In us and for us

Listening to: Mozart: Don Giovanni

[In] the Lutheran tradition [...] any emphasis on the work of the Spirit "in us" is seen to be in latent competition with the work of Christ "for us", to the point that it sometimes seems that the believer magnifies the freeness of God's grace more as a forgiven but unchanged sinner, than as a man in whom the crucified Saviour has worked his regenerating and renewing change. Lutherans are afraid that if anything happens within us, that happening rather than Christ's work will be seen as the basis of our standing with God.

(p. 26, Thomas A. Smail, The Forgotten Father)

I think that criticism is fair. Two quick observations on the two emphases:

• One is marked by an over-realised eschatology (i.e. high-expectations and dreamy optimism), and the other an under-realised eschatology (i.e. low-expectations and realistic pessimism).
• One is marked by joy and the other by seriousness.

It's not balance that we need, but a church aware of both where its citizenship is, but also where it is sojourning in at the moment.

Un-systematic ramblings on systematisation

Gustaf Aulén believes the 'classic' view of the atonement is only 'an idea, a motif, a theme' and not a 'theory'. 'It has been fully definite and unambiguous' in its expression, but 'it has never been shaped into a rational theory' (p. 157, Christus Victor).

The classic type is characterised by a whole series of contrasts of opposites, which defy rational systematisation, while the other two find rational solutions of the antinomies along theological or psychological lines.

...the oppositions of the classic type...are present wherever the classic type appears. God is at once the all-ruler, and engaged in conflict with the powers of evil. These powers are evil powers, and at the same time executants of God's judgment on sin. God is at the same time the Reconciler and the Reconciled. His is the Love and His the Wrath. The Love prevails over the Wrath, and yet Love's condemnation of sin is absolute. The Love is infinite and unfathomable, acting contra rationem et legem [contrary to reason and law], justifying men without any satisfaction of the Divine justice or any consideration of human merit; yet at the same time God's claim on men is sharpened to the uttermost.

Every attempt to force this conception into a purely rational scheme is bound to fail; it could only succeed by robbing it of its religious depth. For theology lives and has its being in these combinations of seemingly incompatible opposites.

(p. 155, Christus Victor)

In this respect he is a typical Lutheran. Frustrating to a rationalist like me and yet full of life and colour.

He calls on Luther to aid him in his cause, and even though I think Luther was less opposed to substitutionary atonement than Aulén believes, it is difficult to argue that Luther was ever systematic. He wrote scores of volumes of work and yet almost nothing that could be described as systematic.

More recently I have encountered much of this anti-systematic Lutheranism in Gerhard Forde and Oswald Bayer. Steven Paulson, a student of Forde, recalls another theologian quip about Forde that he had "lost interest in doing systematic theology".

Another student of Forde, Mark Mattes's has recently written a book analysing the theology of Jungel, Pannenberg, Moltmann, Jenson and Bayer. He argues:

Theology should not be about providing an overall system, but instead should deconstruct systems. Undoubtedly, it is desirable for the church's catechesis to seek rhetorically a structured presentation of the faith ...[but not] a "God's eye view" of all reality...The most important task in theology is not construction but discernment. All construction needs to subordinate itself to this discernment, and not vice versa.

(pp. 181-182, The Role of Justification in Contemporary Theology)

Against this background it is only really Bayer that he finds limiting theology appropriately:

For Bayer, theology is not done to integrate all knowledge, either theoretical or practical, into an abstract unity, but to limit reason to its proper fields. It is the art of discerning what God is saying to us, not peering into the divine

(p. 149)

In biblical theology I have found Seifrid also upholding this lack of systematisation.

PS In case you wondered, I feel the Lutherans have something useful to say here, but I am not totally with them.

Theological prolegomenon

This is all a bit niche interest, although it is pretty sweeping in its scope. It is a useful survey of two different responses to the Enlightenment critique of natural theology:

Prior to the Enlightenment, Lutheran scholastic orthodoxy used the concept of the natural knowledge of God to demonstrate God's existence. The Bible, by way of contrast, was regarded as a supernatural source of supernatural revelation. When this scheme was subjected to the critique of the Enlightenment, the consequence was that language about God became irrelevant to genuine knowledge, and the pathway was cleared for modern secularity. But Luther's theme of the law as the antithesis of the gospel had the potential of escaping the Kantian critique. Thus Lutheran theology would have in the category “law” a prolegomenon to the gospel which could make the transition from pre-modern to modern culture without giving up its essential proclamation. If "law" means whatever calls us into question before God, then we can see it functioning as prolegomenon in theologians as diverse as Theodosius Harnack (d. 1889), Werner Elert (d. 1954), and Paul Tillich (d. 1965), as well as in the work of contemporary Lutheran theologians Gerhard Forde and Robert Jenson.

Karl Barth's response to the critique of the Enlightenment and to the Liberal theology of the 19th Century was to reject the idea of prolegomenon altogether. If grace is revelation and revelation is grace, then the antithesis between law and gospel simply disappears. The revelation of God, whether law or gospel, is gracious.

(pp. 414-415, Walter R Bouman, "The Concept of the 'Law' in the Lutheran Tradition" Word & World 3/4 (1983))

The whole article is fairly good. I think the author is right that there are strengths and weaknesses in both responses.

Are we sure assurance should be sought for?

[To S]

Luther's whole theology was driven by the question of how he could be assured of God's favour - how he could know that he was saved. He even defined faith as including assurance of salvation.

Our theology is shaped by the questions we asked. Was that the wrong question for Luther to be asking? Should we expect Christians to be sure of their salvation? Perhaps it is even unhelpful.

In contemporary Evangelicalism you could often assume that good emotions, and positive feelings are the primary purpose of all Christian activities. So we don't even think if there is anything wrong with Luther's question. But it is a question we should ask. Why is assurance of salvation essential to Christian faith?

Off the top of my head I would give two answers:

1. It honours God as truthful. To not be assured of your salvation is to call God a liar, because he promises just that in the Bible, the words of Christians, and the sacraments. "when the soul firmly trusts God's promises, it regards him as truthful and righteous. Nothing more excellent than this can be ascribed to God [this is the] very highest worship of God" (Martin Luther, The Freedom of the Christian).
2. It is the only way anyone will do good works. We will never be motivated to do truly good works by mere command, even less by fear. Unless we are sure that we have all that we need we will look first to shoring up our own salvation, before seeking to serve others. Unless we know for sure that God loves us we will not love him in return. A few quotes:

"For what reason is faith, as trust in God's promise [of our forgiveness], given priority over all works? In what way does it alone make all works good? Because it alone - and thus God alone, who establishes faith - breaks open the nature of the sinner as one curved in on himself; only he can loosen the fist that is clenched so tightly, so that my existence on behalf of others becomes natural once again and takes place with 'passion and love.' The imagery of receiving and passing on to others brings us to the foundational motif of Luther's understanding of God, that of categorical gift: through the Son, God in the Spirit gives himself to us as Father, in every sense of the word, so that we do not hoard and keep for ourselves what is given to us, which is what we do as sinners, but instead pass it on to others" (p. 283, Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation)

"if we recognize the great and precious things which are given us, as Paul says [Rom. 5:5], our hearts will be filled by the Holy Spirit with the love that makes us free, joyful, almighty workers and conquerors over all tribulations, servants of our neighbours, yet lords of all." (pp.304f, Martin Luther, The Freedom of the Christian)

"It is impossible to love God until the forgiveness of sins is first grasped by faith. For the heart that truly believes that God is angry is unable to love God until he is shown to be reconciled. For as long as he terrifies us and appears to be casting us into eternal death, human nature cannot bring itself to love such a wrathful, judging, and punishing God. It is easy for complacent minds to fabricate some foolish dreams about love [...] But in its agony and its battles the conscience experiences the emptiness of such philosophical speculations." (p. 126, Apology of the Augsburg Confession)

The chicken and the egg

1. Law and Gospel or Gospel and Law?

(a) In the discussion about the so called Covenant of Works, or Adamic Administration, Reformed theologians may ask: Was Adam under law or gospel? If you read Michael Horton & Co they would argue that it is traditional Reformed position to say he was under the law. Horton argues that 'it is anachronistic to require grace or mercy as the foundation of creation and covenant in the beginning, as Karl Barth and many recent Reformed Theologians do' because Adam was 'entirely capable of maintaining himself in a a state of integrity' (p.84, Michael Horton, God of Promise).

But this is considering law/gospel only in the realm of redemption. What about the realm of creation?

(b) As creatures we merit nothing and so even our existence is an act of grace and mercy.

But creation and redemption are not unconnected as Isaiah and Paul so often remind us. The Reformed tradition has always been strong on this and so you find when biblical theologians from the Reformed tradition like Tom Wright or Graeme Goldsworthy get involved they stress New Creation, and they also place the gospel first. You often see this in discussions about the Mosaic law. Graeme Goldsworthy comments:

'The heart of the [Mosaic] law is the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) which are prefaced by the significant phrase, 'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.' These words should govern our understanding of the Sinai law. Here we see that God declares that he is the God of his people, that he has already saved them. What follows then cannot be a programme aimed to achieve salvation by works since they have already received it by grace.' (p.62, Gospel and Kingdom)

2. Problems with the either ordering

(a) When law is placed before the gospel it can be seen as only bad. Or only functionally good (because it leads to the gospel) not good in itself. So it can be forgotten and dropped as soon as you've got to the gospel.

(b) When the gospel is placed before law then the two are usually mingled. Karl Barth explicitly does this:

'Gospel and law are not to be separated; they are one, in such a way that the gospel is the primary thing, that the glad tidings are first in the field and, as such, include the law. Because God is for us, we may also be for Him. Because He has given Himself to us, we may also in gratitude give Him the trifle which we have to give.' (p.19, Dogmatics in Outline)

I'm going to have to think some more, but I think the solution maybe not to choose between gospel-law or law-gospel, but recognising the bible story-line and choose gospel-law-gospel.

Any thoughts?

Online Timothy Wengert Resources

[I'll try and keep this updated as I find more, but please let me know if you know of anything I don't].

Timothy Wengert is Ministerium of Pennsylvania Professor, Reformation History at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia.

Articles, Papers etc

• "Luther's Catechisms and the Lord's Supper", World and Word, Winter 1997
• "Graceful words: Justification", The Lutheran, December 2000
• "Luther and Melanchthon on Consecrated Communion Wine (Eisleben 1542-1543)", Lutheran Quarterly, Volume XV (Spring 2001)
• "Bearing Christ as Melanchthon’s Contribution to The Book of Concord", Lutheran Quarterly, Volume XV (Winter 2001)
• "'PEACE, PEACE ... CROSS, CROSS': Reflections on how Martin Luther relates the theology of the cross to suffering", Theology Today, July 2002
• "Authorization for Ministry and the Lutheran Confessions", The ELCA Conference of Bishops October 2003
• "The End of the Public Office of Ministry in the Lutheran Confessions", The ELCA Conference of Bishops October 2003
• "Trust the heavenly banquet", The Lutheran, November 2003
• "Martin Luther and the Ten Commandments in the Large Catechism", Currents in Theology and Mission, April, 2004
• "The Priesthood of All Believers and Other Pious Myths", Sessions of the Institute of Liturgical Studies 2005
• Sermon on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, November 2002
• Sermon on John 3:1-17, February 2005

Audio

• Lecture: Martin Luther on the Decalogue (MP3)
• Lecture: Reading the Bible with Martin Luther (Video)

Bavinick on the Lutherans and the Reformed

I'm supposed to have loads of free time at the moment but for some reason haven't had time to do much thinking recently, and hence no blogging. But as usual I return to blogging when I need to get down a quote for future reflection...

I found the quote from Bavinick below quite helpful in my continuing quest to get a handle on Lutheranism. It was mentioned in a comment here which follows an interesting post and discussion.

The difference seems to be conveyed best by saying that the Reformed Christian thinks theologically, the Lutheran anthropologically. The Reformed person is not content with an exclusively historical stance but raises his sights to the idea, the eternal decree of God. By contrast the Lutheran takes his position in the midst of the history of redemption and feels no need to enter more deeply into the counsel of God.

For the Reformed, therefore, election is the heart of the church; for Lutherans, justification is the article by which the church stands or falls. Among the former the primary question is: How is the glory of God advanced? Among the latter it is: How does a human get saved? The struggle of the former is above all against paganism - idolatry; that of the latter against Judaism - works-righteousness. The Reformed person does not rest until he has traced all things retrospectively to the divine decree, tracking down the "wherefore" of things, and has prospectively made all things subservient to the glory of God; the Lutheran is content with the "that" and enjoys the salvation in which he is, by faith, a participant. From this difference in principle, the dogmatic controversies between them (with respect to the image of God, original sin, the person of Christ, the order of salvation, the sacraments, church government, ethics, etc.) can be easily explained. (Reformed Dogmatics 1:177)

The temptation in such discussions is to start getting partisan and claim superiority over the other. I think that is difficult position to maintain. As John H comments 'Vive la différence'!

Incidental notes:

1. I like Kletos Sumboulos' comment that '"Among the latter it is: How does a human get saved?" should read "Among the latter it is: What has Christ done for us?"'
2. I wonder how this links to Melanchthon's famous comment 'to know Christ means to know his benefits' which I am still trying to properly understand.

Random Law and Gospel things

1. Hosea

Reading Hosea 1 last night I was painfully aware of my whoring after other gods. That I didn't believe Jesus was the source of all good and went looking for it elsewhere. That word of judgment felt so real, and so final, because I could see that the rest of my life I would just not stop repeating. But then God said "I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People 'You are my people'" (2:23). That word would have no comfort if you were not called Lo-ruhama ('No Mercy'). If God has mercy on you before then there is no word of mercy for you now. That is law and Gospel in action.

2. The cross drawing threads together

One thing that has always struck me about the OT is the finality of many of the pronouncements of punishment. So often it seems that this is not just discipline, this is judgment. It is not a warning of what may happen, but it is a dark promise of what is going to happen. And yet contradictions to these dark words always surface. This has always caused me a little bit of a problem. The doctrine of law and Gospel has helped sort this out for me. Mark Seifrid tends to put it better than most when he comments that there are different and contridictory words from God in the bible to us, but no resolution of them apart from in the event of Jesus' death and resurrection. For example in commenting on the Sander's characterisation of Second Temple Judaism as Covenantal Nomism he argues that Sanders' has actually reduced Second Temple Judaism to Covenantalism without the Nomism. In contrast in the past scholars have focused on the Nomism without the Covenantalism. "In other words in the rabbinic materials, 'covenantalism' (Sanders' 'covenantal nomism') stands alongside 'nomism' without the overarching synthesis which Sanders has proposed". "Rather than striving to produce a system in which all contradictions were eliminated, the rabbis view salvation from (at least) these two independent perspectives". Only in Jesus is there synthesis when "the election of Israel and the demand of the Law meet in Christ, the crucified and risen. The tension within early Jewish thought between grace and demand was resolved in an event, not a higher idea" (pp. 5-6, 'The "New Perspective on Paul" and Its Problems', Themelios, Issue 25-2

3. Law and Gospel as uses or effects

Something that has also helped me understand the doctrine of law and Gospel is the realisation that the same words in scripture can function as both. Stephen D. Paulson provides some helpful examples in a great essay (if you can get hold of it):

The two classic examples of this in Luther are his use of the first commandment and the proclamation of the cross and resurrection. "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me" produces both fear and love, and in one word or phrase gives both law and gospel grammatically. Its function will depend upon the receiving of faith or the hearing apart from faith. One hears the "I am" as the basis for the "you shall," and the other vice versa.

By the same token, the proclamation of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, though one sermon or word, has very different effects. When Peter says, "let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36), the hearers "were cut to the heart." A short time later, and in very different circumstances, the same sermon is preached and, "While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word" (Acts 10:44), and the hearers were heard extolling god in tongues.

(p.174, 'Law and Gospel: Two Preaching Offices", Dialog, Vol 39, No.3, Fall 2000)

4. Barth's Gospel-Law

One thing I have gathered in my limited reasoning is that Barth famously reversed the traditional order of law and Gospel. I have for the first time come across a hint of why, in his brilliant little book Dogmatics in Outline that I am reading:

Gospel and law are not to be separated; they are one, in such a way that the gospel is the primary thing, that the glad tidings are first in the field and, as such, include the law. Because God is for us, we may also be for Him. Because He has given Himself to us, we may also in gratitude give Him the trifle which we have to give. (p.19)

So the reversal comes from one of Barth's primary concerns that God reveals himself to us, and before that we can have nothing to do with him. God is gracious to reveal himself and so obviously before he does that the law doesn't come into it.

I am glad that I have the first inkling of what Barth was trying to get at.

Justification: one metaphor among many?

I've often been one of those people trotting out that phrase of the moment in criticism of some exegesis that it is 'importing law court language' into passages where it doesn't belong. Behind that oft heard criticism of exegesis of individual passages and peoples theology in general is the assumption that the law court (justification, righteous, acquittal etc) is just one metaphor among many for describing our relationship with God. I have had that challenged recently in reading Oswald Bayer. He argues in short that the law court is just a heightened and formalised version of something that is all encompassing:

We cannot reject the question that others put to us: Why have you done this? What were you talking about? Might you not have done something else? In the other's view of us, and also in our own view we always find ourselves to be the ones who are already being questioned and who have to answer [...] We are forced to justify ourselves, and as we do so, we usually want to be right. Before the court of law, what constitutes our whole life is disclosed with particular clarity. The world of the court is not a special world of its own, but just a particular instance - a very striking one - of what is being done always and everywhere.

(p.1, Living by Faith: Justification and Sanctification (Lutheran Quarterly Books) by Oswald Bayer, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)

Universal justification - a definition

Phil Walker has just commented on an earlier post saying that one place that he would really not want to go with Lutheranism is 'universal justification'. As someone who is quite new to Lutheranism I was pleased for someone to give me a name for something that I had already detected as lying behind much of the discussion of baptism I have been reading. Phil probably should not get too concerned just yet, but a brief bit of internet surfing has brought up this helpful definition which I post here so I can refer to it later when I have time to properly think about it.

By "objective" or "universal" justification one means that God has declared the whole world to be righteous for Christ's sake and that righteousness has thus been procured for all people. It is objective because this was God's unilateral act prior to and in no way dependent upon man's response to it, and universal because all human beings are embraced by this verdict. God has acquired the forgiveness of sins for all people by declaring that the world for Christ's sake has been forgiven. The acquiring of forgiveness is the pronouncement of forgiveness. (Rom. 3:24; 4:25; 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:19-21; Ap IV, 40-41; SA II, i, 1-3; FC Ep V, 5; FC SD XI, 15)

(Theses on Justification, Part I, A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, May 1983)

Sounds like universal salvation, but it's not. Put that in your theological pipe and smoke it.

I suspect selfish posting like this is what means I will never get very high in Technorati rankings, so it is a good thing I reconciled myself a long time ago to using this blog as a electronic notebook which other people can read if they wish.

Leithart and I on Law and Gospel

To quote Leithart in full:

A strict distinction between law and gospel is offered as a prophylactic against works-righteousness. If it is admitted that law is gospel in any sense, all is lost.

But this view assumes the very same view of law that it contests. A proponent of works righteousness sees the law as demands that need to be kept, and the end of the law is simply its keeping. The proponent of law/gospel segregation has the same view of law.

Both detach law from its purpose, which, as Knight argues, is eschatological. Law exists to correct, instruct, lead to maturity. And to that extent, law is always intended as, and in practice often is, good news.

However is this to misunderstand what is properly meant by Law/Gospel. Charles Arand and Robert Kolb in their conversations on the Book of Concord note that even "Christ died for your sins" can be "Law" rather than Gospel if you hear it as condemning you for the magnitude of your sins rather than lifting you from despair (they said it in a really menacing and accusative way to emphasise the point).

Kolb and Arand don't make the connection but I wonder if the same cannot be true for commandments. Commandments can be good news if they bring life rather than condemnation. I think of the beatitudes which Matthew characterises as Gospel (Matt 4:23) although most people teach them as commandments - do this and you will receive this (be merciful and you will receive mercy etc). However, if read in context they seem to be saying: “rejoice because you who are X are going to be saved”. It does not say be X, but assumes that they already are. Equally though it could be preached as an impossible standard we cannot reach in seeking justification by our works.

So the same words can have the different meanings for different people. God knew this so the Law of Moses was intended to be both life and death to people, just as the Gospel is (2 Corinthians 2:16). This may make interpretation of the different statements in the bible a whole lot easier (although it may be cheating).

What I'm up to

You are probably all very happy that things have gone quiet on this blog recently. Unfortunately I am busy at work at the moment and my law studies have restarted. This means I'll have less time to read, and blog, than God has graciously given me over the last few months.

However, I thought I'd let you know that I have decided after some deliberations to give the Puritans a second chance. I read a handful of books several years ago but could not understand what all the fuss was about. So I am joining the 2008 Puritan Reading Challenge, and going to try and get through 12 short Puritan books in 2008. Perhaps I'll give up half way through, but we'll see.

In preparation my commute has been to the sound of JI Packer's seriously English introductory lectures from 1988. Interestingly he relates how he had been trying to get a publisher to publish Richard Baxter's Christian Directory, which was one of just two books written by Puritans which was not occasional or based on sermons, and was actually designed to stand the test of time. The Banner of Truth apparently did not judge it sound enough! However it seems that he finally did manage to get someone to publish it in 1997.

On a more serious note, Packer makes a convincing case for understanding the Puritan movement as a revivalistic movement, which sheds a different light on things.

Meanwhile I'm also finding Lutheranism a strange and exciting new world of theology. The English-speaking evangelicalism that I know has always looked to the Reformed when it has got serious about theology. This seems clearest in that when people identify themselves as 'Reformed' in England they usually mean 'not Arminian', when of course the Arminians were 'Reformed' as well. Reading Lutheran theology I feel God confronting me, and interacting with me, in a way I have not felt since reading Calvin for the first time. Still I am not sure that I can agree with most of what distinguishes Lutheran from Reformed when it actually comes down to brass tacks. Nevertheless I can see the prophetic power that it must have had in the sixteenth century and still has now.

All very exciting but lots to do. Got to go.