A Protestant Priesthood: I was listening to a message yesterday where the speaker was discussing the exclusiveness of the KJV, and in the course of his argument he made a statement that caught my attention, not primarily because of the translation issue itself, but because of what it seemed to assume about the gospel and how a sinner is saved.
Speaking of Colossians 1:14, he said: “But let me ask you, if somebody’s using Colossians 1 to present the gospel, is somebody going to be saved when in fact it removes the blood? So according to this modern translation, the phrase ‘through the blood’ in Colossians 1:14, is removed, so that it simply reads ‘in whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins.’” He then continued: “So we have redemption, but the Bible says through his blood. The modern Bibles remove that phrase, through his blood. Could they be saved from that passage? No, because they are not trusting in the blood of Christ for redemption. If that was the verse they were presenting from the modern Bibles, they could not be saved. If they understood from other passages then, yes, we’re redeemed through his blood, I believe they can be.”
Okay, there is just so much wrong with that entire statement that it is difficult to know where to begin. Obviously, I am not interested here in debating the textual question. Let us grant, for the sake of the discussion, that “through his blood” belongs in the passage and that its omission is a serious defect. I have no hesitation whatsoever in confessing that redemption is through the blood of Christ. The question that interests me is something much deeper: What exactly are we saying about salvation when we conclude that a man could not be saved because a particular gospel presentation failed to include enough information for him to understand and consciously trust the blood of Christ?
That is where I think an important confusion begins to show itself. Notice the logic of the statement: “Could they be saved from that passage? No, because they are not trusting in the blood of Christ for redemption.” There it is. The sinner’s salvation has now been made dependent upon receiving sufficiently accurate gospel information, understanding that information adequately, and consciously trusting the correct proposition. The gospel has shifted from being the declaration of an accomplished redemption to becoming information which must be successfully communicated, comprehended, and believed before the sinner can actually be regarded as saved. And that immediately raises another question: Why are we “presenting the gospel” in order to “get somebody saved” in the first place?
We certainly preach Christ. We proclaim the good news of what God has accomplished. We testify that redemption is found in Christ alone and was secured through His blood. But redemption did not take place in the moment the message was preached, understood, or believed. It had already been accomplished in Christ. Paul’s language is already astonishingly complete: “In whom we have redemption…” Notice what he does not say. He does not say that redemption becomes ours when we finally understand it correctly. He does not make the efficacy of Christ’s blood depend upon the sinner’s ability to comprehend and consciously trust the truth concerning it. He declares a possession already grounded entirely in Christ: we have redemption.
And yes, the means by which that redemption was accomplished matters infinitely. It was through His blood. But the very preciousness of that truth should prevent us from making its efficacy depend upon how clearly the redeemed sinner presently understands it. The blood of Christ is the ground of redemption. Our understanding of the blood of Christ is not.
And the speaker’s final qualification makes the difficulty even clearer: “If they understood from other passages that, yes, we’re redeemed through his blood, I believe they can be.” If they understood. Now the determining question is no longer simply: did Christ redeem them? It becomes: did they understand enough about how Christ redeemed them? And once we begin there, where do we stop? How much information must a sinner possess? How precisely must redemption be understood? Must he understand substitution? Imputation? Propitiation? Particular redemption? The nature of faith? The relationship between justification and redemption? What about the child of God whose theology is badly confused? What about someone who knows little more than that all his hope is in Christ? At what exact point does insufficient understanding become sufficient understanding so that the blood of Christ can finally save? Those questions expose the problem.
Christ did not redeem His people because they trusted His blood. They trust Christ because He redeemed them. Their knowledge of redemption is something into which they are brought; it is not something they contribute in order to make redemption effectual. II Timothy 1:9-10. This distinction matters because otherwise the gospel itself begins to take on an almost sacramental character. The correct message must be delivered through the proper means, the required truths must be understood, and the appropriate response must follow. At that point, despite all our protests to the contrary, the preacher and his presentation begin to stand between God and the sinner as an indispensable link in the communication of life.
And this is where the issue becomes especially serious. If the preacher stands as an indispensable link between God and the sinner, what has he functionally become? The pulpit is not an altar, the preacher is not a priest, and the gospel is not a sacrament. Redemption was not completed in the moment the message was preached, understood, or believed. It was accomplished by Christ. Salvation rests in what passed between the Father and the Son, and the sinner is afterward brought into the knowledge, light, and comfort of that finished work.
At some point we have to call this what it functionally becomes: a Protestant priesthood. The names have changed, the clothing has changed, and the theology used to defend it has changed, but the structure begins to look remarkably familiar. God is on one side, the sinner is on the other, and between them stands the authorized messenger with the authorized text, the authorized doctrinal formulation, and the authorized gospel presentation. Get the message right, understand the necessary points, make the proper confession, and life is recognized. Miss one of the required elements, and the profession is invalidated. Acts 15:1. MPJ