Quotable: Calvin on Justification

faith without works justifies, although this needs prudence and a sound interpretation; for this proposition, that faith without works justifies is true and yet false, according to the different senses which it bears. The proposition, that faith without works justifies by itself, is false, because faith without works is void. But if the clause "without works" is joined with the word “justifies,” the proposition will be true, since faith cannot justify when it is without works, because it is dead, and a mere fiction. He who is born of God is just, as John says. (1Jo 5:18.) Thus faith can be no more separated from works than the sun from his heat yet faith justifies without works, because works form no reason for our justification; but faith alone reconciles us to God, and causes him to love us, not in ourselves, but in his only begotten Son.

(Commentary on Ezekiel 18:14-17)

Had he only said, that Christ by justifying us becomes ours by an essential union, and that he is our head not only in so far as he is man, but that as the essence of the divine nature is diffused into us, he might indulge his dreams with less harm, and, perhaps, it were less necessary to contest the matter with him; but since this principle is like a cuttle-fish, which, by the ejection of dark and inky blood, conceals its many tails,—But as the principle which he adopts is like a cuttlefish, which, casting out its blood, which is black as ink, troubles the water all around, to hide a great multitude of tails. if we would not knowingly and willingly allow ourselves to be robbed of that righteousness which alone gives us full assurance of our salvation, we must strenuously resist. For, in the whole of this discussion, the noun righteousness and the verb to justify, are extended by Osiander to two parts; to be justified being not only to be reconciled to God by a free pardon, but also to be made just; and righteousness being not a free imputation, but the holiness and integrity which the divine essence dwelling in us inspires. And he vehemently asserts (see sec. 8) that Christ is himself our righteousness, not in so far as he, by expiating sins, appeased the Father, but because he is the eternal God and life. To prove the first point—viz. that God justifies not only by pardoning but by regenerating, he asks, whether he leaves those whom he justifies as they were by nature, making no change upon their vices? The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat, are we therefore to say, that the earth is warmed by light and illumined by heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the matter in hand than this simile. The sun by its heat quickens and fertilizes the earth; by its rays enlightens and illumines it. Here is a mutual and undivided connection, and yet reason itself prohibits us from transferring the peculiar properties of the one to the other. In the confusion of a twofold grace, which Osiander obtrudes upon us, there is a similar absurdity. Because those whom God freely regards as righteous, he in fact renews to the cultivation of righteousness, Osiander confounds that free acceptance with this gift of regeneration, and contends that they are one and the same. But Scriptures while combining both, classes them separately, that it may the better display the manifold grace of God. Nor is Paul’s statement superfluous, that Christ is made unto us "righteousness and sanctification," (1 Cor. 1:30). And whenever he argues from the salvation procured for us, from the paternal love of God and the grace of Christ, that we are called to purity and holiness, he plainly intimates, that to be justified is something else than to be made new creatures. Osiander on coming to Scripture corrupts every passage which he quotes. Thus when Paul says, "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," he expounds justifying as making just. With the same rashness he perverts the whole of the fourth chapter to the Romans. He hesitates not to give a similar gloss to the passage which I lately quoted, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.” Here it is plain that guilt and acquittal simply are considered, and that the Apostle’s meaning depends on the antithesis. Therefore his futility is detected both in his argument and his quotations for support from Scripture. He is not a whit sounder in discussing the term righteousness, when it is said, that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness after he had embraced Christ (who is the righteousness of Gad and God himself) and was distinguished by excellent virtues. Hence it appears that two things which are perfect are viciously converted by him into one which is corrupt. For the righteousness which is there mentioned pertains not to the whole course of life; or rather, the Spirit testifies, that though Abraham greatly excelled in virtue, and by long perseverance in it had made so much progress, the only way in which he pleased God was by receiving the grace which was offered by the promise, in faith. From this it follows, that, as Paul justly maintains, there is no room for works in justification.

(Institutes 3.11.6)

Counting down

Most people are currently counting down to Christmas at the moment. I'm counting down to the New Year when I've got to start studying law again. Soon I'll be unable to read as much as I'm managing at the moment. My current wish list of things to read, on the doctrine of justification alone, include:

• The Way of Salvation: The role of Christian Obedience in Justification by Paul A. Rainbow
• Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin
• "Reflections on Salvation and Justification in the New Testament" by D.A. Carson JETS 40/4 (December 1997) 581-608.
• Justification: The Reformers and Recent New Testament Scholarship" by Gerald Bray Churchman 109/2 1995
• "'The Gift of Salvation': Its Failure to Address the Crux of Justification" by Mark A. Seifrid JETS 42/4 (December 1999) 679-688
• Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 by Scott J. Hafemann
• Paul and the Jews by Andrew Das

It's unlikely I'll get very far! And then there's all the more important things I have to be doing.... the trouble is the more you read the more you want to read.

Church history in 3 steps

According to Jim 'shine on you crazy diamond' Jordan you can look at the development of church history (or at least it's theology) like this:

• Step 1: Develop the theology of the Trinity (The Early Church).
• Step 2: Once you have done step 1 you now have the ability to develop the theology of the atonement (The Middle Ages).
• Step 3: Once you have done step 2 you now have the ability to develop the theology of how the atonement can be appropriated (Post-Reformation).

No doubt this is horribly reductionistic. However, my extremely limited forays into church history seem at least to suggest there is some truth in it. The early church especially seem to have an amazingly undeveloped doctrine of justification. Anyway, I don't have time to reflect on this further, although I am increasingly convinced of some kind of developmental view of church history (see my post on Schaff). It only seems sad that at present in Europe and North America past developments in understanding of the bible's teaching on atonement and justification are being undermined; not so much by questioning, which must always continue, but by failing to seriously consider the writings of those who thought much more deeply about such things than some at present. I wonder what people are thinking about in the rest of the Christian church, perhaps that will be where new developments will come.

Quotable: Seifrid on the Law's Spirit Deficit

Hafemann [and Jimmy Dunn] treat [2 Cor 3] as a discussion of the ineffectual nature of the law apart from the Spirit - as if Paul anywhere speaks of an effectual law through the Spirit!

(p. 112, Christ Our Righteousness, IVP)

Using the law lawfully

Perhaps there would be more light and less heat in the argument if Pauline scholars paid more attention to the Pastorals. 1 Timothy 1:8ff is something on which I haven't read much discussion:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

However we still have a choice over interpretations for what is a 'lawful' use of the law:

1. You use the law lawfully if you use it to condemn non-Christians.
2. You use the law lawfully if you realise that you the Christian are ungodly and sinners.

The argument for the first is that Paul does not seem to talk of Christians as sinners (they have died to that identity), and yet it is still the ungodly that are justified (Rom 4:5) so maybe the second interpretation is best... or perhaps there is a third way!

All this thinking is hard work. An Peter Dray has now gone and said that I'm 'drawing together and analyising a large amount of helpful scholarship'. Now I feel under pressure!

Ramblings on the Law as both good and bad

How can 'the law [be] holy, and the commandment [be] holy and righteous and good' (Rom 7:12) when it is 'not of faith' (Gal 3:12)?

Two answers come to the top of my head.

1. The law is good but partial and outdated in the light of our faith. This answer recognises that 'faith' is not abstract but must be faith in someone, namely Christ who had not been revealed in the law.
2. The law was right in theory when it offered life through obedience, but it was a hypothetical promise as no one could meet its holy standard. Despite the pedigree of this answer to the question, I think it is flawed in many, many ways (although it still has some truth to it.

A third way in which you can get round the seemingly conflicting statements in Paul is to argue that Paul when criticising the Law is actually attacking a perversion of the Law and not the Law rightly understood. This makes sense of many Pauline passages and helps in embracing all of God's word wholeheartedly. However, as Seifrid taught me, it is difficult to square this perspective with the fact that Paul always seems to be criticising the law itself, and not some perversion of it.

However, having thought about that I tried to think of other instances where the bible criticises something and yet actually holds it to be good. The most obvious example to me is Kingship. In Judges (except in the final section) and Samuel it is portrayed as a bad thing, with no indication that it may be good. Abimelech is surely a clear example of why raising up a king is bad (Judg 9), and Saul is an even clearer example despite being anointed by God. And yet despite the first half of Judges and Samuel in the second parts of the two books kingship is shown as a positive and God-ordained institution. And yet like Paul with the Law, when the bible is criticising kingship it seems for all the world that it is criticising kingship itself, and not a perversion of it.

Well my thoughts are not fully formed but I think there is something to be said for the 'perversion of the law' argument but care is probably required in using it.

The many problems with the Mosaic Law

Here are some more notes on the bible (which along with quotes is all I really do on this blog). As usual they are works in progress and not fully formed thoughts.

1. It was temporary "for when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." (Heb 7:12; cf. Gal 3:23f)
2. It doesn't justify "for if righteousness [/justification] were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." (Gal 2:21) indeed "it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law" (Gal 3:11). Note I say that it 'doesn't' justify and not that it 'didn't'. I think it is harder to show that it 'didn't' justify but there are passages which imply that it never did.
3. It didn't sanctify for "the law, weakened by the flesh, could not [...] please God" (Rom 8:3-8; cf. Jer 31 and 2 Cor 3 where the problem with the Mosaic law was that it was 'of the letter'/'the written code' and wasn't written on people's hearts by the Spirit). Note I am more confident to say that it 'didn't' here.
4. It was only a partial revelation for "in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son" (Heb 1:2; cf John 1 and the rest of Hebrews)
5. It was cursed due to Israel's disobedience this is more controversial and I am struggling to think of a passage to support it. However, I do think there is some mileage in remembering that the law belonged to the Jews, and that the Jews were under a curse (in exile) which Christ took upon himself. Therefore, the law itself had been in some way cursed too, so that to obey it is to identify with a cursed nation rather than the cursed Son of God who unlike the nation was/is able fully 'absorb' that curse on our behalf.

More thoughts to come... Please add your own.

The many purposes of the Mosaic Law

With a little help from Bruce Longenecker (The Triumph of Abraham's God) these are some hastily typed thoughts. Obviously there is a certain amount of overlap but I suspect not all are equally important or compatible.

1. To increase transgression.
• Two alternative ways it could do this, either by providing a legal basis for the classification of sin as transgression (Rom 5:20), or by actually increasing sin (Rom 7)
2. To reveal human sinfulness.
• There seem to be two (not mutually exclusive) ways in could do this, firstly by clearly showing the demands of God and showing humanity's inability to meet those demands, and secondly by illustrating human sinfulness in the ceremonial aspects of the law.
3. To restrain sinful desires (cf. Matt 19).
4. To condemn human sinfulness (try any of the OT prophets or 2 Cor 3:9).
5. To provide shadows of the reality found in Christ (Hebrews).
6. To make known what God is like (Heb 1).
7. To enable God to draw near to a people despite their sin and his holiness
• Consider how the levels of sacrifice and other rituals increased the nearer you came to God, and it was not just ceremonial but the demands of personal moral holiness were also greater the nearer you came to God (which links in with the higher standards Israel was held to compared to the nations).

Meanwhile, where as I stumble along in these matters Peter Dray is being much more clear and helpful on the place of the law on his blog if you care to take a look.

If anyone else does read this blog then please comment and help me out here. Thanks.

I'm off here for a week

The Lake District in November... I'm sure it will be beautiful so long as it doesn't rain too much.

Protestant Scholasticism or Reformed Orthodoxy

This may not interest many, but there is a long-running debate about how we should regard seventeenth century Protestant theology. Martin Downes quotes Richard Gaffin challenging the prevailing negative assessment in a recent post. I have no opinion on the matter, not knowing enough to comment, but thought I would just note down a quotation from Philip Schaff which shows what this negative assessment actually looks like and also shows that it the attitude has been around for a while.

The seventeenth century is the period of Protestant scholasticism. It furnishes a parallel to the Catholic scholasticism of the Middle Ages, but is much richer in biblical learning. Its exegesis bears the same relation to the exegesis of the Reformers (henceforward revered as protestant Fathers) as the medieval exegesis to the patristic. It has the prevailing character of reproduction, compilation, and confessional contraction. It was based on a mechanical theory of verbal inspiration or dictation, which was most minutely formulated, and acted as a check upon independent research. An infallible Book was set over against an infallible Church. The Protestant Confessions of Faith acquired the authority of Catholic tradition. Exegesis was controlled by dogmatic systems and made subservient to polemic confessionalism. The Bible was used as a repository of proof-texts, without discrimination between the Old and New Testaments, and between the different books. A vast amount of patient, pedantic, antiquarian learning was accumulated.

(p.215f, Theological Propaedeutic)

One thing I do wonder a little is whether a difference between the Puritan theology of Britain and the continental Protestant theologians.

Seperation from God - judgment or blessing?

Provocative title huh?

It is common Evangelical parlance to refer to hell, and judgment in particular as being separation from God. I'm not so sure that this is a biblical idea though.

It seems to me that throughout the bible that being close to God is a blessing but also a potential source of curse. Distance and barriers between the presence of God is a way of protecting those distanced from the white-hot holiness of God - although the aim should always to come nearer without becoming toast.

In a post sometime ago I talked about how the Israelite camp in the wilderness was organised so that the Tabernacle was encircled by Levites "so that there may be no wrath on the congregation of the people of Israel". At the foot of Sinai the people of Israel are clearly afraid of coming close to God's presence in Sinai and YHWH agreed they should be careful saying "Take care not to go up into the mountain or touch the edge of it". Nadab and Abihu weren't alone in learning that being close to God was a dangerous thing (Lev 10) throughout the Bible when God comes close death comes as well as blessing because he cannot be close to sin. This is particularly clear in the story in Samuel about the capture of the Ark which brought both judgment and blessing on those who came near it. Throughout the Bible people are astonished to see God and yet live (cf. Genesis 32:30; Deuteronomy 5:24; Judges 6:22; Judges 13:22; Exodus 33:20; Isaiah 6:5).

In the OT cult the closer you got to God the greater the sacrifice needed to cleanse you, and I think Jim Jordan (who has made this clearer for me) is right that the garments of the priests consist of lots of layers and include a 'breastplate' as further 'protection' from the results of sinful man coming close to the Holy God.

Perhaps then even the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden, and Cain's exile from the presence of God can be seen as ways of postponing the judgment of immediate death.

Of course "a day in [God's] courts is better than a thousand elsewhere. I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of wickedness." but the only way in which you can enter God's courts with confidence is by faith - by putting on breastplate of (Christ's) righteousness, and clothing ourselves with our Saviour who is the only one with the right to be there. When you are invited to God's feast that is an amazing blessing but not if you have not come dressed right (Matt 22)

I think this helps us understand the role of the law (another post perhaps) and the role of Israel in heaping up transgressions to be placed on Christ for the whole world. I think it helps us to consider baptism, preaching of the bible etc - they are all intrinsically good and blessings, and yet for some they will be a curse. It is also useful apologetically. Doug Pagitt may appear to be a very confused person in his recent interview but he may be right in one respect, at the resurrection we will all end up in one place, before the throne of God, but for some (frighteningly) God will be a consuming fire and for others (by God's grace alone) will bask in the the Glory of God will be light and warmth (Rev 21).

That's a rubbish post on a awesome subject, but at least I managed to get a few things down. Please forgive the rough edges, I'm still thinking this through and I am aware that I may be misusing Eph 6 and Matt 22 (more thinking required) and really have barely hinted at the beauty of holiness. But if anyone has any thoughts please comment but be gentle.

Luther's other theses

I've just been listening to some talks by Carl Trueman on Luther. One really powerful bit was where Trueman expounds some of the 40 theses that Luther presented at the Hieldberg Disputation in 1518. These two particularly struck me.

19 That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened.

20 He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.

You could spend a lifetime thinking about those. But just to give you a start try thinking about power, love, and hate with those statements in mind.