The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Marks of Heresy

Here's a response to some of Schlissel's teachings by Dr. Cornelis P. Venema: ( Jason I would invite your comments on this [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img])

The original article can be found here: http://www.messiahnyc.org/ArticlesDetail.asp?id=105
The following response can be found at the bottom of the article, along with another one by David Linden.
Schilsclle's response can be found here : http://www.messiahnyc.org/ArticlesDetail.asp?id=103
( I have not finished reading his yet, but decided to post just see what are every one's thoughts, since I believe they contribute to the current discussion)
Furthermore here's another article which seem to teach his view on justification [IMHO, the section "What’s the Big Idea? (Hint: It isn’t Justification) " it seems to have resemblance to the new perspective]:
http://www.messiahnyc.org/ArticlesDetail.asp?id=98

Also in response to Rev. Schlissel's Ancaster Address, Dr. Cornelis Venema, Professor at Mid America Reformed Seminary in Dyer, Indiana, wrote the following to the Christian Renewal:

Like Rev. Derrick J. Vander Meulen (Dec. 17, 2001), I too hoped the report on Rev. Steve Schlissel's address at a Reformation Day Rally at Redeemer College (Nov. 12, 2001) was an inaccurate account of what he had said. However, after reading a transcribed account of his address and his reply to Rev. Vander Meulen's letter to the editor, it appears that the report in Christian Renewal accurately reflects Rev. Schlissel's views.

If I understand those views correctly, they include such claims as the following:

1. Luther wrongly distinguished the law from the gospel and thereby fundamentally misrepresented the biblical, covenantal view of the gospel.

2. The biblical, covenantal view of the gospel is not so much interested in the question, what must I do to be saved?, as it is in the question, what does God require in order that I might thereby obtain eternal life. In this covenantal approach, which draws no sharp distinctions between law and gospel, it may be said that the gospel is equivalent to the requirement that we love God by obeying His commandments.

3. We should not bother at Reformation day rallies with too much talk about the so-called sola's of the Reformation. These are often merely slogans, abstractions that get in the way of a proper covenantal understanding.

4. Indeed, theological systems are an annoying thing at best, a threat to the church at worst. Because Reformed believers and churches often fight about doctrinal clarity and confessional precision, they lose their grip upon the rich, covenantal themes of Scripture.

My reply to Rev. Schlissel, in respect to each of these points, would be as follows:

1. With Calvin I regard Luther to have served as a virtual apostle to the church by rediscovering the gospel of God's saving and justifying work through the One and Only Savior, Jesus Christ. Whatever differences may obtain between Calvin and Luther (and such differences, I acknowledge, do exist), they were soul mates on the teaching of justification by grace alone on account of the work of Christ alone received by faith alone. This unanimity of conviction is, moreover, enshrined in the confessional symbols of the Reformation, including Lord's Day 23 & 24 of the Heidelberg Catechism.

2. When it comes to the question, upon what basis and for what reason am I right with God and an heir of eternal life?, Reformed believers have insisted as rigorously as Luther that the law is repugnant (Calvin's language) to the gospel. Christ's obedience to the law and substitutionary endurance of its sanctions are the alone sufficient basis for the believer's acceptance and right standing with God. The law, distinguished from the gospel, can only require what no sinner is able to do. The law, distinguished from the gospel, can only teach me to know my sin and misery (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 2).

3. As I understand the sola's of the Reformation, they have everything to do with a living and proper view of God's gracious covenant with His people in Christ. The supreme norm and standard for the covenant is the Spirit of Christ speaking in Scripture (sola Scriptura). The establishment, administration and perfection of life in covenant with the Triune God spring from God's sovereign, unconditional grace (sola gratia). The glory and splendor of Christ's saving work as Mediator of the covenant lies in its perfection and sufficiency as the exclusive basis for the justification of the sinner (solo Christo). And the confidence and joy of the covenant child of God issue from a believing acceptance of Christ's saving mediation (sola fide)-Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling.

4. Though we do not place our confidence in our theological understanding or systematic reflection upon the teaching of the Word of God, these are necessary and beneficial to the church in the fulfillment of her calling to guard the deposit entrusted to her care. I can think of no higher duty that falls to the Christian minister than that of speaking plainly, clearly, and consistently of the things taught us in the Word of God. To that end we should make the fullest and most grateful use of the confessional symbols of the Reformation, and the inheritance that is ours in the tradition of Reformed theology.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the implications of Rev. Schlissel's publicly recorded address and comments. However, they no doubt leave themselves open to misunderstanding, as Rev. Vander Meulen's and my comments indicate. On matters that concern the gospel, no such misunderstanding may be permitted. Either Christ saves us to the uttermost, and that by grace from first to last, or He does His part and we complete His work by doing ours. Between these alternatives there may be no compromise.

Cornelis P. Venema
Dyer, Indiana

in His Grace,
Carlos