On Solus Christus
Welcome to readers of joining The 2nd Carnival of the Reformation.
Topic:
I start by thinking, well, I could posit that my works are required to justify my reconciliation, after all, (James 2) tells us that faith without works is dead. Therefore might not my works be required? But that is faulty logic. Works are evidence of my faith. My faith in Christ is all that is required, St. Paul re-iterates this only a bazillion times, e.g., (Romans 3:22)This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jess Christ to all how believe.. So that doesn't work. Works are a symptom of faith. Faith is required. Lack of works may indicate weak faith, or just little means to produce works. Faith acquired on a deathbed will produce no works, but we believe is just as good as faith held from the cradle.
Well I think, how about, proposing (and then shooting down) that it wasn't Christ's death on a cross (substitutionary atonement) but some other act or property of Christ that "did the trick"? Well no, for let's face it, I don't even need to run to biblical exegesis for this. We say the creed in every church service. It states exactly that Christ died to atone for our sins. The creed is pretty much canon, and it beggars belief to find would think the creed does not have sound scriptural provenance.
So I'm stuck in the mud, on this post, because Solus Christus seems just too uncontroversial. There have undoubtedly been heresies in the past may have tried to chip away at Solus Christus, but that's why they're called heresies. Because they are wrong! So gentle reader, I'm sorry if I wasted your time reading this, but while you're here, look around, see if anything I've been writing about catches your fancy. :)
Topic:
I have to admit I have a problem with this, though not the problem you expect.The problem lies in coming up with any sort of argument against this that is reasonable enough to warrant much discussion.Thesis two: Solus Christus
We reaffirm that our salvation is accomplished by the mediatorial work of the historical Christ alone. His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification and reconciliation to the Father.
We deny that the gospel is preached if Christ's substitutionary work is not declared and faith in Christ and his work is not solicited.
I start by thinking, well, I could posit that my works are required to justify my reconciliation, after all, (James 2) tells us that faith without works is dead. Therefore might not my works be required? But that is faulty logic. Works are evidence of my faith. My faith in Christ is all that is required, St. Paul re-iterates this only a bazillion times, e.g., (Romans 3:22)This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jess Christ to all how believe.. So that doesn't work. Works are a symptom of faith. Faith is required. Lack of works may indicate weak faith, or just little means to produce works. Faith acquired on a deathbed will produce no works, but we believe is just as good as faith held from the cradle.
Well I think, how about, proposing (and then shooting down) that it wasn't Christ's death on a cross (substitutionary atonement) but some other act or property of Christ that "did the trick"? Well no, for let's face it, I don't even need to run to biblical exegesis for this. We say the creed in every church service. It states exactly that Christ died to atone for our sins. The creed is pretty much canon, and it beggars belief to find would think the creed does not have sound scriptural provenance.
So I'm stuck in the mud, on this post, because Solus Christus seems just too uncontroversial. There have undoubtedly been heresies in the past may have tried to chip away at Solus Christus, but that's why they're called heresies. Because they are wrong! So gentle reader, I'm sorry if I wasted your time reading this, but while you're here, look around, see if anything I've been writing about catches your fancy. :)
posted by Mark at 12/18/2004 10:54:00 AM
<< Home