The First Reformer?

HAPPY REFORMATION DAY! 499 YEARS AND COUNTING!

Okay, so today is Reformation Day, the day that Martin Luther so famously nailed a list of topics for discussion to a church door in Germany that eventually resulted in the doctrine of the Church being saved from the heresies of Roman Catholicism.

So, in celebration of Reformation day, all sorts of articles and memes get posted, at least one of which that was shared to me from Baptist page by my wife (yes, I realize how awesome it is that my wife follows theology pages.) asked who the original Reformer was. Luther was there, but also listed were Jan Hus, John Wycliffe, and Huldrych Zwingli. The concept was to answer the question, who was really the first Reformer.

My immediate reaction wasn't actually on the list, because the man I responded with off the top of my head was Peter Waldo.

Who?

Peter Waldo lived from 1140-1205AD in modern day France. He is credited with starting the Waldensian movement, a group declared heretical, and his works have not survived to us today, because there was not the printing press that Luther benefited from and his works were destroyed faster than they could be copied. What we know of him we know from what his opponents said about him. Among the work he was rumored to have done was having passages of the Bible translated into the local dialect of his region. Waldo tried to get approval from Pope Alexander III without success and the Third Lateran Council condemned his teachings though it stopped short of excommunicating him. Alexander's successor, Lucius the III was not as tolerant, and he and the Fourth Lateran Council excommunicated him. 

After Excommunication

This did not stop Waldo's followers, however. They continued to preach all the way through the Protestant Reformation of Luther and in 1858 were finally given religious freedom in Italy. Many of the Waldensians in the central part of the continent of Europe joined in with Protestant groups at the later Reformation though some continued to identify as a separate group. 

Beliefs

A few things of note: They affirmed the Apostle's Creed. They believed in original sin, they believed that the work of Christ fully satisfied the debt of sin. They rejected the doctrine of purgatory, the rejected the idea that saints could mediate on behalf of Christians, the Catholic mass, the validity of holy water, all feast days or holidays, and saw them as unChristian restrictions on Christian liberty. They believed that while the Sacraments should be practiced, they were not necessary for salvation, and saw them as outward symbols of a spiritual reality. The ONLY sacraments they held were Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Of particular interest is their confession of 1120, but two different Waldenses confessions can be found here.

Final Thoughts

There's come discussion as to whether or not all of the beliefs of the Waldenisians as a group are completely orthodox. That's beyond our purview here. What does seem clear is that Peter Waldo was an early example of someone willing to try to reform the Church and in many ways sought to do so towards very Scriptural aims. For my money, he's the First Reformer.

Semper Reformanda, Soli Deo Gloria.

15 ways to know you are a Theology Nerd

I'm a theology nerd, I can't help it. I once took Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as my light, fun reading for a week at the beach. Theology nerds are a unique brand of people, and being one myself and knowing others like me, I have come across some indicators as to how to know if you or someone you know fits this description:

1. Your first association with the word "election" isn't political.

2. CS, JI, RC, AW, AW, JP, FF, JC, NT, and BB are all trigger associations with last names in your head. (Yes, AW is listed twice on purpose, for those of you who aren't theology nerds)

3. You know the difference between James Boice and James Boyce.

4. In your mind, Pink isn't first and foremost a reference to a color or clothing line.

5. Your type "in" into your phone and "Infralapsarian" is suggested by your quick type function. (Could include any number of things "ann" cues "annihilationism", "he" suggests "heretic", etc.)

6. You've been involved in a debate about Baptism on the Internet.

7. You keep buying books about theology despite not having shelf space for the ones you already own.

8. SermonAudio is an app on your phone or tablet.

9. You dream of having a premium Logos package.

10.  You use any of the following acronyms: WCF, BFM, LBCF, WSC, TGC, SBC, PCA, OPC, RCA, UMC, or LCMS on a regular basis.

11. You complain to your spouse about the bad theology of funny TV commercials.

12. You've taken the time to look up why Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til didn't like one another.

13. You care who wins the Logos theologian bracket each March.

14. You have an opinion about tulip(s) and daisy(s) that has nothing to do with flowers.

15. You know more about John Quncy Adams the Baptist than you do John Quincy Adams the president.


How did you do?

Anything I left out?

Annihilationism Cannot Be True

All the saints together

Let’s create a hypothetical scenario: In this scenario we have every Christian who has ever lived, thousands of years of us, sitting in a giant room talking about theology. We start asking a series of controversial theological questions: Should infants be baptized? Is Amillenialism true?  Do spiritual gifts continue throughout the life of the church? After each question we ask our brothers and sisters to vote by shouting “yay” or “nay”. Millions of voices sound out on each side of these debates, after all, these are the things that have challenged us throughout our history as the people of God. Now imagine that we asked a question, and a deafening flood of affirmations came in that echoed through the chamber in beautiful unison countless numbers of God’s people, over 99% of them through all time, filled with the Holy Spirit of God, clamored that this was the truth before God, and the denials came through in a barely audible whisper compared to the vast chamber in which we stood. What would or reaction be? Certainly we would think that the burden of proof on such a tiny minority would be tremendous, since they insist that they are enlightened on a doctrine that so many saints missed century after century.

The fact that something is believed by a majority is never proof that something is true, however, in theology, when it is the Holy Spirit of God who is guiding each and every Christian, we would certainly expect that for every truth we would have a very strong representation of voices in history who insisted on these truths, especially when this doctrine is something that Jesus Christ spent a great deal of time teaching on. To tell over 99% of Christians throughout all time that they are ignoring the actual meaning of the words of their beloved Savior is a very bold claim, and one that requires an absolutely foolproof case in support.

Annihilationism

Annihilationism is the belief that God would be unjust if He punished people eternally for their transgressions against his Holiness. Therefore, they contend, God punishes people for a short while and then obliterates them from existence entirely.

Who are the Annihilationists?

There are multiple false cults who hold to annihilationism, as well as fringe Christian groups whose orthodoxy is highly questionable.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a form of annihilationism, they also reject the deity of Jesus Christ and are not a Christian group in any way whatsoever.

The Church of God 7^th Day Salem Conference is another group that rejects the doctrine of the Trinity but very adamantly supports annihilationism. This is not a Christian group.

Christadelphians are another group that reject the Christian doctrine of the Trinity but hold to annihilationism. They also teach that both good and evil come directly from God and that he’s responsible for the evil that is in the world. This is not a Christian group at all.

The Seventh Day Adventists, whose theology traces back to the false prophet Ellen G. White and who un-Biblically bind the conscience of believers to kosher laws, are very strongly annihilationist. They also teach that Michael the Archangel in the Old Testament is actually Jesus, something unsubstantiated by Scriptural testimony. If the Seventh Day Adventists are a Christian group, which is debatable, they are a fringe group at best.

These are the largest groups that hold this doctrine. The leading Bible scholars who hold this view, currently, are Clark Pinnock and Greg Boyd, both of whom deny that God has knowledge of the future.

Scholar N.T. Wright, who denies the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, is undecided on this issue.  

Other deeply questionable supporters of this view are Edward Fudge, of the Churches of Christ (known for their highly controversial views on the relationship between baptism and salvation) who wrote a very famous book defending annihilationism, called The Fire that Consumes, and Harold Camping, known for his false prophecies related to the end times.

Support for annihilationism that doesn’t come from deeply questionable sources is extremely limited.  John Stott, a deservedly respected Bible scholar, gave a tentative, albeit somewhat non-committal, endorsement of the doctrine in the space of about six pages in a book to which he contributed. John Wenham supported the view, but only did so in his published works after his death. Michael Green fits on this list similarly, as does Philip Edgcumbe Hughes All of these men were Anglicans.

The most notable Southern Baptist proponent was E. Earle Ellis, who did not write on it extensively.

What is wrong with Annihilationism?

The problems with this view are too numerous to cover extensively in this post, so we will simply introduce the basic points that make this view untenable.

Their exegesis is illogical

Many of the annihilationists listed above reject the doctrine of the Trinity. I do not think this is an accident at all. Now, let me be extremely clear, I do not think that all Annihilationists are heretical, in fact, as we saw above, there is a small contingent of conservative, Bible believing Christians of that persuasion, but I think they hold this particular view in a way that is utterly inconsistent with their own theology. Here is why.

In a post on this blog that I am certain everyone besides me has forgotten about, we quoted D.A. Carson’s text on exegetical fallacies. A fallacy is a method of reasoning that is not valid, and that, therefore, cannot be trusted. One of the fallacies we mentioned was called the “root fallacy”. The root fallacy, essentially, tells us that if we isolate a word and get its core dictionary definition, then we understand what that word means in any given situation. Annihilationists want to really focus on the Greek word apollumi, and will often make quite a show of listing out the lexicon or dictionary definition of this word, out of context of specific Biblical passages, and then will place that word back into the Biblical passages and ask you to accept this meaning. First of all, they’ve committed the root fallacy by doing this in this way. Second, they tend to ignore the many lexicons that offer definitions of apollumi that they do not like.

For instance, Strong’s exhaustive concordance points out that the destruction described in apollumi can be either literal or figurative (though the annihilationist wants to insist that it’s literal). Thayer’s Greek Lexicon points out that it can mean that something is permanently lost or “to devote or give over to eternal misery”. But these definitions are avoided most of the time by annihilationists.

This bad exegesis is why so many annihilationists are not Trinitarians. They tend to look at the fact that the Bible refers to Jesus as the “Son of God” and they say that every other time we ever see someone referred to as someone else’s “son” we are referring to two different beings, thus, Jesus and God must be two separate beings. It’s the same bad logic being repackaged on a much more important doctrine. The only difference is that the non-Trinitarians are using this logic consistently, while more orthodox annihilationists have carved our a special case for this pet doctrine.

Annihilationism devalues the Image of God

All human beings are made in God’s image. To assert that God takes a human being out of existence, entirely, is to say that God destroys his own image. Every time we sin, we degrade, insult and lessen the glory of the eternal image of God. That is why we are punished eternally for it, because the Glory that we have shamed is eternal. It is not a matter of how long we sinned, it is a matter of what we sinned against. In annihlationism, we are asked to believe that God obliterates an expression of the same image that he is punishing us for devaluing in the first place.

Annihilationism makes man the judge of God, minimizes the severity of man’s Sin, and devalues the work of Christ

An annihilationist will tell you that it would not be “fair” for man to be punished eternally for spitting in the face of the eternal glory of God. They want to call their view “Just Punishment” as if the view held by almost all Christians throughout time promotes unjust punishment. But by what definition is he determining fairness? First of all, Biblically, it’s impossible for an annihilationist to give you a time of how “long” God can punish people for sin on earth (assuming time works that way in eternity, which is a massive assumption). So they don’t actually have a Biblical case for why a person cannot be punished for trillions of years for something done in their life, they just claim it has to stop at some point for God to be just. But, the Bible does not say that God would be unjust to punish a being eternally, so where are they getting this idea? It is a human invention, and a man made assumption.

In Romans chapter 9, Paul responds to those who would like to deem an action of God unjust:

“19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?”

Because God is essentially good, he defines what is good and what is not. Without Biblical warrant, it is absolutely and completely wrong for a human being to declare that “God would be unjust or unfair if he did this.” We are the clay, God is the potter, and our reason is not a valid starting point for questioning his actions.

Man sins against an eternally Holy and an eternally Glorious God. To downplay that and to suggest that God would not be just in pouring out an eternity of punishment for that sin is a terrible thing. Adam sinned one time. Once. And immediately God promised to send his son (Genesis 3:15). One sin by mankind required the death of God himself, and all the suffering and brutality that went along with it, to atone for. Nothing else would do. That’s just one sin, multiply that by the countless sins committed by every person who ever lived. Christ is so glorious that his payment covers all those sins, but what the annihilationist must propose is that sinning against God and then also rejecting this sacrifice by his son somehow only merits a very limited time of punishment. God is more glorious than that.

Annihilationism does not promote Eternal Punishment

Matthew 25 says:

“Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

A person can only be punished so long as a person exists. If a person ceases to exist, you can no longer do anything to that person. If annihilationism is true, the punishment for the unrighteous stops the very moment that the unrighteous cease to exist. Thus their punishment is only temporary.

This corresponds with how we react to punishment in this life. Constantly, we as Christians are reminded that our suffering here on earth is only temporary. We do not say that a corpse continues to suffer, we do not say that a corpse continues to be punished when we put people to death. The second that person is no longer here on earth, we consider their punishment done.

All of those claims must be wrong if annihilationism is correct. When groups like ISIS mutilate the bodies of their dead enemies, we would have to consider that to be further punishment to those people if we want to be consistent with annihilationism. Thankfully, we don’t view it that way, we believe that any punishment to that person ends when they transition to the afterlife.

Annihilationism takes an atheistic view of Death

Revelation 21: “5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” 6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. 7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

The annihilationist insists that this second death is the finality of a person, they even try to say that this is somehow the way that people normally view death, but that’s not the case at all, is it? Throughout all human history, the vast, vast majority of people have believed in an afterlife. (100% of people who worshipped the one true God thought this as well). That means that death, in how it is normally understood, is seen as a transition from one sort of existence to another, and is never viewed as the final end of a person. Modern atheists are among the only people on earth who view death as the final end of a person. So, when we see this reference to a second death, we are being asked by annihilationists to view this death the way atheists view death.

The Bible teaches eternal conscious punishment

There are many Bible passages that affirm this, but one I want to draw attention to is in Revelation 14.

“9 And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”

It is only “their” torment so long as “they” exist, and the Bible tells us that they have no rest, day or night, as their torment continues to produce smoke forever.

 Conclusion

The overwhelming majority of Christians have gotten this right throughout history. Eternal Conscious Punishment is the only logical and Biblical view of the doctrine of Hell, and Annihilationism as a belief is not supported by the Biblical text at all.

Additional Resources:

JI Packer on Why Annihilationism is Wrong

Is Hell Really Endless?

David Platt on the Doctrine of Hell

The Dark Side of Eternity

Is Annihilationism True?

What kind of God would condemn people to Eternal Punishment?

Does calling murder by its name incite violence?

In the aftermath of a shooting outside an abortion clinic that killed three people in Colorado, including a pro-life police officer the propaganda from the liberal pundits who support abortion in our society has been geared toward blaming pro-life groups for the shooting. Apparently, calling murder, murder, is the same as implicitly condoning violence against those who carry out the murder.

National pro-life groups have universally condemned the act of the shooter, and have also promoted non-violent action well before this event, but that has not changed the attempts by many to blame those of us who consistently call for the end of violence against human beings for violence against human beings.

This pro-abortion argument is irrational:

This argument by the left is irrational for a few different reasons:

 1. It begs the question on whether abortion is actually murder. 

The pro-life movement has been accused of 'hateful rhetoric' for calling the literally ripping limb from limb of pre-born humans, murder. But, as we should all be willing to acknowledge, it is never hateful rhetoric to call something what it actually is. For instance, if I call the work of the shooter in Colorado murder (and I most certainly do) no one is accusing me of hateful rhetoric against that man, because we all agree that the act he committed was a murderous one. That means that there is only the possibility of hateful rhetoric if the humans that abortionists tear apart and sell the pieces of are not actually people. 

In other words, the pro-abortion left has to assume that killing humans is not murder for it even possibly to be hateful rhetoric to say that killing those humans is murder. This creates a situation where abortionists can claim the benefits of being right about whether their killing is murder without having to actually prove that their killing is not murder. 

2. It assumes that identifying potential murderers is a promotion of violence. 

When the police department posts the photo of a suspect in a murder investigation, do they suddenly endorse the violent action of any citizen who is willing to kill that person? Of course not. If I have knowledge that one person has murdered another, and I draw attention to that fact, am I suddenly encouraging others to commit violence against that person? Of course not. 

Instead, what I'm doing is promoting justice. I am doing my own legal part in seeing that our society is a safer place for as many people as possible. 

3. It holds different standards for different groups of people. 

Sadly, we live in a country where many of the same people who now want to blame peaceful pro-life protestors for violent acts not committed by them were, just a few months ago, condemning a man who killed a lion with just as much fervor as what the pro-life community exudes. Were the people who condemned the killing of this animal implicitly promoting violence against the dentist who shot him? A consistently applied standard by the left would say, yes, they were. This creates a rather uncomfortable situation since so many of the death threats that the hunter experienced came from this same left. I am perfectly content with accepting the fact that many on the left would not support putting forward death threats against this man, but I doubt environmental conservation agencies condemned those death threats with the same consistency and enthusiasm that pro-life ministries have denounced violence against abortionists over the years. 

Conclusion

At the end of the day, which poses a more serious threat to society, those who publicly condemn and call out murderers or those who sit idly by, aware that the murder is taking place, but saying nothing?

The real obstacle to justice for all humanity is presented by those who would vilify people who consistently support peaceful opposition to ripping humans limb from limb while simultaneously giving the very people who commit those acts a pat on the back.  

The Gospel for Refugees

The problem:

All around me, I see conservative Christians hailing governors of states here in America for banning refugees from Syria from entering the state. As I see these things, I wonder what motivates this reaction from Christians. Let's start with a few basic facts.

1. The vast majority of these refugees need the Gospel

2. The Bible tells us, repeatedly, that we risk personal harm by sharing the Gospel

3. The Bible commands us to share the Gospel to all peoples.

4. In light of facts 1-3, it is pretty clear that Christians have a responsibility to share the Gospel with these people even if it means personal harm or danger to ourselves. 

No sound Biblical argument can be made suggesting that we do not have the responsibility to share the Gospel with these people, and, based on the repeated reminding of the Scriptures, potential danger does not exonerate us either. Since these things are both true, I would argue that concern for our own well being as Christians is decidedly not a valid reason to wish to keep these people, who need the Gospel, from coming into our homeland. 

It has been rightly brought up that terrorists may potentially come into this nation from among these refugees, but, in light of the fact that we are told in Scripture that to live is Christ and to die is gain, the question in response to this issue as Christians is largely, so what?

A clarification:

Now, let me be very clear. There are two sphere's of responsibility at play, here. We as individual Christians have a responsibility to proselytize, but our governments have a responsibility to keep their citizens safe. In light of that, our elected leaders have the right and responsibility to keep their citizens as safe as possible, and it is not unChristian to agree with an elected leader's decision regarding the safety of the people. 

The concern, here, is for where the hearts and minds of Christians are focused. If we celebrate barring refugees from states because we fear for our own safety, I would argue that we are not putting the Gospel ahead of our own temporal concerns as we should. In fact, I would argue that if our focus is on evangelizing these incoming people, we should probably be praying that our elected officials find a way to do their job in such a way that still gives us a chance to minister to these people. Our reaction to these events (and I say events, plural, because many acts of terrorism in countries all over the world have caused this refugee crisis) should first be to see how we can share the Gospel to the people of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, France, Jordan, and everywhere else impacted by this terror. That includes, mind you, sharing the Gospel with the individuals responsible for these heinous acts. Any and all political response comes second to that, and a distant second at that. I want to encourage all my brothers and sisters in the Lord to respond to these tragedies with the Gospel first and foremost in our thoughts and actions, and would suggest that labeling refugees as a category as inherently dangerous and undesirable is not in step with that goal. 

When bombs explode around the world and people die, many of those people go to Hell, both terrorists and victims alike. The Gospel is the only solution that will ultimately defeat this evil. 

If God is sovereign, why do we disagree on theology?

Augustine of Hippo 

Spurgeon once said:

 I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ into their hearts, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist out of heaven. (The Man with the Measuring Line)

 Perspectives

When we talk about the Gospels, we always point out that the four Gospels describe the events of Christ's ministry in four different ways, and we can pretty obviously see how God uses that to address different concerns and different needs and we can affirm that all four Gospels are describing the same event.

Now, the analogy obviously breaks down when we talk about theological division, because we assert that one is right and the other is wrong. But, I think a lot of that is because we put more stock than we should in these theological conceptualizations.

Take Arminianism and Calvinism, for example. There are definitely some exegetical differences between Arminianism and Calvinism, (like how we approach Romans 7) BUT, the main difference between these two theories is philosophical. I think that Calvinism as a philosophical theory best accounts for what the Bible teaches, but I also don't think it fully does justice to the mystery of the Gospel, because I think that we as humans are incapable of comprehending a theory that truly does that.

So, with these two theories, I think that what we have are different imperfect perceptions of the same miracle. I think that Calvinists have a more accurate description, but I also have met people for whom the Arminian perspective provides them with direction that they need that a Calvinist system probably wouldn't resonate the same way for...

Perspectivalism

Vern Sheridan Poythress has written a book called Symphonic Theology:: The Valididy of Multiple Perspectives in Theology.  In it, he argues for a theological approach he has developed together with John Frame. John Frame and Vern Poythress are both Reformed scholars and their theory is known as 'multi-perspectivalism'. I love the theory and I think it captures things very well. On their site you can also find articles that summarize it a bit more succinctly.

Basically, the way it works is this: When it comes to man gaining knowledge, there are three main components at work, the normative perspective (That's the Word of God, itself), the situational perspective (That is the situation of the writer of the text and the situation that an idea is being introduced in, and then there's the existential perspective, which is unique to every individual and accounts for all the personal baggage that we bring to the text.

According to Frame, all these things work together in forming our views on various theological topics. I think he's right. If he is, let's see how that applies to our problem, here:

God, for his glory, has decreed certain circumstances and temperaments and mental acuities for all his elect. He has also decreed that each one of us will serve a different role in carrying out his work on earth. Sometimes, to accomplish God's will, God has ordained that we will fail, or that we will come up short, or that we will make mistakes. Sometimes we simply won't listen closely to the Holy Spirit's guidance, and we will interpret things the wrong way.

This happens to all of us, and for some of us that mistake happens in an area like Baptism, sometimes it's a mistake in something like the use of God's law in the life of the believer; it could be in eschatology, or it could be in God's decree (where Calvinists and Arminians argue). All of us are very likely to have multiple areas where we have made these mistakes.

How we make these mistakes will affect how we live our lives. For example, Jerry Falwell was mistaken about God's decree and eschatology. He believed in Free Will and Dispensationalism. But, his belief in Free Will and Dispensationalism drove him to feel like Liberty University was a needed thing in our society, and so, today, thousands of Christians can get their education at an elite Christian school and God was glorified because of Falwell's theological missteps.

God made me have bad theology!  

I hear this silly response to those of us who believe that God's sovereignty makes him the ruler over every event in history all the time. It's frustrating. What this comment does is begs the question on the debate over how mankind's freedom works. Reformed theology teaches that man decreed all that will be while establishing the liberty and contingency of secondary causes and doing no violence to the will of the creature. (See the Westminster and 2nd London confessions of faith). 

Remember in the Old Testament when Joseph told his brothers that they meant their actions for evil but God meant their actions for good? This is exactly what we are talking about. God will bring himself glory through our mistakes, and shortcomings. Further, our shortcomings our the result of our own desires intruding on our ability to follow the perfect guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

Conclusion

My grace is sufficient for thee, for my power is made perfect in weakness. (II Corinthians 12:9)

There is some debate as to what exactly Paul is referring to, here. But I think it applies in our discussion. Paul speaks of 'boasting' of our weaknesses, and, while we should certainly not be proud of the fact that we make mistakes theologically, we SHOULD glorify God for the fact that our salvation comes via his grace and not via our ability to affirm perfect theology.