reformed blogging.

Underlying the Reformation, as evidenced in the five solas, was the renewed aspect of Scripture’s absolute authority over the Church. Rather than submit to Roman papacy, the Reformers desired to return to the doctrines authorized by Scripture and developed by the early Church. Yet, it was not against Rome alone that the magisterial Reformers fought. On the other extreme were the radical reformers, the anabaptists. Such groups, believing that the magisterial reformers had not gone far enough, sought to take nearly everything to the extreme. Thus, rather than seeking to be guided by Church history in their interpretation of Scripture, as the reformers sought, they did away with anything assembling authority or tradition save Scripture. Creeds and confessions were no longer of any value since these were not scripture. Like Charles Finney, they would view such creeds and confessions as “paper popes”.

Unfortunately, the anabaptist (mis)understanding of doctrines such as sola scriptura continues in our day. Evangelicalism has become a privatized religion, where, rather than believing the doctrines of Scripture (which are said to be man-made), people are turning to “scripture alone”. Any book that seeks to expound doctrines from Scripture are set at odds with the sacred book and are viewed as unimportant. The presupposition here is that anything that is not the Bible itself is in competition with it. The words of the bible themselves are seen as means of grace rather than the message of the bible. All that matters is that people read Scripture. Here we find the heartbeat of the radical reformers. They failed to see that the Reformation was not simply a set of principles to be followed (by which many claim to be heirs of the Reformation), but a Reformation of doctrine. The Magisterial Reformers did not deny the Trinity because it was “not explicitly in Scripture,” nor did they deny doctrines such as paedobaptism. The Westminster Confession of Faith states that Doctrines deduced from Scripture by “good and necessary consequence” are to be viewed as part of the “whole counsel of God.” 

It is not enough to be “biblical.” Nearly every cult claims to be scriptural, and they are quite able to demonstrate their knowledge of proof texts to support their heretical views. In fact, one of the chief claims of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that they don’t “interpret” Scripture, but that they let it speak for itself. Through this distorted idea of “scripture alone” the cults twist and utterly deform Biblical christianity. Are they able to prove their views from Scripture? If we adopt the view of the radical reformers we must accept what they claim. Yet if we turn to historic Christian creeds and confessions and witness the development of doctrine throughout Church history we are able to readily refute such cults and call them what they are, heretics. The Magisterial Reformers understood very well that against Rome’s interpretation they were arguing their own. The claim of the Reformers was not that they avoided interpretation but that theirs was the true interpretation. Yet they did not accomplish this by viewing Scripture as a magical book from which verses could be taken out of context; they understood the bible as an organic whole, and that any part of Scripture had to be viewed within the context of the entire canon. In this way they were able to come up with the biblical Law/Gospel contrast and harmonize Paul and James and their respective doctrines of justification (which are the same). 

In this light, the confessions and catechisms ought to be viewed. The Reformers did not set such things in opposition to Scripture, but viewed them as complementary. The creeds and confessions are called summaries of Scripture so that the Christian will be able to read Scripture and discern what is Law and what is Gospel. Creeds and confessions keep individual believers from their own privatized interpretations that often contradict that which is biblical. It is not difficult to take a passage from Scripture and come up with a thoroughly unbiblical idea, a thing we see everywhere- from the unguided Christian within the Church to Oprah. The last thing we need is to pit creeds against Christ. 

Here, then, is a plea. To forsake the presuppositions of the radical reformers, and to adopt a truly Reformed and biblical understanding of the Reformation doctrines. Dorothy Sayers is right in saying that we must choose between creeds or chaos. Which will it be? 

Just as sound piety cannot be separated from its source in justification and adoption, personal piety cannot be separated from public activity. An evangelical shaped piety will inevitably turn one away from “forever gazing within” (Calvin), to look out onto a world in need. Medieval piety had not only emphasized merit; it pointed the energetic saint to a life of isolation from the world in meditation upon the eternal Good by transcending the world of appearances. But Reformation piety could not stand in greater contrast. First, it emphasized God’s redemptive activity in history and in the hearing of the gospel, sharply criticizing the Platonized elements of the medieval synthesis, shifting the emphasis from contemplation to action. Second, it emphasized free justification, which freed one from at least the theological motive for serving oneself by serving God and others. If justification before God is already accomplished, God and neighbors are not instrumental to one’s own salvation.
…Too much of [contemporary] Protestant theology has been formed in the womb of a type of pietism with an antitheological bias and a fascination with praxis merely as an interior experience of God and grace. Precisely its lack of concern for doctrine contributes to an individualistic and dualistic practice that is often shared by conservative evangelicals and liberals… Only a Biblical theology of grace and of covenant can produce this inner ambition that is far more powerful that guilt of sentimentalism. The church is called, like Athanasius, to be against the world for the world. [bold emphasis added]
- Michael S. Horton, Covenant and Eschatology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox), 254-60.

The doctrine of sola fide has been long under fire. During the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church hurled assaults at the Reformers for their “antinomian” doctrine of justification by faith alone and to this day she stands by the anathemas pronounced at Trent against the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believing sinner. Unfortunately, enemies of the beloved doctrine have formed within the walls of protestantism bringing the battle much closer to home.

Arguments are made that a faith that is “never alone,” as the Reformers put it, means that we are, at least in a certain sense, justified by our works. Thus, it is wrong to preach a salvation by mere faith. Others would redefine justifying faith as “faithful obedience” making our righteousness a thing attained not by works (as the pelagians would have it) but by good works which cooperate with grace and so justify. Such people dare to call their doctrine a gospel of grace (while Paul argues that such a “grace” is no longer grace). Ironically, though these men claim to be finishing what Luther and Calvin started they inevitably end up back in Rome; here they argue against any gospel that would comfort men in their state of sinfulness, any gospel that would assure men that they are, by faith, righteous and yet, simultaneously, sinner.

Such arguments against sola fide are nothing new. In his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism Zacharius Ursinus deals with similar objections:

Obj. 4 Faith does not justify without that which is required in those who are justified. Good works are required in those who are justified. Therefore, faith is not without good works, and so does not justify alone. 
Ans. There is here the same fallacy to which reference has just been made, on account of the doubtful construction of the particle without. Faith does not, indeed, justify without those things which are required in those who are justified. But although it never exists alone, and is always joined by love, by which it works, yet it alone justifies–is the act of embracing and applying to itself the merits of Christ. The minor also must be more fully explained; for faith and good works are not required in the same sense in those who are justified. Faith, with its own peculiar act, (without which it cannot be considered) is required as the necessary instrument, by which we apply to ourselves the merits of Christ. Good works, on the other hand, are not required that by them we may apprehend the merits of Christ, much less that we may be justified on account of them; but that we may thereby prove our faith, which without good works is dead, and can only be known by their presence. Good works are required as the fruits of our faith, and as the evidences of our gratitude to God. That is not always necessary for the accomplishment of a certain result, which is necessarily connected with the cause of the same thing. So good works, although they are necessarily connected with faith, are nevertheless not necessary for the apprehension of the merits of Christ.

Obj. 5 Where there are a number of things required, there we cannot use any exclusive particles. But good works are required in addition to faith in them that are justified. Therefore, we cannot say by faith only.
Ans. The same answer may be returned to this objection which we have given to the one just noticed. Many things are required, but not in the same sense. Faith is necessary as the means by which we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, whilst good works are necessary as the evidences of our faith and gratitude.  
- Zacharius Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Cathechism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed), 337. 

The Law tells us what we are to do, under the threat of punishment. The Gospel, on the other hand, promises and provides the forgiveness of sin. Just as one must differentiate between the righteousness which is acceptable before men and that which is acceptable before God, so one must also distinguish between the preaching of the Law and that of the Gospel. One task of the Law is to compel men to act, to promote the good and prevent the evil. As such it therefore includes all public order and activity on the different levels of life. Luther called this the civil use of the Law (usus legis civilis). But when it comes to a man’s relation to God–his righteousness in a higher sense–the task of the Law is completely different. The Law cannot produce a single good work, and man is here referred to the Word of the Gospel, which offers him forgiveness of sin for the sake of Christ. In this context the function of the Law is simply to reveal sin and to make the threat of wrath real–the wrath under which man stands because of his sinful nature. Luther called this the theological or spiritual use of the Law (usus theologicus seu spiritualis).
Law and Gospel characterize two kinds of preaching which simultaneously exert their effect: the Law accuses and judges, while the Gospel awakens faith in the heart and thereby raises man up and re-creates him so that he can begin to love God and his neighbor–i.e., so that he can live in the frame of mind which the command of love demands.
…With respect to justification itself, good works must be as clearly distinguished from faith as possible. For this has to do with faith alone. As Luther expressed it, the Law must not be permitted to force its way up in the conscience. The man who has been crushed by the Law, and recognizes himself to be a sinner, can be raised up only by faith. He must look only to the cross of Christ, and not to the Law or to his own works, as though they could make satisfaction for his misdeeds. On this point, therefore, faith and works are mutually exclusive.
- Bengt Hägglund, History of Theology (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House), 224-28. 

Just finished reading Daniel Hyde’s exposition of the Belgic Confession. Despite it’s intimidating size (500 pages!) the book made for a quick and extremely enjoyable read. Despite the books clarity and simplicity, as it is directed towards a wider group of readers, this in no way detracts from the theological depth of the book.

Anyone who wants a deeper understanding of the historic roots of Reformed Protestantism, as well as a deeper understanding of Reformed theology, read this book! Hyde is clear in his exposition of the confession, and also goes on to explain theological terms as well as names of important characters in Church history. In addition to providing a historical context, Hyde also shows how relevant the Belgic Confession is for Reformed Christians today. Above all, he is faithful to the confession as well as to Scripture and seeks to affect more than the intellect. As the title suggests, and as the confession says in its first article, these are things that men of the Protestant Reformation believed with their hearts and confessed with their mouths. During the Reformation many men, including the confession’s main author, Guido de Bräs, lived and died for the confession of the the Reformed Church. Tolle legge!

We believe that we have no access unto God but alone through the only Mediator and Advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous; who therefore became man, having united in one person the divine and human natures, that we men might have access to the divine Majesty, which access would otherwise be barred against us. But this Mediator, whom the Father has appointed between Him and us, ought in no wise to affright us by His majesty, or cause us to seek another according to our fancy. For there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ; who, though existing in the form of God, yet emptied himself, being made in the likeness of men and of a servant for us, and in all things was made like unto his brethren… Let us not forsake Him to take another, or rather to seek after another, without ever being able to find him; for God well knew when He gave Him to us, that we were sinners. Therefore, according to the command of Christ, we call upon the heavenly Father through Jesus Christ our only Mediator, as we are taught in the Lord’s Prayer; being assured that whatever we ask of the Father in His name will be granted us.
- Excerpt from The Belgic Confession: Article 26 (Emphasis Added).

In Christ in His Sufferings, the first part of the Schilder Trilogy, Klass Schilder presents this antithesis as he compares Matthew 26:14-15 and Zechariah 11:12-13, the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding Christ’s being sold for thirty pieces of silver.

Self-Redemption:

1. Man can save himself.
2. Redemption is a limited thing.
3. Man does God’s work.

Free Grace:

1. Redemption is eternally beyond our own capacity. God must justify and sanctify us anew each day. We cannot live without the Shepherd of our soul one moment.
2. Redemption transcends the possibility of compensation. We cannot by drawing on the resources of the whole world amass money enough to pay God. His gifts are inestimable worth. And the gift cannot be separated from the Giver, who is infinite.
3. We can never put ourselves in God’s position. We want to remain the sheep of His care, following, believing, and listening to the Shepherd’s voice.

In light of Christ’s being sold for the price of a slave, Schilder comments:

The roof did not crash down upon these merchandisers. That it did not is not due to any “semen religionis” still hidden in some corner of the arid souls of these traitors to God, to prophecy, and to Christ. That is because of the will of God which selects these dark ways to the redemption of His people. God deliberately lets the thirty pieces of silver roll through the ages over the market place of the world. He does that in order that men may choose between free grace and self-redemption.
That choice is still the liveliest option of men. The conflict between those two contenders is uncompromising. The way of a legalistic, “good works” salvation leaves that of the preaching of free grace: the way of the Judaistic, pharisaic “earning” of salvation is incompatible with the New Testament Pauline Gospel of redemption by faith. On this question Rome and the Reformation part company too. For Catholicism, though but in part, would buy salvation, and, though not intentionally so, would by its system of absolution again put thirty pieces of silver upon the table. Luther and Calvin, in bidding farewell to the Roman Tetzel, must protest: by faith alone; by faith, not by works, lest any should glory.
Klass Schilder, Christ in His Sufferings, 78.

A few nights ago I had a difficult time falling asleep, I don’t know why but Harry Emerson Fosdick’s sermon “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” was on my mind. I had only heard mention of it through various biographies and in relation to Old Princeton and especially J. Gresham Machen, but never actually read it so I decided to do just that.

In reading Fosdick’s message I was surprised to find how pertinent it is to today. One would not be surprised to hear the main thrust of his message echoed in many of today’s emerging churches. Some have even commented on this movement saying that it is the old Liberalism in new clothes. The connection between today’s emerging Church and yesterday’s Liberalism quickly becomes apparent in reading through Fodick’s message. Though Fosdick denies a good number of Fundamental doctrines (included in this is the historicity of certain miracles, the virgin birth, the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, a “special theory” of the atonement) the main point of his message is built on a supposed tension between doctrine and unity within the Church. To him, of course, Christianity is not about doctrines but about furthering the “cause of Jesus Christ” (how one can distinguish the two is beyond me) and any controversy over “uncertain” doctrines will be no help to such a cause. The problem, however, is that once you do away with all these supposedly “uncertain” doctrines, you have no Christianity left.

Rather than point out Fosdick’s error regarding each of these fundamental doctrines, I think we will find some value in considering Fosdick’s assertion of what we ought to do instead since his exhortation is not uncommon today. Quickly, here is the context of the Fundemenalist controvery: the Fundamentalists wanted Liberal or Modernists within the Church who were denying what all of what Christianity consists of, namely doctrines to stop calling themselves Christians. The presupposition of the Liberals was that Christianity is more about following an example, showing “Christian love” to one another rather than a religion based on doctrines (hence they had no difficulty doing away with the historicity of events described in Scripture). While it is certainly true that we ought to follow Christ’s example, this is not the core of Christianity. To reduce Christianity to mere doing, to an imperative while neglecting the great indicative is to revert back to works based righteousness, or to become like every other religion. Christianity is a religion that is founded upon belief in historical events. This is because it is not about what we did or what we do, but about what God did, namely sending His Son. All our obedience, then, is based on this indicative. Any obedience that is not from faith in what Christ has done is disobedience. That is why mere moralism will never get anyone into heaven, because it is not from faith, but is still based on man motivated works.]

Fosdick’s passage was based on Acts 5 (which shows that one can preach from the Bible without actually preaching its message). He appealed to Gamaliel’s counsel to the Sanhedrin, namely, to leave the Christians alone since God would get rid of them if they were not truly from Him. The problem with such an application of this passage is manifold:

1. The rest of Scripture is ignored. I’m thinking mainly of the Epistles wherein constant warning is given to purge the Church of false teachers and to beware of unorthodox doctrine. (See Romans - Revelation).
2. Gameliel was not a Christian, he was a Jew, the Sanhedrin was not the Church, they were Jewish religious leaders.
3. On one side there were the non-Christian Jews and the other side were the Christians. Gamaliel is advising the Sanhedrin to allow the Christians to exist and to do what they’re doing. This has nothing to do with the Church. The Fundamentalists weren’t persecuting the Liberals (as the Jews were doing to the early Church), they just wanted them to have integrity. Christians are not to persecute others for their beliefs, yet when such beliefs enter the Church it is to be done away with in order to protect the Church. A better example would probably be Paul’s relation to the Christian Judaizers. They were within the Church but preached no true gospel and thus Paul desired to expel them from the Church. However, Christians never went out of their way to the Jews to kick them out of the world. Likewise, Fundamentalists simply wanted a Church free from soul-destroying moralism. They wanted to keep the gospel pure and unadulterated.

Fosdick sets up the intolerant Fundamentalists up against the “tolerant” Liberals. We see a similar antithesis between those in the Church today who would maintain historic Christian doctrines and those who would rather “be like Christ.” The problem with the latter group is that to be like Christ on any foundation other than the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, ends up being sheer legalism. In seeking the “weightier matters of the Law” Fosdick forgets the gospel of Christ entirely and Liberalism becomes just another type of Pharisaic legalism.

Fosdick concludes:

If, during the war, when the nations were wrestling upon the very brink of hell and at times all seemed lost, you chanced to hear two men in an altercation about some minor matter of sectarian denominationalism, could you restrain your indignation? You said, “What can you do with folks like this who, in the face of colossal issues, play with the tiddledywinks and peccadillos of religion?” So, now, when from the terrific questions of this generation one is called away by the noise of this Fundamentalist controversy, he thinks it almost unforgivable that men should tithe mint and anise and cummin, and quarrel over them, when the world is perishing for the lack of the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith. . . .

Where is salvation for man but in the gospel of Christ? And what is the gospel but a historical account of what God has done, a proposition that needs to be believed. In the great battle for the doctrines of Christianity the Fundamentalists did not strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, rather they sought to maintain the very foundation of that which is necessary if anyone is to be saved. Such a battle continues to be waged today and we must lose no ground to those who argue for a “Christ-like” love while seeking to sneak in a false gospel through the back door.