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.

The situation is desperate. It might discourage us. But not if we are truly Christians. Not if we are living in vital communion with the risen Lord. If we are really convinced of the truth of our message, then we can proclaim it before a world of enemies, then the very difficulty of our task, the very scarcity of our allies becomes an inspiration, then we can even rejoice that God did not place us in an easy age, but in a time of doubt and perplexity and battle. Then, too, we shall not be afraid to call forth other soldiers into the conflict. Instead of making our theological seminaries merely centres of religious emotion, we shall make them battle-grounds of the faith, where, helped a little by the experience of Christian teachers, men are taught to fight their own battle, where they come to appreciate the real strength of the adversary and in the hard school of intellectual struggle learn to substitute for the unthinking faith of childhood the profound convictions of full-grown men. Let us not fear in this a loss of spiritual power. The Church is perishing today through the lack of thinking, not through an excess of it. She is winning victories in the sphere of material betterment. Such victories are glorious. God save us from the heartless crime of disparaging them. They are relieving the misery of men. But if they stand alone, I fear they are but temporary. The things which are seen are temporal; the things which are not seen are eternal. What will become of philanthropy if God be lost? Beneath the surface of life lies a world of spirit. Philosophers have attempted to explore it. Christianity has revealed its wonders to the simple soul. There lie the springs of the Church’s power. But that spiritual realm cannot be entered without controversy. And now the Church is shrinking from the conflict. Driven from the spiritual realm by the current of modern thought, she is consoling herself with things about which there is no dispute. If she favors better housing for the poor, she need fear no contradiction. She will need all her courage. she will have enemies enough, God knows. But they will not fight her with argument. The twentieth century, in theory, is agreed on social betterment. But sin, and death, and salvation, and life, and God—about these things there is debate. You can avoid the debate if you choose. You need only drift with the current. Preach every Sunday during your Seminary course, devote the fag ends of your time to study and to thought, study about as you studied in college—and these questions will probably never trouble you. The great questions may easily be avoided. Many preachers are avoiding them. And many preachers are preaching to the air. The Church is waiting for men of another type. Men to fight her battles and solve her problems. The hope of finding them is the one great inspiration of a Seminary’s life. They need not all be men of conspicuous attainments. But they must all be men of thought. They must fight hard against spiritual and intellectual indolence. Their thinking may be confined to narrow limits. But it must be their own. To them theology must be something more than a task. It must be a matter of inquiry. It must lead not to successful memorizing, but to genuine convictions.

The Church is puzzled by the world’s indifference. She is trying to overcome it by adapting her message to the fashions of the day. But if, instead, before the conflict, she would descend into the secret place of meditation, if by the clear light of the gospel she would seek an answer not merely to the questions of the hour but, first of all, to the eternal problems of the spiritual world, then perhaps, by God’s grace, through His good Spirit, in His good time, she might issue forth once more with power, and an age of doubt might be followed by the dawn of an era of faith.

Princeton.

J. Gresham Machen  ”Christianity & Culture”,THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW, Vol. 11, 1913  (Italics Added)

Related articles

• Intellectual Engagement (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)
• Christians Must Master The Thought of The World (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)

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.

But no matter what his station in life, the scholar must be a regenerated man—he must yield to no one in the intensity and depth of his religious experience. We are well supplied in the world with excellent scholars who are without that qualification. They are doing useful work in detail, in Biblical philology, in exegesis, in Biblical theology, and in other branches of study. But they are not accomplishing the great task, they are not assimilating modern thought to Christianity, because they are without that experience of God’s power in the soul which is of the essence of Christianity. They have only one side for the comparison. Modern thought they know, but Christianity is really foreign to them. It is just that great inward experience which it is the function of the true Christian scholar to bring into some sort of connection with the thought of the world. “Christianity & Culture,” THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW, Vol. 11, 1913; J Gresham Machen (Italics Added)

Related articles

• Christians Must Master The Thought of The World (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)
• Ever Clear and Concise: A Plea to Stand by Words (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)

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)

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.

And yet it would be a great mistake to suppose that all men are equally well prepared to receive the gospel. It is true that the decisive thing is the regenerative power of God. That can overcome all lack of preparation, and the absence of that makes even the best preparation useless. But as a matter of fact God usually exerts that power in connection with certain prior conditions of the human mind, and it should be ours to create, so far as we can, with the help of God, those favorable conditions for the reception of the gospel. False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion. Under such circumstances, what God desires us to do is to destroy the obstacle at its root. Many would have the seminaries combat error by attacking it as it is taught by its popular exponents. Instead of that they confuse their students with a lot of German names unknown outside the walls of the universities. That method of procedure is based simply upon a profound belief in the pervasiveness of ideas. What is today matter of academic speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull down empires. In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combatted; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassionate debate. So as Christians we should try to mold the thought of the world in such a way as to make the acceptance of Christianity something more than a logical absurdity. Thoughtful men are wondering why the students of our great Eastern universities no longer enter the ministry or display any very vital interest in Christianity. Various totally inadequate explanations are proposed, such as the increasing attractiveness of other professions—an absurd explanation, by the way, since other professions are becoming so over-crowded that a man can barely make a living in them. The real difficulty amounts to this—that the thought of the day, as it makes itself most strongly felt in the universities, but from them spreads inevitably to the masses of the people, is profoundly opposed to Christianity, or at least—what is nearly as bad—it is out of all connection with Christianity. The Church is unable either to combat it or to assimilate it, because the Church simply does not understand it. Under such circumstances, what more pressing duty than for those who have received the mighty experience of regeneration, who. therefore, do not, like the world, neglect that whole series of vitally relevant facts which is embraced in Christian experience—what more pressing duty than for these men to make themselves masters of the thought of the world in order to make it an instrument of truth instead of error? The Church has no right to be so absorbed in helping the individual that she forgets the world.

“Christianity & Culture,” THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW, Vol. 11, 1913; J Gresham Machen (Italics Added)

“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)

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 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).

Gos. But the gospel says, No; “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”; and therefore, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, (1 Tim 1:15, Acts 16:31).

Law. Again the law says, “Knowest thou not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God; be not deceived,” &c. (1 Cor 6:9). And therefore thou being a sinner, and not righteous, shalt not inherit the kingdom of God.

Gos. But the gospel says, “God has made Christ to be sin for thee who knew no sin; that thou mightest be made the righteousness of God in him, who is the Lord thy righteousness,” (Jer 23:6).

Law. Again the law says, “Pay me what thou owest me, or else I will cast thee into prison,” (Matt 18:28,30).

Gos. But the gospel says, “Christ gave himself a ransom for thee,” (1 Tim 2:6); “and so is made redemption unto thee,” (1 Cor 1:30).

Law. Again the law says, “Thou hast not continued in all that I require of thee, and therefore thou art accursed,” (Deut 27:6).

Gos. But the gospel says, “Christ hath redeemed thee from the curse of the law, being made a curse for thee,” (Gal 3:13).

Law. Again the law says, “Thou are become guilty before God, and therefore shalt not escape the judgment of God,” (Rom 3:19, 2:3).

Gos. But the gospel says, “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son,” (John 5:12).”(P341)

I think his words at the end of the section of Part One are most helpful:

“So that for a conclusion, this I say, that if the everlasting love of God in Jesus Christ be truly made known to your souls, according to the measure thereof, you shall have no need to frame and force yourselves to love and do good works, for your souls will ever stand bound to love God, and to keep his commandments, and it will be your meat and drink to do his will.” (p. 265).

Related articles

• Gisbertus Voetius and the Use of Reason (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)

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.

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.

Conclusion:

The decline of such formative periods and fresh ways of writing theology were in the end marked by acceptance of such rationalistic hermeneutics in the broader continent and on the British Isles:

Rationalist philosophy was ultimately incapable of becoming a suitable ancilla and, instead, demanded that it not theology be considered the queen of the sciences. Without philosophical structure to compliment its doctrine and to cohere with its scholastic method, Protestant orthodoxy came to an end.[52]

Voetius maintained this ancillary relationship of reason to matters of faith and interpreting the text while allowing for reason’s “argumentative, probative, and illustrative use.”[53] The decline of orthodoxy had a direct connection to the acceptance of such Cartesian and Lockean Enlightenment categories.[54] Thus, the doctrine of divine accommodation in Scripture was undermined when the two principia theologiae (principium cognoscendi and essendi) were removed. Eventually, Reformed orthodoxy was unable to be maintained and defended since its source of interpretation was flooded with skepticism.[55] As Voetius feared faith itself was lost to a sea of atheism, albeit of a hidden kind – an atheism of the text.

Related articles

• Cartesian and Reformed Causality (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)