Systematic Theology: In Catechism Form

 I just got this in the mail from Reformation Heritage Books (RHB): Essential Truths in the Heart of a Christian by Wilhlemus Schortinghuis.  (If you’re Dutch, that’s Nodige Waarheden in het Herte van een Christen)  Schortinghuis (the most Dutch Dutch name I’ve ever heard!) was a pastor in the Reformed churches of Holland in the early to mid 18th century.  He was at the tail end of what scholars call the ”Dutch Second Reformation” (Nadere Reformatie), which waned around the middle of the 18th century.  While it is true that Schortinguis wrote some very pietistic (in a negative sense) stuff, this book, Essential Truths, is quite in line with the orthodoxy of Reformed scholasticism before it.

Essential Truths is pretty much a very brief systematic theology in catechetical form, with proof-texts (citations, not the full verses) as part of the answers.  Below I’ve put a few examples of how this book is in line with Reformed orthodoxy (the examples also show the catechetical structure).

Part one talks about the knowledge of God.  ”In whom is the knowledge of God found fully, to a greater or lesser degree?”  A: “In God himself (1 Cor. 2:7), in Christ (Matt. 11:27), in the holy angels (Matt. 18.10), in the believer in heaven (2 Cor. 5.7), and on earth (2 Cor. 5.7).”  The scholastics talked about archetype and ectype (concerning knowledge); this is the catechetical brief way to talk about it.

Part 11 (after Creation, Providence, etc.) is about the Covenant of Works.  “What is the covenant of works?  The agreement of God with the righteous man in which God promised life and threatened death, with the stipulation of perfect obedience to his law.  If man met the stipulation, he would enjoy eternal life (Hos. 6:7; Job 31:33).”  Later, the question is asked: “Did man have the ability to fulfill these demands?  Yes, indeed; because he was created in God’s image (Gen. 1:31; Eccles. 7:29), he was perfectly good and completely upright.” 

Part 26 is Schortinghuis’ discussion of justification sola fide.  “How is a believing sinner justified?  Not because of the worth of his faith or because of his imperfect Christian obedience, but purely by grace, for the sake of Christ’s perfect atonement and intercession (Rom. 3:24-26), with faith only as an instrument (Rom. 5:1), and apart from the works of the law (Rom. 3:28).”  He also mentions that a believing sinner embraces by faith Christ’s righteousness, which is imputed to the sinner (Q/A 5). 

“Do not our good works contain some virtue that God nevertheless may want to reward?  No, because they do not answer the requirement of meritorious work, since eternal life is a gracious gift earned by Christ that God grants for his sake by grace (Rom. 4:4-5; Eph. 2:8-9).”

This has to do with the covenant of grace.  “What does God promise and demand in the covenant of grace?  He promises all the essential benefits here and especially for eternity.  He promises: ‘I shall be a God to you” (Jer. 31:33).  And he demands faith and conversion [repentance] (Acts 16:31; Ezek 33:11), both of which he promises to provide (Eph. 2:8, Ezek. 36:27).”  The conditions in the covenant of grace are met by God working in the heart of the elect.

While I’ll summarize them to keep the post brief, Schortinghuis also talks about other Reformed truths, including the regulative principle of worship (part 10, Q/A 4), the law as both a threatening command that shows sin and a “rule of thanksgiving” (part 10, Q/A 10), the visible/invisible church (part 39, Q/A 4), and the essence of saving faith as a receiving instrument which consists of knowledge, assent, and trust (part 24, Q/A 4, 6).

The catechism itself is only around 100 pages; it is not long and tedious.  In many ways it reflects the Heidelberg catechism only with a few more “application” type questions.  Or, to put it another way, it is sort of like a very brief summary of the other Wilhelmus’ (Wilhelmus a Brakel) systematic, The Christian’s Reasonable Service.  At the end of many sections, the question comes: “What does [the doctrine under observation] teach you personally?” 

In summary, while I hesitate to commend all of Schortinghuis’ works (most of them are in Dutch anyway), I do recommend this one as a great, clear, and concise snapshot of orthodox Dutch piety – practical Christian doctrine in Q/A format.  The translators, editor, and publisher deserves a hearty thanks!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

John Owen: Great Sale on His “Works” set

Better go to Reformation Heritage Books soon and get Owen’s Works while they still have them!  Right now, for a limited time, you can get the WHOLE set (16 handsome volumes) for just $238 (CBD’s price is much higher @ $398; Amazon has them for around $700).   Cancel Netflix and use that money towards this!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Covenant of Grace: Reformed and Baptist Explanations

Here is the essential difference between the Reformed and the Baptists when it comes to the covenant of grace (CoG).  I’m not trying to start a match between the two “sides,” but I simply want to put these two next to each other so the reader can see for him or herself.   Though I won’t comment on anything below, I do stand decidedly in the Reformed tradition (hence the name of this blog).

On the Baptist side is Samuel Waldron:

“The argument of the paedo-baptists from the Abrahamic Covenant is as follows.  1) Major premise: The Abrahamic covenant was made with believers and their seed.  2) Minor premise: The Abrahamic covenant was the covenant of grace.  3) Conclusion: The covenant of grace is made with believers and their seed.”

Waldron comments: “Both premises (1 & 2) are fallacious.  The major premise is faulty…let the paedo-baptists cite one verse which proves that the Abrahamic covenant was made with believers and their seed.  The minor premise is also wrong.  The Abrahamic covenant was a shadowy revelation of the CoG, but that is quite different than being in every sense the CoG.  Does the CoG promise us all as believers a literal land of Canaan?  Paedo-baptists say no!  But the Abrahamic covenant does promise such a Canaan! (Gen 17.8).  Thus the paedo-baptists themselves do not equate the Abrahamic covenant with the CoG.  They do not insist on a literal Canaan.  …The true seed of Abraham according to the NT is not believers and their seed, but Christ himself and all who are joined to him by faith (Gal 3.29).

Samuel Waldron, The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith: A Modern Exposition (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 1989), 356.

Now for the Reformed side, Herman Bavinck:

“We observe that in history the covenant (of grace) is never concluded with one discrete individual, but always with a man and his family or generation, with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, and with the church and its seed.  The promise never concerns a single believer alone, but in him his house or family also.  God does not actualize his CoG by picking a few people out of humanity at random, and by gathering these together into some sort of assemblage alongside of the world.  Rather, he bears his covenant into mankind, makes it part and parcel of the world, and sees to it that in the world it is preserved from evil.  As the Redeemer or Re-creator, God follows the line which he drew as Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of all things.”

“Grace is something other and higher than nature, but it nevertheless joins up with nature, does not destroy it but restores it rather.  Grace is not a legacy which is transferred by natural birth, but it does flow on in the river-bed which has been dug out in the natural relationships of the human race.  The covenant of grace does not ramble about at random, but perpetuates itself, historically and organically, in families, generations, nations.”

Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 227.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Catechetical and Confessional Piety

As a pastor who “signs on” to the Three Forms of Unity (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession of Faith, and the Canons of Dort), I often hear other Christians say things like this to me:  “Well, that stuff worked back then, but all that doctrine stifles true Christian living.”  Or, “Our church used to use those things, but they are for the head, while biblical religion is for the heart.”  I’m sure many of you have either heard or thought some of the same things.

Of course, point well taken: rigid dogma has indeed resulted in cold Christian living, where true knowledge and true piety are split up.  However, the fault does not lie in the doctrines.  It is wrong to say that since some fifth and sixth (or tenth and eleventh!) generation Reformation Christians did not practice true piety, we should abandoned the Reformation confessions.  I would submit that the opposite is true: since some Reformation Christians do not practice what they preach, we better preach it better and more clearly!  Just to get the point across, let me say it another way: don’t blame our confessions for our lack of piety.

William Ames (1576-1633) is a good start to get “back into” the confessions, specifically the Heidelberg Catechism.  The level of orthodoxy and piety in this volume will sweep the reader away.  For example, in the first brief chapter Ames interprets Psalm 4.6-8 to explain man’s chief good (summum bonum) to be found “in God’s favor towards him.”  This is the solid comfort that Lord’s Day 1 hammers home.  Here are the five “lessons” he gives for this text, in relation to Lord’s Day 1.

Lesson One: The highest good ought to be considered and sought above all other things in our entire life.

Lesson Two: The highest good of people in this life cannot be obtained from earthly goods.

Lesson Three: Our true and highest good consists in the union and communion we have with God.

Lesson Four: The joy that believers gain from the communion that they have with God overcomes, by its own sweetness, all human delights and happiness.

Lesson Five: This joy and holy consolation convey a certain security to the consciences of the faithful.

Also, in a highly pastoral way,  Ames gives reasons and uses for each of these five lessons.  For example, he talks about this chief good of man to be a source of consolation, exhortation to the good, refutation of the world’s delights, admonition for our souls to look above, and as encouragement to us for our eternal future.

This is theology and piety at its finest: orthodoxy drips with piety, and piety drips with orthodoxy.   Reformation preaching and teaching would do well to strive for the balance.

Many thanks to the editors and translators of this new series (more to come!), and also to RHB for putting this out.

The above quotes taken from William Ames, A Sketch of the Christian’s Catechism trans. Todd M. Rester (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

A Diagnosis for/of Reformed Churches

  What is a Reformed church?  What do Presbyterian and Reformed churches look like – in their theology, worship, and piety?  Scott Clark contends “that the word [Reformed] denotes a confession, a theology, piety, and practice that are well known and well defined and summarized in ecclesiastically sanctioned and binding documents” [the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity] (p. 3).  In my words, that means a church is not Reformed simply because of a certain cultural and traditional background, or a “world and life view” that is broadly Christian.  In Clark’s terms, “Reformed” is not just believing in predestination, or psalm-singing, or holding to a 6/24 creation view (p. 4).  To be Reformed means to be theologically, doctrinally, and liturgically Reformed, including piety in a confessional way. 

This book, Recovering the Reformed Confession, is a surgeon’s scalpel, a knife cutting through the fog of broad evangelicalism that was [re]born in the revivalistic American culture of the 19th century.  Clark says that one of the big problems in Reformed churches is the quest for illegitimate religious experience (QIRE) – which was at the heart of revivalistic evangelicalism.  The QIRE “is the pursuit of the immediate experience of God without the means of grace (i.e., the preaching of the gospel and the sacraments).  It is the attempt to experience him in a way that he has not ordained, and more specifically, to experience him in a way that we do not confess” (p. 5).  Or, in Luther’s terms, it is trying to find deus nudus, God in the nude, apart from cross and suffering; finding God climbing all kinds of man-built ladders.  The QIRE is as old as the fall.

I’ll come back to this book later here, but for now let me say I highly recommend this book to our readers who want to be confessionally Reformed.  Give this book to your deacons, elders, and pastors and read it with them to discuss it.  Or, if you’re not Reformed and want a window into the Reformed “church world,” I suggest you grab this book as well, to see what a confessional Reformed church looks like.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Law/Gospel Theses Part II

  More from Walther (continued from yesterday):

Thesis XI. In the seventh place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when there is a disposition to offer the comfort of the Gospel only to those who have been made contrite by the Law, not from fear of the wrath and punishment of God, but from love of God.

Thesis XII. In the eighth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the preacher represents contrition alongside of faith as a cause of the forgiveness of sin.

Thesis XIII. In the ninth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when one makes an appeal to believe in a manner as if a person could make himself believe or at least help towards that end, instead of preaching faith into a person’s heart by laying the Gospel promises before him.

Thesis XIV. In the tenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when faith is required as a condition of justification and salvation, as if a person were righteous in the sight of God and saved, not only by faith, but also on account of his faith, for the sake of his faith, and in view of his faith.

Thesis XV. In the eleventh place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the Gospel is turned into a preaching of repentance.

Thesis XVI. In twelfth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the preacher tries to make people believe that they are truly converted as soon as they have become rid of certain vices and engage in certain works of piety and virtuous practises.

Thesis XVII. In the thirteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when a description is given of faith, both as regards its strength and the consciousness and productiveness of it, that does not fit all believers at all times.

Thesis XVIII. In the fourteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the universal corruption of mankind is described in such a manner as to create the impression that even true believers are still under the spell of ruling sins and are sinning purposely.

Thesis XIX. In the fifteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the preacher speaks of certain sins as if there were not of a damnable, but of a venial nature.

Thesis XX. In the sixteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when a person’s salvation is made to depend on his association with the visible orthodox Church and when salvation is denied to every person who errs in any article of faith.

The rest tomorrow…

shane lems

sunnyside wa

More on Law/Gospel

In the light of many earlier posts of mine on the law/gospel distinction, I thought C. F. W. Walther’s 25 Theses on the law/gospel distinction would be worthwhile. Here is the first of a few posts on these theses.

Thesis I. The doctrinal contents, of the entire Holy Scriptures, both of the Old and the New Testament, are made up of two doctrines differing fundamentally from each other, viz., the Law and the Gospel.

Thesis II. Only he is an orthodox teacher who not only presents all the articles of faith in accordance with Scripture, but also rightly distinguishes from each other the Law and the Gospel.

Thesis III. Rightly distinguishing the Law and the Gospel is the most difficult and the highest art of Christians in general and of theologians in particular. It is taught only by the Holy Spirit in the school of experience.

Thesis IV. The true knowledge of the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is not only a glorious light, affording the correct understanding of the entire Holy Scriptures, but without this knowledge Scripture is and remains a sealed book.

Thesis V. The first manner of confounding Law and Gospel is the one most easily recognized and the grossest. It is adopted, for instance, by Papists, Socinians, and Rationalists and consists in this, that Christ is represented as a new Moses, or Lawgiver, and the Gospel turned into a doctrine of meritorious works, while at the same time those who teach that the Gospel is the message of the free grace of God in Christ are condemned and anathematized, as is done by the Papists.

Thesis VI. In the second place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the Law is not preached in its full sternness and the Gospel not in its full sweetness, when, on the contrary, Gospel elements are mingled with the Law and Law elements with the Gospel.

Thesis VII. In the third place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the Gospel is preached first and then the Law; sanctification first and then justification; faith first and then repentance; good works first and then grace.

Thesis VIII. In the fourth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the Law is preached to those who are already in terror on account of their sins or the Gospel to those who live securely in their sins.

Thesis IX. In the fifth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when sinners who have been struck down and terrified by the Law are directed, not to the Word and Sacraments, but to their own prayers and wrestlings with God in order that they may win their way into a state of grace; in other words, when they are told to keep on praying and struggling until they feel that God has received them into grace.

Thesis X. In the sixth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the preacher describes faith in a manner as if the mere inert acceptance of truths, even while a person is living in mortal sins, renders that person righteous in the sight of God and saves him; or as if faith makes a person righteous and saves him for the reason that it produces in him love and reformation of his mode of living.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Puritans: Day Two

Two days ago, Andrew noted some clear and wonderful gospel statements by the Puritan, Richard Sibbes. Following in his steps, I thought posting a bit of Thomas Watson on the Ten Commandments would be worth while. In my opinion, the best commentaries on the Ten Commandments are those that clearly distinguish between law and gospel, covenant of works and covenant of grace, as well as the Heidelberg/Reformed guilt/grace/gratitude pattern of the Christian life. In other words, when speaking of the Ten Commandments, the best discussions are those which keep the first and third use of the law clear and distinct, those which clearly note the difference between justification and sanctification. Watson does these things. Here are a few random quotes from Watson’s The Ten Commandments (Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 1999).

Justification: “Not our obedience, but Christ’s merits procure acceptance [before God]” (p. 3).

Justification: In two ways the moral law is abolished for Christians: 1) “In respect of justification. They are not justified by their obedience to the moral law.” 2) “In respect of its curse. They are freed from its curse and condemnatory power” (Ibid.).

Law/Gospel: “The moral law requires obedience, but gives no strength…but the gospel gives strength” (p. 44).

First Use of the Law: The moral law “is a glass to show us our sins, that seeing our pollution and misery, we may be forced to flee to Christ…” (Ibid.).

Covenant of Works/Grace Distinction: The moral law, in those two senses, is abolished for Christians, yet “it remains a perpetual rule to believers.” Though it not be their Savior, it is their guide. Though it be not foedus, a covenant of life; yet it is a norma, a rule of life” (Ibid.).

Sanctification: “God commands us to turn from sin, but alas! we have not power to turn; therefore he has promised to turn us, to put his Spirit within us, and to turn the heart of stone to flesh…. Therefore, Christian, be not discouraged, though thou hast no strength of thy own, God will give thee strength” (p. 47).

With these things in mind, even when Watson gets quite tedious on the different aspects of the Ten Commandments, the reader knows he is not blending biblical and reformation doctrines of justification/sanctification, grace/gratitude, law/gospel, or CoW/CoG. Watson’s treatment of the 10 C’s also is helpful because he often reminds the reader of the gospel and the forgiveness of sins; he also writes topically, in a Q/A way, which makes this book easy to read.

You can find this and other works of Watson here.

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

The Sinaitic/Mosaic Covenant: Works or Grace? Turretin Explains…

Turretin is most helpful in the sometimes violent discussion of whether the covenant God made with the Israelites on Sinai was simply the covenant of grace renewed, or simply the covenant of works republished, or something else (a third thing). Turretin first rejects the “third covenant” opinion, which the “celebrated man, John Cameron” (the Amyraldian) taught (II.262).

Turretin says clearly that the Mosaic covenant was “nothing else than a new economy of the covenant of grace. It was really the same with the covenant made with Abraham, but different as to accidents and circumstances” (II.263, cf. II.226-7).

Having said that, Turretin explains the works principle that was active in the Sinaitic covenant by explaining that the covenant of grace here at Sinai was “clothed as to external dispensation with the form of a covenant of works through the harsh promulgation of the law; not indeed with that design, so that a covenant of works might again be demanded with the sinner [for this was impossible], but that a daily recollection and reproaching of the violated covenant of works might be made; thus the Israelites felt their sin and the curse of God besides hanging over them and acknowledged the impossibility of a legal righteousness…” (II.263). The works principle – the covenant of grace clothed with the covenant of works – was to drive the people away from themselves to the righteousness of God and redemption that he is the author of.

“Hence in it (the Sinaitic Covenant) there was a mixture of the law and the gospel” (Ibid.). The covenant of grace was “under” the “rigid legal economy,” and over it (or “clothing it” as Turretin noted above) was a “new promulgation of the law and of the covenant of works” (II.227).

In summary, the promise of God in the covenant of grace was the foundational, internal, and fundamental aspect of the Sinaitic covenant. The rigid legal part of the Sinaitic covenant was external and accidental – not the foundational basis of the covenant. The external was to drive the people to the internal – the ceremonies were to point the people to the promise, the law was to drive the people to the gospel.

Some Reformed teachers emphasize the gracious aspect of the Sinaitic covenant; others emphasize the works aspect of this covenant. As long as we affirm what Turretin (and other orthodox like him) said and acknowledge both grace and works here, we will steer clear of several serious errors.

Above quotes taken from Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology(Philipsburg: P&R, 1994).

shane lems

sunnyside wa