“The Church is perishing today through the lack of thinking, not through an excess of it.”

Image via Wikipedia

During the last thirty years there has been a tremendous defection from the Christian Church. It is evidenced even by things that lie on the surface. For example, by the decline in church attendance and in Sabbath observance and in the number of candidates for the ministry. Special explanations, it is true, are sometimes given for these discouraging tendencies. But why should we deceive ourselves, why comfort ourselves by palliative explanations? Let us face the facts. The falling off in church attendance, the neglect of Sabbath observance—these things are simply surface indications of a decline in the power of Christianity. Christianity is exerting a far less powerful direct influence in the civilized world today than it was exerting thirty years ago.

What is the cause of this tremendous defection? For my part, I have little hesitation in saying that it lies chiefly in the intellectual sphere. Men do not accept Christianity because they can no longer be convinced that Christianity is true. It may be useful, but is it true? Other explanations, of course, are given. The modern defection from the Church is explained by the practical materialism of the age. Men are so much engrossed in making money that they have no time for spiritual things. That explanation has a certain range of validity. But its range is limited. It applies perhaps to the boom towns of the West, where men are intoxicated by sudden possibilities of boundless wealth. But the defection from Christianity is far broader than that. It is felt in the settled countries of Europe even more strongly than in America. It is felt among the poor just as strongly as among the rich. Finally it is felt most strongly of all in the universities, and that is only one indication more that the true cause of the defection is intellectual. To a very large extent, the students of our great Eastern universities—and still more the universities of Europe—are not Christians. And they are not Christians often just because they are students. The thought of the day, as it makes itself most strongly felt in the universities, is profoundly opposed to Christianity, or at least it is out of connection with Christianity. The chief obstacle to the Christian religion today lies in the sphere of the intellect.

That assertion must be guarded against two misconceptions. In the first place, I do not mean that most men reject Christianity consciously on account of intellectual difficulties. On the contrary, rejection of Christianity is due in the vast majority of cases simply to indifference. Only a few men have given the subject real attention. The vast majority of those who reject the gospel do so simply because they know nothing about it. But whence comes this indifference? It is due to the intellectual atmosphere in which men are living. The modern world is dominated by ideas which ignore the gospel. Modern culture is not altogether opposed to the gospel. But it is out of all connection with it. It not only prevents the acceptance of Christianity. It prevents Christianity even from getting a hearing.

In the second place, I do not mean that the removal of intellectual objections will make a man a Christian. No conversion was ever wrought simply by argument. A change of heart is also necessary. And that can be wrought only by the immediate exercise of the power of God. But because intellectual labor is insufficient it does not follow. as is so often assumed, that it is unnecessary. God may, it is true, overcome all intellectual obstacles by an immediate exercise of His regenerative power. Sometimes He does. But He does so very seldom. Usually He exerts His power in connection with certain conditions of the human mind. Usually He does not bring into the Kingdom, entirely without preparation, those whose mind and fancy are completely dominated by ideas which make the acceptance of the gospel logically impossible.

Modern culture is a tremendous force. It affects all classes of society. It affects the ignorant as well as the learned. What is to be done about it? In the first place the Church may simply withdraw from the conflict. She may simply allow the mighty stream of modern thought to flow by unheeded and do her work merely in the back-eddies of the current. There are still some men in the world who have been unaffected by modern culture. They may still be won for Christ without intellectual labor. And they must be won. It is useful, it is necessary work. If the Church is satisfied with that alone, let her give up the scientific education of her ministry. Let her assume the truth of her message and learn simply how it may be applied in detail to modern industrial and social conditions. Let her give up the laborious study of Greek and Hebrew. Let her abandon the scientific study of history to the men of the world. In a day of increased scientific interest, let the Church go on becoming less scientific. In a day of increased specialization, of renewed interest in philology and in history, of more rigorous scientific method, let the Church go on abandoning her Bible to her enemies. They will study it scientifically, rest assured, if the Church does not. Let her substitute sociology altogether for Hebrew, practical expertness for the proof of her gospel. Let her shorten the preparation of her ministry, let her permit it to be interrupted yet more and more by premature practical activity. By doing so she will win a straggler here and there. But her winnings will be but temporary. The great current of modern culture will sooner or later engulf her puny eddy. God will save her somehow—out of the depths. But the labor of centuries will have been swept away. God grant that the Church may not resign herself to that. God grant she may face her problem squarely and bravely. That problem is not easy. It involves the very basis of her faith. Christianity is the proclamation of an historical fact—that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Modern thought has no place for that proclamation. It prevents men even from listening to the message. Yet the culture of today cannot simply be rejected as a whole. It is not like the pagan culture of the first century. It is not wholly non-Christian. Much of it has been derived directly from the Bible. There are significant movements in it, going to waste, which might well be used for the defence of the gospel. The situation is complex. Easy wholesale measures are not in place. Discrimination, investigation is necessary. Some of modern thought must be refuted. The rest must be made subservient. But nothing in it can be ignored. He that is not with us is against us. Modern culture is a mighty force. It is either subservient to the gospel or else it is the deadliest enemy of the gospel. For making it subservient, religious emotion is not enough, intellectual labor is also necessary. And that labor is being neglected. The Church has turned to easier tasks. And now she is reaping the fruits of her indolence. Now she must battle for her life.

Distinguishing the ordo salutis and historia salutis, and “Is the Law Gracious?”

Two excellent articles over at the White Horse Inn Blog continuing the conversation from previous weeks concerning Union with Christ, the ordo salutis and historia salutis as well as asking if the Law is gracious.  They are well worth the read!

Intellectual Engagement

Image via Wikipedia

There are two objections to our solution of the problem. If you bring culture and Christianity thus into close union—in the first place, will not Christianity destroy culture? Must not art and science be independent in order to flourish? We answer that it all depends upon the nature of their dependence. Subjection to any external authority or even to any human authority would be fatal to art and science. But subjection to God is entirely different. Dedication of human powers to God is found, as a matter of fact, not to destroy but to heighten them. God gave those powers. He understands them well enough not bunglingly to destroy His own gifts. In the second place, will not culture destroy Christianity? Is it not far easier to be an earnest Christian if you confine your attention to the Bible and do not risk being led astray by the thought of the world? We answer, of course it is easier. Shut yourself up in an intellectual monastery, do not disturb yourself with the thoughts of unregenerate men, and of course you will find it easier to be a Christian, just as it is easier to be a good soldier in comfortable winter quarters than it is on the field of battle. You save your own soul—but the Lord’s enemies remain in possession of the field.

But by whom is this task of transforming the unwieldy, resisting mass of human thought until it becomes subservient to the gospel—by whom is this task to be accomplished? To some extent, no doubt, by professors in theological seminaries and universities. But the ordinary minister of the gospel cannot shirk his responsibility. It is a great mistake to suppose that investigation can successfully be carried on by a few specialists whose work is of interest to nobody but themselves. Many men of many minds are needed. What we need first of all, especially in our American churches, is a more general interest in the problems of theological science. Without that, the specialist is without the stimulating atmosphere which nerves him to do his work.

The Reformed View of Justification

A Great reminder from John Girardeau in Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism by Wes White. 

The Calvinistic doctrine may be stated under three heads: first, the Ground of justification; secondly, its Constituent Elements, or Nature; thirdly, its human Condition or Instrument.

The Ground of Justification

1. The Ground of justification, or, what is the same, its Matter or Material Cause, is the vicarious righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer. This is the obedience of Christ, as the appointed Substitute of the sinner, to the precept and the penalty of the Moral Law: what Paul denominates the righteousness of God which is revealed from faith to faith. It is fitly termed the righteousness of God, not only because it was provided and accepted by God, but because it was wrought out by God himself in the person of his Incarnate Son. It is God’s righteousness because God produced it. This is judicially imputed by God the Father to the believing sinner, who had no share at all in its conscious production. In that sense, it is not his, but another’s righteousness – justitia aliena. But as Christ was his Surety and Representative and Christ’s righteousness was imputed to him, it becomes, in this sense, his righteousness. It is his in law, before the divine tribunal; not his as infused and constituting a subjective character, but his as a formal investiture of his person. God, therefore, is just in justifying him since, although consciously and subjectively a sinner, he possesses in Christ a perfect righteousness, such as the law demands in order to justification, and such as satisfies its claims. When the sinner by faith accepts Christ with this righteousness, he has an adequate ground of justification: consciously has it, so that he can plead it before God.

The Constituent Elements of Justification

2. The Constituent Elements of justification are, first, the pardon, or non-imputation, of guilt; secondly, the acceptance of the sinner’s person as righteous, involving his investiture with a right and title to eternal life. Taken generally, justification may be said to consist of three things: first, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness; secondly, the non-imputation of guilt, or pardon; thirdly, the acceptance of the sinner’s person as righteous and the bestowal upon him of a right and title to eternal life. But taken strictly, justification is pardon and the eternal acceptance of the sinner’s person. The ground and the constituent elements are not to be confounded. It is not: justification is the non-imputation of guilt and the imputation of righteousness, which would seem to be the natural antithesis; but first comes the imputed righteousness of Christ as the ground, and then the elements or parts, – namely, pardon, and acceptance with a title to indefectible life.

The Condition of Justification on Man’s Part

3. The Condition on man’s part, or the Instrument, of justification is Faith, and faith alone. In receiving Christ, as a justifying Saviour, it receives and rests upon Christ’s righteousness, as the ground of justification. God imputes this righteousness and the sinner embraces it by faith. In describing faith as the condition of justification, an indispensable distinction is to be noted. The only meritorious condition of justification was performed by Christ. As the Representative of his people he undertook to furnish that perfect obedience to the precept of the Law which, under the Covenant of Works, was required of Adam as the representative of his seed and which he failed to render, and, in addition, to furnish a perfect obedience to the penalty of the violated law. Upon the fulfilment of this condition the justification of his seed was suspended. This condition he completely fulfilled in his life and in his death, and thus meritoriously secured justification for his seed.

But in the application of redemption to the sinner, he is required to exercise faith in Christ and his righteousness, in order to his conscious union with Christ as a Federal Head, and his actual justification. In this sense, faith is to him the condition of his justification. It is simply an indispensable duty on his part – a conditio sine qua non. He cannot be consciously and actually justified without faith; but his faith has no particle of merit. All merit is in Christ alone. Faith involves the absolute renunciation of merit, and absolute reliance upon the meritorious obedience of Christ. Faith, then, is simply the instrument by which Christ and his righteousness are received in order to justification. It is emptiness filled with Christ’s fullness; impotence lying down upon Christ’s strength. It is no righteousness; it is not a substitute for righteousness; it is not imputed as righteousness. It is counted to us simply as the act which apprehends Christ’s righteousness unto justification. All it does is to take what God gives – Christ and his righteousness: Christ as the justifying Saviour and Christ’s righteousness as the only justifying righteousness.

In discharging this instrumental office faith is entirely alone. It is followed, and in accordance with the provisions of the covenant of grace it is inevitably followed, by the other graces of the Spirit, and by good, that is, holy works; but they do not co-operate with it in the act by which Christ and his righteousness are received in order to justification. They are not concurring causes, but the certain results of justification. In a word, faith, while not the sole cause for the act of the Spirit uniting the sinner to Christ in regeneration is also a cause, is the sole instrumental cause on man’s part of justification. Other graces, the existence of which is conditioned by faith may be superior to it in point of intrinsic excellence, love for example; faith has none. All the excellence it possesses is derived from its relation to Christ. Itself it confesses to be nothing, Christ to be everything. It is an exhausted receiver prepared by its very emptiness to be filled with the merit of Christ’s righteousness. Hence, it is precisely suited to be the instrument, and the sole instrument, of justification. As all human works whatsoever are excluded from it, justification is seen to be altogether of grace.

Related articles

• A. A. Hodge and the Priority of Justification (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)
• Union with Christ, and Sanctification (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)
• Johannes Wollebius and the WLC on Justification and Sanctification (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)
• More Confusion on Justification and Sanctification (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)
• Cartesian and Reformed Causality (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)
• “John Owen on the Imputation of Christ’s Active Obedience” (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)

Christians Must Master The Thought of The World

 

 

Are then Christianity and culture in a conflict that is to be settled only by the destruction of one or the other of the contending forces? A third solution, fortunately, is possible—namely consecration. Instead of destroying the arts and sciences or being indifferent to them, let us cultivate them with all the enthusiasm of the veriest humanist, but at the same time consecrate them to the service of our God. Instead of stifling the pleasures afforded by the acquisition of knowledge or by the appreciation of what is beautiful, let us accept these pleasures as the gifts of a heavenly Father. Instead of obliterating the distinction between the Kingdom and the world, or on the other hand withdrawing from the world into a sort of modernized intellectual monasticism, let us go forth joyfully, enthusiastically to make the world subject to God.

Certain obvious advantages are connected with such a solution of the problem. In the first place, a logical advantage. A man can believe only what he holds to be true. We are Christians because we hold Christianity to be true. But other men hold Christianity to be false. Who is right? That question can be settled only by an examination and comparison of the reasons adduced on both sides. It is true, one of the grounds for our belief is an inward experience that we cannot share—the great experience begun by conviction of sin and conversion and continued by communion with God—an experience which other men do not possess, and upon which, therefore, we cannot directly base an argument. But if our position is correct, we ought at least to be able to show the other man that his reasons may be inconclusive. And that involves careful study of both sides of the question. Furthermore, the field of Christianity is the world. The Christian cannot be satisfied so long as any human activity is either opposed to Christianity or out of all connection with Christianity. Christianity must pervade not merely all nations, but also all of human thought. The Christian, therefore, cannot be indifferent to any branch of earnest human endeavor. It must all be brought into some relation to the gospel. It must be studied either in order to be demonstrated as false, or else in order to be made useful in advancing the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom must be advanced not merely extensively, but also intensively. The Church must seek to conquer not merely every man for Christ, but also the whole of man. We are accustomed to encourage ourselves in our discouragements by the thought of the time when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. No less inspiring is the other aspect of that same great consummation. That will also be a time when doubts have disappeared, when every contradiction has been removed, when all of science converges to one great conviction, when all of art is devoted to one great end, when all of human thinking is permeated by the refining, ennobling influence of Jesus, when every thought has been brought into subjection to the obedience of Christ.

If to some of our practical men, these advantages of our solution of the problem seem to be intangible, we can point to the merely numerical advantage of intellectual and artistic activity within the Church. We are all agreed that at least one great function of the Church is the conversion of individual men. The missionary movement is the great religious movement of our day. Now it is perfectly true that men must be brought to Christ one by one. There are no labor-saving devices in evangelism. It is all hand-work.

Union with Christ, and Sanctification

“Why can’t you be like your brother?” We all know intuitively that guilt-driven comparisons like this don’t actually work, but sometimes our frustration gets the better of us as parents. We hear, and sometimes say, the same thing in church. Frustrated with the lack of serious discipleship, we turn more easily and naturally to threats. In sharp contrast, Jesus spoke of our being his younger siblings, living branches of his vine. “You did not choose me; I chose you and appointed you to bear fruit that would last” (Jn 15:16). As I point out below, Paul’s horizon was much deeper, richer, and broader than imitation of Jesus. Being like Jesus Christ has its place only if we are in Christ to begin with.

As G. C. Berkouwer reminds us, we are not moving from theory to practice when we turn from justification to sanctification. Even in our sanctification, we keep our eye on Christ and his all-sufficient righteousness imputed as the only basis for our growth in holiness. Separatingjustification from sanctification is as serious as confusing them, because it means that the latter is “cut loose or abstracted from justification.” When that happens, says Berkouwer, justification is easily seen as the gracious act of God, while sanctification becomes the result of human striving. Paul teaches that believers are “sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor 1:2, 30; 6:11; 1 Thes 5:23; cf. Acts 20:32; 26:18). As Bavinck puts it, “Many indeed acknowledge that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, but seem to think that—at least they act as if—they must be sanctified by a holiness they themselves have acquired.” Something close to this error seems to have been held by Paul’s opponents in Galatia (Gal 3:1-9). Read more…

Related articles

• More Confusion on Justification and Sanctification (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)
• Cartesian and Reformed Causality (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)
• The Marrow of Modern Divinity: The Law/Gospel Distinction (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)
• Johannes Wollebius and the WLC on Justification and Sanctification (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)
• A. A. Hodge and the Priority of Justification (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)

Mathetes, Epistle to Diognetus – God Justifies the Transgressors!

Mathetes on Justification:

But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!
- Mathetes, Epistle to Diognetus, Chapter 9

The Marrow of Modern Divinity: The Law/Gospel Distinction

The gospel method of sanctification, as well as of justification, lies so far out of the ken of natural reason, that if all the rationalists in the world, philosophers and divines, had consulted together to lay down a plan for repairing the lost image of God in man, they had never hit upon that which the divine wisdom has pitched upon, viz: that sinners should be sanctified in Christ Jesus, (1 Cor 1:2), by faith in him, (Acts 26:18); nay, being laid before them, they would have rejected it with disdain, as foolishness, (1 Cor 1:23) In all views which fallen man has towards the means of his own recovery, the natural bent is to the way of the covenant of works. This is evident in the case of the vast multitudes throughout the world, embracing Judaism, Paganism, Mahometanism, and Popery. All these agree in this one principle, that it is by doing men must live, though they hugely differ as to the things to be done for life - Thomas Boston, Preface, “The Marrow of Modern Divinity”

The Marrow of Modern Divinity is most instructive. Edward Fisher responds to the Fear of Antinomianism. The opponents of Fisher’s work to such a large degree forgot the Covenant of Grace and the truthfulness of the Auchterarder Creed defended by the Marrow Men.

This Controversy reminded me of John Cotton’s discussion in the Antinomian Controversy in New England where he said: “The Doctrines of the Covenant of free-grace are ever new: because they are the Doctrines of the New-Covenant, which can never wax old: should it once waxed old, it would soon vanish away… though it be as ancient as Abraham, yeah as Adam, for he had his first comfort and assurance, in an absolute promise of free grace, Gen 3:15, yet it hath ever seemed new in every age.”

Thomas Boston wrote many accompanying notes to this work that are quite helpful and explanatory: “The Spring of Legalism: That is, till we be brought to despair of obtaining salvation in the way of the covenant of works. Mark here the spring of legalism, namely, natural bias of man’s heart towards the way of the law, as a covenant of works, and ignorance of the law, in its spirituality and extent” So, it is a covenant of works to bring the heart of man back to the law as the basis of sanctity and good works. The Covenant of Grace instead of seeing our good works and faith as legal necessities for entrance sees them as gifts themselves in this Covenant. What sweet encouragement to believers then and now!

The extensive quotations at the end of the book concerning the Law/Gospel Distinction I found particularly helpful as a way of summarizing the entire book (pp339-ff). The Reformed discussion of the Covenant of Works/Grace Distinction fell within their defense of this Law/Gospel Distinction.

Of especial note was the two different ‘voices’ heard by Law and Gospel: “Briefly, then, if we would know when the law speaks, and when the gospel speaks, either in reading the word, or in hearing it preached; and if we would skillfully distinguish the voice of the one from the voice of the other, we must consider” This is something that was essential for Christian piety and living as the Gospel is the source of Faith. Good works flow from that source (p. 221-ff). Hence the description of the Law/Covenant of Works is seen as word that can only condemn, but when in a covenant of grace the law functions differently. The Gospel is the source and power of faith, and faith then becomes the root and source of Good Works as it is assured by the Good News. only after one sees justification source in the work of Christ can sanctification even be put on the table (p320).

The Sledge Hammer of the Law

 

Here is more gold from Luther’s commentary on Galatians (specifically 3.19). I found this while studying Q/A 3 of the Heidelberg Catechism in sermon preparation.  It has to do with the purpose of the law.

“The fatuous [silly] idea that a person can be holy by himself denies God the pleasure of saving sinners. God must therefore first take the sledge-hammer of the Law in His fists and smash the beast of self-righteousness and its brood of self-confidence, self-wisdom, self-righteousness, and self-help. When the conscience has been thoroughly frightened by the Law it welcomes the Gospel of grace with its message of a Savior who came into the world, not to break the bruised reed, nor to quench the smoking flax, but to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken-hearted, and to grant forgiveness of sins to all the captives.” The Sledge Hammer of the Law.

Gisbertus Voetius and the Use of Reason

Image via Wikipedia

Gisbertus Voetius and the High Orthodox: 

The Use of Reason and Scripture

  

Introduction:

The period of ‘High Orthodoxy’ following the vast confessionalization of the previous period began ca. 1640-1685 and ended in 1725. Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676), a preeminent post-Reformation theologian, was known for his professorship at the University of Utrecht during the period of Dutch Reformation history called the Nadere Reformatie.[1] He served as the professor of theology where he was known for rigorous precision and polemical aptitude. Voetius had international significance, as was the character of much of the Reformed orthodox period typified with the Synod of Dort and her delegates. He is seen as one of the great Dutch Reformed scholastic theologians and the chief representative of the ‘Continuing’ Reformation in the Netherlands.[2]

Voetius’ debate with the philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes (1641-42) and his fierce dialogue with Johannes Cocceius typified the experience of this professor from Utrecht.  Of the many theological and philosophical issues plaguing the continent in the 16^th and 17^th centuries, the defense of Reformed orthodoxy against rationalism dominated the universities and churches.[3] The debates of this period included fierce opposition by the Counter-Reformation of Rome and the newly rising presence of Deism and Socinianism which seriously undermined the Reformation’s understanding of the Christian faith. Notwithstanding this shifting intellectual period, Voetius maintained an ancillary use of reason in relation to matters of faith and Scripture while allowing for reason’s “argumentative, probative, and illustrative use.” His theological and philosophical background, as well as his understanding of the uniformity of theology surrounding the assurance of faith, propelled a specific understanding of reason and its relationship to Scripture.

While all of the issues attacking the church were integrally connected as the Reformed polemically responded, Voetius believed that one of the principal opponents of Reformed theology was the new Cartesian philosophy and the historical-critical hermeneutic coming in its wake because he believed this form of rationalism reversed the role of reason in its relationship to Scripture and the knowledge of God. He even went so far as to see many of the theological disruptions between himself and Cocceius as stemming from this very thing. The rationalist hermeneutic attacked the doctrine of God and historicized his actions with his creatures. According to Voetius, this historicizing principle was unacceptable. Although the discussion of reason, faith, philosophy, and Scripture have perennially arisen through church history, new vigor was given to the debate as the Cartesian philosophy gained serious hearing in the schools and universities following the devastation of the Thirty Years’ War.

Though the views of Descartes were formally condemned in the university, this denunciation did not mean he was without influence in the Reformed intellectual world.[4] “The state controlled the universities where Reformed ministers were being trained under the increasing influence of Rationalism, particularly of Descartes and Spinoza… The Calvinism of Dort stood in marked contrast to the spirit of the age.”[5] Indeed, the esteemed Synod of Dort was not being followed in the Netherlands in this time period as the church and state were woven together in political and social turmoil.

Selectae Disputationes Theologicae:

Voetius demonstrated the Reformed pre-critical understanding of Scripture and the use of reason in his Selectae Disputationes Theologicae, published from 1648-1669, which began with the principles of divine accommodation and the belief that Scriptura sui interpres. This hermeneutical principle flowed from the archetypal-ectypal distinction common amongst the Reformed, and the idea that God must come down and tell man what is true in words that he will understand.[6] The concomitant belief in the analogia fidei and sensus plenior allowed the Reformed to have an integrated theological prolegomena. While Voetius did not explicitly decry the Cartesian historical-critical method of reading Scripture as undermining his view of the text, he clearly saw Cartesianism’s method of doubt as problematic and destructive to theological divinity. The God of Scripture was undermined by such doubt and weak proofs for his existence; and thus, in turn the basis for such theology proper was derided.[7] Looking at the theological and methodological use of reason by the Reformed orthodox and the succeeding generations will inform the reading of Voetius’s Selectae Disputationes Theologicae. In order to understand how rationalism of the Cartesian form was so devastating to theology, this hermeneutic will be contrasted with the hermeneutics of the Reformed orthodox.

From its inception Reformed orthodoxy has been subject to abuse, misinterpretation, and accommodation. Many caricatures can be seen in Voetius’ own day as he sought to wade through all the jargon and excessive ad hominem and ad hoc argumentation.[8] He wrote in his Selectae Disputationes “The Remonstrants in their Apologia brand our theology as pure speculation.” [9] This misrepresentation became the standard retort in Voetius’ own day and was given fodder with the use of scholastic precision and the use of Aristotelian categories which was thought to be a return to the medieval period. The terms “casuistic,” “historical,” “patristic,” and “scholastic” were seen as pejorative terms that were applied to the Reformed in the Nadere Reformatie who sought to bring further reformation to the churches.[10] Misconceptions of Reformed orthodoxy have been argued into the present. This mischaracterization of the Reformed began with the Renaissance, continued with the Remonstrants, and was later used by the Enlightenment. Richard Muller and others have responded to such interpretations and misreading of the era. Central-dogma theories, viewing theology as justification of a restored Aristotelianism, and metaphysical speculation have been continually set forth as the form and matter of Reformed orthodoxy. Only recently have these ideas been overturned in looking at the actual texts and through correct historical methodology.[11]  Modern secondary literature assumes the Reformation was a simpler, less technical and more robust view of Christianity that was deflated through the rationalism and speculation of the Reformed orthodox who, knowingly or not, returned to the speculative medieval system. These caricatures are evident in the literature pertaining to Voetius.[12]

The frequent assumption in secondary literature concerning the Reformed orthodox is that the method of scholasticism was equivalent to a full-orbed Aristotelian or Platonic philosophy that prejudiced all theological formulation. The central belief was asserted and all loci were necessarily deduced from that vantage point. This understanding of method and content is not only naïve but a total misreading of the primary sources.[13] The Enlightenment and Pietist thinkers presented themselves as the freer alternatives to Reformation scholasticism, as the new Renaissance of thought. They equated the Reformed scholastics with medieval scholasticism, which implicitly argued that they had departed from the early Reformation.[14] And yet, the use of Aristotelian categories and reason does not equate a full-blown rationalism or Aristotelian philosophy per se. Indeed, theological and methodological diversity can be seen within the Reformation and post-Reformation contexts.[15] Anachronistic ‘central dogmas’ of ‘decretal’ theology or the like cannot be read into this period; rather, these arguments are now seen to be made due to serious prejudice.

As Muller argued, “Method and content need to be distinguished albeit not utterly separated.”[16] While philosophy was modified to serve theology, method did not “determine the result of the inquiry necessarily… Rationalism and scholasticism do not stand in any necessary relation: The former is a matter of philosophical conviction, the latter of methodology.”[17] Many Enlightenment thinkers balked at the idea of predestination and would therefore often equate it with the method of scholasticism. Ironically, it was the Reformed orthodox who defended the freedom of the will by volitional creatures with the doctrine of concursus and secondary causation, and who most vociferously argued against speculation and rationalism.[18] Voetius was no exception.[19]

The theological prolegomena of the Reformed orthodox was seen to be in utter unity of theological thought of the Reformation. Voetius himself saw his formulations as being interpreted by the Remonstrants and Socinians as discontinuous with the Reformation tradition, as being speculative and legalistic. This discontinuity theory cannot be argued on any justifiable ground,[20] for “the recourse of Protestant scholastics to the fourfold Aristotelian causality does not indicate an interest in philosophical determinism but rather, an interest in clarity of argument, with the causal model as a heuristic device.”[21]

From this purview Voetius believed in the uniformity of theology, arguing that reason was ancillary with a heuristic locality in theological discourse. The method of doubt and the understanding of God that Descartes put forth were harmful due to the integrated nature of theological doctrine. If theology proper fell, all other theological loci would necessarily fall.[22]

[Voetius] objects to Descartes for disrupting the relation between faith and knowledge by his subjective foundation of all knowledge by means of hyperbolical doubt.  In this way not only the reliability of God’s revelation is undermined, but also the intersubjective academic dialogue and the construction of a ‘unified science’ is fundamentally endangered.[23]

The Reformation and Post-Reformation theologians agreed that the Scriptural record contains a unified, rationally comprehensive account that should be read with Christ and God’s covenant of salvation in view as a test of orthodoxy.[24] Rationalism and Cartesian historical-critical methods of hermeneutics directly undermined this unity and the basis of all theological interpretation of Scripture as divinely accommodated language speaking of man and his salvation in this Christ.[25]

Reformed theology is practical even in the points that seem to the Remonstrants most arid and speculative, we mention our vernacular tract against [Daniel] Tilenus and our disputations on the unity of God, the knowledge of God, and the necessity and utility of the doctrine of the Trinity.[26]

For Voetius such theological use of heuristic devices such as Aristotelian distinctions actually preserved theology from evaporating into mere pagan ethical schemes. This ethical dilemma of separating theology’s theoretical side from its practical side (theoretica-practica) led directly, in his opinion, to the vain meaninglessness of Remonstrant and Socinian theology.

In contrast [to Reformed casuistry], the way the Remonstrant and Socinian theology ends in empty absurdities without anything practical, and is merely the ethics of Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Xenophon, Seneca, Plutarch, and others, even of the Mohammedans and the Jews…[27]

All of their errors spawned from their rejection of the doctrine that was the article of salvation in Christ, the doctrine of justification by faith alone in the merits of Christ. “The reason for this defect [in practical theology] can be only be found in the defects and corruption of their dogmatic theology, or explication of the articles of faith [i.e. the Apostles’ Creed]…”[28] At this point it must be noted that Post-Enlightenment categories cannot be foisted upon the Reformed orthodox, placing a dichotomy between faith and practice, the head and the heart, the doctrinal and the practical. As Voetius makes clear, all theology is inherently practical. As heirs of the medieval Franciscan/Dominican debate, the Reformed sided with the Franciscans stating that theology was more practical, inherently, than theoretical.[29] Faith and reason were thus differentiated by the ministerial use of reason and the magisterial placement of Scripture, overturning any concept of fides implicita. Thus, the continuity with the Reformation is evident in that Scripture was given the last word and final authority over human opinion and philosophy; and yet, the place of reason was reserved and given didactic and polemical use.[30]

Voetius saw the corruption of religion and the illicit use of reason as springing from many causes. Theological speculation and rationalism were derived from a wrong attitude concerning faith, assurance, and application of justifying faith. In other words, Voetius saw the scandalous arguments of the rationalists as stemming from many general causes but especially and singularly from the false understanding of the active obedience of Christ and its application to us in justifying faith as revealed to man in Scripture through the covenant of salvation.[31] This assertion is no small claim. In Voetius’ opinion the frightening, pejorative terms ascribed to the Reformed orthodox should not make men shy in studying them, or what they were seeking in reforming the church according to God’s Word alone as it reveals the covenant of salvation and the mediator between God and man.[32] Their concerns were utterly practical in their use of reason and philosophy as they sought to clarify the believers’ assurance against the vain calumnies of the Pietists, rationalists, and Papists. For the Reformed orthodox in the Nadere Reformatie the law, its uses, and relationship to the gospel were of the utmost import and the chief element of all practical theology in assuring the believers’ heart to continue in faith and good works.[33]

The difference in terminology or disputatio formulations ought not prove too much when assessing the Reformation and its true heirs. Voetius wrote in a different context than Calvin, who himself did not define Reformed theology. Voetius was in a period of confessionalization. The definition of the tradition was set down in the many Reformed symbols of faith and was merely being filled out and defended in newer contexts.[34] Many of the writers of this period were renaissance men who wrote for exegetical, philosophical, theological, and practical concerns. Voetius was no exemption.

In cases of Perkins, Ames, Voetius, and Baxter works of piety and works of scholastic theology emanated from the same pens. Among the Dutch Reformed in particular there is no clear division between the practitioners of scholastic, disputative theology and the warm piety of the Nadere Reformatie…[35]

Notwithstanding the rejection of what moderns would see as irrefutable such as heliocentrism, Voetius defense remains admirable for his holistic view of theology and Scripture.[36] While these issues of science and creation seem to be glaring, Voetius was in accord with the Scriptures in his defense of Scripture against rationalism. He disregarded heliocentrism because he believed the biblical texts argued against such a view, he saw physical arguments as decisive, and the ambiguity of Copernican claims led him to see these things as arising from unfounded speculation. This argumentation was not biblicist or speculative, but rather he, like many in his day, did not see the evidence as convincing. The fact that Cartesianism and Copernican theory were so entwined led to further disregard.[37]

All of these issues were intertwined and related but nevertheless this fact should not cause modern readers to disregard the nuance and the biblical nature of Voetius’ understanding of Scripture and the use of reason. The Reformed orthodox believed Scripture itself was interpreted by Scripture precisely because it was concerning Christ and because it was divinely accommodated to human finitude and weakness. Historical-critical methods of the Saumur theologians, the Latitudinarians, and the Socinians flowed from a similar font of rationalism that directly undermined the idea that Scripture interprets Scripture; the clearer passages shed light upon the unclear passages.[38] Voetius used many of the categories of reason to oppose the rationalism of Descartes. The Reformed used such heuristic categories to oppose Benedict Spinoza and Christian Wolff. The use of reason and philosophy was of essential significance in defending Reformed theology against rationalism and the Enlightenment.[39]

With the debates involving Voetius and Cocceius, a prime example of the distinction of method and content is seen. Both men were federalist theologians and used scholastic categories, but the crux of the issue, as was seen by Voetius, was the content of Cocceius’ theological formulation of the doctrine of abrogations.[40] Though Voetius and Antonius Hulsius opposed Cocceian theology, this opposition was due to their belief that Cocceius was historicizing and relativizing the actions of God, derived from a rationalistic view of the text. This opposition was seen in their claiming Cocceius was a Remonstrant and Socinian in how he appropriated the text.[41]  According to Cocceius’ critics,

This teaching [of Cocceian Federalism] indeed implied a different view of the relation between Old and New Testaments, the relation between Law and Gospel, and the relation between the natural and revealed knowledge of God.

Although such actual claims pertaining to the content of Cocceius’ theology cannot be sustained, the point of the criticism is legitimate. Voetius was attacking the content, not federal theology per se, and attacking the wrong use of reason with the Scriptures which he argued lead to a historicizing of God’s actions, attacking the doctrine of God proper.[42]

Voetius also used his disputations to overturn the theology of the medieval period, as well as the Papist and Anabaptist theology that came from this same font. He used scholastic categories and philosophical terminology to aid him in his defense. Theology is partly theoretical and partly practical in every loci – a body of knowledge to be known and inherent application.[43] God tells the church what is practical and applicatory; man does not use reason to create application or find the divine will. Rather, these things are revealed to man within the Scriptures, within the text itself.

Voetius saw himself as a scholastic theologian of the Reformation tradition, who rooted out speculation from theology and wished to synthesize scholasticism and piety of the Reformation in a nuanced and biblical manner.[44] Reason itself was placed in subjugation to Scripture, without being naïvely thought of as something that can be turned on and off, the idea that a theologian can come to a text tabula rosa. What Voetius is found formulating is a precise theology that cannot be seen as rationalistic, speculative, or legalistic. In fact Voetius leaves room for wisdom (sapentia) in his discussion of practical theology in relation to things adiaphora that one would not expect from rationalistic casuistry, being directly related to his doctrine of God.[45] Voetius responded to the objection that “Practical theology and casuistic theology seems to bog down on small points, and constantly to the cause of scruples,” in saying

When casuists, as God requires, call attention to small evils and bind consciences to the avoiding of them (following Mt. 5:19), they do not overlook the big ones, but fight against them the more strongly. That this ought to be done, and the other not left undone, is the Saviour’s teaching (Mt. 23:23). But if by minor details is understood the adiaphora or actions that are lawful, we would agree that practical theology has committed a great sin in pressing such a matter, whenever it has done so.[46]

In his own words Voetius demonstrates his self-awareness and a conscientious writing style – as a doctor of the soul who sought to conform his practical theology to the word of God and sought to use his method for the assurance of the believer in this God.[47] The formal principle of the Reformation, sola Scriptura, could not be divorced from its material principle, solus Christus.

In the entirety of his discussion, Voetius shows the prudence and wisdom that he allowed for, the development and historical posture of issues of conscience. Simplicity was the highest virtue and hypocrisy the chief sin. For with hypocrisy, “We conclude that this all occurs where the true faith, repentance, and certitude of salvation are missing.”[48] Indeed the use of reason as magisterial, i.e. rationalism, over assurance in God’s word was the essence of hypocrisy. Assurance and certitude of salvation are of the essence of faith, according to Voetius.[49] His writings on theology and piety are to be seen as tearing off the masks of the hypocrites and showing forth the salvation of God’s people in building their confidence and assurance.[50] According to the professor of Utrecht, the rationalist use of Scripture served to undermine the assurance of faith in placing reason over God’s very Word. For when interpreted Scriptura sui interpres it brings to light man’s sure salvation in his covenant surety, Jesus Christ. F. G. M. Broeyer writes,

It has as symbolic aspect that Voetius was occupied with the relation between faith and works in accordance with Luther’s interpretation just at this time… During all the years of his [Voetius] pastoral work he had done his best to help people in their longing to have certainty about their own faith.[51]

Thus, the Reformed orthodox saw the text as having many senses (sensus plenior) that came from its historical meaning (sensus literalis); the difficult passages were to be interpreted by the clearer passages (analogia fidei). Voetius saw reason, philosophy, and science as ancillary or subordinate to Scripture rather than that which provided an ‘objective’ and ‘unbiased’ interpretation, attained by pure rational deduction as the historical-critical methods claimed.

Scripture is not a book like unto others that can be used by such methods but is truly sui generes, a category on its own. The self-referentiality of Scriptural horizons as well as its self-defining nature is undermined through such critical methods of exegesis that seek to separate the divine and human authorship, and place reason over the text as some objective ideal. The Reformed, like Voetius, would see such hermeneutical methods as flowing from the spring of Cartesian rationalism. Faith itself would be undermined in the process and assurance would be impossible. This rejection of rationalism was based upon biblical, theological, and philosophical grounds.

Cartesian and Reformed Causality

As I stated previously,

Those who would make Union some kind of nebulous priority with no forensic priority within the ordo salutis are working within Cartesian causal terms and trying to overcome it with Schweitzer’s personal-relational dilemma (Lessing’s Ditch anyone?). The Reformed were using pre-critical uses of causality and thus could speak of varying kinds of causality without diminishing either the forensic or relational categories. The Reformers and their heirs have always said Justification is the Cause of Sanctification.

Now, what does that entail or look like?

Within Cartesian causality determinism is in view, but it can denote mechanisitic relationship, especially since there is an philosophical connection between Baconian science and Descartes’ Method. In as much as an act causes something by personal determination, it may be said to be deterministic rather than some impersonal force. But both have in common the idea that something is caused by a preceding force or natural law. Those who hear us using the terminology of causation with reference to justification and ordo, may hear us speaking of impersonal laws of nature in which justification is ‘stuff’ that has inherent within it transformative properties by which sanctification is formed within us.

Thus, many like Tipton and Jim Cassidy think we are importing all of salvation into Justification and thus are returning to Rome.  This is patently not the case as to how the Reformed have used the term ’cause’. ’Cartesian’ most likely is referring to determinism since their is a personal force behind the cause and effect in view, but it need not delimit any mechanism ‘used’ in the process. It simply denies multiple forms of causation and the Reformed doctrine of concursus.

As to the causal relationship between Just. and Sanct. This is where things definitely become difficult in that one may speak of varying relationships when different objects and subjects are in view. For instance, Warfield argued that faith has no direct relationship to sanctification in the Christian life but it is mediated through justification. (He argues these twin benefits are not simultaneous) So, when faith, justification and sanctification alone are in view there can be an instrumental relationship of justification to sanctification (faith as subject and sanctification as the object).  (B. B. Warfield, “The German Higher Life Movement,” in Perfectionism, vol. 1, pp. 362-363)

We could also say justification is the a necessary cause and condition for those who would be sanctified.

Turretin argued that in relationship to the righteousness of Christ, faith is instrumental cause of justification. Christ’s righteousness is the meritorious/material cause of our justification, and the formal cause of sanctification. Turretin wanted to lodge this in the person and work of Christ (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2, p. 633-ff). The guilt of sin and remission is given in justification and grants us eternal life only because of the alien righteousness of Christ. This act and declaration is not constitutive properly speaking but is instrumental in breaking the power of sin in our lives via adoption, which begins to take shape as we die to sin and live to Christ which is the fruit of sanctification. The Reformed distinguish “good works” from “sanctification” as fruit from its root. There is a legal and powerful priority with justification but the righteousness and legal power resides extra nos throughout in the work of Christ and then comes to us with justification and adoption. Thus, there is not one form of causality as in Cartesian or Rationalist schemes.

If there is a material/meritorious cause of sanctification, it too resides in the righteousness of Christ who purchased legally the right as the second Adam to bestow a beginning of the eschatological life in this age by the sending the Spirit.

The whole debate is really unnecessary but really is the fruit of Neo-Calvinism and schools like WTS attempting to become more sophisticated in theology without using scholastic categories (i.e. recasting the ordo in biblical theological categories). They find themselves bumping up against this causal language and it doesn’t jive with their preconceived philosophical beliefs they are unaware they possess, or that they are attempting to speak against a COMMON enemy of Cartesian Determinism.

I hope to write more on this in the future. For now this is all I can put together.

Related articles

• More Confusion on Justification and Sanctification (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)
• A. A. Hodge and the Priority of Justification (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)
• Johannes Wollebius and the WLC on Justification and Sanctification (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)

Love that Bob and the “Escondido Theology”

D. G. Hart has a great article outlining the historical awareness of professors like Dr. Godfrey that makes such a contributing factor to their theology. These men actually study the Reformation and their heirs (in context) as the definers of the tradition within confessionalization.

John Frame desperately needs some of this antidote of historical awareness to change his theological critique.

A. A. Hodge and the Priority of Justification

“The second characteristic mark of Protestant soteriology is the principle that the change of relation to the law signalized by the term justification, involving remission of penalty and restoration to favor, necessarily precedes and renders possible the real moral change of character signalized by the terms regeneration and sanctification. The continuance of judicial condemnation excludes the exercise of grace in the heart. Remission of punishment must be preceded by remission of guilt, and must itself precede the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart. Hence it must be entirely unconditioned upon any legal standing, or moral or gracious condition of the subject. We are pardoned in order that we may be good, never made good in order that we may be pardoned. We are freely made co-heirs with Christ in order that we may become willing co-workers with him, but we are never made co-workers in order that we may become co-heirs.

“These principles are of the very essence of Protestant soteriology. To modify, and much more, of course, to ignore or to deny them, destroys absolutely the thing known as Protestantism, and ought to incur the forfeiture of all recognized right to wear the name.”

“Thus it follows that the satisfaction and merit of Christ are the antecedent cause of regeneration; and yet, nevertheless, the participation of the believer in the satisfaction and merit of Christ (i.e., his justification) is conditioned upon his faith, which in turn is conditioned upon his regeneration. He must have part in Christ so far forth as to be regenerated in order to have part in him so far forth as to be justified.

“This question is obviously one as to order, not of time, but of cause and effect. All admit, (1) That the satisfaction and merit of Christ are the necessary precondition of regeneration and faith as directly as of justification; (2) That regeneration and justification are both gracious acts of God; (3) That they take place at the same moment of time. The only question is, What is the true order of causation? Is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us that we may believe, or is it imputed to us because we believe? Is justification an analytic judgment, to the effect that this man, though a sinner, yet being a believer, is justified? Or is it a synthetic judgment, to the effect that this sinner is justified for Christ’s sake. Our catechism suggests the latter by the order of its phrases. God justifies us, ‘only for the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us, and received by faith alone.’ The same seems to be included in the very act of justifying faith itself, which is the trustful recognition and embrace of Christ, who had previously ‘loved me, and given himself for me’ (Gal. 2:20).”

“By consequence, the imputation of Christ’s righteous to us is the necessary precondition of the restoration to us of the influences of the Holy Ghost, and that restoration leads by necessary consequence to our regeneration and sanctification.

“The notion that the necessary precondition of the imputation to us of Christ’s righteousness is our own faith, of which the necessary precondition is regeneration, is analogous to the rejected theory that the inherent personal moral corruption of each of Adam’s descendants is the necessary precondition of the imputation of his guilt to them. On the contrary, if the imputation of guilt is the causal antecedent of inherent depravity, in like manner the imputation of righteousness must be the causal antecedent of regeneration and faith.”

From The Princeton Review —A. A. Hodge, “The Ordo Salutis”

Historical Claims Concerning Union with Christ

Dr. Horton has an cursory introduction to the topic of Union with Christ that is a helpful starting point for those entering the discussion.

 

More Confusion on Justification and Sanctification

This never ending story continues as Robert Letham’s new book on Union with Christ makes its way around the Reformed and non-Reformed world. Oddly, enough it is adopted by the non-Reformed at the Gospel Coalition. And yet, there are some serious issues with Gaffin, Garcia, and Letham’s interpretation. It does not measure up to the facts or actual exegesis. The post over at the Gospel Coalition is filled with ad hominemand red herring fallacies. Most of the position they are arguing against is not a valid argument from those who insist justification is the cause of sanctification or there is a priority on the forensic even in the Christian’s life. Gaffin writes  in, “Justification and Union with Christ” (Theological Guides to Calvin’s Institutes edited by David Hall and Peter Lillback):

“…for Calvin sanctification as an ongoing, lifelong process follows justification, and in that sense justification is ‘prior’ to sanctification, and the believer’s good works can be seen as the fruits and signs of having been justified. Only those already justified are being sanctified. But this is not the same thing as saying, what Calvin does not say, that justification is the source of sanctification or that justification causes sanctification. That source, that cause is Christ by his Spirit, Christ, in whom, Calvin is clear in this passage, at the moment they are united to him by faith, sinners simultaneously receive a twofold grace(justification and sanctification) and so begins an ongoing process of being sanctified just as they are now also definitively justified” (p.256). (Made bold for our purposes)

But this is patently false.  They are accommodating Calvin like the rest of the Protestant liberal historians who have held to a Central Dogma Theory. Calvin explicitly says justification is the cause of the benefits of sanctification in his commentary on I Thessalonians:

1Th 5:10
10Who died. From the design of Christ’s death he confirms what he has said, for if he died with this view — that he might make us partakers of his life, there is no reason why we should be in doubt as to our salvation. It is doubtful, however, what he means now by sleeping and waking, for it might seem as if he meant life and death, and this meaning would be more complete. At the same time, we might not unsuitably interpret it as meaning ordinary sleep. The sum is this — that Christ died with this view, that he might bestow upon us his life, which is perpetual and has no end. It is not to be wondered, however, that he affirms that we now live with Christ, inasmuch as we have, by entering through faith into the kingdom of Christ, passed from death into life. (John 5:24) Christ himself, into whose body we are ingrafted, quickens us by his power, and the Spirit that dwelleth in us is life, because of justification (601)

(601) “Comme il est dit en l’Epistre aux Rom 8:0. b. 10;” — “As is stated in the Epistle to the Romans Rom 8:10.”

Those who would make Union some kind of nebulous priority with no forensic priority within the ordo salutis are working within Cartesian causal terms and trying to overcome it with Schweitzer’s personal-relational dilemma. The Reformed were using pre-critical uses of causality and thus could speak of varying kinds of causality without diminishing either the forensic or relational categories. The Reformers and their heirs have always said Justification is the Cause of Sanctification. Anyone who says otherwise has not read them and is not Protestant let alone Reformed (which are not coterminus). At least that is what A. A. Hodge argued.

Related articles

• Johannes Wollebius and the WLC on Justification and Sanctification (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)

The Purpose and Design of Catechesis

The design of the doctrine of the catechism is our comfort and salvation.  Our salvation consists in the enjoyment of the highest good. Our comfort comprises the assurance and confident expectation of the full and perfect enjoyment of this highest good, in the life to come, with a beginning and foretaste of it already, in this life. This highest good is that which makes all those truly blessed who are in the enjoyment of it, whilst those who have it not are miserable and wretched. What this only comfort is, to which it is the design of the catechism to lead us, will be explained in the first question, to which we now proceed, without making any further introductory remarks.

Heidelberg Catechism Q 1 and 60

1. What is your only comfort in life and in death?

That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death,[1] am not my own,[2] but belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ,[3] who with His precious blood[4] has fully satisfied for all my sins,[5] and redeemed me from all the power of the devil;[6] and so preserves me[7] that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head;[8] indeed, that all things must work together for my salvation.[9] Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life,[10] and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live unto Him.[11]

 60. How are you righteous before God?

Only by true faith in Jesus Christ:[1] that is, although my conscience accuses me, that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have never kept any of them,[2] and am still prone always to all evil;[3] yet God, without any merit of mine,[4] of mere grace,[5] grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction,[6] righteousness, and holiness of Christ,[7] as if I had never committed nor had any sins, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me;[8] if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart.[9]

Johannes Wollebius and the WLC on Justification and Sanctification

The Reformed scholastic, Johannes Wollebius, is very helpful as a guide to theology and he writes in similar fashion as the Westminster Larger Catechism. The Reformed Reader points these quotations out but they are worth restating, for these doctrines are ever mixed in the hearts of all men who wish to add something to their justification before God.

Q.78 of the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q. Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?

A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputes the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification his Spirit infuses grace, and enables to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued: the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.

Compendium Theologiae Christianae by Johannes Wollebius:

XIII. Sanctification differs from justification:

I. In genus: the righteousness of sanctification is a quality, that of justification a relation.

II. in form; for (1) in justification faith is regarded as a hand that grasps the righteousness of Christ, in sanctification, as the principle and root of good works; (2) by justification, sin is taken away both as to guilt and as to punishment, by sanctification it is destroyed in its very existence; (3) in justification the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, in sanctification a new and inherent righteousness is infused into us.

III. In degree; for justification is a single act, individual, complete, and equally affecting all who are justified, whereas sanctification is spread over a period of time, leading to perfection by degrees, and, in accordance with the diversity of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, shining more brightly in some than in others.

Cited from John W. Beardslee, ed. Reformed Dogmatics. Pgs. 173-74.

- Another evidence showing how one cannot separate the “Federal Calvinists” of the Westminster Assembly from the Reformed Scholastics as many who wish to posit a “Calvin vs. the Calvinists” thesis do in our day -

Related articles

• Preaching the WHOLE Bible as Christian Scripture (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)
• “John Owen on the Imputation of Christ’s Active Obedience” (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)
• Prosecution Statement against Leithart (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)

“John Owen on the Imputation of Christ’s Active Obedience”

An excellent article on John Owen’s development of this doctrine and its essential relation to a correct defense of justification by faith alone in Christ alone and the Trinitarian doctrine.

Thus, the pactum salutis was for Owen an intra-Trinitarian covenant that made explicit Christ’s role as the second Adam and federal head, who, on behalf of those given to him by the Father, overcame the catastrophic consequences of the first Adam’s breaking of the covenant of works (foedus operum), and merited the benefits of redemption mediated in the covenant of grace (foedus gratiae). As with many federalist theologians of his day, Owen saw a necessary and vital connection between the covenant of redemption and the pre-fall covenant of works and post-fall covenant of grace. His view of the pactum salutis provided the foundation for his understanding of imputed active obedience, for apart from this covenant from eternity past, Christ would not have come as the surety and mediator in the covenant of grace, and the Holy Spirit would not have united the elect to Christ.

What Catechizing is According to Ursinus

Image via Wikipedia

Greek word: katacheo more properly, however, signifies to teach the first principles and rudiments of some particular doctrine. As applied to the doctrine of the church, and as understood when thus used, it means to teach the first principles of the Christian religion, in which sense it occurs in Luke 1:4. Acts 18:25. Gal. 6:6, &c. Hence, catechization in its most general and comprehensive sense, means the first brief and elementary instruction which is given by word of mouth in relation to the rudiments of any particular doctrine; but, as used by the church, it signifies a system of instruction relating to the first principles of the Christian religion, designed for the ignorant and unlearned. The system of catechizing, therefore, includes a short, simple, and plain exposition and rehearsal of the Christian doctrine, deduced from the writings of the prophets and apostles, and arranged in the form of questions and answers, adapted to the capacity and comprehension of the ignorant and unlearned; or it is a brief summary of the doctrine of the prophets and apostles, communicated orally to such as are unlearned, which they again are required to repeat.

In the primitive church, those who learned the catechism were called Catechumens; by which it was meant that they were already in the church, and were instructed in the first principles of the Christian religion.  There were two classes of these Catechumens. The first were those of adult age, who were converts to Christianity from the Jews and Gentiles, but were not as yet baptized. Persons of this description were first instructed in the catechism, after which they were baptized and admitted to the Lord s Supper. Such a catechumen was Augustine after his conversion to Christianity from Manichaeism, and wrote many books while he was a Catechumen, and before he was baptized by Ambrose. Ambrose was also a Catechumen of this sort when he was chosen Bishop, the urgent necessity of which arose from the peculiar state and condition of the church of Milan, upon which the Arians were making inroads. Under other and ordinary circumstances the apostle Paul forbids a novice or Catechumen to be chosen to the office of a Bishop. (1 Tim. 3:6.) The νεόφυτος, spoken of by Paul, were those Catechumens who were not yet, or very lately had been baptized; for the Greek word, which in our translation is rendered a novice, according to its literal signification means a new plant; that is, a new hearer and disciple of the church. The other class of Catechumens included the small children of the church, or the children of Christian parents.  These children, very soon after their birth, were baptized, being regarded as members of the church, and after they had grown a little older they were instructed in the catechism, which having learned, they were confirmed by the laying on of hands and were dismissed from the class of Catechumens, and were then permitted, with those of riper years, to celebrate the Lord s Supper. Those who are desirous of seeing more in regard to these Catechumens, are referred to the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, the tenth book, and latter part of the fourth chapter. Those who taught the catechism, or instructed these Catechumens, were called Catechists (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Ursinus p 10).

How Not To Interpret the Psalms:

The Reformed Reader reviews John Goldingay’s three volume set on the Psalter and helps us understand how not to read them.

Ursinus on Evidences by which the Truth of the Church is Confirmed

WHAT ARE THE EVIDENCES BY WHICH THE TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, OR THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH IS CONFIRMED?

There are a great number of arguments which go to establish the truth and certainty of the teachings of the church, some of which convince the conscience; as is the case with the first XIII, which Ave here subjoin, whilst those which follow, incline and convert the heart. These arguments we shall present in the following order:

1. The purity and perfection of the Law. It is not possible that that religion should be true and divine, which either invents and tolerates idols, or approves of those forms of wickedness which are in plain opposition to the law of God and the judgment of sound reason. Now all the different forms of religion, except that which has been revealed in the sacred Scriptures, and which is received and acknowledged by the church, evidently do this. For all of them, as has already been said, either entirely abrogate the first table of the Decalogue, which has respect to the one true God and his worship, or they shamefully corrupt it; whilst they, at the same time.  retain only a small part of the second table, relating to external propriety, and civil duties. It is only the church that retains both tables of the Decalogue entire and uncorrupted, according to the Scriptures. Hence, it is only the doctrine of the church that is true and divine. 
2. The same may be argued from the gospel, which points out the only way of escape and deliverance from sin and death; for, most assuredly, that doctrine and religion is true and divine which reveals a method of deliverance from these great evils, without doing any violence to the justice of God, and which administers solid comfort to the conscience, in relation to everlasting life. Now, as the doctrine of the church is the only system of religious truth that has ever discovered and proclaimed a way of deliverance from the evils of sin and death, which alone affords real and substantial comfort to the conscience, it must be true and divine. 
3. The great antiquity of this doctrine affords evidence of its truth: for no other system of religious truth besides that which we have delivered in the Holy Scriptures, can trace its origin to God, and prove its certain and continual descent from the beginning of the world. All the various histories of the world unite their testimony with that of sacred history, in affirming that all other religions took their origin subsequent to this, and are new in comparison with it. Inasmuch, therefore, as the most ancient religion challenges the highest regard, and has the strongest evidence of truth, for men ordinarily receive and regard the first religion as having come immediately from God, it follows that the doctrine of the church, alone is true and divine. 
4. The miracles by which God confirmed the truth of this doctrine, from the beginning of the world, bear testimony to its divine character; which miracles the devil cannot imitate, even as far as it has respect to their external appearance; such as the raising of the dead, making the sun stand still and go backward, the dividing of the sea and rivers, making the barren fruitful, and others of a similar character, all of which bear the strongest testimony to the truth and divine character of this doctrine, in as much as they were wrought by God, (who could not bear such testimony to what is false,) for the confirmation of those things which were spoken by the prophets and apostles.

5. The prophecies and predictions, of which there are very many, both in the old and new Testament, that have received a most complete and exact fulfillment, establish in the most satisfactory and conclusive manner the divine character of the teachings of the church, inasmuch as no one but God can utter such declarations.

6. The harmony of the different parts of the doctrine of the church, is an evidence of its truth. That doctrine which contradicts itself can neither be true, nor from God, since truth is in perfect harmony with itself, and God cannot contradict himself. And as all other religions, except that which is taught in the writings of the prophets and apostles, differ very much from and among each other, even in points which are regarded chief and fundamental, this alone, which harmonizes so fully and perfectly in all its various parts, must be true and from God. 
7. The acknowledgement of the superior excellency of the Christian religion by its enemies, may be urged as an argument in favor of its truth.  The devil himself was constrained to confess, “Thou art Christ, the Son of God.” (Luke 4:41.) Other enemies have also been repeatedly induced to bear testimony to the superior excellency of the teachings of the church. Yea, it may be said that whatever goodness and truth may be found in other religions, the same is also contained in the religion of the Bible, only much more clearly and fully; and it may very easily be shown that they have borrowed these things from the teachings of the church, and that they have commingled them with their own inventions, as the devil himself is accustomed, as an imitator of God, to unite certain truths with his falsehoods, that he may thus the more easily deceive men. There fore, those things which the various Sects have in common with the teachings of the church are not to be opposed, because they have borrowed them from us; but those things which are in opposition to the doctrine of the church may easily be refuted, since they are nothing more than the inventions of men. 
8. The malignity of satan, and his various emissaries, against the doc trine of the church is an evidence of its truth: for most assuredly that religion is true and from God, which the devil and wicked men, with one mind and purpose, despise and endeavor to destroy. Truth generally calls forth opposition from the wicked, and the devil, we are told, was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth. Now, it is manifestly true that the world and satan do not hate and impugn any other doctrine so violently as that of the church, which results from this, that it reproves them more sharply, calls their errors in question, exposes their fallacies and frauds, and more severely condemns all their idols and vices, than the various Sects which connive at these things, and even, in many instances, defend them. “The world hateth me because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.” “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, therefore it hateth you.” (John 7:7; 15:19.)
   

The Substance of the Leithart Trial: Highlights from Leithart’s Testimony

The Substance of the Leithart Trial: Highlights from Leithart’s Testimony.

I would like to provide here a few quotes from the Peter Leithart trial. You can read them all in context here. Here is a portion of the testimony

1. “As the baptized person passes through the waters he or she is joined into the fellowship of Christ, shares in his body, shares in the spirit that inhabits and animates the body and participates in the resurrection power of Jesus.” –Quoted by the Prosecution in Leithart Trial Transcript (p. 186).
2. “Through baptism we enter into the new life of the spirit, receive a grant of divine power and are incorporated into Christ’s body and die and rise again with Christ. In the purification of baptism we are cleansed of our former sins and begin to participate in the divine nature and the power of Jesus resurrection.” –Quoted by the Prosecution in Leithart Trial Transcript (p. 186).
3. “The baptized in the new covenant enters into, is initiated into a community that is the body of the incarnate and ascended son that has received the spirit. And being a member of that particular community, I’m arguing, is – – is never a simply an external matter because of the nature of the community.” –Leithart Trial Transcript (p. 187).
4. “Baptism into membership in the community of Christ therefore also confers the arrabon of the spirit and in this sense too it a regenerating ordinance. There can be no merely social membership in this family.” –Quoted by the Prosecution in Leithart Trial Transcript (p. 188). Continue Reading…

Rome’s View of Covenant Benefits Contrasted

Johannes Weslianus blog shows the distinction from an early Reformed Huguenot theologian on the differences and why the Federal Vision sounds so much like Rome, here.

Prosecution Statement against Leithart

Jason Stellman has the statement here. This statement is very helpful for why the Reformed churches have declared the Federal Vision as outside of the bounds of confessionalism. It is too bad the lower courts of the Pacific Northwest have decided to go against the overwhelming consensus and biblical nature of the defense of the Reformed tradition. Let us pray the Gospel will be defended and the case against Leithart and other FVers will not go unfought in these churches, lest they have the Lamp of the Spirit of Christ removed from them having lost their first love.

 

Here is a link to the Documents of the Trial.

Green Baggins has an excellent excerpt showing Dr. Jack Collins, who supports Leithart’s view on the pre-Fall covenant, inability or lack of desire to define terms. Very Telling.

The commenter at Green Baggins has an excellent post worth noting:

I see a clear distinction in the Westminster Confession of Faith between Adam’s obedience and ours.

VII. 2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

XIX. 1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

VII. 3. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

I see a pretty clear distinction there.

VIII. 5. The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.

I see Christ’s obedience presented to the Father in place of my disobedience, my lack of obedience, my rebellion.

IX. 3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

IX. 4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.

The converted sinner is now enabled to will and do what is spiritually good. It does not state that the convert is now able to fulfill the conditions of the first covenant.

X. 2. This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

Again, Spiritually enabled to answer the call of grace, not fulfill the conditions of the first covenant.

XI. 1. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

Whatever our “evangelical obedience” is, it is does not secure or establish our own righteousness and is does not satisfy the justice of an offended, holy God.

XI. 3. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them; and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.

XVI. 2. These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

Our obedience is God’s work within us, this is again quite distinct from us offering up our obedience as a fulfillment of the conditions of the first covenant.

-=Cris=-

And Jim Cassidy of the Reformed Forum notes: “If there is no difference between Adam’s obedience and the believer’s obedience, then there is no Gospel. It really is that simple.”

This discussion is vital to the Gospel and what true religion consists of. It is not a matter indifferent or of differing emphasis as some would have us believe. It is distinguishing the Gospel from the Pelagian error being resurrected by this false teaching.

It is not a question of whether the Spirit is free, but where He has promised to Come

Horton does it again with a great article on the recent Wilson, Driscoll discussion at the White Horse Inn blog. I love this section:

As I said in an earlier post ( Reformed and Charismatic?), I’m not willing to die on the hill of cessationism. In fact, I’d fit into the category that Doug Wilson describes as “a cessaionist who believes strange things happen.” A sovereign God is free to fulfill his purposes as he pleases. As God, the Holy Spirit is not on a leash.

However, this misses the point. No Calvinist would believe that the Spirit is not free or that he cannot speak directly to people today as he did in the days of the prophets and apostles. Nor are Reformed Christians deists for believing that, as a rule, he doesn’t. In fact, the church was not guided by anti-supernaturalism when it rejected the claims of the Montanists in the late second century. Nor were Luther and Calvin under the spell of the Enlightenment when they challenged the “enthusiasts” for pitting the Word against the Spirit.

The Spirit is not bound by anything, but he freely binds himself to his Word. The question is not where the Spirit may work, but where he has promised to work. If strange things happen—similar to events in the era of the prophets and apostles, praise the Lord! However, one doesn’t have a right to expect the Spirit to work except where he has promised to work and through the means that the Triune God has ordained.

Like older charismatic-cessationist debates in evangelicalism, this newer discussion therefore has the wrong categories. The real issue isn’t whether the sign-gifts have ceased; it’s whether the Spirit works through ordinary means that Christ ordained explicitly or whether he works through extraordinary means that were identified with the extraordinary ministry of the apostles. Even deeper than that, it’s a question of whether we embrace a paradigm in which the Spirit’s work is identified with direct and immediate activity within us apart from ordinary means or through the external Word and sacraments. The history of “enthusiasm” (Protestant or otherwise) trends toward an almost Gnostic dualism between spirit and matter, indirect and inner experience versus mediated and external ministry, the individual heart and the covenant community. This is where the seismic fault is revealed. It’s at this point where the real differences—paradigmatic differences—become evident. And there are plenty of cessationists as well as charismatics who presuppose the “enthusiastic” paradigm.

The whole article is quite spot on and worthy of reading. Tolle lege!