Amid debates on whether the “Church of Rome” is a part of the true Church, why do Protestant historians and theologians use the term “Council of Trent”? It was a stacked (in so many ways) rubber stamp for the Papal party and it decided nothing. As a counter-protestant PR campaign, it was amazing. If it was a Church council than my tennis shoes are a Boeing 747.
If I started calling a meeting of the PCA’s SJC a Church council, would that make it so?
One of the most interesting statements in the PCA's preliminary decision rendered by the panel of its Standing Judicial Commission is the following:
By appealing to Scripture… to justify positions that are out of accord with our Standards, an individual, or group, is in effect… amending the Constitution, not by judicial act, but by personal interpretation. If someone believes that the Standards have incorrectly or inadequately stated what Scripture says about a particular topic, then instead of ignoring what our Standards state and justifying their positions by personal interpretations of Scripture which are not consistent with the Standards, they should propose amendments to the Standards to clarify or expand the Standards, since our Constitution holds them out to be “standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture.”
A couple thoughts in response to this. First, this calls into question the validity of the tactic used by Federal Visionists and others who insist that they are not contradicting what the Standards say by their suspicious expositions of Scripture, but only going beyond the Standards and saying more (this is done, we are told, so as to reflect more accurately what the Bible actually teaches).
My question at this point goes something like this: If the Westminster Standards teach that union with Christ is a saving and therefore non-losable benefit, but if I decide to “go-beyond-the-Sandards-but-not-contradict-them” by teaching my congregation that they may lose their union with Christ, how have I not fallen under the condemnation of the SJC’s judgment above?
Let me try to constructively interact with this.
Last I knew, the PCA’s Book of Church Order was a standard in the denomination. This would especially be significant for the “great principles which have governed the formation of the plan.”
So let me ask some questions:
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.
That will do for now.
I published it on the web in 2003, but preached it in 1998, I think–perhaps early 1999. Seems related to what I’m doing here.
PAUL’S GOOD NEWS OF THE RESURRECTION
What is the Gospel?
To answer that question, I’m going to read not from the Bible but from a typical piece of political propaganda from the Greco-Roman world. Listen as I read from an inscription about the birthday of Augustus Caesar the emperor of Rome that was dates from 9BC.
The providence which has ordered the whole of our life, showing concern and zeal, has ordained the most perfect consummation for human life by giving to it Augustus, by filling him with virtue for doing the work of a benefactor among men, and by sending in him, as it were, a deliverer for us and those who come after us, to make war to cease, to create order everywhere. . . . ; the birthday of the god [Augustus] was the beginning for the world of the gospel that has come to men through him [found in What Saint Paul Really Said by N. T. Wright].
THE TERM GOSPEL IS a corruption of the Anglo-Saxon word godspell. It is used to translate the Greek word evangel which means “good news,” “glad tidings,” or “joyful message.” And it is a word with an important use in the pagan politics of the first century. It refers to a royal proclamation or an imperial announcement. It is used to describe a report of the birth, or the ascension to the throne, or the victory of a king. In some cases it can refer to more than one of these, since the victory of an aspiring prince can also count as his coronation. By defeating his enemy, he inherits the kingdom and thus becomes a king. Such a declaration is described as a gospel in the ancient world of the first-century Mediterranean region.
But why spend time in pagan literature? What does the Bible have to say?
Well the Bible has something rather similar to say. Let me read a rather literalistic translation of what the angel said to the shepherds at the first Christmas:
But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you the gospel of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a deliverer, who is Christ the Lord.
Don’t let centuries of privatized piety obscure the incredible public nature, indeed, the political nature of that declaration. What does the angel say? The angel speaks of one born in the city of David, the ancestral home of the foremost king in Israel’s history. Remember, God had promised that David’s dynasty would rule forever. These shepherds live in a time when Judah is occupied by a foreign pagan empire. To hear of a baby born in the city of David who will be a deliverer at such a time as that had hair-raising implications. Just ask Herod.
Furthermore, this child is said to be Christ the Lord. Lord is an imperial title. It was claimed by Caesar, the Roman Emperor. Christ means “anointed one.” In Israel, Kings were appointed to office by prophets acting as God’s agents who anointed the candidate with oil. Anointing was the Hebrew coronation ceremony. To call a baby “Christ” is to claim that he is God’s promised king.
And the angel describes this announcement he is making as a gospel. Actually, he uses it as a verb. “Behold,” he says, “I evangelize you with great joy.” That’s not exactly the way we think of evangelism today, is it? When we speak of evangelism, we typically think of a sales pitch. But the world picture of the ancients involved a different perspective. The announcement of the birth of Jesus was called a gospel for exactly the same reasons that the birth of Augustus Caesar was called a gospel. It was the announcement of a new king. Except that, in the case of Jesus, the gospel happened to be true.
THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF GLAD tidings that a king has been born or begun to reign or has conquered his enemies is not only in the ancient world of the New Testament, but also in the Old Testament. We can take our cue from Jesus himself when, in Luke 4, he quotes Isaiah 61:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He anointed me to preach the gospelto the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are downtrodden, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.
Again, don’t let centuries of internalizing and spiritualizing rob you of the electrifying meaning of these words for those who first heard them spoken. To use the term gospelin the context of releasing captives and setting free the downtrodden was like setting off dynamite. This was a royal proclamation that could only be understood as revolutionary by those who were hoping that God would liberate Israel from her enemies.
The prophecy Jesus read, by the way, was understood as a prophecy of a return from exile. Isaiah prophesied that God would judge Israel by allowing a foreign empire to invade the land and deport the Israelites. But Isaiah prophesied an eventual restoration when the foreign powers would no longer have the upper hand and the Israelites would be free. And in the Greek translations of these prophecies, the term gospel is used. Consider Isaiah 40.9:
Get yourself up on a high mountain,
O Zion, bearer of the gospel.
Lift up your voice mightily,
O Jerusalem, bearer of the gospel;
Lift it up, do not fear.
Say to the cities of Judah,
“Here is your god!”
And now listen to Isaiah 52.7:
How lovely on the mountains
Are the feet of him who brings the gospel,
Who announces peace
And brings the gospel of happiness,
Who announces deliverance,
And says to Zion, “Your god reigns!”
Your God reigns! Israel was conquered and deported by Gentile empires. The temple, where Israel’s god resided, was destroyed. These political events had incredible religious implications for the Hebrews. After all, Israel’s god was the true king of Israel. The word translated as “temple” in the Hebrew Scriptures is exactly the same as the word for the king’s house which is translated into English as “palace.” The fact that God gave up his kingdom in Israel with his palace in Jerusalem, and permitted his people, the Israelites, to be taken away from the land he had given them was a horrible thing. But eventually, it was prophesied, God would again reveal his kingship. He would restore the Israelites to the land and would once again reign among his people in Jerusalem in his palace where he sat enthroned above the Cherubim.
These passages referred to a change in political fortunes–the return from exile. They were not only religious sayings, but political dynamite at the time of Jesus when Israel was suffering under pagan oppression in the form of the occupying Roman Empire and the puppet regime in Palestine which ruled on its behalf.
BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT the gospel is really about is it? Don’t you expect me to tell you that Jesus had nothing to do with a worldly kingdom? Wasn’t he only concerned with an inward, “spiritual” kingdom, rather than a public political regime?
Well, think of the Corinthians. They have shown themselves throughout this letter to be concerned with their individual spiritual attainments. They are obsessed with acquiring wisdom and knowledge and attaining to the heights of spirituality. Some judge themselves to have enough knowledge to eat forbidden food without thinking about how their behavior might affect others. Some think that they should abstain from sex with their spouses because of their great spirituality, without thinking about their marital obligations or the effect of their behavior on their partners. Others actually think that what they do with their bodies is completely unimportant because only the “spiritual” matters–so they don’t hesitate to visit prostitutes. Still others believe they have the right to eat their own meals at the Lord’s Supper irrespective of the public nature of the sacrament in the Church. I could go on and on. Constantly Paul has emphasized the public nature of the Church and our obligations to the Church. And he has also emphasized that we are waiting for the resurrection. No matter what knowledge or spirituality we claim to possess, it is only partial and we are still awaiting the resurrection.
And now the problem is dealt with explicitly. The Corinthians are so satisfied with what they have attained, that the belief in the resurrection of the dead has become irrelevant to their faith. Some among them actually deny that the dead will be raised.
The Gentile world was filled with philosophies which presented inward transformation and privatized experience as the key to wisdom and spirituality. For the Corinthians the gospel had been refashioned to fit inside that sort of framework. In that framework, the resurrection of the dead when we will all be restored to our bodies made no sense. Why should we be concerned about such messy things as bodies when what really matters is the inward, “spiritual,” private reality?
But Paul has a different gospel–a gospel which proclaims the very public fact of the resurrection of Jesus, and, furthermore, fits Jesus’ resurrection into the context of a general resurrection and final judgment. That is what Paul tells the Corinthians here: That the death and resurrection were public events and that the risen Christ showed himself to official witnesses. And that this was all done “according to the Scriptures.”
SO HOW ARE WE to understand the Gospel? Does it deal with public, political matters or private, “spiritual” concerns?
Well, obviously, Jesus did not want a kingdom of the sort that the Pharisees and zealots imagined. But just because Jesus rejected the nationalistic zeal of the conservative Israelites does not mean he was merely concerned with a private, “spiritual” phenomena. The Jews wanted to see God defeat the evil forces which held them in bondage–the pagan empire of Rome. their client kings the Herodians, and the compromised priesthood of the Sadducees. By destroying their enemies and vindicating Israel God would reveal his reign. To announce that his reign was beginning was indeed good news–a gospel in every sense of the world. And that is what Jesus did.
But far from turning the kingdom into an inward private reality, Jesus was even more concerned with public issues than the conservative Israelites who eventually handed him over to Rome. After all, what was the power of any tyrant except the power to kill? Death, not Caesar is public enemy number one. And instead of wasting time leading a rebellion against local politicians, Jesus decided to set his sights a little higher. Instead of delivering Israel from foreign powers, he delivered them from death.
He defeated death. His resurrection was his birth as a new king. His resurrection was his ascension to the throne. His resurrection was the victory that won him a kingdom that would never end. And the announcement of that birth, coronation, and victory can only be called the gospel–the good news that the king has come to his kingdom and deliverance has been won from the power of death. The author of Hebrews put it this way:
since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death he might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.
THAT THE DEATH AND resurrection of Jesus is the very heart and soul of the gospel is made abundantly clear from the way Paul writes here. He states that this report is what he had received and delivered to the Corinthians. This is the same language he used to describe how he had passed on the way to do the Lord’s Supper in chapter 11. This is not simply something Paul came up with, it is the memorized gospel which he is given to them.
And there is plenty of other evidence that the resurrection was the centerpiece of the gospel. To just give one example, consider Acts 17.18 where we are told that the Greeks in Athens thought Paul was propounding new deities–plural. Why would someone mistake a monotheist for preaching more than one god? Was he talking about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? No. Acts tells us that they mistook Paul’s message as one proclaiming new gods because (quote) “he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.” Given how this would sound in Greek, it is likely they mangled Paul’s message and heard him proclaim Jesus and Anastasia. The resurrection was so central to Paul’s message that they actually though Paul was talking about a goddess.
And there are plenty of other passages which show us that all the preaching of the Gospel involved preaching the resurrection. In fact, it is not uncommon for good Protestants, when they first start reading the sermons in the book of Acts, to complain that no one explains the reason for Christ’s substitutionary suffering. The major point reiterated in all these sermons is that Jesus is king because he was victorious over death.
IF JESUS HAS DEFEATED death, what does that mean? As we continue through this chapter we will mention several things, but I want to list a few preliminary points. Some of these I hope some of us are familiar with, but even so we can never hear these things too often. Let me begin by saying that when Paul emphatically states that Jesus died for our sins and rose again “according to the Scriptures” he is not merely pointing out that the Scriptures predicted this event, but that the Scriptures provide the comprehensive interpretation of this event. We’ll see next week that Paul’s argument about how the resurrection of Jesus is related to the resurrection of everyone at the final judgment presupposes Biblical categories which directly challenge the Corinthians.
So what is the meaning of Christ’s resurrection? A basic point both because it is simple and because it is incredibly important: If God raised up Jesus from the grave then death must be a bad thing. When you proclaim the resurrection to someone, don’t forget to make this implication clear. If death needed to defeated, then it must be an enemy. It is not a gentle sleep. It is not a doorway to a better world. It is horrible. It is to be feared. To say otherwise is to make a mockery of the sacrifice which Jesus made for us.
And if death is so horrible, why is it a part of God’s good world? If you want to prove to people that we all disobey God and are alienated from him, then you need to get them to face up to death. God has put the world under the curse of death. A righteous God could only do that for a good reason. By rebelling against God from the time of the first human being, we have brought God’s anger upon ourselves. By showing how Jesus resurrection is the solution to our problem, we can demonstrate what the nature of the problem really is. God is altogether good, but we are evil.
But despite that, God in Jesus, who was not evil, joined us in our cursed existence, suffered under the full effects of the curse and then attained to new life. Preaching the resurrection means preaching the forgiveness of our sins. That’s why Paul could dare to be confident as a called Apostle even though he had persecuted the church. If Jesus conquered death than even the most horrendous sins are not beyond Jesus. He can liberate us from our sins, both in pardoning them and in giving us the power to more and more live in service to God rather than disobedience to him.
HAVING SAID THAT, LET’S tie this to another important theme in the Bible: Faith.
If Jesus died and rose again, then we can trust him to forgive our violations of God’s commands, and to liberate us from the effects of the curse which are all around us and in our very selves. Going back to Isaiah’s prophecies which ultimately point to Jesus, two characteristics in God are singled out that differentiate God from all false gods and pretenders: According to Isaiah 45.24, the true God is righteous or faithful and the true God is strong. That’s why he is trustworthy. He can be trusted to keep his promise to forgive his people all their sins and he can be trusted to be powerful enough to forgive our sins. Both those two characteristics are demonstrated in the resurrection. Jesus died and rose again to provide us, who were alienated from God and doomed to die eternally, complete liberation from all our sins. He wouldn’t have bothered if he wasn’t willing to actually rescue us. Secondly, in his resurrection we see that God, through the weakness of crucified human flesh, ironically enough, is strong enough to rescue us. He has defeated death. He has defeated death because he was faithful to keep his promise to us to do so, and because he was stronger than death.
So you can trust him. That’s all that faith means, after all; simply trust. If you believe that Jesus defeated death you know he is willing and able to help you. There is no wrong you have done which he is unwilling to forgive. There is no problem you face which he cannot conquer. There is no amount of hardship you face which won’t end up resulting in your glorification if you trust the one who endured the ultimate hardship so that he could gain glory for us.
So we see the entire gospel unfolding from the resurrection. The resurrection means that death is a result of our own wickedness, but that God has overcome that wickedness by suffering death in Jesus and then rising from the dead. The resurrection means that Jesus has defeated death after dying in our place so that all our sins can be forgiven and all our problems can be overcome. And the resurrection therefore means that we must have faith, we must believe, we must trust God to forgive our sins and rescue us from the curse of death and all other curses as well.
BUT THERE’S MORE. IF you truly believe that God conquered death in Jesus Christ, then you must realize that he is the king over all. He is not simply a small voice in your conscience. He is not merely an invisible friend. He is not simply the object of your private meditation. No, he is the man who killed death. No conqueror on earth can ever come close to his accomplishment. He has become the ruler of all the kings of the earth. He is just as much a force in the universe as any world leader you can think of, except that any world leader you can think of must eventually bow his or her knee to him.
And that means that if you truly believe. If you have faith. If you trust in the gospel, you will “bow the knee” now–and not bother to wait for some future confrontation. If death can’t withstand Jesus, neither can you. He is your rightful king and you need to surrender your heart promptly and sincerely. He has vanquished death; let him rule your life. There is no attitude in your heart, no thought in hour head, no habit in your hands that you should not be willing to change or abolish or develop according to what Jesus tells you in His Word, the gospel. The gospel is a royal summons given to you by heralds for the king. The Bible scholar, N. T. Wright puts it this way:
When the herald makes a royal proclamation, he says, “Nero (or whoever) has become emperor.” He does not say “If you would like to have an experience of living under an emperor, you might care to try Nero” The proclamation is an authoritative summons to obedience–in Paul’s case, to what he calls “the obedience of faith” [quoting from Romans 1.5].
Whom you trust and whom you serve will always be bound together. If you believe that Jesus is the high king, you will want to be bound to his service. You will want to be numbered among his people–those whom he has promised to save. You will want to join and remain in the institutional church which was established on the foundation of the prophets and Apostles, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone–not because you think that can somehow earn you new life (New life is completely a free gift of the resurrection), but because you will want to express your loyalty to the emperor of the world and be marked off before God and others as one of his followers.
THERE IS ONE FINAL thing to say about the nature of the gospel of the resurrection. Actually there are many things to say, and we’ll see in the next few sundays that Paul has some things to say, but I will just make one more general point. If we realize that the gospel is centered on the resurrection, then we must realize that it is therefore centered on the person of Jesus himself. Compare verse 1 to verse 12:
Now I make known to you brothers the gospel which I preached to you.Now if Christ is preached to you . . .
Preaching the gospel is preaching Christ. The gospel, as a royal announcement, is not simply a history lesson. To announce the birth of Augustus Caesar is not intended to simply inform you of an important date in history. It is intended to introduce you to an extremely important person. The point of proclaiming the resurrection is not simply to let you know that someone rose from the dead, one more strange fact in the universe, but rather to introduce you to the king of the universe. The gospel presents us with Jesus the risen deliverer. He is the center of our message and should be the center of our lives. He is the resurrection and the life. When we present the resurrection we are not merely describing an event but explaining why a person is now king by telling of his victory.
UNLIKE THE CORINTHIANS, NONE of us denies the resurrection. Or do we. How many times this week have I denied my Lord and denied the power of his new life in what I have thought, felt, said, or done? All I’ve given you this morning is simply the basic gospel. But we can never hear the gospel enough. We continue in the faith the same way we come to faith–by hearing the word preached, placing anew our trust in God who raised Jesus from the dead, and repenting of our sins. May God grant us all to do this faithfully in response to the royal proclamation that Jesus is Lord.
I don’t have time for this, but since it is weighing me down, maybe a quick summary will let me move on with my day.
Here is the argument (note my caveat below about my use of the term perfect):
First, the church denomination where I am is quite imperfect (say, the PCA).
Second, their must be a perfect situation somewhere. Jesus would never provide less.
Third, the Roman Catholic Church claims to be perfect.
Fourth, all the problems with Roman Catholic claims must be false.
Five, any residual “imperfections” in the Roman Catholic Church must be non-essential unlike the problems I see elsewhere.
Six, so I must convert and then promote Roman Catholic claims (hopefully in that order!).
A longer blog entry would nuance what I mean by “perfect.” I am not trying to befuddle the issues with a claim that anyone is saying a denomination is sinless. But I’m unsure what other term to use. I like “perfect” because, in the NT it often has connotations of “complete” or “grown up.” But even that is not exactly what I have in mind either.
But the point here is to get across how much I am sickened by the will to delusion. Even if you go to an objectively better situation (which is not Rome, but put that to the side for a moment)…
I say again:
If you move from a worse church situation to a better church situation and the price of that move is that you must convince yourself and tell others you have now arrived at the perfect situation, then you are objectively worse off than you were before.
I was in the Basilica last night (no, not receiving secret orders from Jesuits about my work in the PCA; one of my children is in a choir that is performing there) and I felt the force of many attractions. But even if I could convince myself it was better (and, sorry, I think it is worse) it still would be an act of perfidy to pretend that this was best.
This is a very insightful question:
I don’t fully understand the issue in section (vi). Leithart had said, “We are united with Christ; Christ is righteous; therefore, God regards us … as righteous. This is imputation, but it is not a distinct act of imputation.”What is the significance of having a “distinct act of imputation”, over against “being regarded as righteous”?
Reminds me of something I wrote once.
John Calvin argued that union with Christ was the key to both justification and sanctification and all other benefits that believers received. He begins his book on the application of the redemption purchased by Christ in this way:
We must now see in what way we become possessed of the blessings which God has bestowed on his only-begotten Son, not for private use, but to enrich the poor and needy. And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. To communicate to us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us. Accordingly, he is called our Head, and the first-born among many brethren, while, on the other hand, we are said to be ingrafted into him and clothed with him, all which he possesses being, as I have said, nothing to us until we become one with him (3.1.1).
As Calvin’s opening statement on how we receive Christ’s benefits this would be enough to show that Calvin taught that union with Christ was the key to sharing in Christ’s righteous status before the Father. However, Calvin does not simply leave his Institutes with this general introductory statement, but rather reiterates the importance of union with Christ. In chapter 11 of Book 3, Calvin begins his discussion of justification by saying:
I trust I have now sufficiently shown how man’s only resource for escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits which it confers, and the fruits which it produces. The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended and possessed by faith, by means of which we obtain in particular a twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life.
Here it is laid out for us. Faith is given to us by God so that we may be united to [“apprehend”] Christ and thus be both justified and sanctified.
Calvin goes on in the next sentences to point out that he dealt with sanctification first before justification. He could have, by his own account, dealt with them in either order, and chose sanctification as the first topic for pedagogical reasons. But this certainly shows that, for Calvin, there was no logical precedence to justification. Both benefits are necessary parts of the Christian life but neither depends on the other. Rather both depend on union with Christ.
If possible, Calvin becomes even more explicit while refuting Osiander. Speaking of the righteousness we have from Christ, he writes,
I acknowledge that we are devoid of this incomparable gift until Christ become ours. Therefore, to that union of the head and members, the residence of Christ in our hearts, in fine, the mystical union, we assign the highest rank, Christ when he becomes ours making us partners with him in the gifts with which he was endued. Hence we do not view him as at a distance and without us, but as we have put him on, and been ingrafted into his body, he deigns to make us one with himself, and, therefore, we glory in having a fellowship of righteousness with him.
Union with Christ, to reiterate the obvious, has “highest rank” in Calvin’s soteriology according to his Institutes. A great deal more evidence could be cited, but since I know of no alleged counter-evidence, I shall leave the Institutes and turn to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.
In chapter 11 of the Confession of Faith, entitled “of justification” we find more than once a phrase that seems to be parallel to the idea in the sacraments of Christ and his benefits. We do not merely receive Christ’s righteousness but Christ and his righteousness.
Turning from the Confession, let us look at the Westminster Larger Catechism:
Q69: What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
A69: The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him [emphasis added].
Questions 70 and 71 of the Larger Catechism speak of Christ’s righteousness being imputed without explicit mention of Christ himself being received of believers being united to him. But then:
Q72: What is justifying faith?
A72: Justifying faith is a saving grace,… whereby he … receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness…Q73: How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
A73: Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God … only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applies Christ and his righteousness.
The Shorter Catechism presents the same pattern, though it does not reiterate the statement of “Christ and his righteousness.” Question 33 mentions only receiving Christ’s righteousness without mentioning also receiving or being united to Christ. However, notice the ordo here:
Q29: How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ?
A29: We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us by his Holy Spirit.Q30: How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
A30: The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling [Emphasis added].Q31: What is effectual calling?
A31: Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby … he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.
Whether or not each individual question asserts “Christ and his righteousness” in every case is irrelevant. The Westminster Shorter Catechism is clear and consistent with the Larger Catechism and the Confession: The only people who receive/have imputed to them Christ’s righteousness are those who receive/are united to Christ only by faith. For the Shorter Catechism, the reason why the effectually called are justified is precisely because they are united to Christ by faith in that calling.
The Westminsterian “order of salvation” is that of John Calvin. One is united by Christ by faith and, in Christ, one is both justified and sanctified. Bot justification and sanctification are manifestations of union with Christ (Larger Catechism #69). God’s act of justification is the legal aspect of his act of uniting a sinner to Christ.
You know, you read enough Puritan, ultra-Presbyterian, or Baptist websites, and you really get the idea that Roman Catholicism can’t be that bad. I know a man who in his younger years almost considered (note: almost) Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy because he was taking an Ancient and Medieval Church history course from a Presbyterian pastor with many Baptist students.
The internet helped him come to his senses.
While there is ugly Protestantism, there is beautiful Roman Catholic writing and Eastern Orthodox writing. This can really skew one’s perspective. If you start getting afflicted with a temptation to defect, let the internet be your rescuer. Read zealous Roman Catholic apologists.
I’m talking about this stuff.
Today is the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, in which we celebrate the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who “from the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin.” This doctrine cannot rightly be understood, without understanding how and why Mary is the Second Eve.
Mary is not the Second Eve; the Church is. Eve is a one of many types of the Church, and so are Jael, Hannah, and Mary.
And speaking of beautiful Eastern Orthodox writing, while I don’t find as much of value in this chapter of Alexander Schmeman’s For the Life of the World, I still remembered this quotation well enough to find it again. He wrote that Mary
is the true daughter of the Old Testament, its last and most beautiful flower. The Orthodox Church rejects the dogma of the Immaculate Conception precisely because it makes Mary a miraculous “break” in this long and patient growth of love and expectation, of this “hunger for the living God” which fills the Old Testament.
And while there is a lot of superstition in this essay, there is also some great insight:
…Orthodox Christians do not accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. On the contrary, Orthodox believe that the Blessed Virgin was born in ancestral sin just like any other person. This is important because if Mary had not been born in ancestral sin, God could not have assumed sinful human nature from her. As St. Gregory Nazianzen wrote, “For that which He has not assumed He has not healed.” If God had not assumed sinful human nature from the Blessed Virgin, He could not have saved sinful human nature through the Incarnation of Christ.
The fact is that appeals to tradition are invariably appeals to the approved traditions at the present moment. Any historian knows that the claims for the supremacy of the Pope or the immaculate conception of Mary or many other things are based on a decision to favor the parts of the past (or allegations about the past) that the claimant can use and to dismiss all other evidence as “heretical” or “minority.” It always begs the question. Yet the proponents pretend that Scripture is impossible to interpret without tradition. And when confronted with some minor and obvious statement from Scripture that, quite unintentionally, shows what a pack of lies they are dedicated to pushing, they get quite unglued.
So if Protestant sectarians are pushing you over the edge, I think you should read their equivalent characters from the other side and let them push you back.
The weekend of April 9-10, in the year of our Lord 2010, I will be (speed) lecturing on Romans for The Martin Bucer Institute.
We now returne you to your regularly unscheduled browsing
It is probably old news that this is available, but since it is being used against him now, I thought it is worth pointing out that it is completely available and searchable for anyone interested who has an internet connection and a device to access it.
According to Horton, it is an error “to define ‘the gospel’ as something other than the specific announcement of the forgiveness of sins and declaration of righteousness solely by Christ’s merits.” Had he said, it was an error to deny these truths in the Gospel, he would have been on firmer ground. But Horton’s claim (lets not ask what his intentions are or his reasons) does not simply mean that one should not make common cause with the Roman Catholics and Orthodox regarding the content of the Gospel and therefore should not sign documents with them appealing to it. The claim consigns everyone, including every Evangelical and Reformed believer, who defines the Gospel as broader than that specific announcement, to the category of people in error who compromise the Gospel.
In fact, I believe it narrows the Gospel-believers to the point to which the Apostles could not be included. Which brings us to Acts (gospel / preach or bring good news, evangelize).
Acts 15 was rather important to the church’s understanding of “the Gospel” (assuming, of course, that Scripture is infallible, which is a premise of this series). In that debate, Peter makes his last appearance in the book of Acts, and contributes, in Luke’s narrative, positively to the Church council. This is what Luke writes:
And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.”
So, since Luke records the event to which Peter refers, and since he tells us what word Peter actually spoke to them, it would be good to read Peter’s message to see what content counts as “the Gospel.” From Acts 10
So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
So:
First, Paul realizes that the human-made laws of Jewish piety that he was taught are actually ungodly. God never wanted that sort of separation between believing Jews and god-fearing Gentiles like Cornelius. Everyone who does what is right has been accepted by God. And there is no indication here that “anyone who fears him and does what is right” refers to a hypothetically sinless man who doesn’t exist. Paul is simply referring to those who believe in the true God rather than in pagan idols.
Second, Jesus came to Israel as the Lord of the world. He proved it by 1) performing healing miracles, 2) being raised from the dead after being rejected by Israel’s leadership.
Third, Jesus commissioned ambassadors to preach him.
Fourth, they are to preach that Jesus will judge the living and the dead.
Fifth, all who entrust themselves to Jesus will receive forgiveness for their sins.
What is noteworthy is the similarity between this message and Peter’s preaching in Acts 2, except that then he also promised the Holy Spirit and exhorted the crowd to be baptized. Here it is not clear he is prepared to make such an offer, demand, promise, but the Holy Spirit takes the decision out of his hands.
So, returning to Acts 15, the Jerusalem council makes a declaration to clarify and defend the Gospel saying:
The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.
So, are you willing to agree with God’s word that this clarifies and defends the Gospel? It works perfectly with Peter’s sermon. He says, “God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” The Jerusalem Council reiterates, “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.” Is this a Gospel council or the Council of Trent?
And just as the Council includes abstaining from fornication, so the Manhattan Declaration declares that homosexual perversion cannot be included in the definition of marriage. Why is this a problem?
Well, we’re not done with Acts yet. Let’s look at Acts 14:
Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed. But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers. So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. But the people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews and some with the apostles. When an attempt was made by both Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to mistreat them and to stone them, they learned of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding country, and there they continued to preach the gospel.
Now at Lystra there was a man sitting who could not use his feet. He was crippled from birth and had never walked. He listened to Paul speaking. And Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had faith to be made well, said in a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And he sprang up and began walking. And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was at the entrance to the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news [or “we evangelize you”], that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.” Even with these words they scarcely restrained the people from offering sacrifice to them.
Got that? The Gospel is the call to obey the First and Second Commandments. While I can see these being more central, I don’t see any reason Numbers 7 and 8 in the Decalogue can never, in principle, be counted as Evangelism as well. Jesus is Lord and he demands we turn from idols and our idolatrous ways to him and his discipleship.
Nothing here is compatible with saying that the Gospel is only “the specific announcement of the forgiveness of sins and declaration of righteousness solely by Christ’s merits.” In fact, one finds precious little, if any, atonement theology, as Evangelicals usually think of it, at all.
This is long so I will continue with more of Acts at a later date.
An eyewitness firmly in the anti-Leithart camp says this about the panel:
While we were before the panel, the vast majority of questions toward the respondant concerned the efficacy of baptism. Some questioned whether we should read Romans 6 with water baptism in view at all. So from where I sat, it seemed like that was their biggest problem with Leithart.
OK, maybe this person’s memory is entirely faulty. Because otherwise these people have no business examining anyone’s allegiance or conformity to the Westminster Standards.
Not only is Romans 6 used in the Westminster Standards as a prooftext for baptismal efficacy, but the content of Romans 6 that could have come from nowhere but Romans 6 is reproduced in the content of the Westminster Standards.
Yes, I’m spinning my wheels again, but here we go:
Q. 167. How is baptism to be improved by us?
A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.
Look, if someone wants to say they are not denominationally-obligated to agree with the Westminster prooftexts, I don’t want a war. But making war on those who do agree with the prooftexts in the name of Westminsterian orthodoxy is hypocrisy. It needs to stop.