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

Justifying Faith

Here’s a great (and clear!) snapshot of the classic Reformed description of the essence of justifying faith – first, by way of negative, then positive.

“Faith does not consist in love…love is not the essence of faith.”

“Faith does not consist in obedience to and observance of God’s commandments.  Yes, in the matter of justification, works and faith are contrasted with each other.”

“Rather, we understand” that saving faith is “the outgoing [extraspective] act of the heart whereby one, in surrendering to Christ and receiving him, entrusts soul and body to him in order that he would save him.“  [Quotes from Wilhelmus a' Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service, p. 277-8.]

Good stuff.  Brakel is just saying what the Reformation so loudly preached: sola fide!  We’re not justified by obedient faith, we’re not justified by faithfulness, we’re not justified by faith working through love.  We can’t say “faith-alone-fulness” or anything like that.

Instead, we say with the Heidelberg that 1) I have grievously sinned against all God’s commandments and my very conscience accuses me of it, 2) I am still inclined toward all evil, and 3) My faith has no value before God in justification.  Nevertheless, despite the fact that I don’t deserve it, by grace alone, God imputes to me Christ’s perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness as if I had never sinned and as if I had been as obedient as Christ was obedient for me (Q/A 60-61).

The very nature of justifying faith repudiates all works, decency, merits, love, righteousness, and obedience.  Instead, faith looks (with knowledge, conviction, and assurance) to someone else for these things: Jesus Christ and all his merits.  HC: I can receive Christ’s righteousness and make it mine in no other way than by faith alone. Again, to be overly redundant on purpose, let me quote the Belgic Confession: even works that proceed from the good root of faith “are of no account towards our justification”; we are “justified even before we do good works” (Article 24).

Paul is the most shocking and clear: God justifies the ungodly (Rom 4.5).  Without this staggering truth, we’d be doomed.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Kline on Abraham and Promise

Going through Meredith Kline’s Kingdom Prologue (Overland Park: Two Age Press, 2000), again (and again!) has been a treat.  I am once again struck by Kline’s excellent appraisal of God’s gospel promise to Abraham. 

“From its opening salvo of divine promises in Genesis 12 the Abrahamic Covenant confronts us with a way to ultimate blessedness that stands in stark contrast to the method which the Babelites of Genesis 11 used to achieve their lofty ambitions.  What was sought in Shinar by autonomous human effort – the restoration of cosmic-culture focus and the great name – was bestowed on Abraham as a promissory grant.  Babel was man-built, from the accursed ground up towards the heavens.  The city promised to Abraham is God-built and descends from the holy heaven to man as the supernatural gift of God’s grace (Heb 11:10, 16; Rev 21.2, 10).”

“Divine promise in the context of redemptive covenant connotes the principle of grace, the opposite of works.  Thus, when Paul in his analysis of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants in Galatians 3 identifies the former as promise (v. 17; cf Eph 2.12), he sets it over against the principle of works (“law,” in v.18) operative in the latter, and says it is received by faith in Jesus Christ (v.22).  God’s promise arrangement with Abraham is made synonymous with the gospel of grace (p.294).”

You can still download this manuscript for free – simply google it.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Turretin on the Covenants (Part I)

 

Z. Ursinus (d. 1583) said that all preachers should be able to clearly explain the difference between the Law and the Gospel.  I say the same for the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace distinction.   Here is F. Turretin (d. 1687)  on the difference between the two – this is part one of two.

1) They differ in the author: God is the author of both covenants, but in different relations.  In the first (CoW) as Creator and Lord, and in the second (CoG) as Redeemer and Father.  In the first (CoW) he was impelled by love and benevolence towards an innocent creature while in the latter (CoG) he was impelled by special mercy and grace towards a miserable creature.

2) They differ in the contracting parties: in the first (CoW), the parties were only two – God and man.  In the first there was no need of a mediator because there was no sin.  In the second (CoG) a mediator was needed to reconcile God and man.  In the second, there is a third party — the Mediator.

3) They differ in the foundation: The CoW rested upon man’s obedience and strength of nature and free will.  In the latter (the CoG), however, the foundation is Christ and his obedience.  In the first man was in his own hands while in the second man is in the hand of God.

4) They differ in the promise: The CoW promised life as a due reward while in the CoW the promise of life is a gift of God.

5) They differ in the condition: in the first (CoW) the condition was “do this and live” while in the second “believe and you shall be saved.”  In the CoW man would give a perfect righteousness while in the second man would receive it. 

These five (out of 10) are found in Turretin’s Institutes, volume two page 190.  Stay tuned for part two (with the last five differences).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Kuyper on Covenants (Works/Grace) Part I

I’ll continue Andrew’s “Kuyper Quotes” theme from a few days ago. The following quotes concerning the covenants of works and grace are found in Kuyper’s fine work, The Holy Spirit (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900).  Part II of this post is coming soon.

“…When God justifies a sinner He puts Him in a totally different state [than losable righteousness that Adam had pre-fall].  The righteousness of Christ becomes his.  And what is this righteousness?  Was Jesus in a state of rectitude only?  In no wise.  His righteousness was tested, tried, and sifted; it was even tested by the consuming fire of God’s wrath.  And this righteousness converted from ‘original rectitude’ into ‘righteousness vindicated’ was imputed to the ungodly.”  (Note of clarification: “original rectitude” is how theologians describe Adam’s standing in the garden before the fall.  “Righteousness vindicated” is how Kuyper describes obedience that passed a test, which Adam did not achieve.)

Kuyper continues:  “Therefore the ungodly, when justified by grace, has nothing to do with Adam’s state before the fall, but occupies the position of Jesus after the resurrection.  He possesses a good that can not be lost.  He works no more for wages, but the inheritance is his own.  His works, zeal, love, and praise flow not from his own poverty, but from the overflowing fullness of the life that was obtained for him.”  Kuyper here echoes the Reformed teaching that we’ve gained more in Christ than we lost in Adam.

It gets better.  “As it is often expressed: For Adam in Paradise there was first work and then the Sabbath of rest; but for the ungodly justified by grace the Sabbath rest comes first, and then the labor which flows from the energies of that Sabbath.  In the beginning the week closed with the Sabbath; for us the day of the resurrection of Christ opens the week which feeds upon the powers of that resurrection” (all above emphasis his) (p. 49).

shane

sunnyside wa

Bavinck and the Covenants (Works/Grace)

 

“Prior to the fall, the state of humanity and of the earth as a whole was a provisional one that could not remain as it was.  It was such that it could be raised to a higher glory but in the event of human transgression could also be subjected to futility and decay” (Dogmatics III:182).   

“The covenant of grace differs from the covenant of works in method, not in its ultimate goal.  It [eternal blessedness] is the same treasure that was promised in the covenant of works and is granted in the covenant of grace” (Dogmatics III:577). 

“…The covenant of grace, insofar as it was made with Christ, was essentially a covenant of works” (Dogmatics III:227).

I’ve saved the best two for last:

“The covenant of works and the covenant of grace stand and fall together” (Dogmatics I: 579). 

“If there were no covenant of works, neither would there be a covenant of grace” (Dogmatics I:103)

Trust me: this is just the tip of the iceburg for Bavinck.  Bavinck would not be Bavinck without his clear distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.

shane

sunnyside, wa