Roman Catholic Mysticism’s Nature/Grace Distinction

Been unable to post for a few days because of some technical difficulties (harddrive crash), but here’s a quote from Warfield’s second volume on Perfectionism.

Here Warfield points out a major problem with the theology of a perfectionist named Thomas Upham. Because much of Upham’s language is borrowed from Roman Catholic mysticism, he has a tendency to promote (though he does so unintentionally) a Roman Catholic nature/grace distinction rather than the protestant sin/grace distinction. The result is that sanctification consists of an annhilitation of the self, rather than an annhiliation of sin. Much of this thinking has seeped into contemporary evangelicalism (perhaps through “evangelical” perfectionists like Upham) causing certain mystical tendencies to surface- tendencies that have more in common with Rome than Evangelical Protestantism. Under such a nature/grace distinction anything which does not seem explicitly “holy” becomes sinful. Such thinking is likely behind evangelicalism’s tendency to “Christianize” nearly everything from music to garden decor.

…we are told that we are not to have any thoughts that are “our own,” and it is explained that “thoughts, which arise from the instigation of self, and not from a divine movement, are not in harmony with what God in his providential arrangements would desire and choose to suggest,” and are therefore “not only influences, which separate God from the soul.” Of course the self, as it is now constituted, is corrupt; and all its thoughts and desires are corrupt. But the remedy for this dreadful state of things which the Scriptures offer is not the substitution of God for the self as the source of our thoughts and desires, but the purification of the self. The mystics, however, whom Upham is here reflecting, did not think in terms of sin and grace but in terms of self and God. It was not from sin but from the self itself from which they wished to turn; not to holiness that they wished to flee but to God.
- Benjamin B. Warfield, Perfectionism: Volume II (Grand Rapid, MI: Baker Books), 400-01.

Filed under: Quotes, Reformed Theology , B.B. Warfield, Mysticism, Perfectionism, Thomas Upham

Finney’s Ordo Salutis

Here’s a brief quote from Warfield’s second volume on Perfectionism. Below Warfield is describing Finney’s ordo salutis. It’s interesting to note that at the heart of many theological controversies lies a confused relationship between justification and sanctification:

There are therefore not two classes of Christians, merely justified and the justified and sanctified also: no one is justified who is not also sanctified. Sanctification is not a sequence of justification, but its condition; and therefore precedes it. We are not justified in order that we may be sanctified, but sanctified in order that we may be justified.
- Benjamin B. Warfield, Perfectionism: Volume II (Grand Rapid, MI: Baker Books), 146-47.

Filed under: Reformed Theology , B.B. Warfield, Charles Finney, Ordo Salutis, Perfectionism

“How Are You Doing Spiritually?”

… Willing our way into God’s presence is no less legalistic and human-centered than working our way into his presence, but Paul gives us the Good News: “It does not therefore depend on man’s will or effort, but on God’s mercy” (Rom 9:16).

… So too, so much of contemporary spirituality and piety is focused on self. “How am I doing spiritually?” “How is my walk?” “Am I living in victory?” Reformation spirituality lifted people out of a purely introspective, inward-looking piety and directed them outside of themselves to Christ and the cross, from which vista they could now look out across the needy world. Abraham Kuyper wisely warned,

Many well-meant efforts at so-called sanctification become sinful. For the man who applies himself earnestly and diligently to good works, solely to attain a holier status and thus become a holier person, has lost his reward. His end view is not God, but himself; and… this wrongly planned sanctification causes self-exaltation and spiritual pride.

Since redemption is a completed work, the believer was liberated to serve God and neighbor without thought of rewards or punishment. If we recover this objective, external, outward-looking theology, piety will follow. And this is becoming increasingly necessary in a world in which so many of us spend so much time contemplating our navel that there is such little long-term influence in the world as salt and light.
- Michael S. Horton, In the Face of God (Word Publishing), 168-70.

Filed under: Quotes, Reformed Theology , Gnosticism, Michael S. Horton, Sanctification

Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology

While it is tempting to claim that any given theological system (whether Dispensational or Covenantal) is a direct result of a non-biased, straight-forward reading of Scripture, things are not so simple. It is begging the question to merely exhort people to study the Scripture (alone) and then form a “system.” This sort of advice ignores the main issue since theological systems are merely outflows of varying presuppositions in approaching Scriptures.Therefore to teach believers to read Scripture literally (without recognizing the ultimate fulfillment of the OT types and shadows in the NT) is to teach them how to read Scripture in a way that will inevitably lead to some sort of extreme dichotomy between the Old and New Testament (Dispensationalism). On the other hand reading the Scriptures covenantally will lead one to a view of the Old and New Testaments that contains more continuity (Covenant Theology).

The issue then is not solved by merely studying the Bible, since such an approach leaves the main question unanswered. That question is this: How do we read Scripture? And even more specifically: How do we read the Old Testament in light of New Testament revelation?
Some ignore these questions altogether and assume the things that must first be proved by Scripture. To advocate a literal interpretation of Scripture without seeing the fulfillment of types and shadows is in no way supported by the New Testament witness. This was precisely the problem with the Jews of Christ’s time. They were unable to see how it was that this Messianic King was a fulfillment of Christ when he suffered and died on the cross. They wanted physical Jerusalem, they wanted a triumphant king. They could not see past the ethnic, and temporal land promises, to the antitypical Sabbath, temple, kingdom, and King. The New Testament testifies, however, that the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies is in Christ and his Church. Prophecies from the Old Testament find explicit fulfillment in the Church (see Acts). James even quotes a prophecy from Amos (a prophecy that ought to be regarding physical Israel if read literally) and sees the inclusion of Gentiles as a fulfillment of it.

Is the issue really that important? Isn’t it merely for academia and scholars? This is what some would have us think, but it is not the case at all. Take for instance the covenants. Covenant Theology sees the entire Scripture through the lens of God’s covenant with his people. By recognizing the principles behind different historical (as well as eternal) covenants, theologians have come up with three categories. For brevity’s sake I’ll mention two (since the third, the Covenant of Redemption, is a covenant that was made in eternity, while the former two are historical). The first is the covenant of works which was made with Adam in the garden. On this covenant, man’s salvation is based on his performance. Adam, our covenant head fell and we fell with him. The second covenant is called the Covenant of Grace. This is not to be confused with the New Covenant, though the latter is certainly a part of the Covenant of Grace. The CoG was enacted immediately after the fall (extending from Genesis to Revelation), and we see it in God’s promise in Genesis 3. It is brought back in Genesis 13 with God’s promise to Abraham. The CoG differs from the CoW in that it is an unconditional promise. God promises to do everything for us (demonstrated in what is called a self-maledictory oath). Understanding the basis of these two covenants (Grace and Works) is absolutely vital to understanding the Gospel. With the Law (Mount Sinai/Moses) came a republication of the CoW. Those who fail to see the Mosaic Covenant as a republication of works will confuse the Law with the unconditionality of the Abrahamic CoG. The Law’s function is recognized, then, as a tutor to Christ, and not as something added to the promise to Abraham (CoG).

Earlier Dispensationalists divided the Old and New Testament to such an extent that they were accused of antinomianism (finding no place in the Christian life for the decalogue, the Sermon on the Mount, etc.). Some today, in seeking to fix the errors of their predecessors, are claiming that we are able to keep the law. Failing to see typological fulfillment in the redemptive history of the OT they turn types and shadows into ethical imperatives. The condition of the Mosaic Covenant, “Do this and live,” rather than pointing to the impossibility of keeping the law (anticipating/pointing to fulfillment in Christ), becomes a burden upon the Christian (saved by grace, kept by works). Stories of King David no longer point to the Messianic King, but become ethical lessons to keep us from instances of adultery, or to encourage humility. In the end Law and Gospel are jumbled together in a weird funk and rather than “rightly dividing” Scripture, we are left with a  friendlier, less rigorous law (something that we can now keep) and a severely confused Gospel (something we must do).

Understanding Covenant Theology is vital because the clarlity of the gospel is vital. We should not be so naive as to think that a “non-biased” study of Scripture is possible, but should admit that we all have presuppositions and examine rather than ignore them.

Filed under: Quotes, Reformed Theology , Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, Law and Gospel

The General Theme of Hebrews: The Supremacy of Christ

The general theme of Hebrews–the unqualified supremacy of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, a supremacy that brooks no challenge, whether from angelic or human beings–is not in dispute. Correlatively, the covenant he has inaugurated is superior to any covenant that has preceded it; his priesthood is better than Levi’s; the sacrifice he has offered is superior to those offered under the Mosaic code; and in fact, the very purpose of antecedent revelation was to anticipate him and point to him and to all the blessings he has brought with him. This theme of the supremacy of Christ is not the stuff of an abstract essay; its purpose is repeatedly disclosed by the parenetic passages (2:1-4; 3:7-4:11; 4:11-16; 5:11-6:12; 10:19-39; 12:1-13:17) designed to warn the readers not to turn back from the Christianity faith to the forms of piety they once knew.
- D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament – 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan) 597.

Filed under: Quotes, Reformed Theology , D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, Hebrews, Supremacy of Christ

Sinners and the Lord’s Table

Some have carried this threat too far [referring to I Cor. 10:16], however, using it as a source of terror for those who come to the Lord’s Table as sinners. But eating and drinking “worthily” does not mean that we are required to have pure hearts and lives in order to take communion. Not only is communion available to sinners; it is available only to sinners. Eating and drinking worthily means, at least in part, that we come dressed only in the righteousness of Christ.
… Only when we come to God in his appointed way, through his appointed Mediator, do we find both our minds and hearts renewed. Only then can we find a genuine experience of God’s goodness, grace, and intimate fatherhood.
- Michael S. Horton, In the Face of God (Word Publishing), 20.

Filed under: Quotes, Reformed Theology , Communion, Lord's Table, Michael Horton, Worship

Two Characteristics Basic to All Revelation: Covenantal and Redemptive-Historical

God does not reveal himself along two tracks, one public and one private. As long as revelation is viewed in the first place as God’s Word to me as an individual and as given primarily to provide me with specific, explicit directives and answers to the particular concerns and perplexities of my individual life situation, it is fundamentally misunderstood and a sense of the inadequacy of the Bible alone as a guide for life is almost inevitable. 
According to the overall witness of Scripture, at least two characteristics are basic to all revelation and control the giving of it. Very briefly, (a) revelation is covenantal. God reveals himself as the God of the covenant. He reveals himself, not to a mass of undifferentiated individuals, but to his covenant people, in order to build them up and make their number complete as one people. His revelation is always to and in the interests of the whole covenant people, although the exact bearing of any revelation may vary from individual to individual, depending on their differing life situations. (b) Revelation is redemptive-historical. Apart from the brief period before the fall, God reveals himself as the Redeemer of his covenant people and the Savior of the world. Revelation is given as a component part of God’s work in history to accomplish once for all, the salvation of his covenant people. Revelation is an integral element in the ongoing covenant history which has reached its initial consummation in the sufferings, death, and exaltation of Christ. It documents this history, particularly Christ as the fulfillment of the promises, and interprets it by drawing out the implications for the life and obedience of the redeemed covenant people. Since the history of redemption has been definitively accomplished and since after Pentecost its ongoing movement is delayed until Christ’s return for the application of redemption and the ingathering of the nations to share in the salvation of the covenant, the basis and rationale for new revelation is lacking and revelation has therefore ceased. 
- Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Perspectives on Pentecost (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R) 97-98.  

Filed under: Quotes, Reformed Theology , Cessationism, Charismatic, Covenant Theology, Redemptive Historical, Revelation, Richard B. Gaffin

A General Hermeneutical Rule in Reading Acts

Of first importance, hardly capable of being overemphasized, is a general hermeneutical consideration concerning the way Acts is to be read. If, as is too often the case, Acts is read primarily as more or less random samplings of earliest Christian piety and practice, as a compilation of illustrations taken from the early history and experience of the church–a more or less loose collection of edifying and inspiring episodes, usually with the nuance that they are from the “good old days, when Christians were really Christians”–then we will tend to become preoccupied with the experience of particular individuals and groups recorded there, to idealize that experience, and try to recapture it for ourselves. But if, as ought to be the case, Acts is read with an eye for its careful overall composition and what we will presently see is one Luke’s central purposes in writing, then these passages and the experiences they record come into proper focus.
- Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Perspectives on Pentecost (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R) 23. 

Filed under: Quotes, Reformed Theology , Acts, Hermeneutics, Pentecost

The Foedus Legale According to Olevianus: A Republication of the Foedus Creationis

The foedus legale for Olevianus is a postlapsarian renewal or reiteration of that dimension of the foedus creationis by which humanity was under obligation from the time of creation to conform to the righteousness and holiness of the Creator. This pactum, he says, was established at Mount Sinai following Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and obligated the people of God to perfect observance of the law through the exercise of their own moral powers. Those who kept the commandments were promised eternal life; those who did not stood under the wrath of God’s curse. As such, the lex scripta (or Decalogue) stood in the same relation to the foedus legale as did the lex inscripta (or law of nature) to the foedus creationis, namely, as a testimony to one’s obligation to perfect obedience. The one is inscribed on human hearts, the other on tablets of stone, but both bear witness to the same ius creationis, to the same guidelines for discerning good and evil, and to the same sentence of judgment. Like their respective covenants, the law given at Sinai was really the law given at creation…
… it was necessary that the law first implanted in our natures at creation be restated. Our obligation to God had not changed, but the chief witness to that obligation had been virtually stilled and God wished for it to be heard once again.
The goal of the legal covenant and its commandments, however, was to produce not only knowledge of moral obligation but also knowledge of sin. God placed the law before us like a promissory note of the obedience we owed Him iure creatione, not because He expected that we could pay our due but precisely because He knew that we could not and would have to turn to Him for help. The law exposes but does not remit sin. It comes with accusations rather than promises. It condemns us; it does not save us. But in its condemnatory role the law points us beyond itself to the gospel and thus serves as a preparation for salvation. In its diagnosis of our illness, it compels us to flee to Christ, the versus medicus. For only when we are emptied of all confidence in ourselves are we able to take hold of the promises of the covenant of grace.
- Lyle D. Bierma, The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books) 122-24.  

Filed under: Reformed Theology , Caspar Olevianus, Covenant of Works, Covenant Theology, Lyle D. Bierma

Law and Gospel According to Calvin

As Calvin himself goes on to point out, the middle three comparisons of the Old and New Testaments have to do with the differences between law and gospel. For him Old Testament/New Testament, Old Covenant/New Covenant, foedus leagale/foedus evangelicum, and law/gospel were in many respects synonymous terms. But how then can he say, on the one hand, that the two covenants are “in substance and reality… one and the same” and, on the other, that there is a “great difference” and even “antithesis” between the law and the gospel? The answer lies in a distinction he makes between law and gospel in their “broad” and “narrow” senses. In its narrower sense the law is only precept, only “the bare commandments,” only that proclamation of condemnation and death which “belongs peculiarly to the ministration of Moses.” In its broader sense, however, the law is “the whole doctrine contained in the Law and the prophets,” “the teaching of Moses as a whole.” As such it contains not just God’s commandments but His promises of grace as well, including the promise of Christ. So too with the gospel Taken in its broad sense, the gospel “includes those testimonies of his mercy and fatherly favor which God gave to the patriarchs of old”; in its narrow sense it is restricted to the proclamation of grace displayed in the incarnate Christ. The law or Old Testament, therefore is antithetical to the gospel or New Testament only in its narrow sense, that is, only insofar as it “is distinguished from the word of grace and mercy…. Where the whole law is concerned, the gospel differs from it only in clarity of manifestation.” 
- Lyle D. Bierma, The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books) 45-46. 

Filed under: Church History, Quotes, Reformed Theology , Covenant Theology, John Calvin, Law and Gospel, Lyle D. Bierma