None Nearer to God In This Life Than Haters and Blasphemers

And I will say one thing more in my free and bold way. There are none nearer to God in this life than these haters and blasphemers of him, nor any sons more pleasing to him and beloved by him! And you can in this state make more satisfaction for sin in one moment than ever you could by repenting for many years together under a diet of bread and water. Hence it is true that in death (where this temptation prevails most), a Christian may in one moment get rid of all his sins, if he but act wisely under temptation. Here it is that those “groanings that cannot be uttered” are at work and prevail [Rom. 8:26]. (WA 5.170.25-5.171.3)

Remarkable passage! It makes no sense at all to the theologian of glory, but if we think of Job, for instance, it begins to make more sense. Like Job, the “blasphemer” at least does God the honor of acknowledging God as God. In extremity the sufferer is finally provoked enough, perhaps ultimately in death, to send complaint to the right address. Perhaps we can imagine God saying, “Ah, at last! I got you to talk to me! You spoke the truth about me in spite of yourself!”… In pious restraint the theologian of glory will refrain from such “blasphemy” and flatter God by absolving Him from all blame. But such pious speech simply robs God of the right to be God. So Luther could say that there are none closer to God in this life than “blasphemers,” who at least do God the honor of letting Him be God!
 - Gerhard O. Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), 91. 

A Theologian of the Cross Says What a Thing Is

Theologically and more universally all must learn to say, “I am a sinner,” and likewise never to stop saying it until Christ’s return makes it no longer true.
- Gerhard O. Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), 17. 

Witsius on the Mosaic Covenant: Works or Grace?

Is the Mosaic Covenant one of grace or works?

Here’s a few things Witsius points out regarding the Mosaic Covenant before coming to a conclusion. The Mosaic Covenant was:

1. A Repetition of the Law of the Covenant of Works: “…in the ministry of Moses, there was a repetition of the doctrine concerning the law of the covenant of works.” The Mosaic Covenant, then, seems to be a sort of republication of the covenant of works. Of course it is not identical to the prelapsarian covenant, but there is that condition “by which formula, the righteousness, which is of the law, is described, Rom. x. 5. And the terror of the covenant of works is increased by repeated comminations; and that voice heard, ‘cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them,’ Deut. xxvii. 26… as the requirement of obedience was rigid under the ministry of Moses, the promises of spiritual and saving grace were more rare and obscure, the measure of the Spirit granted to the Israelites, scanty and short, Deut. xxix. 4. and on the contrary, the denunciation of the curse frequent and express; hence the ministry of Moses is called, ‘the ministration of death and condemnation,’ 2 Cor. iii. 7,9. doubtless because it mentioned the condemnation of the sinner, and obliged the Israelites to subscribe to it.” 
2. A Repetition of the Covenant of Works which is in Opposition to the Gospel: “…when the law was given from mount Sinai or Horeb, there was a repetition of the covenant of works.” Witsius goes on to quote Calvin on Heb. xii. 10, “Whatever we read is intended to inform the people, that God then ascended his tribunal, and manifested himself as an impartial judge. If an innocent animal happened to approach, he commanded it to be thrust through with a dart; how much sorer punishment were sinners liable to, who were conscious of their sins, nay, and knew themselves indited by the law , as guilty of eternal death.” Thus mount Sinai, says Witsius, is set “in opposition to mount Sion, the terrors of the law to the sweetness of the gospel.” 
3. A Republication of Works to Point to Christ: Thus far it would seem that Witsius might hold to a pure covenant of works, absent of any grace, yet this is also not his view. He states that this republication of the covenant of works was not “repeated, in order to set up again such a covenant with Israelites, in which they were to seek for righteousness and salvation.” For such a thing is impossible. And for God to provide another way “then the law had been contrary to the promise, made to the fathers many ages before.” The law cannot nullify the previous promise. Stated positively, the purpose of republication of the covenant of works was “to convince them [Israel] of their sin and misery, to drive them out of themselves, to shew them the necessity of a satisfaction, and to compel them to Christ. And so their being thus brought to a remembrance of the covenant of works tended to promote the covenant of grace.” The whole purpose of the law was to bring us to Christ! 
4. A Covenant Presupposing the Covenant of Grace: Despite the Mosaic Covenant being a republication of the covenant of works, it is not like the prelapsarian covenant of works since grace is necessarily involved here. God is dealing with sinners and not sinless man and that he does not destroy us is due to his promise to Adam after the fall. Though it was not the case formerly, here grace is necessarily presupposed. ”There likewise accompanied this giving of the law the repetition of some things belonging to the covenant of grace… that God should propose a covenant of friendship to sinful man, call himself his God (at least in the sense it was said to the elect in Israel), take to himself any people, separated from others, for his peculiar treasure, assign to them the land of Canaan as a pledge of heaven, promise his grace to those that love him and keep his commandments, and circumcise the vengeance denounced against despisers within certain bounds, and the like; these things manifestly discover a covenant of grace: and without supposing the suretiship of the Messiah, it could not, consistently with the divine justice and truth, be proposed to man a sinner.” The republication of the covenant of works involves the covenant of grace in that it is presupposed! 

Having stated these four premises Witsius goes on to state his answer: 

1. Not Formally the Covenant of Works: “1st. Because that cannot be renewed with the sinner, in such a sense as to say, if , for the future, thou shalt perfectly perform every instance of obedience, thou shalt be justified by that, according to the covenant of works. For, by this, the pardon of the former sins would be presupposed, which the covenant of works excludes. 2dly. Because God did not require perfect obedience from Israel, as a condition of this covenant, as a cause of claiming the reward; but sincere obedience, as an evidence of reverence and gratitude. 3dly. Because it did not conclude Israel under the curse, in the sense peculiar to the covenant of works, where all hope of pardon was cut off, if they sinned but in the least instance.”
2. Nor Formally the Covenant of Grace: “Because that requires not only obedience, but also promises, and bestows strength to obey. For, thus the covenant of grace is made known, Jer. xxxii. 39. ‘and I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever.’ But such a promise appears not in the covenant made at mount Sinai. Nay; God, on this very account, distinguishes the new covenant of grace from the Sinaitic, Jer. xxxi. 31-33. And Moses loudly proclaims, Deut xxix. 4. ‘yet the Lord hath not given you a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.’ Certainly, the chosen from among Israel had obtained this. Yet not in virtue of this covenant, which stipulated obedience, but gave no power for it: but in virtue of the covenant of grace, which also belonged to them.”
3. A National Covenant Between God and Israel: “…whereby Israel promised to God a sincere obedience to all his precepts, especially to the ten words; God, on the other hand, promised to Israel, that such an observance would be acceptable to him, nor want its reward, both in this life, and in that which is to come, both as to soul and body. This reciprocal promise supposed a covenant of grace. For, without the assistance of the covenant of grace, man cannot sincerely promise that observance; and yet that an imperfect observance should be acceptable to God is wholly owing to the covenant of grace. It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works, the terror of which being increased by those tremendous signs that attended it, they ought to have been excited to embrace the covenant of God. This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other.”

As a result, the decalogue can be viewed in a twofold manner:

1. Precisely, as a law: “they are the rule of our nature and actions, which HE has prescribed, who has a right to command. This they were from the beginning, this they still are, and this they will continue to be, under whatever covenant, or in whatever state man shall be.”
2. As an instrument of the covenant: “they point out the way to eternal salvation; or contain the condition of enjoying that salvation: and that both under the covenant of grace and of works. But with this difference: that under the covenant of works, this condition is required to be performed by man himself; under the covenant of grace it is proposed, as already performed, or to be performed by a mediator.” 

Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed), Vol. II, 181-87.

Sanctification and the Third Use of the Law

Thus the crucial point in all of this is that even in its third use (guiding rather than condemning), the law can do only what the law does. We must not think that the law drives us to Christ in the beginning (second use) and then Christ drives us back to the law for our acceptance before God in sanctification (third use). Rather, the law continues to provide us with the soundest guidance available, but apart from Christ and the indicative announcement of what he has done for us and in us, it can only lead us to either despair or self-righteousness. No less than when we first believed, we must always attribute to the gospel the power that fills our sails with gratitude, and to the law the proper course that such gratitude takes. At the beginning, in the middle, and at the end, the gospel “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16).
- Michael S. Horton, God of Promise (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books) 194. 

The Sinaitic Covenant of Works

While God’s mercies to the Israelites despite their disloyalty to the Sinaitic covenant are always justified on the basis of the Abrahamic promise, there are no passages that read, “Yet God remained faithful to David/the house of David for the sake of his covenant with Moses and the people at Horeb.” The covenant does not work in reverse. God never remains faithful to unfaithful national Israel on the basis of the Sinaitic covenant itself–for on that basis, as he repeatedly says, he would have scattered them long ago. And yet it is on the basis of the Sinaitic covenant that God exiles Judah and eventually, through Jesus’s prophetic ministry abolishes the theocracy and pronounces judgment upon it. This reiterates the fact that the ministry of Moses could not being about that blessedness that was the positive side of the sanctions–not because it was flawed, but because those who answered with one voice, “We will do all these things,” in fact did not.
- Michael S. Horton, God of Promise (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books) 99. 

Participating in the Theo-Drama

Without some such allegiance to confessional or creedal theology, the local church will struggle to participate fittingly in the theo-drama and will find itself speaking and acting like the other institutions (e.g., social clubs, political organizations, entertainment centers, and business conglomerates) that now hold cultural center stage.
Because there is no other gospel, however, local churches must be radically committed to the doctrines that lie at the center of the theo-drama, all the while remaining charitable with regard to doctrines that lie at the periphery.
… Local theology can, indeed must, be simultaneously creative and creedal/confessional.
- Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press), 455. 

Sola Scriptura and Tradition

Sola scriptura is not the answer to the question “How many sources should one use in doing theology?” If theology is faith seeking understanding, one also needs faith, not to mention the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Sola scriptura no more rules out the role of faith or the Holy Spirit than sola fide rules out sola gratia, or that solus Christus rules out God the Father and God the Spirit. To suggest that sola always means “(absolutely) alone” is to fail to attend to how the Reformers actually used the term.
Sola scriptura describes a pattern of authority that obtains between Scripture, tradition, and the life of the church. Better: sola scriptura describes the practice of biblical authority in the church. Sola scriptura is the answer to the question ”Where can we find the supreme norm by which to measure Christian deeds and Christian doctrine?” Construed positively, sola scripture indicates how the church is to practice divine authority. Stated negatively, “sola Scriptura is the statement that the church can err.”
Sola scriptura does not mean nulla traditio (“no tradition”), nor does it entail ignoring the Rule of Faith: “It is clear that the sola scriptura did not mean scripture without tradition, but scripture as prior norm, potentially set in judgment over the tradition.” Sola scriptura was not a protest against tradition as such but against the presumption of coincidence between church teaching and tradition. One might even say that sola scriptura was a protest on behalf of the genuine apostolic tradition, whose normative specification is found in the canonical Scriptures. Tradition nevertheless can and must play a crucial role, even in a canonically oriented theology that affirms sola scriptura.  
- Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press), 232-33. 

Solus Christus: The Ground of Sola Scriptura

In the final analysis, the supreme theological warrant for sola scriptura can only be solus Christus. To practice sola scriptura with the Reformers is to recognize that Jesus Christ is the ultimate content, author, and interpreter of Scripture: “By urging Scripture alone Luther was in fact urging Christ alone. Solus Christus is the presupposition and ground of sola scriptura.” However, just as sola scriptura does not imply “without tradition,” so solus Christus does not entail “without the Spirit.”
- Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press), 197.

The Dramatic Nature of Doctrine

1. Doctrine provides program notes for identifying the dramatis personae and for understanding the basic theo-dramatic plot.
2. Doctrine is direction for the Christian’s fitting participation in the drama of redemption, thus enabling one to continue the missions of the Son and Spirit into new situations.
3. Doctrine is direction for a scripted, yet “spirited,” performance of covenantal faithfulness.
4. Doctrine as directions tells us what has already been done (by God), thus implying what remains to be done (by us). Claims about what we should do (the imperative, propositional direction) rest on claims about what God has done in Christ (the indicative, propositional declaration).
5. Doctrine gives rise to a project that is as propositional as it is personal– to something to be believed by us, done by us, felt by us. Doctrine directs disciples as they seek to orient themselves in the church and in the world vis-à-vis the truth, goodness, and beauty defined by Jesus Christ.
   - Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press), 110.

Nevin and Historic Christianity

…to take away from the church its divine historical existence… is to turn it into a wretched Gnostic abstraction. To conceive of it as the mere foot-ball of Satan from the beginning, is to suppose that Christ was either totally unmindful of his own word that the gates of hell should not prevail against it, or else unable to make his word good.
- John Williamson Nevin, taken from Darryl G. Hart, John Williamson Nevin (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R), 155.