iustitia aliena

“Christ for us” and “Christ in us”

According to an assertion of the great Roman Catholic historian of philosophy, Etienne Gilson, “For the first time, with the Reformation, there appeared this conception of a grace that saves a man without changing him, of a justice that redeems corrupted nature without restoring it, of a Christ who pardons the sinner for self-inflicted wounds but does not heal them.”  A surprising number of Protestants–including evangelicals–seem to share Gilson’s misunderstanding.

While Rome simply assimilated justification to sanctification, the Reformation position affirmed both as distinct yet inseparable gifts, G.C. Berkouwer replies to those who deny Luther’s interest in God’s gracious renovation of believers: “To anyone who has had a whiff of Luther’s writings this conception is incredible.  Even a scanty imitation is enough to be convinced that justification for Luther meant much more than an external event with no importance for the inner man.”

Like the relation of the doctrine of substitution in relation to other aspects of the atonement, forensic justification not only allows room for other benefits of Christ; it is their source and security.

The reformers saw “Christ for us” and “Christ in us” –the alien righteousness imputed and the sanctifying righteousness imparted–as not only compatible but as necessarily and inextricably related.  Those who are justified through faith are new creatures and begin then and there to love God and their neighbor, yielding the fruit of good works.  Reformed churches agree with the Lutheran confession that if sin has free sway over one’s life, “the Holy Spirit and faith are not present.”  However, it is not simply that justification and sanctification always go together in the application of redemption, as if they were parallel tracts; justification is the only reason that there can be any sanctification of sinful believers.  And both are granted in our union with Christ.  The real question, then, is whether justification is the source of new obedience or its result. In fact, presenting our bodies as a living sacrifice, according to Paul, is “our reasonable [logiken] worship” in the light of  ”God’s mercies” that have been explored to that point (Rom. 12:1).  It is the Good News that yields good works.  Salvation is not the prize for our obedience but the source.  In the light of God mercies in Christ, offering themselves as living sacrifices actually makes sense.

I have mentioned before that Scripture integrates drama, doctrine, doxology, and discipleship in ways that we easily overlook.  Christian faith and practice arise first of all out of a dramatic narrative: the unfolding plot of redemption from Genesis to Revelation.  This story gives rise to doctrines: specific conclusions that God himself reveals as to the meaning and implications of this divine drama.  The doctrines provoke us to faith, wonder, and praise.  Our sails filled with the gust of grace, we sail out of the harbor into the wide open spaces of the world, loving and serving our neighbors in thanksgiving and joy.  Without the biblical drama, the doctrine is abstract; without the doctrine, the doxology is much ado about nothing; without the doxology (shaped by the drama and the doctrine), discipleship is just another makeover: a few more fig leaves to conceal our nakedness.

Taken from Michael Horton’s Gospel-Driven Life: Being Good News People in a Bad News World from the chapter ‘The Promise-Driven Life in page 155-156.

More resources (Download and streaming audio)

White Horse Inn broadcast –  The Heart of Christianity listen here.

White Horse Inn broadcast – Rightly Dividing the Word: Law and Gospel here.

R. Scott Clark answers a question regarding the agreements and differences between Reformed and Lutheran Orthodoxy.  In writing about the differences and doctrines that the two hold in common, Clark mentions something important and helpful citing from the Belgic Confession on Sanctification and a couple of books covering Gospel-Driven Sanctification.  Quoting now:

I think this agrees with the Reformed doctrine of progressive sanctification. In the Belgic Confession (Art 24) we confess:

We believe that this true faith, produced in man by the hearing of God’s Word and by the work of the Holy Spirit, regenerates him and makes him a “new man,” causing him to live the “new life” and freeing him from the slavery of sin.

Therefore, far from making people cold toward living in a pious and holy way, this justifying faith, quite to the contrary, so works within them that apart from it they will never do a thing out of love for God but only out of love for themselves and fear of being condemned. So then, it is impossible for this holy faith to be unfruitful in a human being, seeing that we do not speak of an empty faith but of what Scripture calls “faith working through love,” which leads a man to do by himself the works that God has commanded in his Word.

These works, proceeding from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable to God, since they are all sanctified by his grace. Yet they do not count toward our justification– for by faith in Christ we are justified, even before we do good works. Otherwise they could not be good, any more than the fruit of a tree could be good if the tree is not good in the first place.

So then, we do good works, but nor for merit– for what would we merit? Rather, we are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not he to us, since it is he who “works in us both to will and do according to his good pleasure”60– thus keeping in mind what is written: “When you have done all that is commanded you, then you shall say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have done what it was our duty to do.’ “

Yet we do not wish to deny that God rewards good works– but it is by his grace that he crowns his gifts. Moreover, although we do good works we do not base our salvation on them; for we cannot do any work that is not defiled by our flesh and also worthy of punishment. And even if we could point to one, memory of a single sin is enough for God to reject that work.

So we would always be in doubt, tossed back and forth without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be tormented constantly if they did not rest on the merit of the suffering and death of our Savior.

In the brief essay to which I referred above, David doesn’t say which “Protestants” he has in mind but the Reformed churches agree that believers are no longer under the curse of the law. We agree that we are not sanctified by the law, but we confess that the law is the norm for our sanctification. As Walter Marshall explained in The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification, and as Mike Horton has recently explained in The Gospel-Driven Life, the gospel is the power of the Christian life. The law never gives us the ability to do what it commands. Only God the Spirit does that, through the word of the gospel. Nevertheless, as the Epitome says, we are not idle. Sanctification is by grace alone, but that grace is operative in us and through us and enables us to cooperate toward Christlikeness in this life.

Full post here: http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/differences-between-lutheran-and-reformed-orthodoxy/#more-6124

A section from Horton’s book God Of  Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology here: http://iustitiaaliena.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/the-gospel-gives-what-the-law-commands/

il

HT: Peter Chen

Here’s what is on the back cover:

Michael Horton’s highly anticipated The Christian Faith represents his magnum opus and will be viewed as one of—if not the—most important systematic theologies since Louis Berkhof wrote his in 1932.

A prolific, award-winning author and theologian, Professor Horton views this volume as “doctrine that can be preached, experienced, and lived, as well as understood, clarified, and articulated.” It is written for a growing cast of pilgrims making their way together and will be especially welcomed by professors, pastors, students, and armchair theologians.

Features of this volume include: (1) a brief synopsis of biblical passages that inform a particular doctrine; (2) surveys of past and current theologies with contemporary emphasis on exegetical, philosophical, practical, and theological questions; (3) substantial interaction with various Christian movements within the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodoxy traditions, as well as the hermeneutical issues raised by postmodernity; and (4) charts, sidebars, questions for discussion, and an extensive bibliography, divided into different entry levels and topics.

It is already out for display at Christianbook.com here.

This is a White Horse Inn broadcast that is a worth a listen.  The audio is available through stream and download  here.

Audio transcription of this particular broadcast (w/ permission granted) is found  here.

T

Peter Chen in sunny Alhambra, California who is a contributer to this blog writes a review on J. Gresham Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism (1923)

–

Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen was published in 1923. It is a modern classic among other great Christian literature. This book is timeless in message and value, though this book was forged in the heat of battle. Machen wrote against the “Liberals” who rejected the essential aspects of Christianity, and yet continue to preach and teach in Christian churches and seminaries. Though more than 85 years have past, the ink is still wet with relevance as the battle remains to the present. The issue over inerrancy, females and homosexuals as ministers, Christians and false religions together and emergent sects are only symptoms to the disease that is affecting our modern churches. Liberalism has influenced popular Christian opinion, and confused Christians don’t know what they believe. I am convinced that every Christians needs to learn and relearn the essential Christian teachings clearly set forth in this book against the back drop of error.

John Gresham Machen (July 28, 1881 – January 1, 1937), came from a wealthy and devout Christian family, where he learned the faith from childhood by the means of catechism. At 17 years old, in 1898, Machen entered Johns Hopkins University for his undergraduate, and in 1902, 4 years later, he doubled majored in theology at Princeton Seminary and philosophy at Princeton University. Encountering Liberalism in his studies, he was given permission from his parents to study in Germany, in 1905, where these new ideas were emerging. Machen was challenged and made stronger for the battles ahead.

Soon enough, these teachings crossed the ocean, and had taken root in Christian seminaries and churches. Between the years of 1915 and 1929, Machen was the Professor of New Testament at Princeton Seminary. The modern teaching became the majority opinion of the leadership within the Seminary, and reluctantly Machen and a few other professors had to leave the seminary. They established Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929 to continue the teachings of the Christian faith of the Presbyterian confession.

In the midst of this battle, Machen composed this book, clearly contrasting Christianity against the errors of Liberalism. Liberalism was the child of naturalistic evolution, and pietistic existentialism. The title was well chosen to indicate Machen’s fundamental claim is that “liberalism is not Christianity.” (pg. 160)

The basic areas of dispute are dealt with one chapter at a time. Let me summarize some of the points:

Doctrine — Liberalism rejected doctrinal teaching for subjective personal felt needs and “practical” teachings. Machen states, “The narration of the facts is history; the narration of the facts with the meaning of the facts is doctrine.” (pg. 29) Doctrine is the essence of Christianity.

God and Man — Liberals made god in their own image, by subjecting god to the opinions of man. Machen argues that God, in his essence, is transcendent and must always be separated from man. (pg. 62) Unaided humanity is not able to apprehend God.

The Bible — Liberalism claimed that Bible was only the words of man influenced by god. Machen affirmed the Bible as words of man, but also the word of God. God preserved the writings of fallible man, resulting in the infallible word of God. The Bible is alone the infallible and inerrant word of God as Jesus believed it to be.

Christ — Jesus is not merely our high moral example (WWJD), but our savior and Lord. Jesus is a divine “supernatural Person,” (pg. 112) God in the flesh, and the object of Christian faith.

Salvation — “Liberalism finds salvation… in man; Christianity finds it in an act of God.” (pg. 117) The gospel is news of an event that really took place in real human history. Sin against God is a cosmic crime against the Creator. Man must make the payment, but only God is able to save; thus Jesus being the God-Man came to save sinners. Jesus died as a vicarious atonement for sins: Jesus took on himself the sinners’ guilt and satisfied the wrath of God due to sin, and gives the believing sinner peace with God.

The Church — The Christian church is composed of “twice-born sinners” (pg. 158) born-again by the Holy Spirit. The true church is the brotherhood of the invisible church that affirms all the fundamental doctrines of the Bible. These liberal teachers gave oaths to uphold the creed of the confessing church, and they have violated their oaths. The Christian churches and seminaries were paid for by offerings and gifts from people who held to the confessing creed, and so they do not belong to the liberals who are in contradiction to the creed. It would be more respectful if these liberal teachers were to withdraw from the denomination.

Machen’s concern was for the Christian church itself, because if the church leaderships adopted the modern teachings of Liberalism, then those churches would depart from Christianity. The mission board would propagate a distorted message, until it stops being distinct from the world.

Doctrine is not light or impersonal matters of beliefs, but definitional of Christianity itself. Machen called for decisions to be made by those who still held to the Christian doctrines. If the leadership is to depart from these Christian doctrines for Liberalism; for the sake of the faith, the Christian must reluctantly depart.

Free online edition: http://www.biblebelievers.com/machen/

*Edited and posted again.

Here are some quotes from Concise Reformed Dogmatics, you gotta love these two confessionally Reformed Christian theologians they carry the good news.  I’m finding this book very beneficial, encouraging, and a good learning resource of the Christian Faith.

Here the authors are writing  about Herman Bavinck’s Dogmatics:

In subsequent editions of his work, in which this preface was omitted, it is noted that the first duty of every practitioner of science, and particularly of any theologian, is to be humble and modest.  He may not think himself to be wiser than he ought to think.  (17)

5.2  Special Revelation

When a distinction is made between general and special revelation a description or definition of special revelation is in order.  Bavinck provided the following one:  It “is that conscious and free act of God by which, he, in the way of a historical complex of special means (theophany, prophecy, miracle) that are concentrated in the person of Christ, makes himself known–specifically in the attributes of his justice and grace, in the proclamation of law and gospel–to those human beings who live in the light of this special revelation in order that they may accept the grace of God by faith in Christ or, in case of impenitence, receive a more severe judgement. One might opt for a shorter formulation: it is that revelation of through which, by special means which have their focus and climax on Christ, he has disclosed a way of life for sinners, whom he grants to live in this light.  (52, 53.   The Bold is mine)

What changed in the light of the Reformation was described in Klare wijn (clear wine, 1967) as follows:  Luther and Calvin are suddenly enflamed with passion.  To them the Bible is not in the first instance a source of information from which they obtain truths and precepts, but in Scripture they encounter the living God and his message.  (70)

In referring to the concept of revelation in theology, we saw that it was typical of Calvin to believe that God adapts himself to our capacity to understand (accommodatio).  God can speak to us in a throughly human manner.  It resembles the teaching of small children.  He is like a king whose majesty we must not take lightly, but who wants to have an intimate conversation with us.  When he communicates his Word to us through human mouths, in human language, he thereby takes our needs into consideration.  (72)

The Old Testament is seen as the book of retribution.  The Old Testament would present the religion of holiness and the New Testament faith in God’s love.  But this view is not really tenable.  It is indeed the case that in the Old Testament we encounter God in his exaltation and holiness.  But he is also “merciful and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.”  This is how the announcement of his name begins in Exodus 34:67.  Thus the LORD manifests in Christ but also refers to his wrath (John 3:36).  ”Our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29). “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb 10:31).   Already the first few chapters of the book of Genesis are of fundamental significance for self-knowledge.  Man, created in God’s image, fell away from him, but God considered his state and sought him out.  Thus man stands there as creature of God and sinner before God.  God, who is the creator, also seeks to be his redeemer.  God both demands and grants the atonement for sin (Lev. 17:11).  Via the subsequent preaching of atonement through sacrificial ministry and through prophecy, all lines lead to Christ, of whom the New Testament says:  ”Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).  When Paul refers to Christ as the last Adam the unity of the Old and New Testaments is underscored (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45; Rom. 5:12-21).  (69)

[From my post here.]

Following the exposition of the decalogue, the Heidelberg Cathechism asks the question that perhaps many (if not all) Christians ask when they realize that though sin’s power has been defeated by Christ, struggling with it (and often failing) remains a reality. The logic in our mind goes something like this: Christ defeated sin so that sin no longer has mastery therefore I should no longer sin. Such reasoning is sound, and true, but fails to take into consideration the aspect of the “already” and the “not yet” of Christian eschatology. The kingdom of heaven has arrived and yet is still coming, we have died and been raised with Christ, but have yet to die and be raised. In a similar way, sin has been defeated but we continue to fight with it. 

Question 114. But can those who are converted to God perfectly keep these commandments?

Answer: No: but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; (a) yet so, that with a sincere resolution they begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God. (b)

(a) 1 John 1:8; 1 John 1:9; 1 John 1:10; Rom.7:14;  Rom.7:15;  Eccl.7:20;  1 Cor.13:9; (b) Rom.7:22; Ps.1:2; James 2:10.

The writers of the HC understood that whether Christian or not, anyone under the Law of God is absolutely unable to keep it. Our best works are as filthy rags before a holy God. Only those ignorant of the law’s demands would ever think that they could keep it perfectly. 

Naturally, when we are told that we are unable to do something we wonder why it was ever commanded in the first place. This is the Arminian’s argument, namely, that God would not command what we cannot keep. And it is a valid point. It is not just for God to expect man to do what he is or was not able to do. Yet, those who believe that Adam was a federal head, know that man was originally created with the ability to obey. The HC addresses this very issue in question 9:

Question 9. Does not God then do injustice to man, by requiring from him in his law, that which he cannot perform?

Answer: Not at all; (a) for God made man capable of performing it; but man, by the instigation of the devil, (b) and his own wilful disobedience, (c) deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts.

(a) Eph.4:24; Eccl.7:29; (b) John 8:44; 2 Cor.11:3; Gen.3:4; (c) Gen.3:6; Rom.5:1; Gen.3:13; 1 Tim.2:13; 1 Tim.2:14.

It’s settled then, those under the law cannot keep the law. God is just in his requirements and all men are under condemnation. For many Christians, though, this is insufficient. There are those who would maintain that since Christians are no longer under the law, it’s power being destroyed, they are now able to keep it. Christ was crucified so that “we might no longer be in bondage to sin,” God predestined and saved us for good works, didn’t he? These things are truly and really accomplished, and yet until we die we will struggle with sin. Until we are glorified we walk by faith, not by sight. The HC is clear that none, not even the converted, are able to keep the law perfectly and while it is tempting to assume an overrealized eschatology, we must trust that Christ’s work, apart from our own, in both justification as well as sanctification, is sufficient. Yes, we begin to live to all the commandments of God, but this is a “small beginning” according to the HC, and by no means a perfect keeping of the law.

Getting to the point, why are Christians commanded to keep the law? This question is especially pertinent because, for one, we acknowledge are inability to keep it and second, we are justified by faith in Christ. Question 115 addresses this issue:

Question 115. Why will God then have the ten commandments so strictly preached, since no man in this life can keep them?

Answer: First, that all our lifetime we may learn more and more to know (a) our sinful nature, and thus become the more earnest in seeking the remission of sin, and righteousness in Christ; (b) likewise, that we constantly endeavour and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we may become more and more conformable to the image of God, till we arrive at the perfection proposed to us, in a life to come. (c)

(a) Rom.3:20; 1 John 1:9; Ps.32:5; (b) Matt.5:6; Rom.7:24; Rom.7:25; (c) 1 Cor.9:24; Philip.3:11; Philip.3:12; Philip.3:13; Philip.3:14.

Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?

Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, (a) am not my own, (b) but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; (c) who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, (d) and delivered me from all the power of the devil; (e) and so preserves me (f) that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; (g) yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, (h) and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, (i) and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him. (j)     

 

(a) Rom.14:7; Rom.14:8; (b) 1 Cor.6:19; (c) 1 Cor.3:23; Tit.2:14; (d) 1 Pet.1:18; 1 Pet.1:19; 1 John 1:7; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 2:12; (e) Heb.2:14; 1 John 3:8; John 8:34; John 8:35; John 8:36; (f) John 6:39; John 10:28; 2 Thess.3:3; 1 Pet.1:5; (g) Matt.10:29; Matt.10:30; Matt.10:31; Luke 21:18; (i) 2 Cor.1:20; 2 Cor.1:21; 2 Cor.1:22; 2 Cor.5:5; Eph.1:13; Eph.1:14; Rom.8:16; (j) Rom.8:14; 1 John 3:3.

Written by Joshua Forrest a Wscal student. Read it Here.

inwoolee