The Uses of the Law

When the Reformed and Lutheran scholastics talked about God’s moral law (lex moralis), they taught that there are three basic uses of the law (usus legis).  They are:

1) The civil use (usus politicus sive civilis).  That is, the law serves the commonwealth or body politic as a force to restrain sin.  This falls under the general revelation (revelatio generalis) discussion in most of the scholastics as well as natural law (cf. Rom 1-2).

2) The pedagogical use (usus elenchticus sive paedagogicus).  That is, the law also shows people their sin and points them to mercy and grace outside of themselves.  In Muller’s summary, this is “the use of the law for the confrontation and refutation of sin and for the purpose of pointing the way to Christ” (p. 320).  This can be found in the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Days 2-4.

3) The normative use (usus didacticus sive normativus).  That is, this use of the law is for those who trust in Christ and have been saved through faith apart from works.  It “acts as a norm of conduct, freely accepted by those in whom  the grace of God works the good” (p. 321).  This can be found in the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Days 32-52.

Note: “In this model, Christ appears as the finis legis, or end of the law, both in the sense that the usus paedagogicus leads to Christ as to a goal and in the sense that the usus normativus has become a possibility for man only because Christ has fulfilled the law in himself” (Ibid.).  In other words, in both the pedagogical use and the normative use Christ is central as the one who has saved his people from the law’s demands and the one who has merited the gift of Spirit-wrought obedience.

You can read a bit more in Muller’s Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Reformers, Scholastics, and Hosea 6.7: Exegesis and Covenant

Richard Muller, in Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (PRRD) volume II on Holy Scripture, uses Hosea 6.7 to show two things: first, continuity between the patristic and medival commentators and Reformation/Post-Reformation commentators.  Second, he uses it to show the Reformation development of the pre-fall covenant.

Does Hosea 6.7 talk about Adam breaking the pre-fall covenant (covenant of works in Reformed theology) or men breaking covenant in general?  Muller notes that the majority of patristic and medieval commentators concluded that the Vulgate was accurate here: ipsi autem sicut Adam transgressi sunt pactum (like Adam they transgressed the covenant) (p. 437).

In the Reformation and post-Reformation exegetical tradition, while a few argued for “like man” in Hosea 6.7, most commentators stuck with the prevailing historical exegetical conclusion that “like Adam” is the preferable translation.  Muller notes that though Reformation covenant theology did not use this text as the locus classicus (chief text) to prove the covenant of works, it was one of many places in Scripture that the federal theologians would use to describe and explain the pre-fall covenant.  In Muller’s words, “Hosea 6.7 was not viewed as crucial to the establishment of the basic doctrine of a prelapsarian covenant, but was nevertheless almost invariably cited as an indication that the fall into sin was the abrogation of a primal covenant” (p. 438).  As an interesting side note, the “minority” view of Hosea 6.7 (like man) was captured in the KJV.

As another interesting side note, Muller argues (well, in my opinion) that the “majority” use of Hosea 6.7 indicates the “ongoing relationship of English to Dutch and German Reformed theology, where the tradition of translation had long favored the translation ‘like Adam’” (p. 440).  It may also show the influence of the Dutch Annotations upon the Whole Bible on the Westminster divines.  In simpler terms, the agreement on the use of this text to argue for a pre-fall covenant shows how the Presbyterian and Dutch/German Reformed theologians were well on the same page of covenant theology.

Historical theology is a teacher.  First, it teaches the importance of the history of exegesis.  Second, it teaches that the Reformers’ use of proof-texts was not rationalistic.  This is a great humble and careful use of proof texts: we use them, but at the end of the day if they are debatable, we use other clearer parts of scripture to make the point.  We don’t base doctrines on a single, debatable text.  This is exactly what we mean by the analogia Scripturae: clear and unambiguous texts are the basis for interpreting unclear or ambiguous texts.  We don’t need the latter, nor bend and mold them to make our point, but we do rest on the former because they have bended and molded us to see the point.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

God’s Will, the Law, and the Gospel

True or False: the Law/gospel distinction was such an intrinsic part of Reformation and post-reformation Reformed theology that it was even discussed under the will of God (voluntas Dei) in Systematics? (Note: to get our “systematic bearings” in place, the “will of God” is frequently discussed under the communicable attributes of God.)

True. Under the ad extra distinctions (the outward or external, historical works of God), several Reformed scholastics listed voluntas legalis and voluntas evangelica.  In other words, one of the distinctions of God’s revealed will is that of law and gospel.

So Ussher: “The revealed will of God is two-fold: the one is that which is properly revealed in the Law, that is, what God requireth to be done of us: and therefore it is called the Law…. The other is the Gospel, which sheweth God’s will towards us, and what he hath decreed of us in his eternal counsel as touching our salvation” (Body of Divinity, p. 52).

Richard Muller also notes a similar emphasis of Zachini in De Natura Dei and Polanus in Syntagma.  See Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, III.444, 473.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Scripture’s Clarity, Scope, Fundamentals and Their Implications for Christian Humility

Several different topics of Reformed Scholasticism along with the Jerry Bridges book I’m reading (Respectable Sins), made me consider one area of practical Christian humility: being humble in doctrinal matters. Someone here suggested that Bridges’ section on “Doctrinal Pride” – the sinful pride that we are superior because our doctrine is “superior” – showed that Bridges was a bit soft on this part. Basically, Bridges argues that we can and should hold our doctrinal convictions strongly, but with humility and love for those with whom we disagree (see pages 92-93). I’ve come to agree with Bridges, as I made some deductions from Richard Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics.

I’m thinking of these three areas of Reformed theology specifically. 1) The scope of Scripture (scopus Scripturae), 2) The fundamental articles of the faith (articuli fundamentales), and 3) The perspicuity of Scripture (perspicuitas Scripturae sacrae). Let me explain:

1) The scope or “bullseye” of Scripture is the gospel of Jesus Christ. In Muller’s summary of the Reformers, “The center of Scripture…is the redemptive significance of Christ at the very heart of God’s saving revelation” (PRRD, II.208).

2) The fundamental articles of the faith are the main principles of the Christian faith which one must believe for salvation. In Reformed scholastic language, the fundamentals are the “primary rudiments of Christian Religion” (see Muller, PRRD, I.416). These are central teachings of the Christian faith: they are “drawn directly from Scripture and teach of salvation in Christ” (Muller, PRRD, I.419).

3) The perspicuity of Scripture means that the fundamental doctrines are stated clearly and plainly (Muller, PRRD, II.325). Or, in Trelcatius’ notes, though not all things in Scripture are equally clear to all people, the things that pertain to salvation are sufficiently clear (Ibid.). This, of course, overlaps with the sufficiency of Scripture.

What do these three have to do with doctrinal humility? Well, as Bridges notes, we do have to stand up for doctrinal and biblical convictions. Using Reformed terms, we have to fight for and uphold the perspicuous fundamentals of Scripture and the scope of Scripture: the biblical teaching of the gospel of salvation by faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone for God’s glory alone. There is the overarching and undeniably clear scope of Scripture: God’s recorded redemptive plan is that Jesus saves his people from sin. We must, at all costs, uphold this essential truth of Scripture – we must hold it with what I call “strong and humble conviction.”

Also, on the non-fundamentals, the “non-scope,” and the non-perspicuous things we must show extra humility, if that makes sense. This also has to do with a previous post of mine on certainty – the “less certain” things in Scripture should induce all the more humility in us. One seminary professor of mine taught a non-fundamental/scope/perspicuous doctrine right out of Scripture passionately for a few hours; he had me convinced. At the end of his lecture, he – with genuine humility – said, “I could be wrong. See you tomorrow.” I was confused at first, but now I see that this is what “doctrinal humility” is about.

Come to think of it, our teaching of total depravity should also factor in here. As I heard from the time I was a kid, Calvinists should be the most humble people on the face of this earth.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

On Certainty in the Christian Life

Reading through Vanhoozer’s Drama of Doctrine a couple of years ago, I made a mental note of his discussion on certainty in the Christian faith. I loved the book, but was wrestling over his critique of absolute or apodictic certainty in the faith. After all, aren’t we certain that God exists and that our sins are forgiven in Christ?

Concerning certainty, the Reformed scholastics have much to say, especially in the light of Descartes’ “clear and distinct” standard of truth. For example, Turretin notes that there are three species of certainty 1) mathematical, 2) moral, and 3) theological (Institutes, II.iv.22).

Mathematical certainty (a.k.a. metaphysical certainty) has to do with things known by nature and things demonstrated by nature. For example, 1 + 1 = 2. This is metaphysically or mathematically certain: you can see and prove it and it is known by nature.

Moral certainty has to do with truth that cannot be demonstrated, but are so clear that all sensible men agree upon them. For example, we know that Abraham Lincoln was the president of the U.S. during the Civil War.

Theological certainty has to do with the truths that cannot be demonstrated or known by nature or empirical evidence, but truths that are founded on things divine – i.e. revelation. Scripture is this revelation, and it does not belong to the mathematically certain category, else faith would not be required. Neither does Scripture belong to the moral certainty category, else our faith would simply be historical assent, much like our assent to the fact that Lincoln was the president during the Civil War. We are theologically certain, however, that God is God and that Jesus died to save his people from their sins. Saving faith carries with it a “certain certainty.”

R. Muller describes the Reformed scholastic teaching of certainty this way: “Since God is neither a natural principle nor a thing that can be known immediately through itself, but rather is known through his self-revelation, theology has its own species of certainty, related to the way of knowing that is specific to theology: faith. This definition, although not at all polemically stated, does have a gently anti-Cartesian edge in its denial of mathematical certainty” (PRRD, I.412).

Of course, this has everything to do with our finiteness, sinfulness, ectypal and analogical knowledge, and our “pilgrim” theology. We are not gods, nor do we have God-like archetypal and univocal certainty. Yet what we have is sufficient – theological certainty, or certainty of faith that “God is” and that the gospel is true for us.

This is helpful for our own wrestlings in the Christian life; it chases sinful doubts, and it frees us up from trying to attain mathematical certainty for things divine. It is also quite helpful for apologetic purposes, as we can show skeptics who want “proof” that they are pressing Christianity into wrong categories – categories that they themselves keep distinct in their daily lives.

Thanks, Scholastics!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

On Rejecting Reformed Scholasticism

Reading through Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (PRRD) is a profound experience. In these pages, one learns how the fibers of the Reformation and Reformed teaching are found in the early and medieval church. For example, one of Muller’s points is that Reformed scholastics (from early to late orthodoxy) did not totally break from all previous theological and biblical presuppositions and conclusions. Perhaps I will blog on specific examples later.

The point I want to make is this: to reject certain teachings of Reformed scholasticism is to simultaneously reject many Reformation teachings, along with the teachings of many early and medieval Christian theologians. Of course this is too much to cover in one post, so I’ll just give one example for now.

Turretin distinguishes between Adam’s faith before the fall (ante lapsum) and after it (post lapsum) (cf. Institutes II.190-191). The main point is that the pre- and post-fall situations were quite different. This is normal orthodox teaching. From the medieval church to the Reformed scholastics, the theologia hominibus communicata (theology communicated to human beings) has been divided into parts that correspond with the history of human beings – before the fall, after the fall, and in the final state of blessedness (theologia viatorum ante lapsum, theologia viatorum post lapsum, and theolgia beatorum) (PRRD, I.255-6, 264-5, etc.). No doubt Turretin utilized these distinctions (cf. Institutes, I.4-5).

Therefore, when P. Leithart calls Turretin’s distinction of pre- & post-lapse faith “a mess,” he is not just jabbing at Turretin and a few then and now who agree with Turretin. He’s going against the grain of hundreds of years of catholic teaching – before, during, and after the Reformation. He’s calling into question the historic and catholic theologia distinctions. (For Leithart’s quote, see p. 182 of A Faith That Is Never Alone ed. P. Andrew Sandlin [La Grange: Kerygma Press, 2007.])

Dear Reformed Readers: before evaluating or criticizing scholasticism, breathe the air they breathed by reading PRRD, the scholatics, and yes, even the medieval theologians. We owe it to our churches.

[One more note - at some point, I will be blogging on Turretin's explanation of faith before and after the fall, which, as I'll show, is how Bavinck later explained it. Turretin and the scholastics didn't argue that there are two different faiths in two different gods, to be sure.]

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Climbing Up On God’s Desk: Muller, Reformed Dogmatics, and Archetype/Ectype

My 4 volume set of Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics came in yesterday; I was tempted to stay up all night, but Sunday’s sermons are more pressing.  By the way – thanks to Matt for pointing this CBD sale out.

Here’s Muller describing “the relationship between archetypal and ectypal theology – a precondition of Christian doctrine” (I.229).  [In other words, as we approach theology, how do we explain and account for the vast and immeasurable distance between God and man?  Can we know what God knows?  Can we know anything at all?  Is God too hidden to be known?  Can we climb on God's desk and see what he's writing?]

Muller: “Beginning with Luther, the Reformation had a strong sense of the transcendence of God, indeed, the hiddenness of God in and behind his revelation.  Drawing on this assumption, Calvin argued the accommodated nature of God’s revelation: God reveals himself not as he is in his infinite majesty but in a form accessible to human beings.”

“So too is a distinction made by Calvin and others between the eternal decree of God and its execution in time – accompanied by the proviso that human beings can never enter the ultimate mind and will of God to discern its contents but must trust in what has been revealed and must gain assurance from the revelation of Christ and from his work in the hearts and minds of God’s people.”

“Thus, the theology of the Reformation recognized not only that God is distinct from his revelation and that the one who reveals cannot be fully comprehended in the revelation, but also that the revelation, given in a finite and understandable form, must truly rest on the eternal truth of God: this is the fundamental message and intention of the distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology” (Ibid.).

This is great, simply outstanding.  We cannot climb onto God’s desk to see what’s going on, but he has handed us notes and outlines that suffice in our knowledge of him and his will.  These notes and outlines are sufficient and clear, authoritative and accommodated, but we don’t and never will have access to that divine desktop, so to speak.  We do have enough, however - all that we need in life and in death.

Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics Volume One (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Muller on Reformed Scholasticism

Richard Muller is my hero.  Here is part of the reason why: He said,

The identification of the covenant of works as a consequent doctrine [in protestant scholasticism] surely accounts for:

1) The varied terminology (covenant of works, nature, creation, innocence), associated with it

2) For its absence from some of the major Reformed theological systems of the 17th century

3) For the intimate relationship in which the doctrine of the covenant of works stands with the central soteriological topics in Reformed theology.

“The protestant orthodox recognizes that a distorted perspective on a logically consequent doctrinal locus could, all too easily, become the basis of a retroactive misconception of a primary or logically prior doctrinal locus” (emphasis mine).

Amen.  Well said!  Don’t miss the importance of Muller’s note.  To put it in other words, the covenant of works wasn’t the main doctrinal point of the reformation/reformers – it was a secondary or derivative doctrine, drawn from the examination/comparison of a series of biblical loci (sedes doctrinae).  Yet, it was not unimportant or “tossable;” it was part and parcel of Reformed theology.  Because it wasn’t the main emphasis of reformers, it is called different things (as noted above), and it is not in every single protestant theological document, but it is woven in to the very fabric of Reformed theology.  If you pull this string out of the woven fabric of Reformed theology, the whole comes unraveled.  Muller is spot on here – just because it wasn’t clearly mentioned in every Reformed document doesn’t mean it is dispensable.   Muller’s above italicized quote is exactly the reason why Bavinck and others said so boldly: if you deny the CoW, you will certainly err on the CoG.

-

The quote is from Muller’s “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Orthodoxy: A Study in the Theology of Herman Witsius and Wilhelmus a Brakel” Calvin Theological Journal, 29 (1994): 75-6.

-

shane lems

sunnyside wa