Zacharias Ursinus on the Law’s Requirement of Perfect Obedience . . .

Does the law of God require perfect obedience, or is the law simply given to sinners who thereby are not expected to render perfect obedience to its demands? Aren’t those to whom the law is given called instead to live according to a reasonable degree of conformity to that law in order to be called “blameless” or “righteous?” After all, weren’t such Biblical characters as Job (Job 1.1, 8; 2.3; etc) and David (2 Sam 22.24) – among others – declared to be blameless (Heb: tam or tamiym)? If they were called blameless, doesn’t this then prove that one can be blameless apart from perfect obedience to the law, thereby concluding that the law must not actually require perfect obedience?

Zacharias Ursinus, one of the primary authors of the Heidelberg catechism didn’t see it this way. Here are some quotes from his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. (Note: here is the Kindle version I own.)

The comparing of ourselves with the law, or of the law with ourselves, is a consideration of that purity which the law requires, and whether it be in us. This comparison clearly proves that we are not what the law requires; for it [the law] demands perfect love to God, whilst there is nothing in us but aversion and hatred to him. The law, again, demands perfect love toward our neighbor; but in us there is enmity to our neighbor. (pg. 26)

And again:

The obedience of the law is possible in the regenerate, 1. As touching external propriety and discipline. 2. As it respects the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, or by the benefit of justification and regeneration which we obtain by faith. 3. As it respects the commencement of internal and external obedience in this life. . . . He that boasts that he knows and worships God, without the commencement of obedience, or regeneration, is a liar.

But the law is impossible to the regenerate in respect to God, or the perfect internal and external obedience which it requires. (pg. 608 )

Finally Ursinus answers a few objections. Two of them are considered here (I’ve added paragraph breaks to facilitate easier reading):

Obj. 4. The severity of divine justice does not render good according to works which are not perfectly good. But Christ in the final judgement will render to every one, and so to the saints also, according to their works. Therefore the works of the saints are so perfect that they will in themselves stand in the judgement of God.

Ans. There are here four terms; because the major must be understood of a legal reward of works, whilst the minor must be understood of a reward that is evangelical; or to express it differently, we may say that the justice of God does not render good according to works which are imperfect, if he judges according to the covenant of perfect obedience to the law.

But Christ, in rewarding the works of the saints, will not judge according to the covenant of perfect works, but according to the covenant of faith, or of his own righteousness imputed and applied to them by faith; and yet he will judge them according to their works, as according to the evidences of their faith, from which their works have proceeded, and which they, as the fruits of this faith, declare to be in them.

Obj. 5. The Scriptures attribute perfection to the works of the saints [Citation is made of Ps. 119: 1, 10; Gen. 6:9; 2 Chron. 15:17] . . . . Testimonies of a similar character are found in every part of the Scriptures. Therefore the works of the saints are perfect.

Ans. These and similar declarations of Scripture speak of that perfection which consists in parts, of true sincerity as opposed to hypocrisy, and a feigning of piety, and not of that perfection which consists in the degrees of obedience which the saints ought to render to God. For the saints do not in this life attain to that degree of perfect obedience which the law requires; yet they, nevertheless, have the commencement of perfect obedience to the divine law, and of subjection to God, according to all his commandments.

And although there is much hypocrisy and sin still remaining even in the most holy, as it is said, let every man be a liar (Rom. 3:4), yet there is notwithstanding a great difference between those who are altogether hypocrites, whose hypocrisy is pleasing to themselves, having no commencement or sense of true piety in their hearts, and those who, acknowledging and lamenting the remains of hypocrisy in themselves, have at the same time the commencement of true faith and conversion to God.

The former are condemned of God, whilst the latter are received into favor, not on account of this commencement of obedience which is in them, but on account of the perfect obedience of Christ imputed unto them.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

But, say our opponents, the Scriptures also attribute the perfection of degrees to the saints . . . . But these and similar declarations of scripture, do not mean by the term perfect, such as are absolutely or wholly conformable to the law, but such as have more knowledge, assurance and readiness (confirmed by exercise) to obey God, resist carnal desires, and to bear the cross, than others who are not so fully confirmed and established in the principles of piety. For so this perfection is elsewhere explained, where it is said [citation of Eph 4:13; Phil 3:12; Rom 7:18]. . . . Hence this perfection is relative, having respect, not to the divine law, but to such as are weaker and less confirmed in the faith of the gospel.

(Taken from pgs. 609-11; emphasis mine)

Ursinus makes it clear that even though the law does in fact demand perfect obedience, Christians can take heart in the fact that they will not be judged according to their own performance of that required obedience, but according to Christ’s performance of it. Ursinus ends with some amazing words of comfort:

And although regeneration is not perfect in this life, yet, if it be indeed begun, it is sufficient to confirm the truth of our faith to our consciences. And indeed that which John adds, when he says, Love casteth out fear, is a proof that love is not as yet perfect in us, because we are not in this life perfectly delivered from fear of the wrath and judgement of God, and of eternal punishment. For the fear and love of God, which are contrary to each other, are here in small degrees in the saints at the same time, their fear decreasing, and their love and comfort or joy in God increasing, until joy fains a complete triumph, and perfectly casts out all agitation and fear in the life to come, when God shall wipe away every tear. (pg. 611)

Amen! Come quickly Lord Jesus!

________________________
Rev. Andrew Compton
Christ Reformed Church
Anaheim, CA

Bavinck on Forgiveness

I’ve been really thrilled with Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4.  This volume is a wonderful conclusion to a very excellent Systematic Theology.  In chapter 3, Bavinck’s treatment of justification, I was impressed with his section entitled “Forgiveness in Scripture” (pgs. 182-86).  Here is one particular passage I found enlightening:

It is especially Paul, however, who puts justification in the foreground and works out its richest and deepest implications.  This is undoubtedly connected with his own life experience.  Having been a Pharisee, he had in all seriousness and with passionate zeal striven for a righteousness of his own based on observing the law.  But when it pleased God to reveal his Son to him, he saw the vanity of this attempt and sought his righteousness in God through Christ Jesus alone.  Yet also as a Christian Paul remains faithful to the forensic scheme. He does not fight the idea that God is just and that salvation can be obtained only through righteousness.  After coming to the faith, however, he differs from his earlier contemporaries about the way righteousness and salvation can become ours.  He combats Jewish nomism because, on account of sin, no flesh can be justified by the works of the law (Rom. 3:20; 8:3; Gal. 2:16); because then humans would always remain servants and be able to boast before God of their merits (Rom. 4:2, 5; Gal. 3:24-26; 4:1-7; cf. 1 Cor. 1:29; 4:7); in other words, humans would then live and labor for their own interest and make God subservient to it.  Hence Paul rejects the nomistic ethical principle and squarely bases himself on the religious position. But that does not alter the fact that the law as such is holy and just and good (Rom 7:12, 14; 1 Tim. 1:8; cf. also Rom. 3:31; 8:4; 13:8, 10; Gal. 5:14).  If there had not been sin, therefore, therefore it [the law] would also have been able to grant life through works (Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12).  But what the law by its very nature cannot do is grant forgiveness, which is precisely what we need. Paul, accordingly, while he does fight Jewish nomism, maintains the righteousness of God and proceeds from it in his soteriology.  He takes a theocentric position, in which God does not exist for humankind but humankind for God, and communion with God is not the result of our exertion but God’s free and unmerited gift.

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, IV: 183-84.  Bold emphasis mine.

Ahhh, nothing like the law/gospel distinction from that well known Lutheran theologian, Herman Bavinck!

_________________________
Andrew

Shane in Print on Two Important Subjects

Shane’s far too modest to draw attention to his work, but I noticed that two of his articles have made the list of “Selected Articles Published in The Outlook” over on The Outlook‘s website.

First, note his article on the law/gospel distinction evident in the Heidelberg Catechism entitled “The Two Parts of the Heidelberg Catechism: Law and Gospel.”

Second, his more recent article demonstrates that the doctrine of the covenant of works isn’t just affirmed by Presbyterians, but also has a long history within continental Reformed churches, in particular continental Reformed churches in the Netherlands. This article is entitled “The Covenant of Works in Dutch Reformed Orthodoxy.”

So there you have it. Way to go Lems! If you have a chance, check out the full list of articles here which includes articles written by folks like R. Scott Clark, David VanDrunen, Cornelis Venema, and Danny Hyde, to name only a few! Enjoy!

______________

Andrew

Law/Gospel and the NPP

Krister Stendahl (a huge figure in the NPP movement) began to suggest in the early 1960′s that the whole church has read Paul wrongly (i.e. introspectively) since Augustine.  Stendahl also did some work in the late ’60′s on the relationship between Judaism and Christianity; he was pleading for a new relationship based on a more Jewish and less Western Christian reading of Paul and the NT.  In this article he talked about anti-Semitism and the law/gospel distinction in Reformation theology.

After discussing what he calls the anti-semitist elements in the NT, he mentions a “more subtle…more powerful form of the anti-Jewish element in Christian theology to consider, especially in Protestantism and then most prominently in Lutheranism.  I refer to the theological model “Law and Gospel.” 

Wow.  This has many implications.  For one, he’s charging the Reformation law/gospel adherents of anti-semitism.   Any other implications come to mind?   Stay tuned for more on Stendahl….

Above quote taken from Krister Stendahl, “Judaism and Christianity: A Plea for a New Relationship” Cross Currents (1967: Fall), 450.  It originally appeared in the Fall 1967 Harvard Divinity Bulletin.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Law and Gospel: A Most Important Distinction

The distinguished Lutheran theologian, C. F. W. Walther gave a series of Friday night lectures from 1884-1885 for the seminary students at Concordia Seminary.  Thankfully, these lectures have been translated into English.  Though over 100 years old, they are still quite penetrating and helpful today. 

“The Law tells us what we are to do.  No such instruction is contained in the Gospel.  On the contrary, the Gospel reveals to us only what God is doing.  The Law is speaking concerning our works; the Gospel, concerning the great works of God.  In the Law we hear the tenfold summons, ‘Thou shalt.’  Beyond that the law has nothing to say to us.  The Gospel, on the other hand, makes no demands whatever.”

Uneasy?  Keep reading…

“But does not the Gospel demand faith?  Yes; that, however, is just the same kind of command as when you say to a hungry person, ‘Come, sit down at my table and eat.’  The hungry person will not reply: ‘Bosh! I will not take orders from you.’  No, he will understand and accept your words as a kind invitation.  That is what the Gospel is — a kind invitation to partake of heavenly blessings.”

This book is outstanding; I highly recommend it.

See C. F. W. Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel trans. W. H. T. Dau (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986), 9.

shane lems

sunnyside wa