True religion strikes to the very root of the human predicament, transforming the entire soul through an agency wholly extrinsic to the self. Herein lies the glory of the Christian religion, namely that its source, means, and end are secured by divine action and application, thwarting even the most genuine efforts of man to fashion the divine image into something consistent with his personal experience. If we are ever to think Christianly, we must learn to think metaphysically, to live and breathe in categories hostile to the idolatrous ethos of this cultural Babel wherein man brings God down from the heavens and discovers that his god is only a pitiful reflection of his own sinful heart. God speaks light into darkness, creates life where there was death, and transforms factories of idols into temples indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Our gravest predicament lies in both our inability to seek God of our own accord, and the profound alienation of our faculties to the promises of the covenant of grace. Not only does unregenerate man live under the covenantal stipulations of creation, but he prefers the covenant of works over the covenant grace, personal righteousness over faith, acting over receiving, and striving over resting. The gospel answers this predicament by addressing our alienation through the stark realities of predestination, atonement, calling, and resurrection. The essence of true religion is framed in the indicative mood. A glorious indicative which conforms unwilling hearts of stone into hearts of flesh. A glorious indicative out of which the very life of God in the soul of man emerges as the testimony to the primacy of monergism.
Here is a very succinct refutation of the “moderate Calvinist” objection to the doctrine of particular redemption appealing to the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work to save all men. Ames essentially responds by asserting that this objection is entirely besides the point. Of course there is an “abundant sufficiency” in Christ for saving anyone. No one to my knowledge is arguing that point. This issue takes up the questions of efficiency and application, both issues that Ames illustrates so well. By the way, if anyone reading this hasn’t purchased Sketch of the Christian’s Catechism, I’d recommend purchasing immediately. This is an incredible introduction to the work of William Ames in a beautifully bound hardback. This Classic Reformed Theology Series is great.
“Although there is abundant sufficiency in Christ for saving anyone, sufficiency does not lead to efficiency unless the righteous application intercedes. Food does not nourish, medicine does not heal, clothes do not cover, and money does not enrich unless these are rightly applied to nourishing, healing, clothing, and enriching people. Thus it is in this matter.” -William Ames, Sketch of the Christian Catechism
“Whoever lives without regard to this highest goal acts just like someone who shoots arrows without aiming. Or he lives like someone who commits a battleship to the waves or winds when he has disregarded the North Star or all concern for a safe haven where he ought to land.” (p. 6)
“Therefore, those who have neglected the highest good in allowing themselves to be detained in other matters are living like toddlers who, after indifferently considering the best things, occupy themselves, while surrounded with their trifles.” (p. 7)
“Just as any natural body out of its own place never has the natural rest for which it yearns, likewise a person who exists outside of God is outside of his place and cannot rest with a true and solid rest.” (p.8)
“Just as nothing that is lesser can fill a vessel of a greater capacity because the latter is larger, likewise nothing worldly can fill up the capacity of our souls because our souls are of greater and more spacious capacity than this entire world.” (p.8)
“Just as a person who makes a journey cannot complete his journey while he lingers on some part of the way but must arrive at the ultimate goal of the entire way, so also the person who lingers either on smoe creature or on some other worldly thing, which is part of the way by which we ought to be led to God, can never arrive at the end and perfection of his own life.” (p.8-9)
“The difference between worldly happiness and spiritual joy is like the difference between a fire of straw or thorns burning under something and the very light of the sun.” (p. 10)
“For those who are led away by the trivial pleasures of this life from the solid joys of seeking God are behaving as though they are relying on a slight whiff of food or drink- and in doing so are allowing themselves, while neglecting actual solid food, to perish from hunger.” (p. 10)
“The law plays the part of a mirror by an established comparison between the perfection that is required in the law and those multitudinous defects and deformities that are revealed in our life.” (p. 14)
I just finished a very brief but magnificent article by Joel Garver on the relationship between a strong doctrine of sacramental efficacy and the solas of the Reformation. I enjoyed this because it defies the popular evangelical belief that a robust sacramental theology is at odds with such doctrines as justification by faith alone. In fact, as Joel explains in this article, the very opposite is true. The entire article can be found here.
Contrary to the sweeping denial of the operation of the works principle anywhere in the divine government, the biblical evidence compels us to recognize that God has in fact employed that principle. Indeed, the principle of works forms the foundation of the gospel of grace. If meritorious works could not be predicated of Jesus Christ as second Adam, then obviously there would be no meritorious achievement to be imputed to his people as the ground of their justification-approbation. The gospel invitation would turn out to be a mirage. We who have believed on Christ would still be under condemnation. The gospel truth, however, is that Christ has performed the one act of righteousness and by this obedience of the one the many are made righteous (Rom 5:18,19). In his probationary obedience the Redeemer gained the merit which is transferred to the account of the elect. Underlying Christ’s mediatorship of a covenant of grace for the salvation of believers is his earthly fulfillment, through meritorious obedience, of his heavenly covenant of works with the Father.
-Meredith Kline, Kingdom Prolouge, p. 107
I was excited to hear that Michael Horton has endorsed Scott Hahn’s book Covenant and Communion: The Biblical Theology of Pope Benedict XVI. I’ve been keeping up with Scott Hahn’s work for a few years now, and though I obviously disagree with him on many issues, I’ve benefited greatly from his very astute scholarship. Horton here briefly defends his decision to endorse the book, and it provides an example of how Protestant Christians should engage their Roman Catholic friends without compromising their core convictions. The article can be found here.
“When my conscience leads me to despair, the exhortation to try harder will only deepen either my self-righteousness or my spiritual depression. In other words, it will draw me away from my location in Christ and gradually bring me back to that place where I am turned in on myself. If the conscience is to find peace with God, there can be no help from the law; in fact, it is the law that arouses my conscience to my utter sinfulness.
It is therefore critical to bear in mind that the law is innate and intuitive, while the gospel is an external announcement. The command to love is not surprising, disorienting, or strange; it is familiar to us. We know what we should do by nature. Like the Greeks who look for wisdom, as Paul explained, most of our fellow Americans are not looking for salvation from God’s coming judgment but for help in their moral dilemmas. No one will be offended if we tell them that they are good people who could be a little better. The offense comes when we tell them that they- and we- are ungodly people who cannot impress God or escape his tribunal. Until our preaching of the law has exposed our hearts and God’s holiness, our hearers will never flee to Christ alone for safety even if they come to us for advice.”
-Michael Horton, Christless Christianity, p. 130
It’s truly baffling that so many theologians these days are degrading the law/gospel distinction as a Lutheran intrusion into a 20th century sectarian Reformed theology advocated by the likes of Meredith Kline and the guys out in Escondido. It’s especially baffling when you actually consult the Reformed giants of the past, someone like Zacharias Ursinus who holds a special place in our theology and practice as the primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism. I’ve got to ask, where is this animosity coming from? Can these claims be substantiated? Have the covenant moralists actually read Calvin, Ursinus, Olevian, De Bres, Beza, Zanchi, Vermigli, and others on this doctrine? Because as I read 16th century Reformed literature, I not only see the law/gospel distinction, I see the law/gospel distinction as an integral principle which informs our entire understanding of Scripture. The law/gospel distinction isn’t a secondary and indispensable concern, but a central theological paradigm without which Reformed theology and practice is incomprehensible.
Here is but a sample of Ursinus’ explanation of the importance and distinction of law and gospel in the very beginning of his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. For Ursinus, the doctrine of law and gospel is the doctrine of the church.
“The doctrine of the church consists of two parts: the Law, and the Gospel; in which we have comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures. The law is called the Decalouge, and the gospel is the doctrine concerning Christ the mediator, and the free remission of sins, through faith. This division of the doctrine of the church is established by these plain and forcible arguments.
1. The whole doctrine comprised in the sacred writings, is either concerning the nature of God, his will his works, or sin, which is the proper work of men and devils. But all these subjects are fully set forth and taught, either in the law, or in the gospel, or in both. Therefore, the law and gospel are the chief and general divisions of the holy scriptures, and comprise the entire doctrine comprehended therein.
2. Christ himself makes this division of the doctrine which he will have preached in his name, when he says, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name.’ But this embraces the entire substance of the law and gospel.
3. The writings of the prophets and apostles, comprise the old and new Testament, or covenant between God and man. It is, therefore, necessary that the principle parts of the covenant should be contained and explained in these writings, and that they should declare what God promises and grants unto us, viz: his favor, remission of sins, righteousness, and eternal life; and also what he, in return, requires from us: which is faith and obedience. These, now, are the things which are taught in the law and gospel.
4. Christ is the substance and ground of the entire Scriptures. But the doctrine contained in the law and gospel is necessary to lead us to a knowledge of Christ and his benefits: for the law is our schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ, constraining us to fly to him, and showing us what that righteousness is, which he has wrought out, and now offers unto us. But the gospel, professedly, treats of the person, office, and benefits of Christ. Therefore we have, in the law and gospel, the whole of the Scriptures, comprehending the doctrine revealed from heaven for our salvation.
The principle DIFFERENCES between these two parts of the doctrine of the church, consist in these three things:
1. In the subject, or general character of the doctrine, peculiar to each. The law prescribes and enjoins what is to be done, and forbids what ought to be avoided: whilst the gospel announces the free remission of sin, through and for the sake of Christ.
2. In the manner of the revelation peculiar to each. The law is known from nature; the gospel is divinely revealed.
3. In the promises which they make to man. The law promises life upon the condition of perfect obedience; the gospel, on the condition of faith and Christ and the commencement of the new obedience.”
-Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (p.2-3)
I’m certainly at risk of missing something or drawing out incorrect conclusions in this article, so I’ll delay any commentary until I’ve meditated over this a bit more. This is Thomas’ first proof for the existence of God, the argument from motion.
“The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone believes to be God.”
-Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, [I, 2, 3]
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, which is set in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God as He is nominally defined. The first mover is immobile, not with the immobility of inertia or of passive potency, which implies imperfection and is inferior to motion, but with the immobility of actuality, who does not need to be premoved so as to act. In other words, we must come to a first mover, who acts by himself, who is his own action,and consequently his own being, for operation follows being, and the mode of operation the mode of being. The prime and most universal mover of bodies and of spirits must, therefore, be pure Act, without any admixture of potentiality, both with regard to action and with regard to being; and hence, as will be clearly seen farther on, He must be the self-subsisting Being.
And so it is evident that this prime mover absolutely transcends the changeable world. We shall see farther on that the first Cause is free, and that when it wills, a new effect is the result of its eternal action, and that this has been eternally decreed by it.
-Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, A Commentary On The First Part Of St. Thomas’ Summa
