by Frank Viola
Three More Views to Be Noted
Some scholars and theologians criticize Augustine because he could only read a small amount of Greek and no Hebrew. Nevertheless, he knew the importance of knowing the original biblical languages.
Reading Greek isn’t as much of a problem for preachers and teachers today with the wide array of accurate Bible translations and Greek commentaries at our disposal (the same with Hebrew). However, for a fourth-century theologian to influence most of Catholicism and Protestantism, yet lack these skills, presents a big problem in the minds of many.
The reason is that Augustine had to rely on a poor Latin translation of the Bible to do his theology. Consequently, some scholars have called into question several of Augustine’s theological interpretations. Namely, these three . . .
(1) Original Sin
There has been a great deal of recent debate over “original sin” in evangelical circles today. It was Augustine who gave the doctrine of original sin a key place in Christian theology.
To Augustine’s mind, all humans inherit original sin. Every person sinned in Adam, and therefore, we all share in Adam’s crime and subsequent guilt.
Consequently, for Augustine, every infant is subject to eternal death unless baptized.
While some evangelicals hold to this view of original sin, others contest it, believing that although every person is born with a sin nature, their guilt arises from their actual sinful deeds rather than from Adam’s sin.
Some scholars believe that Augustine’s view is misinformed because he was using a poor translation of the Bible to craft it. The Latin translation he used was excessively literal and ambiguous. Thus, they argue, he misinterpreted Romans 5:12.36
In this connection, one of Augustine’s fiercest theological sparring partners was Pelagius, the British monk who rejected the idea of original sin. Pelagius believed that the tendency to sin was man’s free will choice, not something inherited from Adam. The views of Pelagius were carried on by a bishop named Julian, whom Augustine refuted in his book, Against Julian.
And just to add an interesting bit of history, Charles Finney didn’t like Augustine’s view of original sin (that’s putting it mildly). In his own Finney style, here’s what he wrote about Augustine’s view of natural inability, original sin, and the idea that humans have an inherent sin nature:
This doctrine is a stumbling-block both to the church and the world—infinitely dishonorable to God, and an abomination alike to God and the human intelligence, and should be banished from every pulpit, and from every formula of doctrine, and from the world. It is a relic of heathen philosophy, and was foisted in among the doctrines of Christianity by Augustine, as everyone may know who will take the trouble to examine for himself.37
By the way, I wish Charles didn’t hold back and told us how he really felt about the matter.
(2) Justification
The second view that’s also debated among evangelicals today is Augustine’s view of justification. Augustine held to an idea called infused righteousness opposed to imputed righteousness, which was held by Luther and Calvin. Some writers believe that Augustine “goofed” on this subject and the entire medieval world followed his goof for a thousand years. (John Wesley held that infused righteousness works in tandem with imputed righteousness, while the “New Perspective” scholars set the debate in a context outside of the imputed versus infused framework.)
Since my intention isn’t to provoke a doctrinal shoot-out that gets bogged down in the wheels of arcane theological minutiae, I’ll just leave the point there and you can pursue it further on your own if it interests you.
(3) Hell
The third view that some evangelicals today reject—while others strongly believe it—is Augustine’s idea that hell was conscious and eternal torment. Augustine claimed that since the salamander can live in fire, it follows that God can make physical bodies that are susceptible to the pain of fire and yet not be damaged by it.38
Augustine also believed that hell was under the earth and that the suffering of hell is compounded because God continues to love the people in hell who are not able to return that love.39
Incidentally, please don’t ask me for an analysis on the anatomy of hell. I’ve never been there and don’t intend to go—thanks to the Lord Jesus Christ. But whatever you surmise it to be, the Scriptures are clear that it’s not a place in which you’ll ever want to land.
All told, Augustine made a positive mark on the Christian church. Yet he held to a number of strange, if not flawed, viewpoints about God and the teachings of Scripture. Let us, therefore, regrace.
We’ll now turn our attention to the founder of an entire tribe of Christians who are still with us today.
11
The Shocking Beliefs of John Wesley
I have never met the man I could despair of after discerning what lies in me apart from the grace of God.
~ Oswald Chambers
John Wesley was remarkable. In his effort to preach the gospel, he is estimated to have traveled between 225,000 and 250,000 miles mainly on horseback. He preached over 40,000 sermons. Standing at only five feet three and weighing between 125 and 128 pounds, Wesley left an indelible mark on church history.1
Perhaps his most enduring contribution is that he gave us experiential salvation—a salvation experience that moved past the frontal lobe.
As is the case with all who have the hand of God on them, Wesley faced unbelievable opposition from every quarter. He amassed a boatload of enemies. Even members of his own family caused him grief in his ministry.2
Yet despite the continuous onslaught against his ministry, God’s protection was on him. Wesley’s legacy has impacted hundreds of thousands of Christians in every generation, including our own.
Wesley habitually read the New Testament in Greek. One of his most enduring legacies in the realm of Bible interpretation was his work on 1 John. (Yes, 1 John—that’s the book that Christians read under their beds with a flashlight and lose their salvation after they’ve finished!)
For Wesley, 1 John was the capstone of biblical revelation and the synthesis of all he had written.
That said, I’m aware that many Reformed Christians, both in the past and today, regard Wesley as a dangerous heretic. But to my Reformed friends, consider what the following respected Reformed leaders had to say about him:
I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley.3
~ Charles Spurgeon
Then let us thank God for what John Wesley was, and not keep pouring over his deficiencies, and only talking of what he was not. Whether we like it or not, John Wesley was a mighty instrument in God’s hand for good; and, next to George Whitefield, was the first and foremost evangelist of England a hundred years ago.
~ J. C. Ryle4
I honour and esteem you; I pray for your success and sincerely rejoin in it. I know no one to whom my heart is more united in affection, nor to whom I owe more, as an instrument of Divine grace.
~ John Newton5
Interestingly, Wesley’s teaching on “heart religion” was almost identical to Jonathan Edwards’s teaching on the “religious affections.” Nevertheless, Wesley—like every other servant of God—had feet of clay. And he also held to some strange beliefs.
Here are some of them.
1. Wesley believed that church buildings should separate men and women.
Wesley believed that religious buildings should “be parted in the middle by a rail running all along, to divide the men from the women.”6
2. Wesley believed in ghosts and other paranormal phenomena.
Wesley believed there was a ghost known as “Old Jeffrey” in the Epworth parsonage where he grew up. Wesley actually believed the �
�ghost” was a demon or a messenger of Satan, sent to afflict his father for his rash promise of leaving the family.7
3. Like Augustine before him, Wesley believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, Jesus’ earthly mother.
The difference, of course, is that Augustine was Catholic while Wesley was not. In his “Letter to a Roman Catholic,” Wesley stated,
I believe that he [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.8
4. Wesley had a static electricity machine and thought it was a good idea for people to be “electrified daily” for their health.
Wesley lived in the age of Ben Franklin and was fascinated by Franklin, consuming his work on electricity. Interestingly, a replica of Wesley’s electricity machine can still be viewed in his London home.9
5. According to his Primitive Physick, some of Wesley’s prescriptions for medical ailments are strange at best.
For sinus colds, Wesley recommended curling up an orange peel and inserting it into one’s nostrils. (Don’t try that at home!) Wesley’s exact words were, “A Cold in the Head. Pare a very thin rind of an orange, roll it up inside out, and thrust a roll into each nostril.”10
For breast cancer, Wesley recommended applying red poppy water, plantain and rose water mixed with honey and roses. He also said that taking a cold bath regularly was a known cure.11
Note that Wesley cared deeply for the sick and was a bit of an experimentalist in that regard.12
6. In his library, Wesley owned the “subversive literature” of Miguel de Molinos, Madame Guyon, François Fénelon, and other Christian mystics.
Although he disagreed with the mystics’ tendency to draw away from the world, Wesley believed in a mystical quest for God.13
This belief made him persona non grata with those Christians who held to a more conservative, objective view of the spiritual life.
7. Wesley believed that wearing jewelry and costly clothes was sinful and that Christians weren’t to engage in such behavior.
Specifically, Wesley was strongly against both women and men wearing rings, earrings, and necklaces.14
Consequently, the early Methodists were known for their plain dress and absence of jewelry. The Methodist Church upheld Wesley’s stance on apparel and jewelry until 1852. In 1852, Wesley’s dress code changed because the Methodist manual “no longer regulated the dress and jewelry of the clergy or the people.”15
8. Wesley was a big fan of the controversial early church figure Montanus.
Wesley regarded Montanus as being “one of the best men then upon earth,” who “under the character of a prophet” had revived “what was decayed, and reforming what might be amiss.”16
Wesley said,
It seems, therefore, by the best information we can procure at this distance of time, that Montanus was not only a truly good man, but one of the best men then upon earth; and that his real crime was, the severely reproving those who professed themselves Christians, while they neither had the mind that was in Christ, nor walked as Christ walked; but were conformable both in their temper and practice to the present evil world.17
Montanus, however, is regarded by many evangelicals as a “dangerous heretic.” You can research this yourself.
In our next chapter, we’ll explore the surprising views of the man who many regard to be the greatest preacher in history.
12
The Shocking Beliefs of Charles Spurgeon
Beware of being obsessed with consistency to your own convictions instead of being devoted to God. . . . It is easier to be an excessive fanatic than it is to be consistently faithful, because God causes an amazing humbling of our religious conceit when we are faithful to Him.
~ Oswald Chambers
Charles Haddon Spurgeon is regarded by many to be the greatest preacher in history. According to one historical source, “there is available more material written by Spurgeon than any other Christian author, living or dead.”1
Spurgeon’s collection of sermons contains over twenty million words. He is alleged to have read approximately six books a week and seemingly had a photographic memory.
His voice was so powerful that he once preached to an audience of over 23,000 people without the aid of a microphone.2
For these reasons, Spurgeon is often called “the prince of preachers” and “the preacher’s preacher.”
During his day, Spurgeon was the pastor of the largest Protestant church in the world. He ran an orphanage, provided oversight to sixty-seven charity organizations, and directed a theological school. He also authored approximately 150 books.
A missionary in Africa is purported to have once asked Spurgeon, “How do you manage to do two men’s work in a single day?” Spurgeon’s response was, “You have forgotten there are two of us . . . and the one you see the least of, often does the most work.”3
To his credit, Spurgeon also spoke out strongly against slavery. So much so that American publishers began deleting his anti-slavery remarks from their publications.4
Yet despite the impressive ministry that Spurgeon had, he held to some strange—and even shocking—beliefs. Here are some of them.
1. Spurgeon was never ordained and didn’t believe that ordination was important. He was also against the use of honorific titles.
This one has been alarming to many Reformed people, which is Spurgeon’s own tribe, who hold ordination as well as honorific titles such as “Reverend” in high regard.
Here’s an excerpt taken from a lengthy diatribe from Spurgeon on these subjects:
Whence comes the whole paraphernalia of ordination as observed among some Dissenters? Since there is no special gift to bestow, why in any case the laying on of empty hands? . . . A man who has preached for years is Mr. Brown, but after his ordination or recognition he develops into the Reverend Mr. Brown; what important change has he undergone? . . . Here are reverend students of an unreverend preacher, the title being given to the one out of courtesy, and withheld from the other for the same reason. . . . We do not object to a recognition of the choice of the church by its neighbors and their ministers, on the contrary, we believe it to be a fraternal act, sanctioned by the very spirit of Christianity; but where it is supposed to be essential, is regarded as a ceremony, and is thought to be the crowning feature of the settlement, we demur.
He goes on to denounce the idea that spiritual duties can only be carried out by the ordained.
[There is] the notion in some churches that only an ordained or recognized minister should preside at the Lord’s table. Small is our patience with this unmitigated Popery, and yet it is by no means uncommon. Pulpits which are most efficiently supplied on other Sundays by men who are without pastoral charge must be vacated by them on the first Sunday of the month because the friends like a stated minister to administer the sacrament.
. . . The benediction is in some regions almost as sacredly reserved for the minister as the absolution for the priest in Popish churches. We heard it remarked the other day as quite a singular thing that a non-ministerial brother, being in the chair at a religious meeting, had actually pronounced the benediction. . . . Here was a mere layman thinking himself as able to invoke a blessing upon the assembly as the clerics around him! The brethren around us expressed their pleasure that he had done so, but even this showed that it was rather an innovation, very commendable, no doubt, in these days, but still an innovation.
And still more,
It seems rather odd to us that a man should print upon his visiting card the fact that he is a reverend person. Why does he not occasionally vary the term, and call himself estimable, amiable, talented, or beloved? Would this seem odd? Is there any valid objection to such a use of adjectives after the fashion is once set by employing the word reverend? . . . Why do we not, like members of secret orders and others, go in for
Worthy Masterships and Past Grands, and the like? . . . It may be said that the title of reverend is only one of courtesy, but then so was the title of Rabbi among the Jews, yet the disciples were not to be called Rabbi.5
2. Spurgeon believed smoking cigars was not wrong, and it could be done “to the glory of God.”
Spurgeon was a frequent cigar smoker, and this provoked condemnation from many of his fellow Christians who believed that using tobacco—in any form—was a sin.
Here’s an excerpt from a lengthy letter that Spurgeon wrote to the Daily Telegraph on September 23, 1874, responding to his critics about cigar smoking:
I demur altogether and most positively to the statement that to smoke tobacco is in itself a sin. It may become so, as any other indifferent action may, but as an action it is no sin.
Together with hundreds of thousands of my follow-Christians I have smoked, and, with them, I am under the condemnation of living in habitual sin, if certain accusers are to be believed. As I would not knowingly live even in the smallest violation of the law of God, and sin in the transgression of the law, I will not own to sin when I am not conscious of it.
There is growing up in society a Pharisaic system which adds to the commands of God the precepts of men; to that system I will not yield for an hour. The preservation of my liberty may bring upon me the upbraidings of many good men, and the sneers of the self-righteous; but I shall endure both with serenity so long as I feel clear in my conscience before God.
The expression “smoking to the glory of God” standing alone has an ill sound, and I do not justify it; but in the sense in which I employed it I still stand to it. No Christian should do anything in which he cannot glorify God; and this may be done, according to Scripture, in eating and drinking and the common actions of life.
When I have found intense pain relieved, a weary brain soothed, and calm, refreshing sleep obtained by a cigar, I have felt grateful to God, and have blessed His name; this is what I meant, and by no means did I use sacred words triflingly.6
