Reformed Spirituality: Overcoming Sin

The fourth session in Reformed Spirituality was to be on overcoming sin, using John Owen's works as a guide. However, the class ended prematurely and this was the class I was least prepared for, and thus with everything on my plate now, the one I will have to come back to fill in later if I wish to re-teach this.

For those interested in the subject, here are a couple of resources. One is the book "Overcoming Sin and Temptation" by John Owen, which is actually a collection of three works by Owen on the subject. The second is an audio interview with the men responsible for editing the above book with helpful footnotes, Justin Taylor and Kelly Kapic.

1. Book: "Overcoming Sin and Temptation"

2. Interview with Justin Taylor and Kelly Kapic. (itunes)

Reformed Spirituality: Our Mystical Salvation (part 1)

[more class notes on Reformed Spirituality]

We may know, from growing up in Church what the Christian answer to the question of sin is: Christ’s work. However, we want to explore how “the Christ event,” how in Christ the problem of sin is addressed to restore man’s communion with God in its most practical doctrine, which will then take us into how we apply that doctrine to our lives in battling sin, live together, and seek God.

How does one answer the question of the problem of sin? The Reformed tradition has often seen the answer of Christ to sin paralleling the argument flow of Romans:

I. Chapter 1:1-17 - Introduction of topic

II. Chapter 1:18-2:29– The way of righteousness displayed:

Paul introduces his discussion of Salvation by talking about the Law. Paul says the Gentiles have the law manifest to them in nature and Jews by special revelation. It might seem to some a strange way to start, especially if we do not believe salvation comes by the law. Especially when Paul states in Romans 2:6:

Romans 2:6 – "He will render each according to his works"

Paul seems to be saying, bluntly, that eternal life can be merited by works. Indeed, this is not merely what Paul seems to say, but what he does say here: salvation is by works.

III. Chapter 3 – No one fulfills the requirement of righteousness, all are condemned (Romans 3:10-12, 3:23)

Paul details how no one lives up to the standard of the law. All are violators. To all that God offers life to be merited by works, none do so and are righteous, none fulfill the demands of the law. But now this next part of Romans may be hard to read in the way I will suggest, since Reformed Christians love the doctrine of justification. But I am here positing, dare I say it, that justification is not the main motif and lens by which Paul views salvation. Saying such a thing will keep me from being any kind of teacher or member in good standing in a Lutheran Church, but I hope to demonstrate to you, that the alternative is right at home in the Reformed tradition and confession and most importantly in the text of the New Testament.

Let us look at Chapter 4 as pointing further into the argument and not the final point of Paul.

In his argument, what might Jews protest against? “But Abraham is our father! (John 5)” “Abraham is our example of how to be righteous!”

IV. Chapter 4 – Abraham was justified by faith

Paul first states that not even Abraham was saved by the law, as some Jews may have been claiming, but by faith:

Rom 4:1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted (imputed – KJV) to him as righteousness."

Paul’s response then?: Not even Abraham was righteous based on works, not even Abraham has done Romans 2:6. Righteousness was imputed to Abraham, not bestowed due to works.

Chapter 4 is not the pinnacle of Paul’s argument, but begs the question: how can Abraham be justified by faith when the requirement was works? Where does this imputation come from and on what basis?

V. Chapter 5 – How (and why) one is justified with God through Faith

Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
Rom 5:11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

2 observations: Both death and life is talked about here.

1- Paul speaks of death bringing reconciliation. Christ gives relational redemption. As 5:9 said before it:

“we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.”

No longer is the person in the relationship of defendant before a Judge, but is now reconciled to God. Justified is understood as a forensic, legal term. Yet, to say this is to risk the objection of “legal fiction.” Do we partake of salvation merely by believing we are alright? Does the act of faith somehow make God overlook our sin?

2- Paul speaks of salvation by life. What does it mean “shall we be saved by his life.”? Tuck that question away for a few minutes.

First, how does one man’s sin and one man’s obedience affect me? (as Romans 5:12 and Romans 5:15-21 says)? Why talk here about Adam and Christ?

• Federal Headship

Paul is here talking using the concept of “Federal Headship.” This term refers to the representation of one or a group by another in covenant.

For example, look at Hebrews 7:7-10.

Heb 7:7-10 It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.

The author of Hebrews is making the case that Melchizedek is greater than Levi. That Levi and Melchizedek never met is not a problem, because Levi was in Abraham. Abraham was the federal head of Levi, representing him and acting for him. Now we might see how Paul is using this concept in Romans 5 (as well as stated in 1 Corinthians 15). We see, for Paul, there are two headships:

– 1. In Adam (Rom 5:12, 1 Cor 15:22)
• 1Cor 15:22a - "For as in Adam all die,"

Through Adam all (who are in him) die and sin. Somehow, we participated in the sin of Adam. How? There are theories, but not certainties, Paul does not explain.

– 2. In Christ (Rom 5:15-21, 1 Cor 15:22)
• 1Cor 15:22b - "so also in Christ shall all be made alive."

Through Christ, all (who are in him) live, are redeemed. The works of Christ are then attributed, accounted to those with Christ’s federal headship.

In understanding how Paul is using the idea of headship, we know can see the main motif and answer to the problem of sin in Romans:

VI. Chapter 6 - Paul’s answer to the problem of sin is UNION WITH CHRIST.

In 5:12 we see our union with Adam. This is then contrasted in 5:15-17 with Union with Christ. When we get to Chapter 6, we see union declared and the implications of that union. In Romans 6, Baptism is Paul’s analogy of choice here. We will talk more about this later, but for now:

Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

The problem of sin was a problem of a DEAD MAN. The solution to DEATH is RESURRECTION. So Paul tells us we obtain the benefits of resurrection by UNION WITH CHRIST. We see now why Paul talked of both life and death in Romans 5. The means of our death to sin before God is Christ’s death, that we are vitally and really connected to Christ and die with Him. The means of our resurrected, regenerated life is our being saved by Christ’s life in a vital and real union with Christ that allows us to share in his (ζωῇ) life. The life we have in Christ is Christ’s life.

Everything we have as a spiritual blessing in salvation, then, we can see that Christ first had to merit for us, in perfect obedience. Christ has done Romans 2:6, not to mention Gen 2:16-17, Christ has done what Adam did not, and Christ has done Exodus 24:3 and Lev 18:5, Christ has done what Israel has not. Then:

In UNION we are given the benefits that Christ earned.

Sometimes benefits are spoken with the specific word “union” or “united” but we also see the Greek phrase “en Christo.” Once you start looking for it, you find this phrase all over. The New Testament depicts Union as the basis of every aspect of salvation. Union with Christ is the basis of the blessings of redemption:


• Ephesians 1:3-14
– 1:3 - blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places

• Ephesians 2:4-5
– …even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved–

• 2 Corinthians 5:21
– For he has made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

Just look at Ephesians 1:

Ephesians 1
3- Every Spiritual Blessing in Christ
4 – God chose us in Christ
5 – adoption through Christ
6 – Blessed us in the Beloved.
7 – in Him we have redemption
11 – in Him we have an inheritance

Not every time the phrase “in him” or “in Christ” is used does it mean Union. But most of the time, for many of the other occurrences are “faith in Christ.” Start looking for that phrase instead of skipping over it and it will blow you away how central it is to the teachings about salvation in the Bible.


[next, the nature of the union and the nature of the merits of Christ given to us]

Reformed Spirituality: Man and Sin

(These are talking notes. I tend to elaborate more extemporaneously. However, I thought I would post them for those interested in the flow of the material in the Reformed Spirituality class)

To speak of Spirituality, we must speak of man, and of God. As we saw, Calvin said he didn’t know exactly where to begin:

“Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other.” - John Calvin. Institutes, Chapter 1.

We start with man, because there is a problem in on our side in Spirituality. For some reason, we are not able to encounter God rightly. He is hid from our perception, and what we do pick up about God from the natural world leaves us fighting over the nature of Who God is.

So, the problem that must be dealt with before proceeding further in Spirituality is the problem of the condition of man. The Christian Scriptures teach that this alienation from God, this separation from God is the result of sin. One might have come to mind the familiar verses from Sunday School:

Rom 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Eph 2:12 - remember that you were at that time separated from Christ… having no hope and without God in the world.

The condition of man, as we are taught in Scripture is in separation from God. The effects of sin, however, are not always taught in their two aspects, which we will look at here:

1) Relational Effects of Sin

Most Evangelicals will understand and teach this aspect of the effect of sin. If God is pure and holy, holiness cannot touch what is unholy. Sin represents a great offense to a Righteous God and must be addressed in order to restore a relationship.

2) Personal (Bodily and Spiritual) Effects of Sin

We have been taught about the offense of sin and how it separates us relationally from God. However, we may not have fully contemplated how sin effects man’s ability to relate to God.

First, let’s look at what makes up a human being:

There are 2 parts of a human: Body and Soul. Of the two, the soul is the part of a human that perceives and processes reality. Thereby, asking how a human might know God is asking the question: what faculties does a human soul possess?

The Parts of a human soul may be identified in Scripture and observation as corresponding to these three parts:

Mind
• Understanding, Faculty of Knowing

Heart
• Affections, Faculty of emotion, affections

Will
• Volition, faculty of choosing

The parts of the soul are inter-related to a degree to which it may be hard to say what influences what. This illustration might be helpful:

It is important to understand the faculties of humanity in order to understand the effect sin has on them. First we are told that sin effects the Body. Physical death and sickness are a result of sin. (Romans 5:12, Genesis 3)

Many may not go on to ask what effect is made on the soul. Scripture speaks to each faculty in this question:


• Mind (1 Cor 2:14, Titus 1:15)

1Cor 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Man as he is found now in his nature is “not able to understand.” As Paul explains in Titus 1:15, people left in a natural state have: “both their minds and their consciences are defiled.”

This is sometimes called the Noetic effects of Sin: The effect of sin to cloud the understanding.

• Heart (Jer 17:9)

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Jeremiah laments that what men value is “deceitful” leading men away from what they should value, to that which they should not. The Heart too is effected by sin

• Will (Jer 13:23)

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.

Functionally, we see Jeremiah compare the ability of to do good (from the act of the will) just as in line with man’s nature as changing one’s skin color or a leopard, by shear will power changing his spot arrangement. The nature of man is in such a place as to be unable to go what is right by its own power.

We might look at Romans 3:10-12 to see all of these in use:

Rom 3:10-12 - as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands;

(Here we see the understanding of man effected.)

no one seeks for God.

(The heart of man has no inclination to seek after God)

All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."

(The Will of no one does what is good)

Mind, Heart, Will. These are the parts of the soul by which man perceives and reacts to the world and reacts to God. These three parts all are fallen and sinful. “Dead” as Paul describes it. (Ephesians 2:1)

So, before we can properly talk about “Spirituality” as encountering, or communing with God or having fellowship with God, the problem of sin must be answered and solved, and by one not sharing man’s sinful nature.

Early Church History class

Jay Bennett and I taught a mid-week class at PCPC on the history of the church in the form of questions. We now have the first four class notes online for those interested in perusing the material for their own knowledge or to help prepare to teach a similar class. The questions all address some area of theology especially prominent in church history in a roughly chronological order (here dealing with Bibliology, Trinitarianism, Christology and Soteriology)

1. How has God revealed himself? (Gnosticism, Ebionism, Marcionism, and Montanism) (Jay Bennett)

2. How can God be both one and more than one? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. (Modalism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, and Niceno-Constantinopolitan Trinitarianism) (Jared Nelson)

3. How can divinity be united with humanity? (Docetism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism [Monophysitism], and Chalcedonian Christology) (Jay Bennett)

4. What is the moral capability of fallen humanity? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. (Pelagianism, Augustinianism, and Orange Semi-augustinianism) (Jared Nelson)

Augustine and Pelagius Pt. 1: Free Will and the Early Church

When explaining the Christian beliefs, eventually you will come across a wide spread belief in American culture of a benevolent passive God. If you explain that God is good and offers life in His Son, a response will come back that if God is good he will save everyone and wouldn’t be so “not nice” as to send anyone to hell. For a good example of how an informed Christian should respond, see Tim Keller’s talk at Berkley. However, I am not addressing that problem here.

But just like our need to have an answer to the modern objection of passive benevolence, so the early church had to respond to the Greco-Roman culture of their time when presented with the gospel. The early church, in proclaiming the gospel, encountered resistance to the idea that people are responsible before God for their actions. In pagan and Stoic philosophy, the idea (and eventually god) “Fortuna” ruled the universe. To the typical Greco-Roman, everything is fated. To say our sinfulness can be counted against us is to not realize that Fate had made them do bad things, thus they are not responsible.

This philosophy is called Fatalism. True Fatalism destroys human responsibility for sin. Fatalists do not look to a Savior, as they are not responsible for their sin, and thus are in no need of action on their part to find a solution. What will be will be so why worry about it?

This background is essential in understanding the writings of the early church. Much of the New Testament literature argues for Christianity in the background of a Judaic understanding of God and the world. After the New Testament, the early church literature can be seen as a development of what Paul started in Acts 17 in dialoging with the Athenians. One must enter the thought world of an alien culture in order to help them understand another culture. Thus Paul uses the language of Athenian religion and literary culture to communicate ideas to them.

If one reads the early church, one inevitably comes across the phrase “free will.” Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria all talk about it. Many times Reformed Christians can see such references as a misunderstanding of human nature, just as Arminians can see these references as supporting their Enlightenment ideas of a libertarian free will (as Norm Geisler does in just listing the references as if they are definitive because they use the buzz words “free will")

Paying attention to the context, however, we see that the sense and concept they argue for, we too must acknowledge. Clement says the will is “self-determined” but also “nothing happens apart from the will of God” and thus God “permits evil.” Irenaeus wrote that “there is no coercion with God.” Archellaus wrote “To sin is ours, and that we sin not is God’s gift.” All these statements we must acknowledge as true. That we sin is our responsibility. We cannot appeal to fate or providence as an excuse, for we “are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20).

These truths lead to other inevitable questions: Then, are we responsible for our good too? Is salvation our choice? Isn’t true freedom the ability to choose neutrally between good and evil?

These questions were answered differently by two of the church’s rising stars: Pelagius and Augustine. [Part 2, forthcoming]

How can God be one, AND more than one?

This post is an outline for the material I taught a few weeks ago in a "mid-week" class I am team-teaching with Jay Bennett, a pastoral intern at my church (PCPC).


God is One

We see in Scripture that the most fundamental confession of Israel in the Old Testament is "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (Deut 6:4) The language and confession is repeated as the most basic declaration of faith in 1Kings 8:60 and Isa 45:5-6 .


Then, in the New Testament, we see three names, that seem to be distinct, called God.
1) God the Father such as in 1 Cor 1:3
2) Jesus (also called the Son or Word) in places such as John 20:28, or John 1:1-14
3) The Holy Spirit in places such as Acts 5:3-4


How is it then, that God is one, and these three are God? The Early Church stuggled with this question, with many answers being posited by men such as Arius, Apollonarius, Sabellius and Athanasius. How do we speak of these three? How do we speak of this one?

MODALISM

The first answer we will look at is the one given by a man named Sabellius. His answer was simple, logical and seemingly true to the Biblical witness. It goes like this:

God is one
The Father is God
The Son is God
Because the Father is the Son



Sabellius would even start calling this Person of God the "Sonfather." It sees one God, with different modes or manifestations. in fact, if we read John 10:30, where Jesus declares "I and the Father are one" this explanation seems to have biblical support. Modalism appealed to some in the Early Church because:

– Preserves equal worth of Son and Father
– Maintains the Fully Deity of the Son

If we are searching for model for this explanation, we may think of water (and in fact, we may shutter to think this may have been how God was explained to us). You see, the Modalist will say, Water can be solid, liquid or gas manifesting itself as an ice cube, a glass of water or steam. Yet, it is all the same water.

Tertullian voiced many of the objections of the other leaders in the church to this teaching, because while Modalism helped explain some things, it also:

– Denies distinction of Father and Son
– Denies the distinct Personhood of Son

The explanation is too simple. If the Son and Father are the same, why does the Son who was on earth, teach us to pray to the Father who is in heaven? Why does the Son pray to the Father in the Garden? How is it that the Son and Father have different roles and actions (John 5:22) if they are the same person?

No, the church could not accept the denial of the division between Son and Father. Other means must be solicited.

ARIANISM

Arius was a superb Biblical scholar. He used the technique taught in seminaries across the world: Let the New Testament aid in interpreting the Old Testament. Like a good evangelical, Arius placed his trust in his hermenutic. Finding that Paul had called Christ "the wisdom of God" in the New Testament, Arius knew he had been given the key to understanding the passage about wisdom in the Old Testament in Proverbs 8:12, 22. Here, wisdom personified declares: "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works." This translation is based on the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and while the Hebrew has a meaning closer to "possessed me at the beginning of your works" still this translation persists today in the NIV and NET as alternative readings. Arius also pointed to the very word "begat" as proof that the Son was distinct, but a created being, divine and the greatest of God's creation, but not God.

Apolloniarius also had a theory of "Son as lesser being" teaching that Jesus was "adopted" at his baptism, when the Holy Spirit decended, as God's vehicle, Jesus then was a man who became God or divine. Yet, still not God as the Father is God.

What does it mean that the Son is Deity?

This is a difficult question, especially when facing the language of "begotten." Our favorite verse in America is John 3:16, containing the very word "begotten." Does this word mean? Very early in the history of the Church was the church father Irenaus. The apostle John had as a disciple Polycarp and Polycarp trained Irenaeus in the teaching of John. Irenaeus, even before Arius, taught what John meant by this word as communicating:

“The Father is God, and the Son is God, for whatever is begotten of God is God.”

If a human begets a son, it is human? Does it share the qualities that make the father human? Then if God begets a Son, then the Son is God in the same shared qualities of Deity. One of these qualities is Eternality. The Son himslef makes this claim as to himself in John 8:58. So also to say the Son is begotten of the Father and shares Eternality is to say there is no time in which the Son did not exist. There was never a time when the Son "was not." For the Son is I AM.

This understanding informs the Creed believed by the Church from 325AD to the present: The Nicean Creed in which it is confessed:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made."

The bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, continued this argument after the Council issued this creed. Athanasius tried to answer: Why is this even important? Athanasius related this back to our salvation. For:

– Man has debt
– Man has no means to pay this debt
– God has means to pay debt
– God has no debt to pay
– Must be paid by a God-man

The denial of the full deity or full humanity of Christ, leaves us dead in our sins and without hope for salvation.

HOW DO WE SPEAK OF GOD?

Can we have a model for God? Can we speak of him as exactly like a Father and Son? Can we speak of Him as water? Augustine wrestled with the same problem and asked this rhetorically:

How can we find a model in nature for a God outside of nature (supernatural)?

The answer: We cannot. Yet, we also long to understand the one-ness and three-ness of God. To this end, we have this model from Augustine:



On the one-ness of God, the Early Church tried to answer when Jesus said "I and the Father are one," Jesus is saying they are one...what?

The word they settled on was "Ousia." This is translated as Substance or Essence. This is defined as Traits of Deity that are shared by Father, Son and Spirit, such as
• Eternality
• Power
• Worth

As for the "Three-ness" of God, the word commonly used was that God is three in hypostasis. This is commonly translated as "Person." Basil simply defined hypostasis as “That which is spoken of distinctly." So:

Ousia - the common traits of God
Hypostasis - that which is spoken of distinctly

Another way to think of it is:

Ousia = What
Hypostasis = Who


We can see this simply defined in the Westminster Confession of our Church:

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and
eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of
none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the
Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. "

And even more importantly in the Nicean Creed, the creed of our common Christianity, confessed by Reformed, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, confessional Baptists, Catholics and Orthodox everywhere:


We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son.] With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
If you are interested in more on this, my highest recommendation is for T.F. Torrence's "The Trinitarian Faith."



.