is still a duck.  Christians can never be anything other than what they are in Christ.  Because of their old self, the flesh, they still sin, but this sin does not make them anything more or less than what they are in Christ.  The reason why the unbelieving behave like unbelievers is because they are unbelievers.  This is what the Ephesian Gentiles once were but they no longer are.

Paul does note how we are to put off those expressions of our old self whether it is falsehood, anger, stealing, corrupt speech and all the rest (vv. 25-32).  But none of these acts can ever undo what God has done.  They cannot cause us to be hardened or insensitive to the Spirit’s work.  Such things as these do grieve the Holy Spirit because they will ultimately divide relationships within the body of Christ.  But they cannot alienate us from God for His people are in Christ.  This does not lessen the seriousness of the call to holiness, but it must put it in perspective.

For you and me to behave in a manner that is reflective of the old self is complete unbefitting of our identity in Christ.  We should and must flee from these things.  Let us not fear the outcome of our struggle against sin knowing that God has already won the victory.  The struggle against our old self is real, but so is the victory that is ours in Christ.  May this open our eyes to what we already have in Christ, and may we not waver in our pursuit of Him and our struggle against the old self.

[2] Rogers and Rogers, 441.

[3] Adam Clarke’s Commentary on Ephesians 4:18.

[4] Rogers and Rogers, 441.

[5] Rogers and Rogers, 442.

[6] Rogers and Rogers, 442.

By Pastor Patrick J. Griffiths.  For more information see the Waukesha Bible Church series on Ephesians.

In order to treat this passage appropriately, it must be read in light of what was just stated in 1:3-14: God as a trinity in the totality of His essence and energy redeemed His people from sin’s debt by forgiving their sins and then adopted them as His sons and daughters.  All of this was freely bestowed and lavishly dispensed.

As those who are sons and daughters, Paul now prays for their continued growth in the knowledge of Him.  Just as God can bless because He is blessed, so can He now give knowledge of His glory because He is the Father of glory.

Whatever the weight of the information given in verses 3-14 it is now expressed along three distinct petitions.  The two ideas (vv. 3-14 and vv. 17-23) must be seen as complimentary and parallel.  First, Paul prays that his audience would know the person of Christ.  Christ as the agent through whom the Godhead works and reveals is central to the entire story.  Unless and until we grasp this, nothing else matters.  And when we do grasp this, nothing else matters.  It is impossible to overstate the issue.  If Jesus is not the centerpiece of one’s own personal story, then there is nothing but ultimate darkness and despair.  The story of God was written in such a way that it cannot make sense apart from Jesus Christ as the cornerstone on which the entire structure rests, or as the linchpin that keeps the wheels from falling off the axle of life.

The second petition Paul brings is for them to know the promise of the inheritance.  Again, this thought parallels that expressed in verses 11-14.  The big idea is the principle of “already-not yet.”  What we currently possess as the redeemed, adopted sons and daughters of God, is fully sufficient for now, and yet . . . there is more.  The very idea of inheritance speaks of something that is still yet future.  An inheritance is capable of being possessed in the present, but there is more.  An inheritance was once future.  For the believer the work of God planned in eternity past and begun in time still has a future installment.  There is more.  It is this future installment that provides hope in the moment.  It tells us that the best is yet to come.  In looking to the future, we cannot forget either the past or the present.  There is a real and tangible aspect of our present possession that speaks to the moment.  Yet it is the future inheritance that provides hope to those who live in the context of despair.  It is this future inheritance that provides healing to those who live with disease and addresses wholeness where there is only dysfunction.

Paul’s final request is for his audience to know the power of God.  It is this last request that puts all the rest in perspective.  It is only because of God’s immeasurable greatness of power working toward us who believe that we can know the person of Christ and the promise of the inheritance.  This immeasurable power is so vast that it raised Christ from the dead and placed all things created under His feet.  The word “immeasurable” speaks to our inability to measure or quantify just how vast the resources of God are which He has placed at our disposal so that we might know.

All this sits within His body, the Church.  It is in and through the Church that the risen and reigning Christ works to the community, the nation and the world.  The Church is the agent through which His kingdom will come on earth even as it is in heaven.

We see the visible church as a highly imperfect and at times dysfunctional entity, yet the church is His body in which and through which He is working reconciliation/peace.  It is from the peace secured by the cross that He now works peace to the world.

Oh the weight of such a task in the light of our glaring weakness!  Yet Paul celebrates the weakness because it is only as we are weak that we find the immeasurable greatness of His power toward us who believe (2 Cor. 12:9).

May we pray with Pauline passion for His people, the body of Christ, His church.  May we see past our personal pettiness and petition Him with powerful utterances that reflect the very heart of God for us.

By Pastor Patrick J. Griffiths.  For more information see the Waukesha Bible Church series on Ephesians.

(Psalm 107:29)

Have you ever felt as if you have no control over your life?  It is the kind of feeling you get that wakes you up in the middle of the night and refuses to let you sleep.  The emotion you experience is probably the same as one whose parachute is not opening even though every possible chord is pulled.  Regardless as to what you might think and what others might tell you, the ‘feeling’ you have is less than ideal and your emotional stability is shot.  When we find ourselves sucked into the vortex of the storm, what are we to do?

Why is God allowing us to experience a life out of control?  I believe there are at least four reasons why such times visit our lives.

• First, trials come to assure us that we are not in control (James 4:13, 14).

Because of depravity, we have this incredible capacity for unbridled arrogance.  For whatever reason, we actually believe the humanistic reports concerning our development and future.  Whenever we think we have “our act together,” God has a way of showing us just how fragile the best-laid plans are.

• Second, trials come to show us what is important (Acts 27:19).

• Third, trials come to magnify the sustaining grace of God (2 Cor. 12:9).

In the midst of our most difficult and sustained trial, God is ministering to us.  Your perseverance in the storm is a testimony to God’s relentless grace.

• Finally, trials come to declare the supremacy of God in all things (Job 40:6).

No event happens that He has not ordered.  Regardless as to how ‘nasty’ the event might be, God has so ordered providence so that you find yourself in the midst of His will.  This is what lends meaning to the most horrific act and smallest detail.  All things are rushing toward the ultimate goal of God being glorified (Philippians 2:10, 11; Romans 11:36).

In the midst of our sorrow, this can be a difficult pill to swallow. What is the alternative?  You and I are not victims of fate or evil men.  We are part of His loving and wise purpose.  We are objects loved.  Friend, we are not in control, God is.

My heart grieves for those whose situations and circumstances are less than ideal.  To see one drowning in the sea of emotional upheaval is heart wrenching.  You reach out and grab them with all your might, you make every effort to pray and to love, but in the midst of the storm, let us not abandon the boat of our theology.  Let us “Look unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.”  Friend, do not let go.  Hold fast to sound words for grace and peace.  You are loved.  May grace continue to reign!

By Pastor Patrick J. Griffiths.  For more information see the Waukesha Bible Church series on Galatians.

Now this I say, he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.  7 Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.  8 And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having all sufficiency in every thing, you may have an abundance for every good deed;

While teaching the teens in the earlier part of the year I spoke on “The Seven Laws of the Jungle.”  These “Laws” are dispensationally generic meaning regardless as to the dispensation they neither change nor become dated or irrelevant.  One of the seven is called, “The Law of Sowing and Reaping.”  In the providence of God this “Law” is no less true concerning giving.

At WBC we believe in what is called “Grace Giving.”  This means we believe God is big enough to supply the needs for the advancement of His ministry in us and through us.  We are equally convinced that God will use His people to meet the financial needs of the local church ministry.  Thus at WBC you will not hear perpetual pleas for financial assistance nor will guilt be used to motivate the people of God to give.  If somehow the corporate fellowship does not believe the ministries of WBC are worthy of continuation through financial giving, then they will come to an end.  God’s will, in some ways, can be determined by the availability or lack therein of financial backing.

Our passage before us gives the foundation for grace giving.

First, verse six gives us a timeless principle, “He who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.”  Whether we like it or not those who are generous with their finances will reap bountifully.  Generous does not mean foolish or careless, but it does mean, “bighearted, openhanded, and liberal (Proverbs 11:25).”  Whether the return is in this life or in the life that is to come is not stated, but there is a bountiful return on generous giving.

Second, verse seven provides three additional guidelines.  Our giving is deliberate (“as he has purposed in his heart”).  Our giving is voluntary (“not grudgingly or under compulsion”).  And our giving is agreeable (“cheerful giver”).  Grace giving gives because it has been the recipient of grace.  Grace forms the only legitimate motive for giving.  Grace giving declares that “He is enough in this life and in the life to come.”  Grace giving always sees the giver of the gifts greater than the gifts given.

Third, verse eight assures me that God will continue to meet all of my needs (Philippians 4:18, 19).  Because of God’s unconditional love for me I never have to fear of “outgiving” God.  I never have to give to God to get from God.  He already gave me His Son thus He will withhold nothing from me that I need (Romans 8:32). My motive for giving is always grace based and love motivated.  My giving simply says, “God I love you and you mean more to me than the gifts you give.”

Let us continue to prayerfully support His work through the gifts we enjoy as His children.  May you rejoice in what God is choosing to do in and through WBC to those around her.

By Pastor Patrick J. Griffiths.  For more information see the Waukesha Bible Church series on Galatians.

Peter’s question in verse 21 is intriguing because it is either very sincere, innocent or it is deceptive and pharisaical.  Perhaps Peter thought he was already reasonably forgiving or he was maybe thinking of a situation where he was being “victimized” and wanted to know when he could “pull-the-plug” on another individual relationally.

Why did Peter say, “Up to seven times?”  Let us consider some historical insight.

“It was Rabbinic teaching that a man must forgive his brother three times.”  (Barclay, Matthew, 193).  The prophet Amos uses the formula, “For three transgressions and for four” which many have “deduced that God’s forgiveness extends to three offences and that he visits the sinner with punishment at the fourth.”  When Peter suggested “seven times,” he thought he was going very far.  He expected commendation by His Lord.

Our Lord’s response in verse twenty-two, however, declares to Peter that our forgiveness is to be limitless.  Our forgiveness is to be as big as God Himself.  It is as abundant and as inexhaustible as the provided resource.

Jesus follows up His statement with a story of two debtors.  It is a familiar scenario.  The first debtor had a debt he could not pay (v.24) and he made a promise he could not keep (v.26).  The king moved by compassion cancelled the debtor’s debt (v.27).  At this point, a second debtor is introduced.  The emphasis is not on the second debtor’s ability to pay his debt, but on the first debtor’s response to the second debtor.  The first debtor had a heart he could not fix (vv.28-30).

He treated the second debtor without compassion, without consideration and without charity.  The message of any parable is singular.  This parable is NOT teaching the reinstating of our sins by the Father.  That is not the point.  The point is, “Those who have been forgiven an insurmountable debt forgive unconditionally and immeasurably.”

I found the contrast between the two debts interesting.  “The 100 denarii (v.28) could be carried in one pocket.  The ten thousand-talent debt would take an army of about 8,600 carriers, each carrying a sack of sixpences 60lbs. in weight; and they would form, at a distance of a yard apart, a line five miles long.

The contrast between the debts is staggering.”  (Barclay, 194).  Today I heard our nation has a debt of 7 TRILLION dollars.  I cannot begin to imagine just how large 7 TRILLION dollars is.  Yet such a debt pales when compared to the sin debt I had before the Father.  Whether my debt was 1 TRILLION, 7 TRILLION OR 700 TRILLION would not matter one iota.  The size of the debt would in no way affect my ability to cancel it.  I had to have forgiveness.

Verse 27 uses two key words, “release,” and “forgive.”  The word “release” is a compound word meaning, “To free fully.”  The word, “forgive” means, “To forsake, or deny.”  Both words are graphic.  God has “fully freed” us from our sin debt.  Our sin has been left behind.

In Luke 7:42 and 43 Jesus once more refers to two debtors.  The word He uses for “forgive” is charizomai.  It is rooted in the word, charis (or grace).  Charizomai is the same word used in Ephesians 4:32.

Ephesians 4:32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.

Thus, to forgive is grace expressed. Friend, we are always the greater debtors.  I am freely to forgive just as I have been forgiven.  Some people wait to forgive until the offending party asks them for forgiveness.  How tragic.  If God treated us this way, we would all perish.  We are to forgive just as we have been forgiven.  How has God forgiven us?  He has forgiven us completely (Col. 2:13).  He has forgiven us unconditionally (1 John 2:1, 2).  He has forgiven us freely (Rom. 3:24).

We, of all people, should be quick to forgive those who have committed wrong against us.  Who is it that you simply cannot forgive?  If you step back and look at it from God’s perspective, you perhaps will see that you are the greater debtor.

A little boy was asked what forgiveness meant.  He responded with this answer, “It is the odor that flowers breathe when they are trampled upon.”

By Pastor Patrick J. Griffiths.  For more information see the Waukesha Bible Church series on Galatians.