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

Bavinck on Justification

On what basis does God justify the sinner?  Rome and others say that God justifies a person insofar as he is sanctified; in other words, God justifies someone because the person has some grace-infused obedience inside himself.  Rome and others (like the NPP) thus say that the Reformation position – that God justifies the ungodly by faith alone only on the grounds of an external righteousness (Christ’s) – is a legal fiction.    They call this historic Protestant position legal fiction because God justifies someone who is not actually good inside.  Bavinck turns this argument on its head: actually, the position of Rome (et. al.) is the one that distorts the justice of God in justification.  Here he is:

Besides the fact that Holy Scriptures very plainly speak of justification as a legal or forensic act, this further fact must be pointed out to the opponents of the doctrine of justification: they have a mistaken notion of what justification is.  They say that such an acquittal of man on the basis of a righteousness outside of himself is unworthy of man and that leaves him quite unchanged.  But this charge comes back upon the heads of those who make it, for if they justify a person on the basis of a righteousness which is in him, they must themselves certainly admit that this righteousness in man here on earth is very frail and imperfect, and must therefore conclude that God justifies a person on the basis of a very inadequate righteousness and thus makes himself guilty of a false judgment.  On the other hand, an acquittal based on the righteousness which is in Christ is a perfectly just one for it was presented perfectly by God himself in the Son of his love.

This is penetrating.  If God does justify a person insofar as he is sanctified, this justification is unjust, because a person’s sanctification is imperfect and mixed with sin, and God would be accounting someone righteous who is imperfectly righteous.  The historic Protestant position says that God justifies the ungodly based on the perfect obedience (righteousness) of Jesus Christ, which is credited to their account by a God-given faith alone.   Bavinck goes on to explain.

Justification and sanctification are not the same, and ought to be sharply differentiated from each other.  For whoever neglects or erases this distinction again sets up a self-righteousness in man, does injustice to the completeness and adequacy of the righteousness of God which has been manifested in Christ, changes the gospel into a new law, robs the soul of man of its only comfort, and makes salvation dependent upon human merits.  In justification, faith has only the role of a receiving agency, like that of the hand which accepts something; by it the soul places its dependency solely in Christ and his righteousness.  …[Faith] justifies not by its own intrinsic moral worth but by its content, namely, the righteousness of Christ.

This entire section on the topic of justification in Our Reasonable Faith is worth a thousand dollars (p 439-468).  If you read one ST this year, please, make it this one!  This book is a Reformation antidote to Rome, NPP, and FV and a catalyst for confessional piety.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Bavinck on Certainty IV

In my last post on Bavinck’s booklet, The Certainty of Faith, I promised to quote Bavinck on certainty in places other than Reformation Christianity.  Here are a few summary quotes from the third chapter of his book.

First, non-Christian religions teach us “that certainty is not the same as truth.  Truth always brings certainty, but certainty is no proof of truth.  The human spirit can find false rest in an error presumed to be the truth.  We like to believe in what we wish were true.  Certainty in itself, however, does not set one free.  Only the truth can free man from the servitude of sin and death.  If the Son has made you free, you shall be free indeed” (p. 33).

Second, certainty in the Roman Catholic Church “is, and remains, nothing more than an opinion, a surmise, an opinio conjecturalis.  …There is no room for such [i.e. ineradicable certainty] in Rome’s system, for it does not see salvation as assured in Christ and sealed in the heart of the believer by the testimony of the Holy Spirit.  …The Roman Catholic church never allows the Christian to become independent and to stand on his own feet.  It never sets him loose but always retains a hold on him, even years after his death in purgatory.  …Rome deliberately keeps the souls of believers in a restless, so-called healthy tension.  Spiritual life fluctuates between false assurance and painful uncertainty” (p. 35, 37).

Certainty among the Reformers was “the normal condition of their spiritual lives.”  “They were not mystics who retreated into isolation and left the world to its fate.  They were not intellectualists and moralists who failed to do justice to the richness of emotional life.  All unnatural, unhealthy pietism was foreign to them.  Their religious lives were sound at heart – clear and plain, yet passionate and deep.”  Bavinck then notes how the Heidelberg Catechism humbly yet boldly teaches assurance and certainty of salvation (p. 39-40).

Fourth, and finally, in post-orthodoxy pietism, “the believer was prompted to turn inward in order to assure himself about the reality of his faith.”  They argued that “real faith is experience.”  “Faith was not immediately certain of itself right from the beginning.  …The first years of faith were full of sighing and lamentation, praying and hoping.  Certainty was attained only after a series of experiences spread over many years.  It was not given with faith itself, nor did it issue from it.  Certainty was often added from the outside…sometimes through a sudden intrusion of some Bible passage,” sometimes “by a glorious light,” sometimes by being “drawn up into the third heaven and led into the inner chamber by the King.”  Then came assurance on the “highest rung of faith” (p. 43-44).

Bavinck goes on to say how neither proofs nor experience can provide certainty – only the gospel that comes from outside of us brings the certainty of faith by the Word and Spirit.  Not law, not morals, not experience, but only childlike trust in the free gospel of grace brings certainty (see pp. 60-83, for example).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Late Medieval Catechism vs the Heidelberg Catechism

In the medieval era, the Church had several catechisms for the average church-goer. These were simple Q/A catechisms translated from Latin into the common tongue. One of these (among others) is quite helpful for evaluating the dark spiritual climate of the later middle ages. The Mirror of a Christian Man by Dietrich Kolde (1470; 19 editions following) clearly displays the dismal attitude of the Christian faith at the time. It closes with these words:

“There are three things I know to be true that frequently make my heart heavy. The first troubles my spirit, because I will have to die. The second troubles my heart more, because I do not know when. The third troubles me above all. I do not know where I will go.”

In a most interesting way, the Heidelberg Catechism opens with a completely different theme: assurance of salvation and the knowledge of three things we must know to live and die in the joy and comfort of the gospel. First, we need to know how terrible our sin and misery are; second, we need to know how we are delivered from sin and misery, and finally, we need to know how to thank God for this deliverance.

I’m wondering if the Heidelberg authors (Ursinus, Olevian, etc.) knew this medieval catechism by Kolde. Did they structure the HC in part to completely refute this medieval Roman catechism? Read Kolde’s “three things” first, then compare and contrast them to the HC. Kolde goes from distress to major distress; the HC goes from major distress to major comfort and joy. Certainly the HC is refuting Roman Catholic teaching indirectly and also reflecting the major outline of Romans, but perhaps someone can help me here: is the HC directly refuting Kolde’s catechism as well? Also, if anyone found/finds Kolde’s catechism in print (online?), please let me know!

The above quote from Kolde’s catechism can be found in Carter Lindberg, The European Reformations (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996), 63-4.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Mass: Has Rome Changed?

While studying Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 80 on how the Lord’s Supper differs from the Roman Catholic mass, I noticed that some say the last part of HC 80 is wrong. They argue that since Rome has changed her official position on the Mass, the last 1/2 of HC 80 should be lopped off. In order to keep this post short, I won’t quote the last part of HC 80 – you can find it on your own, I trust. The main issues are these: is Christ bodily present in the elements, is he re-presented in the elements, and should we worship the elements? [Note: re-presented here means "presented over again;" this is important, because Calvin, for example, said Christ is represented but not re-presented.]

Lets see what Rome says today. The following quotes are taken from Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1995). As an additional note, then Cardinal (now Pope) Joseph Ratzinger was the chairman of this pope-commissioned group to work on the catechism (in 1986).

Part II, Article 3, para. II.1330 The Mass “makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior…”

Part II. Article 3, para III.1333 “At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s body and blood.”

Part II, Article 3, para IV.1350 “…the bread and the wine are brought to the altar; they will be offered by the priest in the name of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice in which they will become his body and blood.”

Part II, Article 3, para IV.1353-4 “…by his [the Holy Spirit's] power they [bread and wine]…become the body and blood of Jesus Christ…” The institution narrative words “make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.”

Part II, Article 3, para V.1357 “Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present” when the bread and the wine “become” his body and blood.

Part II, Article 3, para V. 1364-7 In the Mass, “the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.” “The Eucharist is also a sacrifice.” “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross.” The same sacrifice which Christ offered on the cross is “now offered through the ministry of priests.”

Part II, Article 3, para V.1374 “In the most blessed Eucharist…the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained” (emphasis in original).

Part II, Article 3, para V.1378 The people, during the liturgy of the Mass, “genuflect or bow deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord.” “The Catholic church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.”

The “In Summary” section notes this (among others): “Because Christ himself is present in the sacrament of the altar, he is to be honored with the worship of adoration.”

There are quite a few more phrases that are exactly like the above. Also, the Council of Trent (c. mid 16th century) is quoted no less than 8 times in this one section. Though I didn’t list it, the Catholic Catechism also discusses the Mass for the dead. Finally, I noticed in a recent Yakima Times article, that now the “in” thing in Roman churches (at least in Southern Washington) is to have the Mass in Latin again, because “it feels more historical and holy.”

Clearly, Rome has not changed her position on the Mass. HC Q/A 80 needs to stay. Its not exactly “Interfaith,” ECT, or PC material, but “denial of the one sacrifice of Christ” and “condemnable idolatry” still fit.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Luther on Strong Sins: A Word to Preachers!

This is Luther at his finest.  It shows two things clearly: 1) he understood Rome’s doctrines clearly [note the "imaginary" language below] and 2) he understood the gospel clearly.  This part of the letter is on the wall of my study; it is worth memorizing!

13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but
    the true mercy.  If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the
    true, not an imaginary sin.  God does not save those who are only
    imaginary sinners.  Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let
    your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the
    victor over sin, death, and the world.  We will commit sins while we
    are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides.  We,
    however, says Peter (2 Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new
    heaven and a new earth where justice will reign.  It suffices that
    through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the
    sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to
    kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.  Do you think
    such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager
    sacrifice for our sins?  Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.”

Go here for the full text (Luther’s letter to Melanchthon in 1521).

Additional note: The above print with Luther and Melanchthon is for sale at www.reformationart.com 

shane lems

sunnyside, wa

Rome on Images and Liturgy

I always enjoy getting Interpretation, the Bible/Theology journal published by Union Theological Seminary.  Though I usually don’t agree with everything I read, it is stimulating and enjoyable.  This month (the October 2007 issue — not the picture above), I anxiously scanned the cover only to be let down.  The theme for the month is art and exegesis.  So here I am, sharing a blurb from the first article, “Art and the Liturgy” by Timothy Verdon.  At least we can be reminded about Roman Catholic liturgy and images.

 ”As presented in the OT, art becomes a privileged sign of covenant between sinful humanity and the God who, pardoning sin, walks with his people; it is in effect a tangible sign of God’s sacramental presence and the salvation God offers” (361).

“…If Christ is the incarnate ‘icon’ of the invisible Father — the radiance of that glory that Moses yearned to see and could not — it follows that the role of images in the new covenant is ultimately not less but more important than in the old” (362)!

One more: “Images made in the service of liturgy thus automatically become part of a proclamation that is also an encounter, in direct analogy with the sacraments, the signs of salvation, and new life instituted by Christ.  It is from the sacramental liturgy that sacred images draw their ‘power,’ their ‘presence,’ their ‘reality’ (Ibid).”

In response, think of the following with Reformation lenses: hermeneutics, the Regulative Principle of Worship, preaching, the second commandment, and so forth.

shane

sunnyside wa