Man curved in on himself

I've been wondering about the origin of this definition of sin for a while. Kelly Kapic unpacks it.

First Augustine identified that we stop loving God and start loving his material gifts:

"St Augustine spoke of sin as that which bends or curves us to the ground, making us more like the beasts and less like the God whom we were to image. He speculated that we were created to have our heads and hearts raised toward Yahweh, and that sin is that which turns our gaze from him."

Then

Martin Luther picked up this imagery in the Reformation, arguing that sin actually bends or curves us upon ourselves (homo incurvatus in se). We were disigned to embrace God and others, but instead we are now consumed with ourselves.

(p. 37, Kelly M. Kapic, With Justin L. Borger, God So Loved, He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity)

So we stop loving God and start loving ourselves. Finally, Melanchthon made the further step of locating that work in the heart.

Imperatives and indicatives

Wonderfully clear post from Tim Chester:

Think how you would summarise Ephesians 5:1 in your own words: 'Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children.'

I wonder if your summary focused on the call to imitate God or the description of Christians as 'dearly loved children'?

It is all too easy for us to hear only the commands of Scripture and miss the descriptions out of which they arise. The prescription to behave like God only makes sense as the outworking of the description that we are God’s children. The imperatives (commands) of the New Testament always arise out of the indicatives (description). We are already God's dearly loved children so let's live as God’s dearly loved children by imitating our Father.

Reading Paul, and to a lesser extent other Biblical writers, as arguing from indicative to imperative, is probably one of the most important things I've ever been taught. But I sometimes struggle to spell out exactly what it means. It is easy to trot out "be what you already are", but it is more difficult to explain what that really means.

Melanchthon in his commentary on Colossians 3:1 helpfully breaks it down into three things:

1. cause to effect - what will make us be
2. what is due from us - what we ought to be
3. what is possible - what we have the resources to be

I find that quite helpful in actually applying it to my life.

BTW this is my 500th post on this blog. Crazy stuff!

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)

Judas and Peter

A friend asked what the difference between Judas and Peter was given that both deserted Jesus, but one hung himself and the other became a pillar of the church.

The short answer is the unmerited grace of God, but was there any difference in their actions?

I promised I'd email some quotes from the Reformers for him. Here they are for what it's worth.

They [i.e. the Roman Catholics] teach that by contrition we merit grace. In reference to which, if any one should ask why Saul and Judas and similar persons, who were dreadfully contrite, did not obtain grace, the answer was to be taken from faith and according to the Gospel, that Judas did not believe, that he did not support himself by the Gospel and promise of Christ. For faith shows the distinction between the contrition of Judas and of Peter. But the adversaries take their answer from the Law, that Judas did not love God, but feared the punishments. Is not this teaching uncertain and improper things concerning repentance? When, however, will a terrified conscience, especially in those serious, true, and great terrors which are described in the psalms and the prophets, and which those certainly taste who are truly converted, be able to decide whether it fears God for His own sake out of love it fears God, as its God, or is fleeing from eternal punishments? These people may not have experienced much of these anxieties, because they juggle words and make distinctions according to their dreams. But in the heart, when the test is applied, the matter turns out quite differently, and the conscience cannot be set at rest with paltry syllables and words. These great emotions can be distinguished in letters and terms; they are not thus separated in fact, as these sweet sophists dream. Here we appeal to the judgments of all good and wise men who also desire to know the truth. They undoubtedly will confess that these discussions in the writings of the adversaries are very confused and intricate. And nevertheless the most important subject is at stake, the chief topic of the Gospel, the remission of sins. This entire doctrine concerning these questions which we have reviewed, is, in the writings of the adversaries, full of errors and hypocrisy, and obscures the benefit of Christ, the power of the keys, and the righteousness of faith to inexpressible injury of conscience [...]

faith [in Christ] shows the distinction between the contrition of Judas and Peter, of Saul and of David. The contrition of Judas or Saul is of no avail, for the reason that to this there is not added this faith, which apprehends the remission of sins, bestowed as a gift for Christ's sake. Accordingly, the contrition of David or Peter avails, because to it there is added faith, which apprehends the remission of sins granted for Christ's sake.

(Philip Melanchthon, The Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article XII (V): Of Repentance)

They [e.g. Philip Melanchthon] give Cain, Saul and Judas, as examples of legal repentance. Scripture, in describing what is called their repentance, means that they perceived the heinousness of their sins, and dreaded the divine anger; but, thinking only of God as a judge and avenger, were overwhelmed by the thought. Their repentance, therefore, was nothing better than a kind of threshold to hell, into which having entered even in the present life, they began to endure the punishment inflicted by the presence of an offended God. Examples of evangelical repentance we see in all those who, first stung with a sense of sin, but afterwards raised and revived by confidence in the divine mercy, turned unto the Lord. Hezekiah was frightened on receiving the message of his death, but praying with tears, and beholding the divine goodness, regained his confidence. The Ninevites were terrified at the fearful announcement of their destruction; but clothing themselves in sackcloth and ashes, they prayed, hoping that the Lord might relent and avert his anger from them. David confessed that he had sinned greatly in numbering the people, but added "Now, I beseech thee O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant." When rebuked by Nathan, he acknowledged the crime of adultery, and humbled himself before the Lord; but he, at the same time, looked for pardon. Similar was the repentance of those who, stung to the heart by the preaching of Peter, yet trusted in the divine goodness, and added, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Similar was the case of Peter himself, who indeed wept bitterly, but ceased not to hope...Though all this is true, yet the term repentance (in so far as I can ascertain from Scripture) must be differently taken [Calvin was much more concerned with words in systematics corresponding with the biblical usage].

(John Calvin, Institutes 3.3.4-5)

An Anatomy of Christian Righteousness

Listening to: Franz Schubert: Piano Sonatas (Uchida)

"Our theology" said Luther, consisted of a distinction between two kinds of righteousness:

the active and the passive, so that morality and faith, works and grace, secular society and religion may not be confused. Both are necessary, but both must be kept within their limits. (Lectures on Galatians, 1531-1535, cited in p.21 The Genius of Luther's Theology)

Melanchthon in his commentary on Colossians 2:10-15, the consummate teacher (rather than preacher), offers an anatomy of our passive/Christian righteousness. First he observes that for Paul the definition of Christian Righteousness is "In Christ you are complete" (NIV: "you have been given fullness in Christ"). He further analyses things by observing two differences between Christian and human Righteousness:

1. "Christian righteousness satisfies God, because it believes that the Father has forgiven for Christ's sake" [DK: Christ acts on the Father]
2. "the Holy Spirit, who puts the flesh to death, brings Christian righteousness into being" [DK: Christ acts on us]. This is further divided into:
   1. putting to death: "Putting to death, or repentance, is to recognize sin and to be truly afraid of God's judgement"; and
   2. bringing to life: "Bringing to life is for the conscience the conscience being raised up through faith or trust; for it to seize hold of the consolation of believing that God has forgiven one's sins for Christ's sake". This "Making alive contains two things":
      1. "taking away a bad conscience. For, when God has forgiven sins, he effects peace and joy in our hearts through faith. After that, we dare to be sure he has forgiven us, and dare to call him Father"
      2. "governing through the Holy Spirit.... in the kingdom of Christ, where he watches over them through the Hoy Spirit [and] defends them against the snares of the devil"

PS: I know I must stop posting with titles like this one. It almost seems heretical.

More random thoughts, this time on fear

Listening to: Antony and the Johnsons: I Am a Bird Now

Stream of conciousness blogging...

When Martin Luther expounded the 10 commandments in his Small Catechism he began every explanation with "We should fear and love God....". Fear and love/Law and Gospel/Repentance and faith etc. The two sides the Christian life are fundamental to Lutheran spirituality, and I think to the Bible too. But the language of fear is something that I really struggle with. I've been thinking about it a bit recently as I've come across things all over the place which have challenged me to think.

For example, Mark 4:35-5:20 which describes Jesus performing two miracles. In the first he stills a storm. In the second he casts out demons into some pigs. In both the reaction of the people is fear. The disciples fear him, but keep following him. The second group fear him, and ask him to depart from their region.... Is the first a good fear and the second a bad fear? In which case what is it about the fear which is good/bad? Is it what it leads to... i.e. pushing Jesus away, or clinging to him?

Perhaps, but what about Luke 5:1-10? Again Jesus performs a miracle and people are afraid. Peter falls on his knees and says "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord". He is pushing Jesus away, and Jesus responds by telling him "Do not be afraid".

Is that good fear or bad fear? Presumably good, but Jesus doesn't think it is appropriate!

But maybe that is because fear is the beginning of wisdom, but not the end. Fear is good at pushing us into the arms of love, but then be left behind. Verses could be multiplied to show this is not the case, but one striking example was brought up by Richard Coekin in the A Passion for Life DVDs the men in our church are watching. Looking at 2 Corinthians 5-6 he helpfully drew out four motivations for evangelism:

1. The fear of Christ (5:11)
2. The love of Christ (5:14)
3. The commission of Christ (5:20)
4. The day of Christ (6:1-2)

Surely the fear of Christ which motivates us to evangelism is fear for the sake of those who don't believe? Well, 2 Corinthians 5 doesn't seem to say that. Christians will appear before the judgment seat of Christ (5:10) "therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others" (5:11). It is fear for ourselves that motivates us!

Discussing the Richard Coekin video at church this morning a friend said that he understood the fear of God, but not the love. I think he meant experientially rather than intellectually. I think I understand both experientially to some degree, but I really don't understand fear intellectually. In my heart I felt that he had too much of the fear of death and condemnation that we have been freed from (Romans 8:1-17; Hebrews 2:15). But I'm not sure that I was right. I do feel that we too often take the freedom described to mean that 'fear of God' for Christians is an insipid 'respect' or 'reverence' without any fear of punishment. This doesn't seem to be what the Bible describes, and besides it all just seems too neat. Fear isn't so easily packaged as Melachthon commented:

when will a terrified conscience, especially in those serious, genuine, and great terrors that are described in the Psalms and the Prophets and certainly experienced by those who are truly converted, be able to determine whether it fears God on account of himself or in fear is fleeing eternal punishments? These two great impulses can be distinguished on paper, but they cannot be separated in real life, as these slick sophists dream. (p.189, Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Article XII: Repentance, BOC)

Sorry for the mess that is this post. It reflects the mess my mind is in on this issue! But at least nobody can accuse me of being a "slick sophist"!

Any thoughts?

Law and Gospel in the whole bible

Feel free to pass over this post as I do bang on about it a lot. I just wanted to note down this quotation because otherwise I won't be able to find it again:

The whole of Scripture is in some parts law, in others gospel. The books of Moses in some sections propound the law, in others the gospel, and moreover the gospel is concealed in the very law itself. For what can you find more evangelical than that promise which the Spirit of God added as the etiology of the First Commandment: "Showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments" (Deut. 5:10)? And see how suddenly Moses is transformed from lawgiver to evangelist, that is, a herald of grace and mercy, when he says in Ex. 34:6 f.: "The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast lover and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty." Try to find a more evangelical pasage in the whole New Testament [...]

In like manner, Christ expounds law, for grace cannot be preached without law. [...]

Often, to be sure, Christ also preaches law, because without law sin cannot be recognized and unless we experience sin, we shall not understand the power and fullness of grace. Therefore, both law and gospel ought to be preached at the same time, and both sin and grace ought to be made clear.

(pp. 73-77, 'Loci Communes' (1521) in LCC: Melanchthon and Bucer)

Assurance of things hoped for

Probably Philip Melanchthon's most quoted comment was 'to know Christ means to know his benefits' (p.21, 'Loci Communes' (1521) in LCC: Melanchthon and Bucer). However, often people just read the immediate context of the quote and take him to mean that we should prioritise knowing about the work of Christ over his person. But that is not really what he is writing about. Instead it is concerned with one of his major concerns in the Loci, which is to overturn the Roman Catholic understanding of faith.

For Melanchthon the knowledge of Christ 'is faith alone' (p. 106, ibid). Faith is not just belief that some things are true, it is that God has promised salvation to me. For the Reformers assurance was an absolutely central part of faith, and this pervades all of Melanchthon's Loci:

'You see, then, that "the assurance of things hoped for" is called "faith." Therefore, those who do not hope for the promised salvation do not believe. "But," you will say, "I believe that salvation was promised, but that it will come to others." For thus the flesh thinks. But listen! These promises are made to you also, are they not? Has not the gospel been preached to all the nations? You do not really believe, therefore, unless you believe that salvation has been promised to you also.' (p.97, ibid)

In fact you can see her that assurance is not just part of faith, but faith itself for Melanchthon. In this he is following Luther who defines faith as 'a living, daring confidence in God's grace' (p.101, 'Preface to the Epistle of St Paul to the Romans' Luther's Basic Theological Writings). Melanchthon refuses to even give the name 'faith' to belief that is not assurance of receiving the benefits of Christ, instead he terms it 'frigid opinion' (p.100, Loci).

Carl Trueman observes that the Puritans saw this understanding of faith as potentially damaging to fragile spirits. They did not respond by going all the way back to the Roman Catholic position of denying it is possible to be assured of salvation, but they denied that it was a necessary attribute of faith. In the WCF Chapter 18 we read that 'his infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it'.

I'm not sure who was right really. But I cannot help observing that it is undeniable that when the Puritans said they believed in justification by faith, they meant something quite different to the Reformers (and especially the Lutheran reformers). For the Lutherans faith=assurance. For the Puritans faith led to assurance.

Things are a lot messier than we would like to believe sometimes.

... I know the position we take will affect our encouragement of other Christians, I wonder if it would affect our evangelism too.

Too much of a good thing?

It is often commented that we live in an information rich age. In 2005 206,000 new titles were published in the UK (can you believe that! that is more than any other country, even the US!), and we have easier access to those that are out of print than we did in the past. In addition we have countless other sources of information.

It is not a new problem though. Over 2000 years ago before there were too many books and the Teacher complained that 'Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh' (Ecclesiastes 12:12)... I wonder if he saw the irony as he added to the pile.

Luther saw the problem he created by writing so much (the English translation of some of his works numbers 55 volumes) when he wrote in his Preface to the Wittenberg Edition of his German writings that:

I shudder to think of the example I am giving, for I am well aware how little the church has been profited since they have begun to collect many books and large libraries, in addition to and besides the Holy Scriptures, and especially since they have stored up, without discrimination, all sorts of writings by the church fathers, the councils, and teachers. Through this practice not only is precious time lost, which could be used for studying the Scriptures, but in the end the pure knowledge of the divine Word is also lost, so that the Bible lies forgotten.

Philip Melanchthon was a true disciple when he also constantly apologised for writing so much. In his 1521 Loci he ends his very restrained work by recognising that it is good to write on good things, but that it can have bad results:

I think I have done well to discuss such important topics more briefly than I should have done, lest with misplaced diligence I call someone away from the Scripture to my disputations.

The problem is not always that we spend our time doing bad things instead of good, but that we spend time on good things and displace the best. I was reminded this when I observed on Sunday that my church was about to embark on some new thing. Our pastor rightly explained how this thing was good and Biblical, but then inferred that it therefore should be done (not seeing that A needn't imply B). This week I've realised that what is true of my church is true of me too. For example, I have got an unusually long list of good 'must read' books on my shelf at the moment but they do crowd out other things, including reading the Scriptures.

At the heart of this problem of not prioritising, or ordering our loves (?!), is that we don't want to accept that we are finite. We want to do a million things well. We just can't. We have to accept that we are not God. We cannot sustain the whole world by our action, comprehend all knowledge, or enjoy all good things we have been given.

I need to learn this, and our churches need to learn it as well.

The three uses of the law

1. 'The first is the pedagogical or civil use, for God wills that all men be compelled by the discipline of the Law, even the unregenerate, not to commit outward sins'.
2. 'it is a second and very important use of the law of God to show our sin and to accuse, to terrify, and to condemn all men in this misuse of human nature. For the law of God which has been revealed to men is a perpetual judgment which condemns sin in the entire human race'
3. 'The third use of the Law pertains to the regenerate. Insofar as the regenerate have been justified by faith they are free from the Law... that is, from the curse and condemnation and the wrath of God which is set forth in the Law ...[Yet] the law must be preached to the regenerate to teach them certain works in which God wills that we practice obedience. For God does not will that we by our own wisdom set up works or worship'.

All quotes from Philipp Melanchthon's Loci Communes (1543) translated by JAO Preus, pp. 72-74.

See also

Luther recommends...

These are books that Luther himself recommends your read:

'by 1537, when he wrote to Wolfgang Capito that along with his catechism the treatment of bound choice was his best work: "none of my works is worth anything except" the catechism and De servo arbitrio [The Bondage of the Will], he said.' (p. 15, Robert Kolb, Bound Choice, Election and Wittenberg Theological Method)

'Luther was extremely critical when it came to judging the value of his own books. The commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1531-35), the exposition of the Book of Deuteronomy (1523), and his sermons on four chapters of the Gospel of John (1528-29) he thought worth preserving because they were his only works really to contain theological teachings. He found the rest of his writings interesting solely from a historical point of view' (p. 168, Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil).

'[Erasmus' arguments] have been refuted already so often by me, and beaten down and completely pulverized in Philip Melanchthon's Commonplaces [Loci Communes] - an unanswerable little book which in my judgment deserves not only to be immortalized but even canonized.' (p.102, Martin Luther, Introduction to The Bondage of the Will in Luther and Erasumus: Free Will and Salvation)

'It is a result of God's providence that the writings of Cato and Aesop have remained in the schools, for both are significant books. Cato contains the most useful sayings and precepts. Aesop contains the most delightful stories and descriptions. Moral teachings, if offered to young people, will contribute much to their edification. In short, next to the Bible, the writings of Cato and Aesop are in my opinion the best' (pp. 210–211, Martin Luther, "Table Talk Recorded by Anthony Lauterbach and Jerome Weller, 1536-1537" in Luther's Works, Volume 54: Table Talk, HT Tony Reinke)

These are books that Joachim Mörlin (1514-1571), the prominent early Lutheran theologian, and former student of Luther, suggested you read:

"Mörlin counseled beginning with the Small Catechism, for its three parts—law, gospel, and the table of responsibilities in the callings of daily life—summarize the entire Word of God. From the Small Catechism the reader should move to the Large Catechism and then to those works of Luther which summarize basic Christian teaching: the Schwabach Articles, the Confession Concerning Christ's Supper (1528), the Smalcald Articles, the Instruction for Visitors (1528), and the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, which Mörlin, like many of his contemporaries, counted among Luther's works as well as Melanchthon's. For learning the proper distinction of law and gospel the reader should turn to the Galatians commentary of 1535. Mörlin commended On the Last Words of David for its treatment of the 2nd article of the Creed, and On the Councils and the Church and Against Hanswurst for their treatment of the 3rd article. The Genesis commentary would summarize and complete the study of Luther's thought...

...The works of the earlier Luther, particularly the great trilogy of 1520—The Freedom of the Christian, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, and The Open Letter to the German Nobility—were not on the lists, although they do appear on most such lists today."

(pp. 192-193, Robert Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero, HT Benjamin Mayes)

The purposes of sacraments

Philip Melanchthon lists (he is great at lists) the following purposes of the sacraments:

1. 'they are signs of God's will toward us, or testimonies of promised grace'
2. 'confession' of what we believe
3. 'distinction from other groups'
4. 'so that [God's] name might be celebrated and doctrine spread'
5. 'a reminder of many obligations. First of giving thanks to God, then of mutual kindness of members of the church'

However, as I've already quoted:

although many purposes have been ordained for the sacraments, yet far at the head of all of these must be placed this chief purpose, namely that they might be signs of God's will toward us, that is, added testimonies of the promise of grace

(p. 139, Loci Communes (1543))

This is not an example of the Reformers being unable to escape from Catholicism, but of them listening to Scripture:

Jewish baptism was political and ritualistic, whereas John's baptism was ethical and eschatological (similar to Ps 51:7; Is 1:15-16; 4:4; Jer 2:22; 4:14; Ezek 36:25; Zech 13:1). Gramatically there is an important distinction to be observed. The NT uses active and passive (primarily) forms of bapto and baptizo, while texts referring to Jewish proselyte baptism primarily employ middle or reflexive forms (Oepke, 530-35). Thus what was self-administered in Judaism was seen more as an act of God and surrender to him in early Christianity.

(p. 97, G Beasley-Murray, "Baptism I: Gospels" in IVP Dictionary of the NT)

FYI, Calvin isn't quite as good as Melancthon at clearly ordering the purposes although he is better than most Protestants today:

[a sacrament] is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels as well as men. (Insitutes 4.14.1)

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.

Reformers on the frequency of the Lord's Supper

Calvin

'No meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Supper and almsgiving' (Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.44).

'the Lord's Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians' (Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.46)

Luther

'As oft as ye do it, it is nevertheless implied that we should do it often; and it is added for the reason that He wishes to have the Sacrament free, not limited to special times, like the Passover of the Jews, which they were obliged to eat only once a year, and that just upon the fourteenth day of the first full moon in the evening, and which they must not vary a day. As if He would say by these words: I institute a Passover or Supper for you which you shall enjoy not only once a year, just upon this evening, but often, when and where you will, according to every one's opportunity and necessity, bound to no place or appointed time; although the Pope afterwards perverted it, and again made a Jewish feast of it.' (Luther, Large Catechism, The Sacrament of the Altar)

'people should be told in sermons to receive Communion three or four times a year in order that, strengthened by the Word, them may afterward fall asleep' (p.305, Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel ed. and trans. Theodore G. Tappert [1539])

'we should not compel anyone to believe or to receive the Sacrament and should not fix any law or time or place for it. Instead, we should preach in such a way that the people make themselves come without our law and just plain compel us pastors to administer the Sacrament to them....if they believed that they possessed so much evil and needed so much good, they would not neglect the Sacrament...they would come on their own, rushing and running to it; they would compel themselves to come and would insist that you give them the Sacrament' (Luther, Preface to the Small Catechism)

'the whole congregation should come together on Sundays, and mass and Vespers be sung, as has been customary. In both services there should be preaching for the whole congregation, in the morning on the Gospel for the day, in the evening on the Epistle...If anyone desires to receive the sacrament at thhis time, let it be administered at a time convenient to all concerned.

'The daily masses should be completely discontinued; for the Word is important annd not the mass. But if any should desire the sacrament during the week, let mass be held as inclination and time dictate; for in this matter one cannot make hard and fast rules.' (p.377, 'Concerning the Order of Public Worship' in Selected Writings of Martin Luther: 1520-1523, ed. Theodore G. Tappert)

Others

'For among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved.' (Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 14.1)

'The day when the Lord's Supper is ministered, which commonly is used once a month, or so oft as the congregation shall think expedient' (Knox, Genevan Book of Order (1556))

In Zwingli's Zurich the 'communion service was to be held four times in the year, - at Easter, Whitsunday, autumn, and Christmas' (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII: Modern Christianity. The Swiss Reformation, The Reformation In Zurich. 1519-1526, § 20. The Reformed Celebration of the Lord’s Supper)

Melanchthon on the Qur'an

Did you know that in 1543 Martin Luther had a significant role in the publication of a Latin edition of the Qur'an? He wrote the preface and Philip Melanchthon wrote a 'warning to the Christian Reader'. Melanchthon had a number of points to raise, one of which was to 'compare types of teachings' between religions. This is what he found:

• Mohammed 'says nothing in favor of the forgiveness of sins'.
• 'He spews forth blasphemies upon the Son of God'.
• 'He does not teach what sin is'.
• 'nor does he demonstrate the causes of human misfortune'
• 'He is incapable of saying anything about true prayer in faith'.
• 'Finally, he completely rejects that teaching which belongs to the Gospel'.

I really need to get round to reading the Qur'an at some stage, but I suspect if I did I would come up with a different list. Nevertheless I think Melanchthon's list is better than one that I would write. I probably would never have thought of observing the lack of an explanation for 'causes of human misfortune' (how important is that for living life?) or teaching on 'true prayer in faith' (what a blessing that is!).

(Quotes from "Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and the Publication of the Qur'an" by J Paul Rajashekar and Timothy J. Wengert, in Lutheran Quarterly Vol 26 (2002) pp. 221-228)

Did Luther believe justification by faith was a legal fiction?

Paul Helm doesn't like a similarity in Richard Baxter and Tom Wright's theology of justification. He says that both believe "Justification is not a change of status, but of persons.". This may or may not be true, but consider Kolb and Arand on Martin Luther's theology of Justification:

Those who see this form of forensic justification as merely a legal fiction do not share Luther’s understanding of the power of the Word of God. The reformer knew that from the beginning of the world, God determined reality by speaking. Therefore, he was certain that God’s word of forgiveness created a new reality in the life of the sinner.

(I heard something similar in audio from them, but this is from their book, HT Shephard's Scrapbook)

So for Luther the key thing is not whether justification is a declaration or regeneration. It is both. The question is which comes first in priority.

There is a book out there by Lowell Green that argues that Melancthon "helped Luther discover the Gospel", by which he means forensic justification (or so I understand). In the Apology to the Augsburg Confession Melancthon states that:

by faith alone we obtain the remission of sins for Christ's sake, and that by faith alone we are justified, i.e., of unrighteous men made righteous, or regenerated.

Some connections could be drawn here with speech-act theory. Unsurprisingly though Anthony Thiselton got there first. He has an article called 'Justification by grace as legal fiction? : "language-games and 'seeing as' : a fresh approach to justification by faith in Paul and James"' (in Thiselton on Hermeneutics). I'll have to see if I can get hold of it.

The sacraments as God's arrow down

Glen Scrivener comments that Mike Reeves says that "the sacraments are not our 'arrow up' to God and the world. They’re His 'arrow down'. His promise to us, not our promise to Him." I was reminded of that comment when reading Melanchthon today who writes in his Loci Communes (1543):

Profane people think that the sacraments are signs of profession which distinguish us from other people [...] or are symbols of certain functions regarding other people [...] But although many purposes have been ordained for the sacraments, yet far at the head of all of these must be placed this chief purpose, namely that they might be signs of God's will toward us, that is, added testimonies of the promise of grace [...] These rites are not human spectacles like the tragedies of the Greeks, which were set up so that some kind of commemoration of things done might be handed down to posterity; but they have far higher purposes. (p.139)

Luther and Erasmus on the gospel and salvation history

Where Erasmus viewed the Scripture in terms of salvation history and placed Jesus' sayings and the Gospels at the center (ad fontes! [= "to the sources"]), Melanchthon found the scopus [goal] of the Scripture in Romans and justification by faith alone. Where Luther and Melanchthon both distinguished between law and gospel in the Scripture, Erasmus consistently constructed a grand unity between the two, culminating in the philosophia Christi, an overarching moral construal of the gospel in which Christ provided the Christian with an ideal example. Thus Erasmus centered his description of the gospel in the creation of a Christian people, not in the forgiveness of sins. His appeal for harmony and concord reflected the very center of Christ's gospel for him.

(Review of Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness: Philip Melanchthon's Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam by Timothy Wengert, Trinity Journal, Spring 1999 by Scheck, Tom)

Sound familiar?

Of course the big danger in reading about church history is that you start off deciding who is orthodox before you even find out what was being taught. Before you know it instead of being concerned to be looking through biblical eyes, you start looking through Martin Luther's, Philipp Melanchton's, or whoever your Christian hero is.

So I have to be careful. By stating that X thought something does not mean that we should pre-judge anything. As Erasmus and the Reformers said, ad fontes!

Philip Melanchthon v. John Agricola the rematch

Is there any point in reading a book entitled Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon's Debate With John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentia which documents a debate between two Lutheran theologians in the 1520s? When I first bought it I was concerned that it was purely for my personal interest and had no relevance for serving God in the 21st century. However strikingly this debate has never ended although few seem to know its roots. A recent example would be the brouhaha within Young Life in the US (HT Justin Taylor). Christianity Today describes that following challenges the Young Life leadership have produced a statement requiring a certain presentation of the gospel:

YL's eight-page Non-Negotiables statement requires a sequence for gospel presentations that closely resembles Campus Crusade for Christ's Four Spiritual Laws. [...] evangelists should explain the reality and consequences of sin before presenting the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and his resurrection. Talks end with an invitation to believe, become a disciple of Jesus, and publicly proclaim one's faith.

YL seems to line up with Melanchthon in this fight. Melanchthon held that the Law should be preached to bring people into a realisation of their sin, and to make them fear God in his wrath against them. They should then confess their sin and accept forgiveness in Jesus' sacrifice. Love for God and righteousness would flow out of this.

Agricola believed the only use of the law was to increase the volume of sin and so show the power and horror of the sin. However it had no role in conversion or the Christian life. Where as 'Poenitentia' meant guilt and contrition for Melanchthon and was a necessary step before forgiveness could be received, for Agricola the highest form of 'Poenitentia' was not to do the sin again. Agricola could see no difference between the contrition of Melanchthon and that of Judas following his betrayal. Agricola believed that 'Poenitentia' was a result of the gospel and not a result of the law.

That is a brief summary but I feel the strength of Agricola's beliefs, although I can also see its dangers.

The danger with studying historical theology is that you start knowing who was your father in the faith, who came out on the winning side and who was dismissed as a heretic. Instead of listening to God's word you listen to the evangelical church fathers. However, it is also good to check yourself before backing the predetermined 'wrong' side. Melanchthon won the day in the 16th century. His influence can be seen from John Wesley's preaching to the 'Four Spiritual Laws'. However, it seems that Evangelicalism is drifting decisively towards Agricola for the first time in its history. Is this a good thing? I still haven't decided, but I am 100% sure that it has a massive difference to my witness to my friends which side I do decide to back.

Away for a week or so

I've got my last essay of the year due in next week so I'm going to have to suspend my thinking about justification - and my blogging about it.

I've just read 'Luther, Melanchthon and Paul on the Question of Imputation: recommendations on a current debate' by Mark Seifrid (him again) in (Justification: What's at Stake in the Current Debates ed Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier). It was very interesting so I'm going to read it again and blog on it once I have finished my essay (although Peter Leithart (yes him again too) has summarised it probably better than I will anyway).

I've never really read much about (never mind by) Philipp Melanchthon. However I think I can already make one confident assertion about him... he was the funniest looking fellow of all the reformers.