At the time of the Reformation there was a stable full of 'Scholastic' preachers in the Roman Catholic church. These priests knew NOTHING about the Biblical Gospel of Salvation by Grace through the imputed righteousness of Christ and His vicarious death on the cross for sins. Instead, they understood 'civic righteousness'. This is the type of righteousness that teaches you how to be a more upstanding and successful citizen of Earth. In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Philip Melanchthon writes about these scholastic preachers. Pay close attention to what he says and you'll see that the exact same problem exists in Evangelicalism today. We currently are plagued with preachers who preach 'civic righteousness' and call it The Abundant Life or the Changed Life. But, rather than preaching Aristotle, after all he's fallen from vogue, these new Evangelical gurus preach the self-help principles of Anthony Robins, Oprah, and Dr. Phil. Here's what Melancthon had to say on the matter:
Here the scholastics in line with the philosophers teach only the righteousness of reason, namely, civil works. In addition, they fabricate the idea that reason, without the Holy Spirit, can love God above all things. Now as long as the human mind is undisturbed and does not feel God’s wrath or judgment, it can imagine that it wants to love God and that it wants to do good for God’s sake. In this way the scholastics teach that people merit the forgiveness of sins by “doing what is within them,” that is, whenever reason, while grieving over sin, elicits an act of love for God or does good for God’s sake. Because this opinion naturally flatters people, it has brought forth and multiplied many kinds of worship in the church, like monastic vows and abuses of the Mass. On the basis of this opinion some devised some types, others other types of devotional acts or observances. And in order to nourish and increase trust in such works, the scholastics have asserted that God necessarily gives grace to those who do these things, by a necessity not of coercion but of unchanging order.
Many great and destructive errors, which would take too long to enumerate, lurk behind this opinion. But let the discerning reader consider only this: if this is Christian righteousness, what is the difference between philosophy and the teaching of Christ? If we merit the forgiveness of sins by these elicited acts of ours, what does Christ provide? If we can be justified through reason and the works of reason, why do we need Christ or regeneration? As a result of these opinions, the matter has degenerated to such an extent that many ridicule us for teaching that we must seek another righteousness beyond that offered by philosophy. We have heard of some who, having laid aside the gospel, expound on the Ethics of Aristotle in their sermons. And indeed they should, if the things that the opponents defend are true. After all, Aristotle wrote so eruditely about social ethics that nothing further needs to be added. We also see that there are books that compare certain teachings of Christ with the teachings of Socrates, Zeno, and others, as though Christ had come to bring certain kinds of laws through which we merit the forgiveness of sins rather than receiving it freely on account of his merits. So if we accept the opponents’ doctrine that we merit the forgiveness of sins and justification by the works of reason, there will indeed be no difference between philosophical—or at least Pharisaic—righteousness and Christian righteousness.
-- Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article IV: Justification
Comments