Solus Christus: Our Only Mediator

Heb. 10:10-12, 14; 9:23-28

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God . . .

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. . . .

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.

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:

Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

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.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

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. [1]

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 waited 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.[2]

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 1^st 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,”[3] 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),[4] 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.[5]

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.[6]

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.[7]

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 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.

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.

Back to The Five Solas Back to Home Page