A Reformation Parody

According to Roland Bainton (Here I Stand), before Luther went to Worms for the famous trial (April 1521), one tract was floating around as a parody of the Apostle’s Creed.  It gives us a flavor of the “air” surrounding Luther in the early years of the Reformation.  Here is the text of it.  Imagine thousands of these floating around Germany as Luther made his way to the Diet!

I believe in the pope, binder and looser in heaven, earth, and hell, and in Simony, his only son our lord, who was conceived by the canon law and born of the Romish church. Under his power truth suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, and through the ban descended to hell, rose again through the gospel and Paul and was brought to Charles, sitting at his right hand, who in future is to rule over spiritual and worldly things. I believe in the canon law, in the Romish church, in the destruction of faith and of the communion of saints, in indulgences both for the remission of guilt and penalty in purgatory, in the resurrection of the flesh in an Epicurean life, because given to us by the Holy Father, the pope. Amen.”

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Calvin on Law and Gospel

In an outstanding section of Calvin’s commentary on 2 Corinthians 3.4-11, he makes a great Reformation distinction between the law and the gospel.  Here are a few ways he puts it.  [The context is, of course, the the old (Mosaic) covenant in comparison to the new covenant.  To keep things clear, Calvin is here specifically speaking of the Mosaic covenant (the "ministry of Moses" in his own terms), not the entire OT.]

“True indeed, the grace of God did not, during all that time, lie dormant, but it is enough that it was not a benefit that belonged to the law.  For Moses had discharged his office, when he had delivered to the people the doctrine of life, adding threatenings and promises.”

Comparing the law and the gospel, Calvin says, “it is truly and properly affirmed, that the nature of the law is to teach men literally, in such a way that it does not reach farther than the ear; and that, on the other hand, the nature of the gospel is to teach spiritually, because it is the instrument of Christ’s grace.”

The external (“written on stones”) aspect of the law “required to be corrected by the gospel, because it could not but be brittle, so long as it was merely engraven on tables of stone.  …From this too, it follows, that the law was the ministry of condemnation and of death; for when men are instructed as to their duty, and hear it declared, that all who do not render satisfaction to the justice of God are cursed, they are convicted, as under sentence of sin and death.  From the law, therefore, they derive nothing but a condemnation of this nature, because God there demands what is due to him, and at the same time confers no power to perform it.”

“The law…as it simply prescribes the rule of a good life, does not renew men’s hearts to the obedience of righteousness, and denounces everlasting death upon transgressors, can do nothing but condemn.  …The office of the law is to show us the disease, in such away as to show us, at the same time, no hope of cure.   …The law leaves man to himself, it condemns him, of necessity, to death.

“The gospel, on the other hand, by which men are regenerated, and are reconciled to God, through the free remission of their sins, is the ministry of righteousness, and, consequently, of life also.  …[The gospel is] reckoned the doctrine of life, because it is the instrument of regeneration, and offers to us a free reconciliation with God.  …The office of the gospel is to bring a remedy to those who were past hope.  …The gospel brings [a man killed by the law] to Christ [and] opens the gate of life” (all emphasis in original).

I also noticed that Matthew Poole made similar comments, and Luther sounded the same notes, of course, in a sermon on the same text.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Luther Latin Quote of the Day

 

 

 

 

Pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo.  (Martin Luther)

Amen!  Boenhoffer’s commentary on that phrase is darkly humorous and true: “You are a sinner anyway, and there is nothing you can do about it!” Speaking of Luther, I really need to get Wingren’s Luther on Vocation. 

shane lems

sunnyside, wa

Luther on the Keys of the Kingdom

“Christ’s intention is to comfort us poor sinners in the most loving and effective manner.  His purpose is not to give the pope power over the angels in heaven nor over emperors on earth.  For our consolation all sins, none excepted, are subject to Peter and the keys.  All sins which he binds and looses shall be bound and loosed, despite the resistance of all devils, the whole world, and of all angels, and all despairing thoughts of our heart, even in the presence of death and evil omens.”

“ A simple, trusting heart can boldly rely on God’s action.  And in times of deep distress, with our consciences accusing us, we may say: Well then!  I have been absolved of my sins, however many and great they may be, by means of the key, on which I rely.  Let no one remind me of my sins any longer.  All are gone, forgiven, forgotten.  He who promises me Whatever you loose shall be loosed does not lie; this I know.  If my repentance is not sufficient, his Word is; if I am not worthy, his keys are: He is faithful and true.  My sins shall not make a liar of him.”

The Keys, wrote Luther, have everything to do with the law and the gospel.  “Any reasonable person must admit that in the text (Matt 16.19) the keys are not associated with the performance of any works.  They enjoin and command nothing, but threaten and promise.  Now, to threaten and to promise are not the same as to command….  The key which binds carries forward the work of the law…. The loosing key carries forward the work of the gospel.”

From Luther’s Works (American Edition), 40.373-5.  The treatise is simply called “The Keys.”

shane lems

sunnyside wa

A “Fresh” Definition of Faith?

It is no new thing for people to try to bring a new insight or “fresh” perspective to faith – one can trace this sort of thing throughout church history.  Today, many people like to talk about a “living faith” or a “faithful faith” or “obedient faith” which justifies.  Here’s a great response to those who are not content with the “unfresh” or “stale” definition of justifying faith.

“Faith may seem a slight thing to some; and they may wonder how salvation can flow from [simply] believing.  Hence they try to magnify it, to adore it, to add to it, in order that it may appear some great thing, something worthy of having salvation as its reward.  In doing so, they are actually transforming faith into a work, and introducing salvation by works under the name of faith.  They show that they understand neither the nature nor the office of faith.”

“Faith saves, simply by handing us over to the Savior.  It saves, not on account of the good works which flow from it; not on account of the love which kindles it; not on account of the repentance which it produces; but solely because it connects us with the Saving One.  Its saving efficacy does not lie in its connection with [our] righteousness and holiness, but entirely in its connection with the Righteous and Holy One.”

Quotes from Horatius Bonar, The Blood of the Cross (New Ipswich: Pietan Publications, 1997), 59.  This short booklet makes me want to read a few Banner of Truth publications by Bonar, The Everlasting Righteousness and Words Old and New.  I’ve been on a Puritan “kick” again lately, along with the church fathers (still).  Stay tuned for some stuff from Hippolytus (c. 200 AD).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Anabaptists and Luther

What did the Anabaptists of the radical reformation generally think of Luther and the Reformers?  Not much.  In a letter from Conrad Grebel to Thomas Muntzer (from 1524), Grebel wrote that between the Romanists and the Reformers (which he called “the pope and antipapal preachers”), “there is grosser and more pernicious error now than ever has been since the beginning of the world.”  In fact, said Grebel, the Wittenberg (i.e. Lutheran) “slothful scholars and doctors…preach a sinful sweet (i.e. poisonous) Christ, and they lack clear discernment.”

Grebel wrote that the Lutheran form of baptism is “senseless” and “blasphemous” and among the old “customs of the Antichrist.”  Luther, Grebel said to Muntzer, does not teach Christ as he should; Wittenberg’s scholars “flounder from one perversion of Scripture into the next, and daily from one blindness into another and greater.  I think and believe that they propose to become true papists and popes.”  Elsewhere, Muntzer even called the Lutheran teachers “vicious reprobates.”

Of course, more could be said, but this is pretty significant.  Many Anabaptists viewed the Reformers’ and their teaching as a nasty outgrowth of the papacy (sort of like a tumor).  The Reformation views of the sacraments (both Reformed and Lutheran) as well as the Reformation view of the church (which included ordination, office, and assembly) were condemned by the Anabaptists for being essentially papist, stuck in outward forms.  Therefore, some of the Anabaptists did not hesitate to call Luther and company little popes or antichrists.  The Anabaptists wanted to return to the pure Word without the externals (i.e. sacraments as means of grace, offices in the church, ecclesiastical assemblies, etc.).

Of course, what happens then, as Luther rightly remarked, is they ended up being more spiritual than the Holy Spirit (they swallowed him feathers and all).   What happens when you chuck the externals and focus on the internals (as Bavinck rightly remarked) is that you get pietism,  rationalism, and ultimately deism.  On the surface this Anabaptism may look sweet (return to the “pure” word without anything else), but under it lurked a world of errors, as Luther and the other Reformers so rightly pointed out.

FYI,  here are some of Calvin’s works against the Anabaptists, which is on my list of reading for this winter.

Quotes taken from Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers ed. George H. Williams and Angel M. Mergal (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957), 65, 73-85.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Reforming Worship: According to the Word

This is a great book.  I’m sorry I put off reading it for a few years!  Phil Ryken, Derek Thomas, and Ligon Duncan edited Give Praise to God together as a festschrift for J. M. Boice, as sort of a tribute to Boice’s emphasis on worship according to the Word.  The structure of the book is 4-fold:  1) The Bible and Worship, 2) Elements of Biblical Worship, 3) Preparing for Biblical Worship, and 4) Worship, History, and Culture.

I especially liked Duncan’s first two chapters, which is basically a two part essay on the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW).  Here’s Duncan: “True Christian worship is by the book.  It is according to Scripture.  The Bible alone ultimately directs the form and content of Christian worship” (p. 20).

He goes on.  “The key benefit of the regulative principle is that it helps to assure that God – not man – is the supreme authority for how corporate worship is to be conducted, by assuring that the Bible, God’s own special revelation (and not our opinions, tastes, likes, and theories), is the prime factor in our conduct of and approach to corporate worship” (p. 24).  Duncan explains the RPW from the OT and NT in the last part of this (his first) essay.

He also has a penetrating discussion of idolatry and the RPW.  You’ll have to read the full essay, especially the golden calf section (cf. Ex 32), but here’s where he goes:  “…there are two ways to commit idolatry: worship something other than the true God or worship the true God in the wrong way.

I’ll stop here, and post more about this essay (and Duncan’s other one), as well as a few parts of the fine essays by Ryken and Thomas as well as Terry Johnson.  I may not blog on it for awhile, but to increase your curiosity, Robert Godfrey has a great article on worship and the emotions, Nick Needham has a good one on the church’s worship through the ages, and Mike Horton closes the book with a great discussion of modernism and postmoderism (“Challenges and Opportunities for Ministry Today”).

You’ll want this book if you need more “training” on the whats and hows of worship according to the Word.  Also, for our RR friends not in the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition, I’m pretty confident it would wrestle you around as you consider what God-honoring worship is all about.  Enjoy!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Rightly Handling the Word of Truth

If you’ve wanted to either 1) get “into” C. F. W. Walther’s book, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1929/1986) but don’t have the time, or 2) learn more about the law/gospel distinction in Reformation thought, you’ll certainly want to grab Pless’ Handling the Word of Truth: Law and Gospel in the Church Today. This is one of the better modern day Lutheran books on this subject.  Of course, if you follow this blog, you’ll remember the law/gospel distinction is part and parcel to Reformed dogmatics as well.

Pless discusses each of Walther’s 25 theses on the law/gospel distinction.  He talks about the dangers of muddling the law and gospel, making Christ a new Moses, and how to preach the law and gospel rightly.  He also talks about the law/gospel distinction as it relates to faith alone, church, sacraments and the Christian life in general.   He quotes some great Lutheran hymns, Luther himself, and earlier Lutheran theologians to give the reader a great display of the difference between the gospel and the law.  In that way, this book is quite edifying.  Here are some of my favorite blurbs.

“The gospel is not a recipe for self-improvement.  It is that word of God that declares sins to be forgiven for the sake of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ” (p. 16).

“Good medicine improperly administered can be fatal.  Even so, pastors who are builders of God’s house and physicians of the souls entrusted to their care are to be skilled in making the distinction between the law and the gospel” (p. 22).

“Broken sinners do not need instructions in ethics but a word from God that rescues them from the misery of their sin and restores them to peace with God through faith in his promises” (p. 28).

“The law is a sharp sword that slices away the flimsy excuses we use to cover our shame and defend ourselves against God.  It is a saber that puts to death” (p. 38).

“The distinction between law and gospel unravels when justification is made dependent on sanctification.  We do not become holy people by doing holy things.   It is the other way around.  God justifies us, that is, he declares us to be holy and righteous for the sake of the suffering and death of his Son” (p. 47-8).

“Faith is not a commitment that we can muster.  Faith is not doing our part.  Faith is not a decision that we make for Christ.  Faith is that trust in the mercy of God and in Jesus Christ that is created by the promises of God” (p. 68).

“When the law is preached to the unregenerate in an attempt to make them godly, it actually has the opposite effect” (p. 108).

Anyway, you get the point.  This is a great read.  It is 128 pages with 13 chapters (including discussion questions at the end of each chapter).  There is also an appendix with a law/gospel sermon of Luther’s.

For the record, I do heartily disagree with Pless laying the blame of WWJD, The Prayer of Jabez, and The Purpose Driven Life on Reformed doctrine (p. 7).   I  am also sorry to see that Pless (with other Lutherans) does not see the gospel in unconditional election (salvation based on God’s free choice not ours) and perseverance of the saints (Christ keeps those whom he saves).  If I could just throw one thought out, I’d say the historic Reformed churches have a more robust view of the law/gospel distinction, because we include election and perseverance of the saints in the gospel, along with a great covenantal distinction (works/grace) to boot!

Even despite the differences, this book is certainly worth the read.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Reformed Scholastics on the Regnum Christi

Earlier, I noted Watson and Bavinck’s notes on the kingship of Christ, as well as Luther’s.  It was pretty “standard speak” in the Reformation and post-Reformation schools to talk about the reign of Christ (regnum Christi) in a threefold way.  Brakel (and the aforementioned Reformers) used these terms: Christ’s kingly office is threefold: 1) “He rules over the kingdom of power, to which all creatures belong,”  2) he rules “as Mediator over the kingdom of grace upon earth,” and 3) he rules “over the kingdom of glory in heaven.”  Of course the latter two are also what the Reformers referred to as the church militant and the church triumphant – one church existing in the “already/not yet” tension.  Again by way of reminder, Watson, Bavinck, Luther, and many others used these exact terms, including Ursinus (yes, you can think these thoughts when reading the Heidelberg).  See Muller’s fine Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms s.v. regnum Christi for more helpful info.

After making the threefold distinction, Brakel goes on to give some verses supporting these distinctions.  Interestingly, he also here has a subsection entitled, “The Separation Between Church and State.”  Here, not surprisingly, he sounds like Turretin.  Brakel writes this:

“The one is heavenly and the other earthly.  The one pertains to souls and the other to the body.  The one is characterized by servanthood…the other is characterized by authority and dominion.  The one is not to meddle in the affairs of the other.  …Thus must everyone function within his own sphere.   The church is not to rule over the state and the state may not rule over the church, but each must limit itself to its own domain” (The Christian’s Reasonable Service, I.561-566)

This is fascinating, especially in Holland, where the “state church” was the order of Brakel’s day (c. 1700).  Brakel notes that governments should allow the church to preach the gospel so that the members of the church can submit to the government, but he also says the government cannot lord anything over the church as church, only her individual members as they must obey the magistrate.  It would be a fascinating study to draw some lines (political and theological) from Luther to Ursinus to Turretin to Brakel to Bavinck, throwing Watson in the mix as well.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Luther: The Right Perspective On Paul

In a sermon on Isaiah 9.1-7, Luther preached the good news that the Son was born “for us” and “given to us.”   Christ the Lord went to the manger for his people.  This is pure gospel for us.

“He is a Lord who bears us and on whose shoulder we lie.  If he does not bear us, we are lost.  If pope, bishops, monks, and priests believed this, they would deal much differently with this matter.  However, they do not want to be borne by Christ; instead they bear Christ, as they seem to think, and to them Christ is merely a painted Christ.  For in their thinking they believe they are to live in this or that manner, fast and pray, do enough to pay for their sins and appease God’s anger.  But that sort of carrying is contradictory. “

“If Christ does not bear you but you try to bear him, that will be a very heavy load for you, just as if a strayed sheep would say to its shepherd who wanted to carry it: No, dear shepherd, you are not able to carry me; I wish to carry you; sit!  Obviously, that sheep would be crushed by the load.  But if the sheep is to be helped, the sheep must speak like this: Accept my thanks, dear shepherd, for seeking and wanting to carry me; I cannot carry you, but I shall let you carry me.”

“So also in Christ’s kingdom!  Christ wants to carry his sheep, just like a shepherd carries a poor, wretched, strayed sheep.  He speaks to a poor sinner in this manner: You are conceived and born in sin, you have angered God by many sins and are condemned to death; but you are not to suffer anguish on account of this, for your sins are forgiven you; simply lie on my shoulder; I want to carry you before God.”  (Luther’s Sermons [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000], VII.227-8) emphasis mine.

This is certainly Luther’s way of illustrating Galatians 3.1-14: having begun by the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by your own effort?  … For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse … the one who does them shall live by them... cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the book of the law.

Of course, there are many other topics Luther no doubt had in mind: Christ alone, faith alone, depravity of humanity, saint and sinner at the same time, justification, etc.  Luther got the gospel right, no doubt; he read Paul well.

Speaking of Luther, I’m looking forward to reading The Genius of Luther’s Theology by R. Kolb and C. Arand.  I’ve heard good things about it…it needs to get on my Luther shelf soon.

shane lems

sunnyside wa