Solus Christus: Our Only
Mediator
Heb.
10:10-12, 14;
9:23-28
10 By the which
will we are sanctified through the offering of the body
of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every
priest standeth daily ministering and offering
oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take
away sins:
12 But this man,
after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever,
sat down on the right hand of God . . .
14 For by one
offering he hath perfected for ever them that are
sanctified. . . .
23 It was
therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the
heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly
things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is
not entered into the holy places made with hands, which
are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now
to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he
should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth
into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must
he often have suffered since the foundation of the
world: but now once in the end of the world hath he
appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is
appointed unto men once to die, but after this the
judgment:
28 So Christ was
once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them
that look for him shall he appear the second time
without sin unto salvation.
We approach these
verses with hesitation. They address our Lord and Savior
directly, and there is a feeling of inadequacy when
speaking of such things. Jesus Christ is the center of
Scripture, the Gospel itself, so how we address Him will
dictate our entire theology. Jesus is everything. If we
do not preach Him, we have nothing to say, and if we do
not preach Christ alone, we
preach a false Gospel.
The Roman Catholic Mass was
a gripping scene in the days prior to the Reformation.
The holy altar stood at the front of the church. Thin,
round wafers, enough for all worshippers present, lay in
a golden dish. Beside it stood a golden chalice filled
with wine. The priest entered the scene in brightly
colored vestments and with bowed head. There was no
singing; there were no spontaneous prayers. There was
just the priest, who would in a moment—with the power
that had been bestowed upon him by the bishop at his
ordination—turn the plain bread and wine into the
literal body and blood of Jesus
Christ.
The people had been
taught to revere this moment more than any other,
because the Mass, the Church taught, is the same
sacrifice as the sacrifice of the Cross. In a
moment, through the act of
transubstantiation—meaning “a
change of substance”—the priest would perform a miracle
just as real as those of Jesus. So central was this to
the Church, that in response to the upheaval the
Reformers would make in a few years, the Council of
Trent would declare of the Mass in 1562:
If any one denieth, that,
in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are
contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and
blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but
saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in
figure, or virtue; let him be
anathema.
If any one . . . denieth
that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole
substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole
substance of the wine into the Blood . . . let him be
anathema.
If any one saith, either
that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is
the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not
result therefrom; let him be
anathema.
If any one saith,
that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not
offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else
but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be
anathema.
[i]
The worshipers
present, however, needed no such assurance or warning.
They believed and put their hope in the priest who was
about to become an Alter Christus—another Christ—in that he would call the real
Christ down from heaven and sacrifice Him again for the
salvation of the faithful and for the deliverance of
souls in purgatory.
As the ritual unfolded, it
was a drama to behold, a pageant that reenacted the
experiences of Christ beginning at the Last Supper in
the upper room and culminating with the Ascension. It
was mesmerizing to watch the priest perform this drama.
His bowing and genuflecting were imitations of Christ in
His agony and suffering. The various articles of
clothing he wore represented those worn by Christ: the
seamless robe, the purple coat, the veil with which His
face was covered in the house of Caiaphas, a girdle
representing the cords with which he was bound in the
Garden, other cords that bound Him to the Cross, and
other vivid reminders.
While the liturgy would be
simplified in the mid-twentieth century, and would then
be said in the colloquial language, in that day it was
more theatrical and was conducted wholly in Latin.
Observers simply could not look away as the spectacle
developed. In all, the priest made the sign of the cross
sixteen times, turned toward the congregation six times,
lifted his eyes to heaven eleven times, kissed the altar
eight times, folded his hands four times, struck his
breast ten times, bowed his head twenty-one times,
genuflected eight times, bowed his shoulders seven
times, blessed the alter with the sign of the cross
thirty times, laid his hands flat on the altar
twenty-nine times, prayed secretly eleven times, prayed
aloud thirteen times, covered and uncovered the chalice
ten times, walked back and forth twenty times, and
performed other acts.
The priest had studied
endlessly to be able to perform all this perfectly from
memory, for to forget one element was to commit a great
sin and invalidate the Mass.
But most important of
all, the act that all present wait
ed for, was the moment the
priest declared, “We offer unto Thee, the living, the
true, the eternal God.” The people, of course, could not
understand Latin, but it did not matter. They had been
taught about what had just happened. With those words,
the priest ate a large wafer and drank the wine on
behalf of the congregation, and then each worshiper
partook. In turn, each worshipper knelt before the altar
with eyes closed. With a wafer in his hand, the priest
made the sign of the cross and then placed it on the
worshipper’s tongue, saying, “The Body of Christ.”
We recount that to
emphasize that the principle of solus Christus, Christ alone, therefore, drove even deeper
into heart of the Reformation debate, even driving “a
stake,” if you will, through its very heart. The Mass,
the re-crucifying of Christ, was the focal point of the
entire system. The Reformers, however, rejected this
perverted spectacle and blasphemous re-crucifixion of
Christ. It was (and still is) a blatant departure from
our text in Hebrews 10, where we read that Christ was
offered once-for-all (10:10) for sin and is now seated
on the right hand of God (10:12) not called by a human
priest to die again. Our Lord does not offer himself
often, as the high priest [went] into the holy place
every year with [the] blood of animals (9:25). He was the
perfect Lamb of God who [bore] the sins of many (9:28), that is, His
elect from the foundation of the world. That
once-for-all sacrifice is the only sufficient payment
for our sin. As Hebrews goes on
say, it was that one and only sacrifice on the cross
that ushered Christ “into the holy place” where He
“obtained eternal redemption for us” (9:12). Verse 15
goes on to declare with no ambiguity: “And for this
cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by
means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions
that were under the first testament, they which are
called might receive the promise of eternal
inheritance.”
Regardless of those clear
statements of Scripture, however, the Council of Trent
responded to the reformers’ accusation of blasphemy by
stating: “If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of
the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy
sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that
it is thereby derogated from; let him be
anathema.
[ii]
Also at issue was the
whole concept of the priesthood, that is, a priest as
the mediator between God and the people. The Church of
the 1st Century had no
priests. Nowhere in the New Testament do we read that
this is an office in the church. It was a position in
Mosaic Judaism alone and was replaced by the finished
work of Christ. Rome’s priesthood, in fact, resembles
more of paganism than it does the Old Testament
priesthood. Hebrew 7:12 clearly declares, “For the
priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a
change also of the law,” and verse 17 says that Christ
alone is our “priest for ever.” Verses 18-27 go on to
settle the matter:
For there is verily a
disannulling of the commandment going before for the
weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the
bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw
nigh unto God. And inasmuch as not without an oath he
was made priest: (For those priests were made without an
oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him,
The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest
for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) By so much was
Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they
truly were many priests, because they were not suffered
to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he
continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost
that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make
intercession for them. For such an high priest became
us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from
sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth
not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice,
first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for
this he did once, when he offered up
himself.
The whole idea, then, of
the so-called “Christian priesthood” is a totally Roman
Catholic invention and a blasphemous one at that. It
maintains, according to Trent, that Jesus Himself
“constituted [the apostles as] priests of the New
Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration
of me [Lk. 22:19; I Cor. 11:24-25], He commanded them
and their successors in the priesthood to offer” Jesus’
“body and blood under the species of bread and
wine,”
[iii] while
Scripture, of course, says no such thing.
In addition to the Lord
Jesus as our High Priest, which is repeatedly emphasized
in Hebrews (3:1; 4:14-15; 5:10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11;
10:21), every believer is a priest, as I Peter 2:9
declares: “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye
should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you
out of darkness into his marvellous light.” Revelation
1:6 likewise says that we are all “kings and priests
unto God.” This is why that, while only priests could
enter God’s presence in the tabernacle and temple, we
all now have “boldness to enter into the holiest by the
blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath
consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say,
his flesh” (Heb. 10:19-20). We need no earthly priest to
mediate for us, because now “there is one God, and one
mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (I
Tim. 2:5). We all have direct access to the Holy of
Holies because Christ alone is our
Mediator.
Catastrophically,
all this today is progressively being reversed. In spite
of the overwhelming proof of Rome’s blasphemies, many
professing evangelicals not only want to embrace
Rome but even return to it. As far back as 1982,
Robert Schuller planted the seed for what has today
become the wholesale undoing of the Reformation. In his
apostate book, Self Esteem: A New
Reformation, he attacks the very
core of “Reformation Theology” by saying that it “failed
to make clear that the core of sin is a lack of
self–esteem” (p. 98),[iv] and that
the reformers were “rampantly reckless in assaulting the
dignity of the person” (first paragraph of fly-leaf).
Instead, Schuller insists, “What we need is a Theology
of salvation that begins and ends with a recognition of
every person’s hunger for glory” (pp. 26-27). Neither is
hell a literal place in Schuller’s theology, rather “A
person is in hell when he has lost his self–esteem
(pp.14–15), and salvation “means to be permanently
lifted from sin (psychological self-abuse . . .) and
shame to self-esteem (p. 99).” Such apostasy is almost
beyond comprehension. If all that is not shocking
enough, Schuller later wrote in
1984:
I don’t think anything has
been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of
Christianity that has proven more destructive to human
personality and, hence, counterproductive to the
evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and
unchristian strategy of attempting to make people aware
of their lost and sinful condition.
[v]
Think of it! It’s actually
unchristian to tell people of their sin and need for
salvation in Christ? Nevertheless, countless millions
are following this apostate.
Some ten years
later, this seed spawned another movement, this one
within Evangelicalism itself. With the signing of a
document titled Evangelicals and Catholics Together:
The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium (ECT)
in March 1994, the Reformation was directly attacked
like never before. Co-written by Charles Colson
(director of Prison Fellowship Ministries and a widely
known author and speaker) and Richard John Neuhouse (a
former Lutheran minister who converted to Catholicism in
1990 and has since been ordained to the priesthood, and
is also a noted author and speaker and editor-in-Chief
of First
Things), ECT was a way to bring together Roman
Catholics and Evangelicals for the purpose of evangelism
and a “betterment of life in America.” Several notable
evangelicals signed this document, including: Pat
Robertson (Christian Broadcasting Network), Bill Bright
(Campus Crusade), Mark Noel (Wheaton College), Thomas
Oden (Drew University), and most shockingly
of all, J. I. Packer, the noted
author, professor at Regent College, and for years a
strong defender of the biblical doctrines of the
Reformation.
At the very
beginning of the document, we read, “We [Evangelicals
and Catholics] together confess our sins against the
unity that Christ intends for all His disciples.” The
fallacy of this statement, of course, is that Catholics
are not
disciples of Christ, as is made clear in this statement
about salvation in ECT: “We affirm together that we are
justified by grace through faith because of Christ.
Living faith is active in love that is nothing less than
the love of Christ.” On the surface, that statement
sounds good, and has, in fact, been applauded as a great
unifying truth of Catholicism and evangelicalism. But a
discerning look reveals that it flatly denies the
biblical truth that became the material principle of the
Reformation, namely, that faith alone brings
justification, not just faith. Sola
fide nowhere appears in ECT,
because it is nowhere found in Catholicism. It was
evangelicals who compromised theology in this document;
the Roman Catholic signers of ECT compromised not a
single teaching of the Roman system, while evangelicals
“gave up the ship.”
Some fourteen years later
(2008), Evangelicalism has drifted even further from the
truth of Christ alone. One example is Rick Warren, who
by his own admission, was greatly influenced by
Schuller’s philosophy of appealing to unbelievers, is a
graduate of Schuller’s “Institute for Church Growth,”
and shuns preaching on sin and repentance. Warren’s own
Semi-pelagianism, which elevates man, is quickly making
him the new Charles Finney.
As if all that were
not bad enough, there is Joel Osteen., who should grieve
the heart of every true child of God. Did you know that
the word “sin,” along with its other forms (sins,
sinner, sinners, sinful) appears some 900 times in
Scripture? It would seem, therefore, that sin is a
pretty important theme, right? In spite of that,
however, in a building that holds 16,000 people and with
three services, Osteen proudly never preaches on
sin, calling himself an encourager, not someone who
condemns anyone. When asked by Larry King on live
television (10/17/07) about the Gospel, he said, “The
Gospel is translated ‘good news,’ and to me good news is
letting people know that God loves them, Jesus came,
that we can overcome any obstacle, that we can be
forgiven for our mistakes. I don’t see how beating
people down [obviously by preaching about sin] . . .
helps them grow closer to God.” No, Mr. Osteen, that is
not the Gospel! You are not
even close! When then asked who will go to heaven,
whether an atheist, Muslim, or Jew, he answered, “I
don’t know; I just think only God can judge a person’s
heart . . . I’ve spent a lot of time in India with my
father and I don’t know everything about their religion,
but I know they love God. I don’t know, I’ve seen their
sincerity. I don’t know.” No, he most certainly does not
know! Here is, indeed, perhaps the worst false teacher
of our time who seldom opens a Bible, whose message is
just prosperity teaching, and who refuses to preach the
Gospel, assuming he even knows what it
is.
Additionally, as has been
recently reported by several sources, University of
Virginia sociologist James Hunter reports that 35% of
evangelical seminarians deny that faith in Christ is
absolutely necessary for salvation. It has also been
reported in polls conducted by George Gallup and George
Barna that 35% the entire adult Evangelical population
agrees with the statement: “God will save all good
people when they die, regardless of whether they have
trusted in Christ.” Do you see what has happened? We
have jettisoned the very core of Scripture, Christ
Himself. One poll goes on to
conclude:
Many committed born again
Christians believe that people have multiple options for
gaining entry to Heaven. They are saying, in essence,
“Personally, I am trusting Jesus Christ as my means of
gaining God’s permanent favor and a place in Heaven—but
someone else could get to Heaven based upon living an
exemplary life.” Millions of Americans have redefined
grace to mean that God is so eager to save people from
Hell that He will change His nature and universal
principles for their individual benefit. It is
astounding how many people develop their faith according
to their feelings or cultural assumptions rather than
biblical teachings.
[vi]
Another shocking, though
not surprising, statistic is that 77% of American
Evangelicals believe that human beings are basically
good by nature. This is certainly understandable; after
all, salvation is not really a big issue if sin isn’t a
big problem. This underscores again how Pelagianism and
Arminianism, while defeated and shown to be heresy
several times in church history, have imbedded
themselves deep into Christian thinking. No longer is
salvation by faith alone in Christ alone, but comes by
many means, which is nothing but the old teaching called
Universalism.
One other crucial
development in our day is “inclusivism,” lead by
theologian Clark Pinnock and others. Inclusivism is the
teaching that, although salvation comes through Jesus,
it is not necessary to possess specific knowledge
concerning Jesus as Savior. Other religions, in fact,
can be vehicles of salvation for people who never heard
of Jesus Christ, but “finally” (ultimately) are included
because of their sincerity and positive response to
general revelation. One could, for example, look at the
beauty of the Rocky Mountains as they drive through
Estes Park, “see God in it all,” and therefore go to
heaven. Both Robert Schuller and Billy Graham agree that
it is not necessary to hear of or believe in Jesus
Christ or His Gospel to go to heaven. Billy Graham has
openly stated that Muslims, Hindus, and others can all
make it to heaven without Jesus. In an interview by
Robert Schuller on his program “Hour of Power” in 1997,
Billy Graham stated:
. . . you know, I
think there’s the Body of Christ. This comes from all
the Christian groups around the world, outside the
Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ,
or knows Christ, whether they’re conscious of it or not,
they’re members of the Body of Christ. And I don’t think
that we’re going to see a great sweeping revival, that
will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think
James answered that, the Apostle James in the first
council in Jerusalem, when he said that God’s purpose
for this age is to call out a people for His
name.
And that’s what God is
doing today, He’s calling people out of the world for
His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or
the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the
non-believing world, they are members of the Body of
Christ because they’ve been called by God. They may not
even know the name of Jesus but they know in their
hearts that they need something that they don't have,
and they turn to the only light that they have, and I
think that they are saved, and that they’re going to be
with us in heaven.
[vii]
Where is the Gospel?
It most clearly is not there. Graham’s position is not
new, in fact. He maintained this view as far back as
1960 in an article he wrote for
Decision Magazine. Moderate
forms of inclusiveness are also to be found in C. S.
Lewis and even Arminian John Wesley.
We have mentioned
all this to emphasize that the Reformation tenet of
solus Christus returned to the biblical mandate
that salvation comes by Christ alone, that Christ
alone is our Mediator. The modern idea that says,
“I found God” or “I found Jesus” is a misnomer to say
the least. Jesus was never lost and didn’t need finding.
It is man who is lost, and it is Jesus who finds us. He
is the only way to God, the only way of salvation, not
only according to as John 14:6, but also Acts 4:12:
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is
none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we
must be saved.” And as Paul added in his letter to the
Romans, “How then shall they call on him in whom they
have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of
whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear
without a preacher?” (Rom. 10:14). Sin is, indeed, an
important issue, and Christ alone, the Author and Finisher of our faith (Heb.
12:1), is the answer.
We close with this
statement on solus Christus,
as stated in The Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance
of Confessing Evangelicals on April 20,
1996:
We
reaffirm that our salvation is
accomplish
ed 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.
Oh, that this would be a
new call to each of us to understand like never before
that it’s all about Christ alone. If we abandon that, we
have indeed given up the ship.
[i] Session 13, Canons 1, 2,
5; session 22, canon 1.
[ii] Session 22, canon
4.
[iii] Session 22, Cahpter
1.
[iv] Robert H. Schuller,
Self-Esteem: The New Reformation (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1982), p.
98.
[v] Christianity
Today, October 5, 1984, p.
12.
[vi] The Barna
Update, “Americans Describe Their Views About Life After
Death,” October
21,2003(www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=
150).
[vii] “Hour of Power,” program
#1426 entitled, Say “Yes” To Possibility Thinking,
originally broadcast May 31,
1997.
