"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ." - Jerome
Showing posts with label salvation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label salvation. Show all posts

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Calvin: How do we receive the Benefits of Salvation?


"We must now examine this question. How do we receive those benefits which the Father bestowed on his only-begotten Son - not for Christ's own private use, but that he might enrich poor and needy men? First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us. Therefore, to share with us what he has received from the Father, he had to become ours and to dwell within us. For this reason, he is called 'our Head' (Eph 4:15) and 'the first-born among many brethren.' (Romans 8:29) We also, in turn, are said to be 'engrafted into him' (Romans 11:17), and to 'put on Christ' (Gal 3:27), for as I have said, all that he possesses is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him. It is true that we obtain this by faith. Yet since we see that not all indiscriminately embrace that communion with Christ which is offered through the gospel, reason itself teaches us to climb higher and to examine into the secret energy of the Spirit, by which we come to enjoy Christ and all his benefits...The Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself."

- John Calvin. Institutes. 3.1.1

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Torrance on Christ's Deity


Torrance as a theologian works in words the way painters work in paint. Here's Torrance on the necessity of the deity of Christ:

"The full reality of Christ's deity is essential for salvation, for the reality and validity of salvation are grounded upon the reality of Christ's deity. Man's salvation must be an act of God, else it is not salvation. The deity of Christ tells us that the action of Jesus in the incarnation and on the cross is identical with God's own action. How can man be saved? The answer is given in the words, "You did not choose me, but I chose you' (John 15:16) - but if the 'I' is not God himself, it is ultimately an illusion. Everything depends on the fact that the whole course of Christ's life is identical with the course of God's action towards humanity. The whole of our salvation depends n the fact that it is God in Christ who suffers and bears the sin of the world, and reconciles the world to himself.

The validity of our salvation depends on the fact that he who died on the cross under divine judgment is also God the judge, so that he who forgives is also he who judges. The reality of our salvation means that its reality is anchored on the divine side of reality, that the lamb is slain before the foundation of the world, that he has ascended to the right hand of God the Father almighty, and sits down with God on his own throne because he is God. Everything depends upon the fact that the cross is lodged in the heart of the Father.

It is important to see that if the deity of Christ is denied, then the cross becomes a terrible monstrosity. If Jesus Christ is man only and not also God, then we lose faith in God and man. We lose faith in God because how could we believe in a God who allows the best man that ever lived to be hounded to death on the cross - is that all that God cares about our humanity and its search after God, after truth and righteousness and peace? Put Jesus Christ a man on the cross and put God in heaven, like some distant god imprisoned in his own lonely abstract deity, and you cannot believe in him, in a god such that he is monstrously unconcerned with our life, and who does not even lift a finger to help Jesus...But put God on the cross, and the cross becomes the world's salvation. The whole gospel rests upon the fact the it is God who became incarnate, and it was God who in Christ has reconciled the world to himself...He who reveals God to man, and reconciles man to God, must be both God and man, truly completely God, and truly and completely man. If the Son was to redeem the whole nature of man, he had to assume the whole nature of man; if in the Son man is to be gathered into the fellowship and life of God, it must be by one who is truly and completely God.Only he can be mediator who is himself the union of God and man."

-T.F. Torrance. Incarnation pg. 189-190

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Parable of the Sower: Some Thoughts.


The parable of the sower (Matthew 13:1-23)

Mat 13:18-23 "Hear then the parable of the sower:
[SOIL 1] When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path.
[SOIL 2] As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away.
[SOIL 3] As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.
[SOIL 4] As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."



1) Seeds on the Path

The seed never takes root. The seed touches the hearer, but is immediately taken away, forgotten. The hearer is apathetic. They sit under the preached Word and think about what's for lunch. WHY NO FRUIT?: “Never understood.” Never considered. Though details of life, finances, stories, their own self-interests are worthy of their thought and mental energies, the importance of the words of their Creator and God are things of indifference.

2) Seeds on the rocky ground

The person takes hold of the word “immediately” and with “joy.” This may be an emotional conversion. Emotion is not bad. This phrase of receiving with joy is used elsewhere positively. Yet here, it is not directed emotion. They have no root in them. Most commentators like to play on Christ being called “the root” and point out, Christ is not the root of this person's emotion or point out there is nothing but the emotion to sustain it. WHY NO FRUIT?: Hardship. Trial. The acceptance of the word was based on a false premise. It was excepted in emotion, therefore when the happy times are gone, so is the supposed faith. It is not rooted in truth, but shallow. This is a man of the moment.

3) Seeds among the thorns

This is one that hears, but this is no barren field. There exists something there already: thorns. WHY NO FRUIT: The plant is choked out. The interesting thing is the last soil was plagued by hardship, but this is plagued by “the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches.” Not bad times, but good times. Not pain, but pleasure. What was there before survives, but what is planted latter loses out.

4) Seeds on good soil

This one hears, believes, and does care to actually listen, understand and consider the message, has no shallow merely emotional reaction, no previous growth of thorns that is not uprooted. This bears fruit, though not the same for every plant. Some 30, some 60, some 100.

Lesson for the disciples:

The seed will drop and different responses follow. The disciples have seen this when Jesus teaches. They have seen this when they were commissioned to teach on their own. The fact is now lodged in their minds. Now that they know this, they are to learn why.

Paul tells us that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. If one does not believe, the disciples would be tempted to doubt the message. Maybe something else will sell. Look at the big churches, Osteen, etc. maybe their message is better because they have larger responses. No. Non-reception is no indication of the truth of the message and the faithfulness of the disciples in preaching it.

The disciples were commissioned with a very specific job. Their job was to preach the message. Their job was not to make people believe. Their faithfulness and success was not based on the number of people that believed. Their success was determined on their faithfulness to scatter the seed, know and preach the message.

Martin Luther on the parable of the sower:
“Here we see why it is no wonder there are so few true Christians, for all the seed does not fall into good ground, but only the fourth and small part; and that they are not to be trusted who boast they are Christians and praise the teaching of the Gospel; ... All this is spoken for our instruction, that we may not go astray, since so many misuse the Gospel and few lay hold of it aright. True it is unpleasant to preach to those who treat the Gospel so shamefully and even oppose it...What business is it of mine that many do not esteem it? It must be that many are called but few are chosen. For the sake of the good ground that brings forth fruit with patience, the seed must also fall fruitless by the wayside, on the rock and among the thorns; ... For wherever the Gospel goes you will find Christians. "My word shall not return unto me void" (Is. 55:11).”

Did you read and understand that middle sentence? “What business is it of mine that many do not esteem it?” Luther knew his job. Not the response, but the message.

LESSON: Preach the Gospel, share the gospel, knowing that the response is not our job.

In explaining this, I am going to try and maintain two truths explained here in tension. So let me explain both before judging.

Lets also answer the difficult question: Which of the soils are saved?

A perspective from an article in a Christian periodical: “The Lord divides the responsiveness of people in four categories. One group rejects Christ and never comes to faith. A second group comes to faith and then later falls away from Christ. A third group comes to faith and maintains their Christian profession till the end, but have limited fruitfulness in their Christian life. And a fourth group maintains their Christian profession to the end and bring forth much mature fruit.”

Their conclusion: “The first group is lost, the last three soils are saved.”

The justification of saying this?

The last three soils "received" or believed in the narrative. If salvation is by faith, then those who believe are saved.

Then we must ask: is it Biblical to say one can believe in a sense and not be saved? Don't we believe in salvation by faith alone? If one can believe and not be saved, does one then argue for salvation by works?

Consider:

Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!



Demons believe. Are they saved? Of course not.

James speaks of a dead faith and that “that faith will not save you.” The opposite of dead non-saving faith is living saving faith. Our theology and how we view the world requires us to have a category of false profession, of dead non-saving belief. Of a person that has something of a faith, but is not finally saved. James says, there is a type of faith that “will not save him.” It is not true saving faith. This is the faith of demons, and juxaposed to the faith of the saints.

How do you tell the difference between the faith of demons and the faith of the saints? What is the evidence?

Matt 12:33 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit."


This is the same thing James says. The distinguishing outer quality is the fruit. If there is fruit, it is saving faith. If there is no fruit, there is no saving faith. And this is what is difficult in saying, because then it sounds like works are required. Don't we believe in “faith alone”? That's something I have struggled with. Because we know Paul says it is not by works, but faith apart from works. I think it would help to remind ourselves of the pure free gracious offer of the gospel, and where works come in. A good way to think about salvation is by two different aspects:

Payment and Renewal
Purchase and Renovation
Justification and Sanctification.

The work of God in our lives is two fold. Some call it the duplex gratia. It is essential to distinguish these two, but not to separate them. One: God redeems us by the merits of Christ, no works of our own. Two: God changes us by the Spirit, causing us to do works consistent with New Life. The work God does in us is not payment. The payment is not dependent on our works. Justification is an event with no work from us. [The Catechism calls it an act of God Q33]. Sanctification is a process, done to us resulting in us doing good works. As Ephesians 2:10 says, “we are God's workmanship created for good works” - the Catechism calls this a work of God Q35].

Another way it has been described is that we are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone. For God NEVER Justifies a sinner, without also beginning the work of Sanctification. Paul says all who God justifies, He also glorifies, (Romans 8:30) and sanctification is not an option along that course, and sanctification bears fruit, evidencing the goodness of the tree.

TRUTH 1: ONLY THE FOURTH SOIL, THAT BEARS FRUIT, IS SAVED.

Now follow me with another truth we must keep in tension. I will illustrate this with an example:
Let me give two models:

The First is called a Christian. That person is involved with other Christians. They even teach others true things about Christ and have a long time they profess to be a Christian. This persons profession is dealing in finances and eventually, with the cares of this world the person gives up their Christianity instead seeking money without really understanding that he can't have both. [Sounds like a Soil 3 person, caught up in the deceitfulness of riches, the soil that seems to have the most hope of accompanying Soil 4 in salvation]

The Second is called a Christian. That person does the same as the first, is involved with other Christians and is bold and teaches others about Christ. This person even seems a little over zealous. Then, when a troubling time comes, the person can't stand it and out loud, something the first person didn't really do, says “I never was a Christian.” [Sounds like a Soil 2 person, coming on tribulation]

Who was the first person I described? The person that looked like soil three, the one we hold out hope for, is Judas Iscariot. The second person, the one that looks like soil two, that we have little hope for? That's Peter.

The next parable in the text is of the wheat and tares. When good crop grows up with bad, servants ask if they should uproot the tares (the bad) out of the field of good (the wheat). The Master replies:

Mat 13:29 But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them.


Tares and wheat look very similar. It is very hard to tell the difference. In identifying someone as good, they may be bad, and in identifying one as bad, they may be good. Our job is not to be the final judges of the genuineness of someone's faith. We are poor fruit inspectors.

TRUTH 2: TRUE CHRISTIANS MAY LOOK LIKE THE OTHER SOILS

The lesson of the parable is to spread the message indiscriminantly, not to be an expert on who is which soil. We may perceive someone looks like the other soil. Our job then is not to infallibly cast judgments on their eternal state, but work to bring them back. We are commanded to comfort or rebuke a brother in trial or sin, (personally, and as the church with church discipline) BECAUSE we don't know. If they were saved as soil 2 or 3, why bother? Also on the other side, if they can be certainly judged as lost as soil 2 or 3, why bother? This is the reason we place people under church discipline and even excommunicate them from the church, to let them know the seriousness of their situation, to give an opportunity for the Spirit to work and renew the Peters of the world to repentance, bringing them to a place of repentance.

Ultimately, the only One that can guarantee a good soil, a prepared place for the gospel is God by His Spirit. As William Cowper wrote ina hymn on the parable of the sower:

Father of mercies we have need
Of thy preparing grace;
Let the same hand that gives the seed,
Provide a fruitful place.

What is the difference between those that hear and those that don't?

1Co 4:7 For who makes you to differ? And what do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive?

The message, not the response is our job. The One that gives growth, that makes the one who hears to differ from those that do not, is God, not us.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

The means of grace and the church


"The means of grace, after all, do not stand by themselves but are closely connected with the church and the offices of the church, with Christ's person and work. One might as well ask whether God could not regenerate and save sinners apart from Christ and forgive sins aside from satisfaction. But such questions lead nowhere: we have rest in God's good pleasure, which distributes salvation in no way other than in and through Christ. He is the mediator between God and humanity, the only name given under heaven by which we must be saved [Acts 4:12]. Furthermore, it was equally God's good pleasure to distribute salvation in not other way than through and in the church of Christ...The rule is that God freely binds the distribution of his grace to the church of Christ."

-Herman Bavinck. Reformed Dogmatics Volume 4. pg 446-447

Monday, June 01, 2009

The Ordinary Means: The Word and Baptism


There are countless definitions that have been given of baptism. We may, however, categorize them as one of two varieties. One defines baptism as something like:

"Baptism is an act of faith and a testimony that one has been united with Christ in his death and resurrection, that one has experienced spiritual circumcision. It is a public indication of one's commitment to Christ." (Millard Erickson. Christian Theology. pg 1110)

The first way is how Erikson defines baptism, as an act done by the believer, confirming the believer's experience and publicly commiting to Christ.

The second variety, however, defines baptism quite differently:

"We don’t think of baptism as something we do, but rather as something God does–at least in the ultimate sense. While the recipient physically gets wet, God washes the elect too with the Holy Spirit unto regeneration in effectual calling." (Preston Graham, pastor)

The second way is how Graham defines baptism, as something God does to the believer. But how does the Bible speak of baptism? I would like to here argue (and though it should be clear, argue I must) that Ephesians 5:26 gives us a picture of the Scriptural understanding of baptism:

Ephesians 5:25b-27: Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

So how does Christ wash his Bride?

Paul gives husbands a rich object lesson for their love for their brides in Ephesians 5, saying they must love their wives as Christ loved the church. Yet, when Paul gives this picture, he includes “washing of water with the word.” What does this washing refer to?

John Gill emphatically says it is “not baptism, which is never expressed by washing” but is “the blood of Christ.” This answer has a huge problem reconciling that fact that Paul here specifically mentions “water” not blood. Images exist for washing in Christ’s blood in Heb 9 and Rev 7:14, but these will specifically mention blood and not water. To eliminate any thought of baptism is bold but unfounded. Also, Gill’s comments that baptism is “never expressed by washing” defies the way Scripture uses the word “baptism,” which is used to mean “washing,” in both Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4 where the disciples are reprimanded by Pharisees for not washing (baptizing) before eating.

Another possibility that has recently been posited is that Paul means an ancient form of “bridal washing.” Commentator Harold Hoehner cites an occasionally practiced rite of washing that a bride performs before a wedding in Greek culture. This, however, would be a poor metaphor, as the husband is said to do the washing in Ephesians 5:26, but the ancient marriage rite would not be done by the husband, for the bride does this to herself before the wedding. (S. Safrai “Home and Family” in The Jewish People in the First Century. Historical Geography, Political History, Social Cultural and Religious Life. Ed S. Safrai and M. Stern. 1987 Volume 2, pg 758)

I would submit that the washing in Ephesians 5:26 is baptism, and even credo-baptists need not react immediately against such a proposition. Indeed not all credo-baptists do, as John Piper to his credit comments on the verse saying, “The water of baptism is a representation of that spiritual washing. Notice that the cleansing from sin in verse 26 comes from the self-sacrifice of Christ in verse 25. So it is with baptism.”

The commentators Gill and Hoehner share a common prejudice they bring to the text. Hoehner explicitly states he rejects that Ephesians 5:26 refers to baptism because “the rite of baptism does not cleanse one from sin.” (Hoehner, Ephesians. 753) Both Gill and Hoehner bring to the text an assumption about baptism, rather than letting the Scriptures tell them whether “the rite of baptism” cleanses from sin, and in what sense it would do so. If we can recognize the washing in Ephesians 5:26 is baptism, we can learn a great truth about baptism from the text.

The word used for washing in 5:26 is “λουτρῷ”. The only other time the word λουτρῷ is used is used is in Titus 3:5, in refering to the washing of regeneration. However there is a variation used 1 Cor 6:11 and Acts 22:16, which uses the variation ἀπελούσασθε. This variation is also used in regards to baptism in Acts 22:16, where the command is given to be “baptized and wash away your sins.” The word λουτρῷ would also come to have a variant that would be used for a baptismal fount, letting us know how the church received Paul’s use of that word (if the explicit connection by early church writers Cyprian and Marius Victorinus aren’t enough.). But just thinking logically, where is the one place where water would be associated with any member of the church? The only time a church member would come in contact with water in a religious context would be in baptism.

How are we to understand Baptism as washing then? Does the physical act of baptism cleanse the church of sin? This is where careful attention to Paul’s wording of “washing of water with the word” becomes very important. The sacrament is only effective by means of the word. No word = no sacrament. This is not because the words become an incantation where a magic act occurs, but because the outward sign points to and teaches with the word the inward reality that accompanies the sign.

Scripture makes a distinction between the inward reality and the outward sign. Paul had already mentioned the inward reality of “sanctification” in 5:26, so the outward reality of washing with water is natural. As Calvin says: “Having mentioned the inward and hidden sanctification, he now adds the outward symbol…that pledge of that sanctification is held out to us by baptism.” (John Calvin on Ephesians 5:26 in Commentaries, on Galatians and Ephesians. pg 319)

If one were to ask Peter what baptism does, we see his answer in 1 Peter 3:21, that yes “Baptism saves,” but, “not as a removal of dirt from the body.” It is not the waters that cleanse, but the spirit through the word. In other words, the mere act of water touching skin does nothing of itself, but baptism is effectual “as an appeal to God.” The appeal is to the promises of God made in baptism that create a good conscience, not an appeal to God in a self-created good conscience. The washing is something God in Christ through the Spirit does, God is the Effecter, baptism is Christ washing the bride, not the bride washing herself.

Paul so richly tells us the relationship between sign and reality in Romans 2:28-29, when speaking about circumcision, the sign under the old covenant: “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.” There were many times when the Israelites confused sign and reality, yet, throughout the Old Testament, never was the physical act of circumcision resended. The physical was important, necessary and commanded, yet the inward that accompanies the outward was the reality.

In Ephesians 5:26, the image of washing points to baptism. The wording of washing and the use of water as a symbol that points to the reality, as well as sealing that reality by action. To divorce the two completely tells more of an attempted reading of one’s own theology into the passage than what the passage actually means. The reference is not an acknowledgment of some magical power in the water of baptism, but a testament to the sanctifying nature of the love of a husband for a wife, and of Christ for his church which is figured, exhibited, and conferred when accepted by faith in baptism. Baptism ultimately is something God does for the benefit of the baptized, not something the baptized does for the benefit of other people.

In such a way, baptism is a means of grace for the church. In it, the word is made visible, and the act that the word promises is displayed. Baptism is the place of washing, where Christ washes His bride, those receiving (and not giving something) in faith, in the word of His promise.

[But this may still leave questions as to specifically what Baptism does...]

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Historia Salutis, Ordo Salutis, and Duplex Gratia.


Ever wondered how the historia salutis relates to the ordo salutis in the duplex gratia? Of course you have, what else would you have been thinking about?!

In laymen's language, this actually might be a question that has crossed your mind: how does the death of Christ as accomplishing salvation relate to my experience of salvation? and How does my being pardoned for sin (by grace) relate to the living of the Christian Life (by grace)?

Those questions are actually related together in the first question: How does the accomplishment by Christ in history of the redemption of the elect (the historia salutis) relate to the application of salvation to the Christian (the ordo salutis) in the "grace upon grace" of pardon for sin and the experience of new life (two graces - duplex gratia).

If you have the terminology down and have your interest up, take a listen to an interview with Dr. Richard Gaffin Jr. on Christ the Center to think along with Gaffin on this matter.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Reformed Spirituality: Our Mystical Salvation (part 2 - what is union with Christ?)



I’ve made some broad statements about union and Paul’s emphasis of it and the centrality of it in Paul’s addressing of the problem of sin. But what is the nature of this union? How do we talk about union with Christ?

NATURE OF THE UNION

There are many pictures given of this union and what it is like. Paul employs two images in Ephesians 5. Paul calls Christians “Members of one body,” (Ephesians 4, 5:30) namely Christ’s body. Paul also interweaves that analogy with one of marriage, speaking of how the Church is Christ’s Bride and quotes Genesis about how “the two became one” picturing how Christ is united to His church. John uses organic imagery such as a vine and branches in John 15. Life flows from the vine to the branches, picturing the vital connection of believers to Christ.

The most mysterious imagery used, however, must be said to be John’s imagery in John 17. There, John records the words of Christ:

John 17:21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Here, John links the union of Father and Son and union with Christians. Union with Christ is seen to also be union with the Father. But also, the closeness of the Father to the Son is used as a goal for the completeness and nearness of union desired with believers.

The mysterious part of John’s image is the realization that such a reflection without qualification can lead to an idea that is counted heretical. We cannot understand Jesus to mean that believers are united in essence with the Father as Jesus is, becoming God as Christ is. However, Eastern Orthodoxy has spoken about the concept of “deification” as the final element of salvation. Reformed Christians have as their final element “glorification” meaning much of what Eastern Orthodox mean by “deification,” namely not that we become by nature God, but that we come all that Christ was in his human nature in his glorified state. Such a state, we must understand, means a nearness and abilities of perception, enjoyment of God and even becoming “partakers of the divine nature” as Peter says. The Greek word “partaking” there means partnering, companion, or communing fellow. Not becoming God, but communing on the most intimate level with God, in like manner as God the Father and God the Son commune with each other. A request at this point for more precision in definition will leave us wanting. Peter’s words are perhaps the highest thoughts and manner of putting such a reality as we are able to grasp this side of the experience.

Thus we see, the task of grasping union’s nature may be slippery due to 2 factors:

1. Union is spiritual. Paul tells us that in union, we are “made to drink of one spirit” (1 Cor 12:13). Then, in Ephesians 1 Paul tells us we are united to Christ, by being sealed by the Spirit. The Spirit is the means of union. The Holy Spirit ties one to Christ and applies the benefits of that union, thereby binding all partakers together in one body. Such a truth leads us to declare:

2. Union is Mystical, or a mystery. As Paul explores this idea of being bound together into Christ’s body he writes:

Eph 5:30 because we are members of his body.
Eph 5:31 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
Eph 5:32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.


This doctrine is mystical. It is even called that by John Calvin: “The Mystical Union.” It is frustrating preparing a lesson for, because you ask certain questions of it and you get back Paul’s answer: “This mystery is profound.” We are rationally minded, especially as Reformed believers, but here is a mystery beyond our reason. The exact nature of this union is beyond our comprehension, so all we are left with is the awe of it. Our questions on the exact nature then are passed by to ask what are the benefits of union.

HOW BLESSINGS ARE BESTOWED

When looking to the work of Christ in regards to salvation, our main concern tends to be Christ’s death. Christ died for sins, and we may call this Passive Obedience, or suffering the penalty of sin. This is what Paul was speaking of in Romans 5:10 when we learn that we are “reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” In Christ’s death, we share in this reconciliation. Yet, this is not all that Christ did. Christ declares:

Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

Christ also gains the rewards of the law merited by his obedience. We call this Active Obedience. All that might be gained by obedience to the Law is gained for believers through Christ.

In explaining how this relationship works, Reformation Christians have either refered to this as a Law and Gospel Hermeneutic (Lutherans) or in terms of a Covenant of works and a Covenant of grace. The Law or the covenant of works is given to Adam and humanity, that “if you do this, you will live.” Adam violates the covenant and the rest of humanity, marred by sin, are unwilling and unable to fulfill the covenant of works. In Paul’s language, it takes a second Adam, a new man to fulfill the Law. That man is Christ. By virtue of Christ’s obedience to the covenant of works, a covenant of Grace is given. We first see this in Gensis 3:15, a promise of a seed that will defeat sin and restore humanity to fellowship with God. On this basis is the covenant of grace given, one based on Christ’s fulfillment of the covenant of works. The rewards of Christ's fulfilling the law by works are given merely to be received by faith. Whereas the covenant of works was “obey and you will live,” (Genesis 2:16-17) the covenant of grace is “believe and you will be justified.” (Genesis 15:6)

THE BENEFITS GAINED BY CHRIST

Looking at Questions 30-36 in the Smaller Catechism, we now may see something we hadn’t noticed before:

Question 30. How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased Christ?

Answer. The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.

What then is applied in uniting us to Christ’s work?:

Question 32. What benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life?

Answer. They that are effectually called do in this life partake of justification, adoption, sanctification, and the several benefits which, in this life, do either accompany or flow from them.


Though we will name more, the important three named are justification, adoption and sanctification.

Reformed Christians tend to express the benefits of salvation in the Order of Salvation (the Ordo Solutis). Unnamed in the ordo solutes is union. This is because union is not a step in the process, but the foundation from which all other benefits flow. Looking at a few of the elements we can see our regeneration being Christ’s regeneration:

regeneration, (resurrection applied to soul)
(1Co 15:21-22 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.)
We also see our justification by grace through faith being on the basis of Christ’s justification by merit through works:

Rom 4:25 - [Christ] was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification.
Christ's resurrection, then, can be seen as his justification, the basis of our justification bestowed to us.

Php 2:8-9 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,


Our sanctification is on the basis of Christ’s sanctified work:

1Co 1:2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:
Our adoption is because we are united to the Son:

Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will

And our glorification awaits as Christ’s has been gained:
Rom 8:17 and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Such an understanding of salvation based on Christ’s passive and active obedience gives us a larger, broader picture of the accomplishment of Christ. We are not merely saved “by His death” as great and wonderful news as atonement and reconciliation is to our war-beaten souls. We are also “saved by His life.” We are saved on the basis of Christ’s fulfillment of the law in our place, applied to us by the Holy Spirit in union with us, as Christ’s life is communicated to those in covenant with God.

J. Gresham Machen, a founder of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Westminster Theological Seminary, was near death in the Midwest. In his last communication to John Murray, Machen communicated what doctrine gave him comfort at such a time:

“I'm so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it."

Friday, September 26, 2008

God as Sweetness


I'm re-reading Augustine's Confessions. Having just finished Book 9, I again was exposed to one of my favorite parts. Augustine has struggled with the sweetness of sin, and his inability to turn to God. Now, after recounting his conversion, Augustine looks back and begins to ask these questions to God:

But where was my free will during all those years and from what deep and secret retreat was it called forth in a single moment, whereby I gave my neck to Your “easy yoke” and my shoulders to Your “light burden,” O Christ Jesus, “my Strength and my Redeemer”? How sweet did it suddenly become to me to be without the sweetness of trifles! And it was now a joy to put away what I formerly feared to lose. For You cast them away from me, O true and highest Sweetness. You did cast them away, and in their place You entered in Yourself--sweeter than all pleasure, though not to flesh and blood; brighter than all light, but more veiled than all mystery; more exalted than all honor, though not to them that are exalted in their own eyes. Now was my soul free from the gnawing cares of seeking and getting, of wallowing in the mire and scratching the itch of lust. And I prattled like a child to You, O Lord my God--my light, my riches, and my salvation.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Images of Baptism: Understanding Modes

Towards mutual understanding:

Everyone agrees that Baptism is a sign. The London Baptist Confession lists baptism as signing: “death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.” The Westminster Confession adds “a sign and seal of the covenant of grace” and “of regeneration” to that list. Each time baptism is performed, often all those items are not visited, but certain signs may be communicated by the very mode of baptism. Traditions will use different modes, and each communicates a different truth about the sign of baptism. Before those practicing other modes dismiss immersion, they should understand the biblical image communicated therein. Also, those practicing immersion should understand the biblical images communicated in pouring and sprinkling:

Immersion:
Immersion is the exclusive mode of baptism for Baptists and certain Orthodox. The image communicated is one of burial and resurrection with Christ. (Col 2:12) The image here communicates a wonderful picture of repentence, turning from sin that once was sweet, and now is bitter to Christ who is now sweeter. Such pictures can help the Christian know the inseparable relationship between faith and repentance in the death and rising, just as Romans 6:4 says:

“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.”

Pouring:
Many other traditions, including Anabaptists, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed and others will allow pouring as a mode of baptism. This mode was also used in the early church, as evidenced in the early church manual the Didache, (7.3) a document perhaps as old as the New Testament writings. The image here communicated is one of pouring out of the Spirit.

The book of John uses the image of water for the Spirit throughout the book, explicitly stated as such in 7:38-39. In Titus, God is said to wash us (using the word for washing associated with baptism in Acts 22:16) saying God saved us, “by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly.” (Titus 3:5-6) Images of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit also exist in Acts 2:17-18, 33.

Sprinkling:
Other Reformation traditions will use sprinkling as a mode of baptism. Leviticus 16 instructs the priest to sprinkle blood on the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant to “make atonement for the Holy Place,” becoming a perfect type of Christ’s atonement, where he acted both as High Priest and as the sacrifice. When making this connection with the mercy seat in Hebrew 9, the explicit identification of baptism with sprinkling is made in Hebrews 9:10, 13.

Saturday, July 19, 2008

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]

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Summary of All Theology

J.I. Packer, in his forward to Death of Death, gives these three words as the summary of all theology: God saves sinners. The more I thought about the summary, the more I liked it. So much is said there, so much to unpack. I wonder how many of my favorite theologians can be put into those three words.

After reading that, I looked over at my three volume Systematic Theology by Charles Hodge. The names of the three volumes? Theology [Proper] (Theology of God), Anthropology (theology of man), and Soteriology (Theology of Salvation). God saves man, or sinners. All of theology in three words.


One of Augustine’s favorite phrases was “God justifies the ungodly.” God saves sinners.


Calvin said all knowledge consists in knowledge of God and man. To supply a little, knowledge of God is knowledge of His alone being Savior (Is 43:11). God saves man.


The very order implies Reformed Theology. Not man saves man, or God and man save, but God. Saves. Sinners/man. God first, who takes the action of salvation of fallen man. Just something to remember if someone asks you to summarize your theology, all it takes is three words: God saves sinners.

Friday, March 07, 2008

Actual, not Potential, Atonement

Jay Bennett has a great post quoting J.I. Packer evaluating the wide-spread idea among Evangelicals that Christ died equally for everyone, creating a potential, but not actual salvation for His people. Here's my favorite part:

"The true evangelical evaluation of the claim that Christ died for every man, even those who perish, comes through at point after point in Owen’s book. So far from magnifying the love and grace of God, this claim dishonors both it and him, for it reduces God’s love to an impotent wish and turns the whole economy of ‘saving’ grace, so-called (‘saving’ is really a misnomer on this view), into a monumental divine failure. Also, so far from magnifying the merit and worth of Christ’s death, it cheapens it, for it makes Christ die in vain. Lastly, so far from affording faith additional encouragement, it destroys the scriptural ground of assurance altogether, for it denies that the knowledge that Christ died for me (or did or does anything else for me) is a sufficient ground for inferring my eternal salvation; my salvation, on this view, depends not on what Christ did for me, but on what I subsequently do for myself."

Saturday, February 02, 2008

Hymn: Awaiting Full Redemption

Horatius Bonar, the Presbyterian minister who also wrote "Not What my Hands have Done" also wrote this hymn about how we await full salvation. This is a theme I have recently encountered at seminary and have continued to take comfort in, as hope becomes a real doctrine to me. And so we, the church, ask with David: "How Long?"-

Come Then, Lord Jesus

1. The Church has waited long Her absent Lord to see
And still in loneliness she waits
A friendless stranger she
Age after age has gone,
Sun after sun has set
And still, in weeds of widowhood,
She weeps a mourner yet

Chorus: Come then, Lord Jesus, come
Come then, Lord Jesus
Come then, Lord Jesus, come, come, come.

2. The serpent's brood increase,
The powers of hell grow bold
The conflicts thickens, faith is low,
And love is waxing cold
How long, O Lord our God, Holy and true and good Wilt thou not judge Thy suffering Church, Her sighs and tears and blood?

3. We long to hear thy voice,
To see Thee face to face
To share Thy crown and glory then,
As now we share thy grace
Should not the loving bride, The absent Bridegroom mourn?
Should she not wear the weeds of grief,
Until her Lord return?

4. The whole creation groans,
And wait to hear that voice
That shall restore her comeliness,
And make her wastes rejoice
Come, Lord, and wipe away, The curse, the sin, the stain And make this blighted world of ours, Thine own fair world again

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Quote

"Where does Jesus Christ stand? He stands for me. He stands there in my place, where I should stand, but cannot." -Bonhoeffer

Monday, October 29, 2007

I WILL celebrate Reformation Day!

[update: I do read and appreciate the Internet Monk on various issues, but I will echo John Adams critique of Thomas Paine in regards to the monk: He knows better what he is tearing down than what he wishes to build up.

And yes it does have a snarky tone, for that I apologize]

At another blog, the "internet monk," a Southern Baptist who is somewhat self-loathing of his tradition (Baptist) and his branch of Christianity (Protestantism) wrote a rather whiny post about how the Reformation wasn't all that great. I wanted to comment on a few of these whines:

(Internet monk in BOLD and me in ITALIC)

-I do not believe true Christianity was restored or rediscovered in the Reformation.

me neither. But when the questions were asked about "how am I saved?" the Catholic Church got it wrong. God saves us, not works or actions. God. The question had not been asked in quite the way Luther asked it in regards to Indulgences. Christianity T-ed at that moment in time, and so Reformed Christianity is about development from that point, not going back to some mythical time when everything was better like the 400s, the Nicene Council or the Acts church. So, fine. Have your realization that the Baptist/Restorationist reading of Church History is wrong. That doesn't make the Reformed/Lutheran/Anglican reading wrong...

-I’m convinced that it didn’t take long for Protestantism to accumulate enough problems of its own to justify another reformation or two.

Don't know what he means here as he thinks the first one wasn't all that necessary, but once it got going THEN we need to get back to somewhere...

-I now believe that "tradition" is a very good word.

Good for you. me too

-I believe we ought to grieve the division of Christianity and the continuing division of Protestantism.

Jaslov Pelikan (Lutheran theologian) called the Reformation a tragic necessity. So it will always be. Yet, the continuing division is not one sided. A mend could have happened if not for the negative reactionism of the Council of Trent.

-I can see huge omissions from the work of the reformers, such as a theology of cross-cultural missions and much more.

They didn't develop the Baptist theology of the alter call either, so did they not believe in responding to the gospel? Calvin was sending missionaries into France, who were dying by the dozen. Sorry he didn't develop missional theology but merely practiced missional obedience.

-I no longer believe Luther ever intended to slay the Catholic Church and establish the wonder of contemporary Protestantism.

sure he didn't. Are you new to the history of the Reformation? He wanted to reform the church, not kill it. Yet, we remember the corrupt Roman bureacracy did not want to reform, but continue to sell salvation and tax the poor and live like kings.

But here are some things I firmly believe about the Reformation:

There may never have been a Reformation if not for the doctrine of papal supremacy.

If the Catholic Church was less reactionary and corrupt, the church may never have split.

Catholicity is based on Christ, not on bureaucratic succession.

The Catholic Bureaucracy of the sixteenth century was not exibiting the signs of the true church: the gospel, ministry to the poor, right administration of the sacraments or the ministry of the word.

The Reformation was a tragic necessity, one where we mourn its necessity, not its theology.

So go ahead and mourn the Reformation, yet the mourning should be for the circumstances that necessitated it just as we mourn the death of Christ, not because of what it accomplished (that we celebrate) but because our sin demanded it.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Not my work: Hymn for the week

Not What My Hands Have Done

“What must I do to be saved?” The natural question of man. Horatius Bonar was a Presbyterian minister who wrote songs for children to help them understand the faith. What must I do? Bonar has a great phrase: "rest on love divine." So don't just do something, stand there (on Christ’s merits)!

Not what my hands have done can save my guilty soul;
Not what my toiling flesh has borne can make my spirit whole.
Not what I feel or do can give me peace with God;
Not all my prayers and sighs and tears can bear my awful load.

Your voice alone, O Lord, can speak to me of grace;
Your power alone, O Son of God, can all my sin erase.
No other work but Yours, no other blood will do;
No strength but that which is divine can bear me safely through.

Thy work alone, O Christ, can ease this weight of sin;
Thy blood alone, O Lamb of God, can give me peace within.
Thy love to me, O God, not mine, O Lord, to Thee,
Can rid me of this dark unrest, And set my spirit free.

I bless the Christ of God; I rest on love divine;
And with unfaltering lip and heart I call this Savior mine.
His cross dispels each doubt; I bury in His tomb
Each thought of unbelief and fear, each lingering shade of gloom.

I praise the God of grace; I trust His truth and might;
He calls me His, I call Him mine, My God, my joy and light.
’Tis He Who saveth me, and freely pardon gives;
I love because He loveth me, I live because He lives.




Thursday, October 04, 2007

God's Sovereign choice: Hymn for the week

"You did not choose me, but I chose you." -John 15:16.

"We love because He first loved us." -1 John 4:19

I'm a Calvinist, but no one is born that way. It is amazing how at one time the doctrines of grace can produce such anger and then, your heart is warmed to the truth that you did nothing to deserve or merit God's favor. Soli Deo Gloria. If the hymn angers you, most of it is merely Scripture put to rhyme. This blatantly Calvinist hymn was written by Josiah Conder, a Reformed Congregationalist.

My Lord, I did not choose You,
For that could never be;
My heart would still refuse You,
Had You not chosen me.

You took the sin that stained me,
You cleansed me, made me new;
Of old You have ordained me,
That I should live in You.

Unless Your grace had called me
And taught my op’ning mind,
The world would have enthralled me,
To heav’nly glories blind.

My heart knows none above You;
For Your rich grace I thirst;
I know that if I love You,
You must have loved me first.

(sheet music here)

(put to modern music by this guy)