christian-liberty-march-april-2000 by Modern Reformation

FREEDOM IN WORSHIP | THE PROBLEM WITH COLLEGE “HOLINESS” CODES | PRUDENCE

MODERN REFORMATION

CHRISTIAN LIBERTY Getting Beyond Legalism and License

VOLUME

9, NUMBER 2, MARCH/APRIL 2000, $5.00

C M

O A

N A

T 2

E |

N L

T 9

S B

CHRISTIAN LIBERTY Getting Beyond Legalism and License

13 Recovering the Art of Christian Prudence Cultivating moral wisdom requires real intellectual labor. It isn’t enough either to construct universal prohibitions or to lazily assume that all practices are helpful. by Michael Horton Plus: We Confess …

20 Servants of Freedom: Luther on the Christian Life When mercy has come, the bondage ceases. In what ways are bondage to Law (sin’s guilt) and bondage to disobedience (sin’s power) related and distinguished? by Rick Ritchie

25 Poetic Polemics The Scottish “Marrow Controversy” (c. 1720) centered on the nature of law and grace. Abstract theological speculation, right? Think again: Poetry from the debate remained among London’s best-selling literature for almost two hundred years. by Shane Rosenthal Plus: Antinomianism Defined

34 Freedom in Worship The scriptural elements of corporate worship are: prayers (spoken or sung), the Word read and preached, the Sacraments, and collections for the saints. Is the church “free”to add others? by T. David Gordon Plus: How the Regulative Principle Liberates

38 A Sober Assessment of Reformational Drinking COVER PHOTO BY PHOTODISC

Regarding alcohol (like most things), there are three possible categories for the Christian: misuse, proper use, and abstinence. Prohibitionists wrongly exclude the middle category. by Jim West In This Issue page 2 | Letters page 3 | Ex Auditu page 6 | Speaking of page 9 | Between the Times page 10 Resource Center page 26 | Free Space page 43 | Reviews page 47 | On My Mind page 52 M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1

MODERN REFORMATION Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Michael Horton

Christian Liberty

Executive Editor

Benjamin E. Sasse Vice President

ecause they boldly proclaimed the message of free grace in Christ, the reformers were

those of us who have found liberty from the tyranny of our consciences in the

2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

Assistant Editor

Ann Henderson Hart

and still are frequently disparaged as supposedly encouraging licentious living. For

announcement that we are saved by what Jesus has done outside of us in history, this charge always seems a bit odd. For Paul has already shouted the sentiment of all who have found comfort in the God-Man: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue to sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!” But the claim that the reformational defense of free grace somehow equals an indifference to sin seems bizarre historically as well. Remember that Luther is the one who, at the high water mark of early Reformation controversies, wrote: “A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all. These two theses seem to contradict each other. If, however, they should be found to fit together, they would serve our purposes beautifully. [For] both are Paul’s own statements.…”1 As Rick Ritchie helpfully explains in one of this issue’s feature articles, the Augsburg reformer consistently taught that Christ freed the Christian so that he might be a servant. Luther, an antinomian?! Where? Then there is Calvin, who brilliantly refers to Christian freedom as “an appendage of justification.”2 In justification, there is freedom from the curse of the law—and thus, ironically, the freedom to return to the law, but in a completely different form. For to those united to Christ, the law is impotent to judge. Instead, the law becomes our servant as it explains God’s will, which the redeemed now aim to follow out of gratitude to Christ, rather than from fear of condemnation. Justification has freed the Christian from the law. Sanctification will invariably direct the justified man back to the law voluntarily as a guide, but he has nonetheless genuinely been freed from all Next Issue obligation. Church Growth

Diana S. Frazier

Production Editor

Irene H. DeLong Book Review Editor

Dr. Mark R. Talbot Column Editor

Justification and sanctification are thus the “double grace” of salvation. The first declares man righteous in Christ though he is not intrinsically; the second begins to make him righteous, albeit imperfectly in this life. The first frees him from the law; the second to the law. The first part of Christian freedom is that the Christian no longer fears the law. Instead, Calvin writes,

Brian Lee Copy Editor

Alyson S. Platt Layout and Design

Lori A. Cook Proofreasder

Mary Beth McGreevy Production Assistant

Kathryn Baldino Marketing Assistant

John J. McClure Alliance Council

laying aside all consideration of works, we should, when justification is being discussed, embrace God’s mercy alone, turn our attention from ourselves, and look only to Christ. For there [in discussions of justification] the question is not how we may become righteous but how, being unrighteous and unworthy, we may be reckoned righteous. If consciences wish to attain any certainty in this matter, they ought to give no place to the law.3 The second part of Christian freedom, “dependent upon the first,” is that Christians freed from the law then seek to “observe the law, not as if constrained by the necessity of the law, but that freed from the law’s yoke they willingly” serve God and neighbor.4 This freedom is the freedom of one adopted by God—a son rather than a slave.

Join a chat room hosted by Michael Horton and Ben Sasse to discuss this issue. March 23, 9:00 pm ET http://chat.ibelieve.com/

The Rev. Alistair Begg Dr. James M. Boice Dr. W. Robert Godfrey Dr. John D. Hannah Dr. Michael Horton Mrs. Rosemary Jensen The Rev. Ken Jones Dr. J. A. O. Preus Dr. Rod Rosenbladt Dr. R. C. Sproul Dr. Mark R. Talbot Dr. Gene E. Veith, Jr. Contributing Scholars

Dr. Allen C. Guelzo Dr. D. G. Hart Dr. Carl F. H. Henry Dr. Arthur A. Just Dr. Robert Kolb The Rev. Donald Matzat Dr. John W. Montgomery Mr. John Muether Dr. Richard A. Muller Mr. Kenneth A. Myers Dr. Tom J. Nettles Dr. Leonard R. Payton Dr. Lawrence R. Rast Dr. Kim Riddlebarger Mr. Rick Ritchie Dr. David P. Scaer Dr. Rachel S. Stahle Dr. David F. Wells Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

© 2000 All rights reserved. The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals exists to call the church, amidst our dying culture, to repent of its worldliness, to recover and confess the truth of God’s Word as did the Reformers, and to see that truth embodied in doctrine, worship and life. For more information, call or write us at: Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals 1716 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 546-3696 ModRef@Alliance Net.org www.AllianceNet.org

SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION

US US Student Canada Europe Other

1 YR $22 1 YR $11 1 YR $25 1 YR $34 1 YR $35

2 YR $40 2 YR $45 2 YR $62 2 YR $65

Artie Megibben Dallas, Texas

New Model? Classical Model? Charts can be helpful for summarizing and comparing ideas, but can also cause confusion and perpetuate ignorance if their representations are Embalmed Worship? inaccurate. Unfortunately, this misuse occurred in In your recent issue on worship, you describe a the Sep/Oct issue which compared the “Classical service where members greeted one another with Model” to the “‘New’ Model” (page 44). “long and comforting embraces”; where hymns The column’s title—the “‘New’ Model”—is were sung while people “closed their eyes in ambiguous. Who is meant here? Neo-Orthodoxy meditation” and “young and old raised their hands seems intuitive given the title. Classical Liberal and waved their palms upward.” The pastor’s voice Theology? Schleiermacher’s name suggests this. fluctuated as he chastised Christians “for not living Process? Liberation? Feminist? What is meant by up to their potential.” During the service some of “New”? Two of the “Historical Representatives” associated with the “New” model, Origen and the congregation were “overcome with emotion.” Writer Bryan Spinks characterizes such worship Justin Martyr, predate any of the “Historical as entertainment-driven—“the sanctuary becomes Representatives” listed under “Classical.” This a stage, the minister becomes the talk-show host, ambiguity enables the most disturbing and the congregation becomes an audience.” developments of Western theology to be attributed to the view which was critiqued throughout this Really? What am I missing here? Certainly such a service with Christians openly issue, Open Theism. The column couldn’t be titled expressing love for the brethren, raising their hands “Open Theism,” however, because what is actually in worship of their Savior and hearing the Word of described is a straw man built of the ugliest bristles. Another striking problem God proclaimed in something other than a is the title of the chart. It is learly,monotone it may be voice a far cry mayfrom set itsome apartstandard from your liturgy average handed down from Presbyterian gathering. Granted, the service simply inaccurate. There is probably not include the recitation of medieval sixteenth centurydidAugsburg or Geneva. However, does that equate it to no “system” present in the creeds. And clearly, it may be a far cry from some history of theology, or in standard liturgy handed down from sixteenth entertainment? contemporary theology, century Augsburg or Geneva. However, does that which corresponds to what equate it to entertainment? Does that make it was described in the chart. The various positions unbiblical or consumer-centered? I think not. listed in the “‘New’ Model” column have only their Unfortunately, though, most of your contributors difference from a specifically nuanced version of to the Nov/Dec issue unnecessarily lumped Calvinistic Classical Theism in common. “expressive” God-centered services in with the Distinctions must be made between this “New” seeker-driven movement. model and Open Theism. Open Theism is Unlike Dr. Spinks, there are still those of us who primarily concerned with exploring the classical believe that biblical orthodoxy and reformational doctrines of Creation and God, in that order. beliefs can be championed without our worship Open Theists neither endorse the idea of a finite having to be embalmed. Creator nor deny God’s “omnipotence,

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3

omniscience, etc.,” though the chart accurately reflects our doubts about immutability and impassability. Open Theism seeks a balance between God’s immanence and God’s transcendence as opposed to extremes of Classical transcendence and Process immanence. The most offensive pigeonholing occurs in the next four categories: “Man” (Open theists generally prefer the nonsexist term “Humanity”), “Major Problem,” “Solution,” and “Finality of Christ.” Open Theists affirm the Protestant Principle, salvation by God’s grace through faith, as stated in Ephesians 2:8–9. We are not saved by knowledge or education. Serious misrepresentations like this serve only to destroy credibility. The claim that Open Theists believe that atheists will be saved is an equally inaccurate—though highly emotive—caricature. Open theists do “focus on the Holy Spirit” because we believe that God’s Spirit is omnipresent and working for good everywhere (is it not God’s Spirit which gives breath to all things?), though it is still Christ that saves! While it is true that some Open Theists believe that the damned will be annihilated after paying for their sins, this conviction is based on biblical language about hell—eternal death, destruction, outer darkness, chaff, ashes, etc., and

is, in my opinion, what is really at stake, at least in Calvinistic Classical Theism. Tyler De Armond, Ph.D. Student Luther Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota

How come Karl Barth has been allowed to join “the Classical Model”? Katsunori Endo RPCNA Kobe Theological Hall

God and Time As a physicist and committed Christian, I am somewhat perplexed by the over-anxious drive of some theologians to somehow resolve the so-called incompatibility of the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Why cannot we accept that two seemingly incompatible biblical truths are but aspects, given our frame of reference, of a far more complex reality that will become clear to us in the life hereafter? Theologians could learn something from physicists. For some two centuries the wave model was used to explain the nature of light. To this day students perform experiments in laboratories proving that light behaves as a wave motion (e.g., f genuine dialogue is to occur, theological positions must be taken on their own terms, interference and diffraction). But about a quarter century not simply lumped with all that is reprehensible for the sake of your security. ago, it was realized that the wave model could not explain all optical phenomena, and certainly not all Open Theists believe this, as the thus the quantum model was born—i.e., light chart implies. consists of tiny packets of energy called quanta. Finally, the list of names at the bottom must be They move at the same speed as in the case of criticized. Most of the people identified as waves. Again students perform experiments in “Historical Representatives” of the “New Model” undergraduate laboratories establishing this particle would disagree with most (if not all) of what was aspect of light (e.g., the photo electric effect). said in the chart! None of the names listed Physicists did not establish two “churches”— represent Open Theism and moreover, no Open viz., the “wave church” and the “quantum church.” Theist could affirm even half of what is said in this They realized intuitively that the two models are chart. Who, then, benefits by it? Classical Theists but aspects of a far more complex phenomenon as who would like to lump all of the scariest ideas was demonstrated by the advent of quantum they come across into one “Model” and then electrodynamics. To this day they happily work systematically condemn it. This is good with the two models depending on what optical propaganda, poor theology. If genuine dialogue is phenomena they are dealing with. Why cannot to occur, theological positions must be taken on Christians in our limited framework of space and their own terms, not simply lumped with all that is time, happily believe the marvelous comforting reprehensible for the sake of your security. Which truth of the complete total sovereignty of God and

4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

at the same time accept man’s accountability and responsibility for his thinking and acting? Louw Alberts Menlo Park, South Africa

I write from West Texas, where worship does seem to exist to entertain. We are a newly planted church, and I am constantly struggling with the ways of the world trying to dictate the ways of worship. Thanks for your boldness and conviction. One request, though. I would be interested in seeing how this biblically based philosophy of worship works out in the form of worship for a Sunday service. Is there anywhere on the web where one could see, for instance, one of the bulletins of the congregation where Michael Horton has pastored? Our Session would appreciate insight into how to apply these timeless principles of worship to a people and place bound by time and space. Rev. M. C. S. New Life Presbyterian Church Midland, TX

Future Judgment for Believers? R. S. Clark’s “The Splendor of the Three-in-One God” in the recent issue on the doctrine of God was excellent. But I am disturbed by the last two paragraphs of the Athanasian Creed (which was printed as a sidebar to the article). These paragraphs, referring to the Lord’s return in judgment, state: “All men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.” What happened to faith in Christ alone for salvation? Your comments please. David E. Rasmussen Neosho, Missouri Prof. Clark Replies: This is a good and important question because it touches eschatology, theological method, and the relations of Law and Gospel. It is beyond controversy that Scripture teaches a final judgment for the wicked. Some, however, have concluded that since Christians are already

justified in Christ that we will not face a future judgment. This conclusion is unwarranted. The fact that we are justified in Christ does not prevent the need for a final, forensic, declaratory judgment for believers. Scripture teaches clearly such a judgment for believers. The Athanasian Creed was paraphrasing Rev. 20:11–15, which teaches a universal judgment for everyone according to works (v.13; NIV). 2 Corinthians 5:10 contains the same doctrine. See also Romans 2:16; 14:10–12. There is no indication that the final judgment can be restricted to unbelievers. The Reformed Confessions (e.g., Belgic Confession Art. 37; Westminster Confession of Faith Art. 33) are quite clear on this matter and both confessional Reformed (e.g., Berkhof) and Lutheran (e.g., Mueller) theologians teach the doctrine of a future judgment in which believers will be vindicated. Our sins will be revealed at the last day, as pardoned sins. This is because the biblical eschatology contains both Law and Gospel. The warnings of future judgment (“every careless word,” Matt. 12:36) teach us our sin, but the Gospel (“no condemnation,” Rom. 8:1) comforts us.

Join the Conversation! Modern Reformation Letters to the Editor 1716 Spruce Street Philadelphia, Pa 19103 215.735.5133 fax ModRef@AllianceNet.org Letters under 200 words are more likely to be printed than longer letters.

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 5

E E

X X

A O

U H

D -

I T

T D

U M

John 2:1–11

The Wedding

he book of John begins as if one is gazing upon the person and work of the Lord

“family” of disciples. He who grew up in submission to his Jesus Christ from a high mountain—all profoundly summarized in the first mother now rebukes her in the presence of his disciples. eighteen verses. From there we begin to descend down into the foothills of his Some have labored to make the point that the term earthly ministry. John the Baptist testifies of Christ “woman” here is not when our Lord first appears beyond the Jordan to derogatory but rather a term John’s disciples. Next, the Savior is introduced to of endearment—as if this is From the first of his twelve disciples, who set out to no rebuke at all. But John TODD BORDOW follow him as his public ministry commences in will not let you get away with Galilee. Now we are down from the mountain, so that. Jesus, who had no to speak, and will walk that long road through the earthly right to refuse his valleys as Jesus embarks on his three-year tour mother’s request, takes Pastor, Covenant Orthodox throughout Israel. This wedding at Cana of Galilee authority and honor even Presbyterian Church is Jesus’ first public appearance after his baptism, over Mary. And Mary herself Kennewick, does not scold Jesus for and here the mystery and splendor of the Lord Washington embarrassing her in public. Jesus is publicly unveiled, or as verse 11 states, he Rather, she now recognizes shows forth his glory. Wedding receptions in Israel lasted two to her place as she commands the servants, “Whatever seven days, with dancing, feasting, and drinking for He tells you, do it.” John is setting forth the all invited. But at this wedding party the wine runs preeminence of Jesus over his own family. John out, a serious embarrassment for the host of the does not even name Mary in the text but simply party. Mary comes and reports this to her son, who calls her “the mother of Jesus.” Our focus is on had been invited as a guest. Clearly she Christ, who is at the center of this text. He now approaches him with the desire for Jesus to commands the servants of the wedding party as miraculously provide wine for the celebration. But though they were his own, displaying an authority already something seems amiss as we witness the that would have been unseen by those who knew startling change of relationship between Jesus and him growing up in Galilee. his mother at this wedding. When we come to the miracle itself, the Jesus’ response would normally be considered manner in which it is described reveals the rather disrespectful. Given the Jewish culture’s uniqueness of Christ. Unlike Old Testament high view of parental authority, a Jewish son does miracles, there is no calling out to God, no earthly not rebuke his mother in public. Thus, a change in instrument such as Moses’ staff to mediate the family relations had certainly begun at his baptism. miracle, not even a description as to how it Was Jesus being cold and arrogant to his mother? happened. The wine is just there upon the desire If Jesus were simply a man we would have to of Christ. The creation simply responds in conclude, yes. But his attitude is meant to startle obedience to the Savior’s desire, much as the waters the reader. Jesus was now to be identified less as responded to the voice of the God in Genesis 1. Mary’s son, and more as the Messiah of Israel; less Like his other signs in John, Jesus would leave with his immediate family, and more with his public testimony as to who he really was. He

6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

commands the servants to take the wine to the master of the banquet, or what we might call the chief caterer. John informs us that the servants witnessed the miracle; they would live as public testimony that no trick or practical joke had been played. It is telling that Jesus’ critics never accuse him of using tricks or illusions, for they themselves would have ample public testimony that real miracles had occurred. Already in his first public sign, Jesus was revealing that he is the Son of God, the creator of the world, who by his omnipotent power can create upon his desire. Not only is the person of Christ unveiled in the wedding sign but also the messianic work which he had come to fulfill. Messianic expectations in the first century were very high, and to understand the

testimony of the king who first suffers. Mary had not yet understood the extent of her sin, her own need for a dying Savior. She was a sinner like you and me and had conveniently forgotten Simeon’s prophecy to her in the temple that her son would be opposed, and a sword would pierce her own heart soul (Luke 2:34). Can we not sympathize with Mary? What mother would want her son to suffer? Yet here we see Mary’s lack of faith and humility. Jesus would need to respond to her with a serious rebuke, “What does your concern have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” That hour is his hour of suffering and death. Dear Mary, you cannot have the glory without the suffering; you cannot have the kingdom without the cross; you cannot have the wine without the blood. Only the death of Christ for our sins could open the door e are in that overlapping time: The promise of marriage has already for Mary and all of us to enter into that messianic glory. been given, but it will not be fully consummated until that glorious But Jesus did come to bring in that glorious day in heaven. kingdom, and that kingdom was to be inaugurated at his significance of the changing of water to wine you first coming. This is revealed in the description of must know how the Old Testament prophets the water jars and in the response of the master of described the coming messianic kingdom. This the banquet. John describes for us both the amount kingdom is described by the prophets as a time of the water changed to wine and the purpose of when the land of Israel will be filled with abundant the water before it was transformed. We must wine: “The Lord will answer and say to his people, remember that John does not waste Scripture on ‘Behold, I am going to send you grain, new wine, and unimportant details: He tells us these pots were oil, and you will be satisfied in full with them’” (Joel used for the Jewish custom of purification. Thus, in 2:19); “‘Behold, days are coming,’ declares the Lord, changing this water into wine, Jesus is symbolically ‘when the plowman will overtake the reaper, and the testifying to the replacement of the types and treader of grapes him who sows seed; when the ceremonial rituals of the Law. Jesus was ushering in mountains will drip sweet wine. They will also plant a new era of communion with God; the slavish vineyards and drink their wine’” (Amos 9:13–14). rituals of outer washings and endless ceremonies Now you can understand Mary’s desire for were being displaced and replaced by the reality of Jesus to bring forth wine. She had believed the the new covenant and the new birth. The new wine prophets and had pondered the words of the angel represents sins washed away and the filling with the that her son was the promised king Israel had been Spirit, all because the promised Savior had arrived. waiting for—Mary had believed her son was the Now at first glance, the conversation between Christ. In Mary’s mind, this wedding crisis the head caterer and the bridegroom seems rather presented a wonderful opportunity for her son to incidental and anticlimactic. Why did John add bring in his messianic kingdom, to begin that this discussion, the only scene in the story not promised time of flowing wine of the Old centered on Jesus? Or is it? In these recorded Testament: “Son, bring forth that promised wine; words is more spiritual truth than either speakers bring in the long-awaited kingdom; show yourself realized at the time. The master was confused as to as our Messiah.” why the bridegroom’s party had saved the good Yet why the rebuke from the Lord? Was not wine for last, since custom and frugality taught that her faith strong? Did she not yearn for the you use the best wine first. Then when the people kingdom of God? Yes, but like the disciples she did were somewhat inebriated and liable to be less not yet believe the full testimony of the Scriptures. discerning you would save money by using the While she remembered those promises of God to most common (i.e., cheapest) wine. But this wine, bring in his righteous kingdom, she ignored the the headwaiter testified upon tasting, was delicious,

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 7

much better than the best wine that opened the celebration. Yes, the head caterer was unconsciously describing the purpose of our Lord’s coming. The kingdom that Jesus brought was better and more splendid than anything in the old kingdom, more lustrous than the prophets could describe in their limited language. But notice that John even wanted us to know the amount of water changed: Six water jars, holding twenty to thirty gallons each and each filled to the brim! “I have come that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” Jesus in his first public miracle revealed the gracious nature of his coming: to provide abundant life to us who were dead in sin. The abundance of the physical wine revealed the abundance of the spiritual wine that was about to be poured out not only in Israel, but also around the world, the wine which you and I have been made to taste. Moses performed a miracle with water also; he turned water into blood, manifesting God’s judgment upon Egypt. But Jesus’ sign was gracious and wonderful, bringing eternal life. “God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17). This first sign not only points toward what Christ brought in his first coming. It also looks ahead and anticipates what he will bring at his Second Coming. Here the setting of a wedding feast is most appropriate, especially considering the nature of weddings of the eastern world. In western weddings the bride is center stage, walking down the aisle as onlookers stand in admiration. But in eastern wedding ceremonies the bridegroom was the center of attention. He would walk in a procession to meet his bride, and throngs of onlookers would escort him as he approached his bride-to-be. In the parables, we are admonished to be like those who trim their lamps and wait along the procession as the bridegroom comes for his bride and not to be caught off guard, for the bridegroom will soon come to fulfill his engagement vows. Do not miss this wedding, Jesus warns. In the very next chapter, John the Baptist calls Jesus the bridegroom who has come to marry his bride. Yes, this wedding sign is about a wedding, but no earthly marriage. Jesus was not at Cana to validate the institution of marriage. This wedding celebration anticipates that great day when our bridegroom will fulfill his marriage vows to his beloved church, the bride of Christ. There in heaven will begin that great wedding feast where we will physically drink abundant wine with our heavenly husband. In the coming of Christ the bridegroom had come to claim his bride, as Hosea had earlier prophesied. My friends, you see what

8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

this sign says to you: You are the bride of Christ. No earthly love of a husband to his wife can compare to our heavenly husband who has promised to present us to himself as a spotless bride. As Adam looked upon Eve in all purity and loveliness, so God looks upon us as we are clothed in the robes of his son’s righteousness, a bride beautifully adorned! Thus, this Cana wedding, as was Solomon’s beautiful wedding in the Song of Solomon, is only an anticipation of that marriage that does not end upon death—as all earthly marriages will—but lasts forever. Now one of the reasons we as his people do not experience that wedding joy as we should is simply because it is still a promise waiting for us. We are in that overlapping time: The promise of marriage has already been given, but it will not be fully consummated until that glorious day in heaven. Thus, our faith is a faith that looks ahead, not satisfied with the present. Yet even now Christ is no less than eternally committed to his bride, and has placed his Spirit in us to seal that promise. John reports to us in verse 11 that the disciples understood the sign and believed in him. Though their faith was limited and still growing, they believed in what Jesus was communicating in the wine miracle. He was the Messiah-King who had come to give them life and entrance into the messianic kingdom of God. Though like Mary their faith was young and untamed by maturity, they saw even at Cana that Jesus was their Messiah; all they needed for true life would be found in him. The disciples understood; their faith was renewed and strengthened. And thus, my friends, as you witness this wedding sign, renew your faith in your Messiah and King. You who were only filthy with sin were made the eternal bride of Christ by God’s merciful grace. He came and sought you out as his bride before you had any intent to choose him. Keep pure for him. Do not be enticed by the temptations and pleasures of this world, which is passing away in judgment. Save yourself for your bridegroom, be busy for his kingdom and glory. Trim your lamps, for he who sits on his throne is now preparing a place for you, his bride. He is coming soon to usher you into that great wedding feast prepared for the faithful, those who have been washed clean by the new wine of his blood. Amen.

Todd Bordow (M.Div.,Westminster Theological Seminary), is organizing pastor of Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Kennewick, WA. This sermon was preached in June 1998.

Speaking of... G

od has given poor consciences, which lie

captive under the accusation and curse of the Law, the comfort of spiritual liberty. But the devil interprets this as liberty of the flesh and creates nothing but confusion and disorder. As a result, his dupes want to be free in everything, lords of all government, and rulers of everybody. In this way the devil sanctimoniously disguises himself under the semblance of the Gospel and Christian liberty and yet overthrows both the Gospel and Christian liberty. Martin Luther, Sermon on Matthew 13:24–30, December 9, 1528.

o let no one judge you in food or drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ…. Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—“Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. Colossians 2:16–17, 20–23.

he commandments of God bind a man to obedience for as long as he lives, in the very same way as they bind a wife to her husband for as long as he lives. Now everyone agrees that if a wife’s husband should die, there is nothing which could deny her the freedom to marry another, for the wedding vow does not bind husband and wife beyond the grave, but only “until death parts us.” In the same way, the holy church has been freed, by death, from her first husband, namely, the law. For in the death of Christ is the death of the law, since He died to sin. Therefore the holy church was freed to marry another. Whom has she married? Him who was raised from the dead. So she is free from the law and bound to her new Husband, to Christ, the Bridegroom from on high. Burnell F. Eckardt, Jr., Every Day Will I Bless Thee, 293.

oreover, because righteousness is said to be offered through the Gospel, all consideration of works is excluded. John Calvin, The Institutes of Christian Religion, 3.11.17.

M A R C H / A P R I L 21 09 09 09 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 9

Fund-Raising Evangelicals

n the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s recently announced “Philanthropy 400,” a number of evangelical organizations again demonstrated their fund-raising prowess for 1999. The annual report of the charitable sector’s most successful organizations, compiled from the previous year’s (1998) IRS Form 990 data, summarizes nonprofit organizations’ donations from individuals, foundations, and corporations. Receipts such as research grants and fees for services are excluded

from this tabulation. (Churches tend to be slightly underrepresented in the rankings, given that particular congregations are not required by law to make their receipts public. Thus, if an individual church body appears on the chart—e.g., Willow Creek, #385 nationally—it is because the institution agreed to voluntarily submit their economic numbers to the Philanthropy survey.) National giving to charities was up approximately 9% in the most recent data. Large charities grew much more rapidly than the average,

Selected Protestant-Affiliated Groups in the Philanthropy 400 National Rank 13 19 23 57 79 84 90 101 103 126 157 159 258 262 269 294 300 304 306 320 331 385

Organization

though. The “Philanthropy 400” organizations, for instance, saw receipts climb a robust 16%. Giving to these 400 organizations totaled $33 billion, which was about one-fifth of all donations given nationally. Five organizations raised over $500 million for the year: Salvation Army ($1.2 billion), YMCA ($629 million), Fidelity Charities ($572), American Cancer Society ($556), and American Red Cross ($543). Harvard and Catholic Charities were sixth and seventh on the list, at $463 and $431 million respectively. See the attached chart for last year’s donations to most of the nation’s largest Protestantaffiliated tax-exempt groups.

Annual Receipts (million $)

World Vision Campus Crusade for Christ Habitat for Humanity Trinity Broadcasting Network Christian Broadcasting Network Focus on the Family Wycliffe Bible Translators Young Life Billy Graham Evangelistic Assoc. Samaritan’s Purse Moody Bible Institute The Navigators Promise Keepers Prison Fellowship In Touch Ministries International Lutheran Laymen’s League Coral Ridge Ministries Media Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship American Bible Society Fellowship of Christian Athletes Mission to the World Willow Creek Community Church

1 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

297 265 233 136 110 105 97 89 88 76 65 64 37 36 36 32 31 31 31 29 28 24

Baptists Defend Evangelistic Efforts The last year has seen the 16 million member Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) criticized repeatedly for its efforts to evangelize members of other religious groups. Jewish leaders in New York and Hindu groups in Massachusetts and Texas have been the most outspoken in their opposition to an SBC campaign to pray for and talk with members of other faiths during those religions’ holy days. The Baptists were also attacked for defending the rights of

Messianic Jews to evangelize among non-Messianic Jewish groups. CNN’s Larry King has moderated debates on the subject.

Paige Patterson, SBC president

Then, in December, many leading liberal Protestants in Illinois sent a letter to SBC president Paige Patterson, urging the Baptists to drop their plan to bring 100,000 community service volunteers and evangelists to Chicago in June. Methodist Bishop C. Joseph Sprague wrote, “I’m always fearful when we in the Christian community move beyond the rightful claim that Jesus is decisive for us… [to the] presupposition that nonChristians are outside of God’s plan of salvation…. That smacks of a kind of non-Jesus-like arrogance.” Other members of the interfaith Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago wrote that such a large evangelistic effort “could contribute to a climate conducive to hate crimes.”

Patterson graciously replied that “the Baptists would come in peace,” but suggested that one could “suspect that it is not so much violence that you fear as it is the positive response of precious souls to the invitation of Christ to salvation and forgiveness…. All we want is the opportunity to tell people about Jesus. We believe in the land of the free that ought to be a given.”

Corrections & Clarifications • In last issue’s Between The Times, we quoted a Lutheran World Federation (LWF) source claiming that LWF represents 58 million of the world’s 62 million Lutherans. By implication, the LWF suggested that roughly this percentage of Lutherans supported the recent Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ). The JDDJ, signed by the mainline LWF and papal representatives in October, claimed to resolve the central dispute of the sixteenth century Reformation. As many confessional Lutherans have pointed out to MR, however, this statistic is unhelpful on a number of grounds: 1) LWF does not speak officially for even its own member denominations; 2) LWF admitted that five of its 124 member churches voted against the JDDJ, but did not publicize the fact that 35 of the remaining 119 bodies did not vote on the matter at all; and perhaps most importantly, 3) a significant percentage of the 58 million number comes from the national or territorial populations of countries with state Lutheran churches, rather than from any measure dealing with actual church attendance. • Quite understandably, we received a number of letters about an incorrect website recently listed in connection with a Between The Times story. Apparently, the site we were attempting to reference was sold to another organization. We apologize for the confusion.

ÍJanuary 4–6 saw the first Eastern Orthodox synod in over fifty years. The leaders of the Eastern churches, which claim 200 million adherents (primarily in Eastern Europe and Russia), largely avoided discussion of the territorial disputes that have kept them from meeting for so long. ÍIn a recent study comparing children in Britain and Japan, Oxford psychologist Olivera Petrovitch has found what she considers an inherent belief in God as creator. In a Science and Spirit article, she notes that, regardless of exposure to organized religion, children assume a creator behind natural objects. ÍAccording to a recently released report, the vast majority of responses to the Lutheran Church— Missouri Synods’ ad campaign to clarify the

confessional Lutheran position on the Gospel— and thereby to explain the LCMS’s opposition to the Roman Catholic/mainline Lutheran claims of agreement on justification (see MR, January/ February)—has been positive. The advertisement, which appeared in fifteen of the largest newspapers in the United States, “rejoiced” in much that Lutherans have in common with Roman Catholics, but insisted that the clear proclamation of the Gospel should not be sacrificed for the sake of superficial unity. For more information, see www.lcms.org/president/sta tementdoc.htm. ÍThe new year brought a new crackdown by Chinese authorities on that nation’s rapidly growing house-church movement. The government’s actions were apparently not

exclusively against Christian organizations; democratic and labor groups were also targeted. Somewhat surprisingly, Chinese evangelical leaders were quoted by CNN as saying that they do not support U.S. economic sanctions against China, believing that the encouragement of an “entrepreneurial” middle class will stimulate greater religious freedom. ÍBilly Graham cites Pope John Paul II as the most important figure in the twentieth century. The Associated Press quotes Graham as saying that the Roman pontiff “has brought the greatest impact of any pope in the last 200 years. I admire his courage, determination, intellectual abilities, and his understanding of Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox differences, and the attempt at some form of

reconciliation.” ÍA lay organization called Book-Link coordinates the distribution of tens of thousands of used Bibles annually to missionary and educational groups in the two-thirds world, primarily Nigeria and the Philippines. Bibles and catechetical materials can be mailed to: Book-Link Foundation, 4155 Highway 328 West, Eubank, KY 42567. Further information on the group can be obtained by calling the Mississippi Baptist Foundation, (601) 292-3210. ÍA Barna survey reports that Baptists contribute more money to their congregations than do members of any other American Protestant group. Baptists average $28.85 per adult per week, compared to $23.50 for Protestants in general.

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 1

C H R I S T I A N L I B E RT Y | Getting Beyond Legalism and License

Recovering the Art of

Christian Prudence To know wisdom and instruction, to perceive the words of understanding, to receive the instruction of wisdom, Justice, judgment, and equity; To give prudence to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion …. Proverbs 1:2–4

here is always a risk in writing on ethical topics, especially on a subject one has not mastered. But Christian prudence deserves our attention. Let me explain why I think it is such an important issue.

Legalism and Reverse Legalism n Reformed circles, it’s often called the “cage phase”: that early period when young Calvinists ought to be held in a medium-security facility to ensure the safety of others and themselves. Not only is there the obvious theological revolution that occurs, generating excitement as well as a sense of disillusionment in one’s churched background; there is, for many of us who came from fundamentalist or evangelical circles, a newfound Christian liberty. The Gospel, we learn, is not only seen in a more revolutionary light but is experienced practically in a more revolutionary light. We realize that everyone we like and respect now generally appreciates certain simple and more refined pleasures of enjoying as well as glorifying God forever, pleasures that were previously associated with worldly

B Y M I C H A E L H O RT O N

compromise. For many of us, for example, the idea of having champagne at a wedding where we know we’ll see a lot of people from our former church kept us up the night before with dread. But before we know it, we’re practicing reverse legalism: the chief sign of one’s Reformed commitment is whether he or she enjoys a distilled beverage and dances at the wedding—and a cigar or two guarantees a credible profession of faith. Often, brothers and sisters who don’t see things the way we do see what’s going on here better than do we: namely, that we are behaving selfishly and with an immature delight in offending others. Whereas the champagne is a “thing indifferent,” actively seeking to offend someone for the purposes of putting oneself on a pedestal is sinful— and, ironically, engages in the very selfrighteousness that characterizes legalism. On the other hand, there are those Christians who tend to think that the best way to ensure godly living is to find the correct rule and apply it rigorously. The infamous Pharisees of old were apparently so concerned about holy living (since obedience was thought to be the condition of the Messiah’s advent) that it was not enough to observe

They were questions of right and wrong. Dancing was a sin. When pressed for a biblical justification, defenders of these codes would often back down a bit and reply that although there isn’t a direct verse saying “thou shalt not dance,” the character of such events justified blanket prohibition. We didn’t have to check out each particular environment to discern whether it would be wise to dance in one but not in another. Just don’t dance! The same routine occurred regarding a number of issues: reading secular literature, going to movies (although this is largely a nonissue now, even for youth groups), moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages, and so forth. It would be uncharitable and untrue to call these brothers and sisters pharisees. Nevertheless, parallels are discernable in certain respects. The approach to moral wisdom in both cases is to build up a hedge around God’s commands. If lust is sinful, one cannot read a novel in which the very presence of sexual misconduct is present, but this renders certain biblical narratives problematic. Just make a rule: That’s the approach. Years back, I saw the movie Fatal Attraction, one of the most disturbing stories I’ve seen in which the evil nature of adultery, and its insidious stages from seed to flower, left me with the distinct impression that Prudence becomes essential where general rules leave off. Either–or solutions, this was a terrible thing to do. But I’ve seen other leaving us to an easy antinomianism or an equally easy legalism, movies that are far less explicit and yet far more often stunt our moral growth. dangerous (if subtle) in their represention of such things as normal and natural. My God’s commands. A parent with a two-year-old wife’s conscience will not allow her to see certain will not simply tell a child, “Don’t go into the pool!” movies or read certain books that I have no but will put up a fence to make sure that the child scruples taking in. In these circumstances, I would does not get close enough to render that a argue, there are no easy “black-and-white” answers. possibility. Analogously, the idea was that if one Truth comes in different forms and genres, some of could just be kept from tempting situations, one them disturbing. Prudence becomes essential could be preserved (at least to a great extent) from where general rules leave off. Either–or solutions, sin. It is an easy way to live, at least for those who leaving us to an easy antinomianism or an equally thought that righteousness is that simple. easy legalism, often stunt our moral growth. Throughout church history, it’s been easier to be either an antinomian (see p. 31) or a legalist than to Prudence in “Worship Wars” e see this polarization also in the be a Christian. The ancient Gnostics (who “worship wars.” On one side, there considered matter evil) divided into these two are those who confuse their own extremes, just as the Colossians were under the influence of the “Do not handle, do not taste, do idiosyncrasies with the regulative principle (see not touch” school while the Corinthians were page 36) and allow no latitude in its application. having orgies at Communion. In our day, we are And on the other, there are those who regard usually—at least in our circles—faced with more style and popular culture as neutral. If one can’t subtle extremes. Making rules for children is one find a rule in Scripture for or against it, we have thing, but in my ecclesiastical background these every reason to do it. Questions of prudence, were not really regarded as questions of which would require careful study of the prudence—that was not even a category for me: rationales and practices of Christians in the past,

1 4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

understanding the specific pros and cons of our cultural context today, and thinking through the implications of sound theology for practice, become moot points. Thus, the same individual can exhort a fellow believer to refuse to join coworkers for a beer under the rubric of avoiding “the very appearance of evil,” while passionately embracing the worldliness of popular culture in worship and church growth strategies. And it can happen the other way around, too. Just make a rule or just break a rule. I’ve been on both sides of that (and undoubtedly, still am more than I would like). Both relativists and antinomians on one end and absolutists and legalists on the other are more alike than either would like to admit. They have replaced prudence with their own will-worship, dispensing with the difficult, lifelong process of developing character—decision by decision in context after context. In the bargain, we have increasingly lost our ability to distinguish wise action from unwise action, opting instead for black-and-white, universal prescriptions. After all, isn’t the Bible a “handbook for life,” the “owner’s manual,” that provides the “rules of the road”? It’s easy, but it’s the “moral candy” that has left us malnourished in the face of particular ethical crises. In the remaining space, I’d like to briefly sketch out the idea of prudence, its application in Calvin’s remarkable discussion of Christian liberty, and offer some concluding challenges for us. “The Charioteer of All Virtues” ot surprisingly, most of the references to prudence in Scripture are found in Proverbs. Prudence is distinguished from wisdom as a species from its genus. If wisdom is the general capacity for evaluating and following the Good, the True, and the Beautiful (which, Proverbs tells us, begins with theology—i.e., the fear of God), then prudence is that particular exercise of wisdom that involves discrimination. One does not need to exercise discretion in deciding whether to love God and one’s neighbor. One either does or doesn’t. But what about those “gray areas” where there is no explicit command? Here, where one is not necessarily bound to do—or refrain from doing—something, the next move is to assess the situation more particularly. Here, the specific context, not the general rule, guides moral reasoning: “I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge and discretion” (Prov. 8:12). One not only is expected to do prudent things; rather, prudent things are done by a prudent person. The goal of character, Christian or otherwise, is to develop habits of picking up on both general

biblical wisdom and particular, immediate contexts. We know a prudent person when we see one: “A fool’s wrath is known at once, but a prudent man covers shame” (Prov. 12:16). “The heart of the prudent acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge” (Prov. 18:15). If our only categories are “right” and “wrong,” we will miss the opportunities to develop a moral conscience, the character of a prudent person. Plato called prudence “the charioteer of all virtues” (Phaedrus), but Aristotle developed this notion in a direction that many, including myself, regard as remarkably consistent with Scripture. (And why not? Aren’t we talking about civic righteousness and common grace?) In Book 2 of his Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguished virtue as being of two kinds: intellectual, formed by teaching (experience plus time), and moral, formed by habit. In Greek, he points out, ethike “… is formed by a slight variation from the word ethos (habit).” People become builders by building, musicians by playing, and so forth. Aristotle emphasizes the fact that we are responsible not only for our actions, but for our lives—our character, who we are and who we become. (Again, we’re not in the realm here of redemption but of common grace.) Our culture today is starving for this sort of moral discourse, especially when the idea that we are passively shaped by our environment is so rife. I think Aristotle would tell a mother who is worried about her children seeing any movies, reading any fiction, or hanging out with the wrong crowd, “Give them an alternative prize.” In other words, it is at least in part up to parents to provide an environment where truth, goodness, and beauty are known and experienced in depth. If children are gripped by the truth, they will less likely believe the latest lie. If they become intimate with that which is good, noble, and worthy of respect, they will be less inclined toward the shallow narcissism that feeds immorality in the first place. Familiar with lives of great men and women who were shaped by integrity and wisdom, they will at least have something to contrast with the trivial characters they see promoted in the culture. And they will only come to recognize the inferiority of that which is ugly by being familiar with that which is beautiful. Prudence is thereby molding character in such a manner that even where there is not a specific rule or defined expectation in a given situation, they will be able to size things up and make a mature decision. A ruleoriented existence usually stunts the moral growth of people and communities. Granted, this approach is more difficult. It means that we need to invest a lot more in

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 5

reflection on and actual participation in worthy pursuits that afford opportunities to appreciate truth, goodness, and beauty. C. S. Lewis talks about how we foolishly fool around with selfindulgent trivialities not because our passions are too great, but because they are too weak. We are like children making mud pies in the slums because we can’t even conceive of a holiday at the sea, he said. Once familiar with nobler things, we find ourselves becoming increasingly bored with error, evil, and ugliness. It’s not about saving ourselves but about cultivating character—something that Christians and non-Christians alike are capable of improving by God’s common grace. Thomas Aquinas advanced Aristotle’s arguments in the high Middle Ages, distinguishing between Latin conscientia and Greek synderesis, the latter referring to that sense of right and wrong that cannot err (i.e., natural law), whereas the former refers to the faculty that must be developed and sometimes corrected. So it is because of synderesis that we can say that “one must avoid causing others pain,” but it is conscientia that evaluates whether in a particular case that general axiom is violated. The conscience (conscientia), then, is concerned with prudence. Medieval casuistry (the practice of coming up with “cases of conscience” in pastoral counseling) became a cottage industry, and although it was usually

bound up with a moralistic scheme, this practice gave wide berth to the practice of evaluating the current situation. In fact, it revived the idea that “A prudent, understanding judge or agent can never treat universal laws or principles as absolute or invariable.” Albert R. Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin explain: There is always room for discretion in asking how far general rules, as they stand, apply to particular fresh cases, however marginal and ambiguous, and how far they should be waived or bent… to respect the exceptional character of novel situations…. Such a person possesses knowledge both of universal principle and of particular situations; is capable of drawing together memory of past experiences and foresight into future possibilities; and is able to recognize what is at issue in new and hitherto untried situations. The prudent person is aware that although the final end of human life is fixed by divine providence, the means to achieving that end are “of manifold variety according to the variety of persons and situations.” Thus one feature of prudent action is circumspectio, literally, “looking around.”1

We Con Lutherans

gain, those who institute human ordinances also act contrary to God’s command when they attach sin to foods, days, and similar things and burden Christendom with the bondage of the law, as if in order to earn God’s grace there had to be a service of God among Christians like the Levitical service, and as if God had commanded the apostles and bishops to institute it, as some have written. It is quite believable that some bishops were misled by the example of the Law of Moses. The result was that countless regulations came into being—for example, that it is a mortal sin to do manual work on holy days..., that it is a mortal sin to omit the seven hours [of daily prayer prescribed for monks], that some foods defile the conscience, that fasting is a work by which God is reconciled, that in a reserved case sin is not forgiven unless forgiveness is secured from the person for whom the case is reserved, in spite of the fact that canon law says nothing of the reservation of guilt but speaks only about the reservation of ecclesiastical penalties.

1 6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

Where did the bishops get the right and power to impose such requirements on Christendom to ensnare men’s consciences? In Acts 15:10 Saint Peter forbids putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples. And Saint Paul said in 2 Corinthians 10:8 that authority was given for building up and not for tearing down. Why, then, do they multiply sins with such requirements? Yet there are clear passages of divine Scripture which forbid the establishment of such regulations for the purpose of earning God’s grace or as if they were necessary for salvation…. It is necessary to preserve the teaching of Christian liberty in Christendom, namely, that bondage to the Law is not necessary for justification, as Saint Paul writes in Galatians 5:1, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” For the chief article of the Gospel must be maintained, namely, that we obtain the grace of God through faith in Christ without our merits; we do not merit it by services of God instituted by men. —Augsburg Confession (1530), Article 28 (“The Power of Bishops”)

It was particularly in the post-Reformation era that casuistry came into its own, however. Jesuits, ardent defenders of the pope, were masters at employing casuistry, although many people complained that their goal was to “rationalize” the ethical failures of important people. The English Puritans came up with a distinctive casuistry in which actual cases were raised that admitted no easy, black-and-white answer. Their goal was to educate the conscience, drawing on both the light of nature and the light of grace. Anglican and Puritan divine William Perkins’s Whole Treatise of Cases of Conscience (1606) represents a major contribution. In that book he begins by saying that such an exercise is essential since many Christians struggle with a heavy sense of guilt and “have either growne to phrensie and madness or els sorted unto themselves fearfull ends, some by hanging, some by drowning.” But, according to Jonsen and Toulmin, pietism and rationalism steadily diminished this practice with the triumph of legalism and the Enlightenment’s “universal morality.”2 Calvin on “Things Indifferent” espite its casuistry, medieval theology and pastoral practice were dominated by the penitential system in which moral life was largely rule-oriented. The reformers recovered the category of adiaphora, or “things indifferent.” Let

me briefly highlight some of the points in Calvin’s helpful argument. Calvin’s section on “Christian Liberty” follows his lengthy treatment of justification. Why treat a practical topic on the heels of such a lofty theological subject? Because liberty “is especially an appendage of justification and is of no little avail in understanding its power” (The Institutes of Christian Religion, 3.19.1). One cannot enjoy the “good news” and then live as if it isn’t true for him or her. Note how many times Calvin mentions the conscience: “[A]part from a knowledge of [Christian liberty] consciences dare undertake almost nothing without doubting; they hesitate and recoil from many things; they constantly waver and are afraid” (Institutes, 3.19.1). The legalism–license pendulum was familiar even in Calvin’s day: For, as soon as Christian freedom is mentioned, either passions boil or wild tumults rise unless these wanton spirits are opposed in time, who otherwise most wickedly corrupt the best things…. Others disdain it, thinking that it takes away all moderation, order, and choice of things. What should we do here, hedged about with such perplexities? (Institutes, 3.19.1) I know what many of my friends from my youth would say to this: with so many perplexities, don’t

nfess … Presbyterians and Baptists The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the Gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love, and willing mind. All which were common also to believers under the law; but under the new testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected, and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.

God alone is lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also. They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty; which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. —Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), Chapter 20 (“Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience”), sections 1-3. Baptists later reproduced these three sections almost identically (as well as most of the Westminster Confession) in the Philadelphia Confession of Faith (1742), Chapter 21.

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 7

even open the can of worms. If it could cause anyone offense, don’t do it. So everyone ends up being enslaved to those who do not allow for liberty, since they are (wrongly) categorized as the “weaker brother.” But Calvin says this easy, ruleoriented piety comes at too high a price: Shall we say good-by to Christian freedom, thus cutting off occasion for such dangers? But, as we have said, unless this freedom be comprehended, neither Christ nor gospel truth, nor inner peace of soul, can be rightly known.

using his liberty, not someone who questions the faith of others. Thus, many “weaker brothers” are actually pharisees, and for the sake of the liberty for which Christ died they must be resisted. Christians must not miss a single opportunity to “recognize (God’s) liberality toward us.” It isn’t a small matter then: “Its whole force consists in quieting frightened consciences before God….” (Institutes, 3.19.8–9). For that reason, one need not (must not) give up his or her liberty for the sake of the pharisee:

Here is no “given” offense, but those wicked interpreters I think Aristotle would tell a mother who is worried about her children baselessly so understand it. None but the weak is made seeing any movies, reading any fiction, or hanging out with the wrong crowd, to stumble by the first kind of offense, but the second gives “Give them an alternative prize.” offense to persons of bitter disposition and pharisaical pride. Accordingly, we shall call the one the offense of the weak, the other Rather, we must take care that so necessary a that of the Pharisees. Thus we shall so temper part of doctrine be not suppressed, yet at the the use of our freedom as to allow for the same time that those absurd objections which ignorance of our weak brothers, but for the are wont to arise be met (Institutes, 3.19.1). rigor of the Pharisees, not at all! (Institutes, After carefully delineating in what sense 3.19.11) believers are even free from the law of God (viz., As a side note here, we could observe Paul’s “before God’s judgment seat it has no place in their consciences” to condemn them), Calvin explains attack on the Judaizers who came to “spy out the how freedom from “the severe requirement of the liberty” that believers enjoyed. During the law” actually releases timid consciences to serve Reformation, open-air barbeques were held every Friday in Zurich, the day on which the medieval God and neighbor (Institutes, 3.19.5). But there is a further freedom of the Christian, a church had forbidden the eating of meat. liberty in “things indifferent”: these are things Princeton theologian Archibald Alexander, though concerning which “we are not bound before God he personally did not like whiskey, felt obligated to by any religious obligation preventing us from imbibe on occasions when he was called upon to sometimes using them and other times not using abstain by certain groups. Charles Hodge both them, indifferently. And the knowledge of this reported and commended his mentor’s practice. freedom is very necessary for us, for if it is lacking, But are these illustrations of a universal rule, an our consciences will have no repose and there will antilegalistic legalism, that would dictate our be no end to superstitions.” “Today,” he says, “we policy in each case? Not at all. These Christians seem to many to be unreasonable because we stir exercised discretion, judgment, analysis of the up discussion” over medieval rules. Why not just particular situation and the various implications, go along with it all? Who’s getting hurt? “But including their weighing the priorities of both when consciences once ensnare themselves, they charity and the importance of this truth. At the enter a long and inextricable maze, not easy to get same time that Paul warns of spying legalists, he out of.” First, the sensitive person will say that one adds, “For you, brethren, have been called to thing is wrong, then a further thing, until finally, liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity his conscience will force him “to turn over in his for the flesh, but through love serve one another” mind” the most trivial matters. “To sum up, he will (Gal. 5:13). Are we following such a general rule come to the point of considering it wrong to step in our exercise of prudent application? The general upon a straw across his path, as the saying goes” rule is set in stone, but prudence is exercised by an (Institutes, 3.19.7). educated conscience in particular circumstances The “weaker brother,” Calvin argues, is the one that must be carefully evaluated. who questions his faith because of using or not So what’s the outcome of all of this? The monks

1 8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

tried to outrun each other in deprivation. But what’s our response, asks Calvin, “to outstrip his neighbors in all sorts of elegance …” under “the pretext of Christian liberty”? They say that these things are things indifferent. I admit it, provided they are used indifferently. But when they are coveted too greedily, when they are proudly boasted of, when they are lavishly squandered, things that were of themselves otherwise lawful are certainly defiled by these vices…. We have never been forbidden to laugh, or to be filled, or to join new possessions to old or ancestral ones, or to delight in musical harmony, or to drink wine. True, indeed. But where there is plenty, to wallow in delights, to gorge oneself, to intoxicate mind and heart with present pleasures and be always panting after new ones—such are very far removed from a lawful [i.e., prudent] use of God’s gifts (Institutes, 3.19.9) . Our point in this article is best summarized by the Apostle Paul: “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any” (1 Cor. 6:12). You see, this is the hinge! The question in such matters is not whether they are lawful (and therefore, permissible for a Christian), but whether they are helpful. In some cases, they will be—no matter what rule-oriented folks may think. But in other cases, not. Lazy consciences will cut this process off at the pass. So, in the “worship wars,” one group can end the conversation with the wielding of a rule (such as the regulative principle) that is confused with its application. Some believe that having musical instruments, for instance, is a denial of that biblical rule. But this confuses general command with prudent application in a particular case. Close evaluation of the regulative principle of worship, for instance, may lead some to the conclusion that the most prudent application is to do away with musical accompaniment, but proponents will have to go further than merely crying out, “Regulative principle!” That settles everything about as much as merely crying out against those who drink moderately, “Don’t be drunk with wine!” On the other side, there are those who think that if it isn’t forbidden, it’s acceptable. In both cases, more work is required. Both groups should concede that (a) the general rule does not necessarily rule out the category of “things indifferent” and that (b) that fact does not mean that everything permissible is necessarily helpful. So let’s talk about whether our particular practices in worship

are “helpful,” conducive to the divinely prescribed goals, elements, and forms of worship. Surely by bringing both sides out of the legalism-license rule-orientation, we could begin a fruitful dialogue in prudence. As we have seen, “circumspection” comes from the compound, “looking around.” We need to look around a lot more, at a lot of things, to pay attention to the theology that informs our action, the general rules that guide it, the historical ways in which our forebears have worked them out (for good and for ill), and to the world that both needs to be addressed and yet also seeks to make us in its image before we get around to challenging its assumptions. Don’t miss Paul’s point: “All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” Reverse legalism keeps us slaves of the rule-oriented system of our past. If we are to be genuinely free in things indifferent, we must no more be expected to indulge than to abstain. That’s what genuine freedom is all about. And that’s where the re-formation of prudent character can begin. Luther states: God has given poor consciences, which lie captive under the accusation and curse of the Law, the comfort of spiritual liberty. But the devil interprets this as liberty of the flesh and creates nothing but confusion and disorder. As a result, his dupes want to be free in everything, lords of all government, and rulers of everybody. In this way the devil sanctimoniously disguises himself under the semblance of the Gospel and Christian liberty and yet overthrows both the Gospel and Christian liberty (“Sermon on Matthew” 13:24–30, December 9, 1528). ■

Michael Horton (Ph.D., Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and the University of Coventry) is associate professor of historical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in California and serves on the Council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 9

C H R I S T I A N L I B E RT Y | Getting Beyond Legalism and License

Servants o M

artin Luther’s treatise The Freedom of the Christian is a wonderful starting point for reading the reformer’s works.1 It was written in 1520, three years after the posting of the “95 Theses,” and at a time when the differences between Luther’s new theology and Roman dogma had clearly become fundamental. Yet while many of Luther’s writings at the time were polemical to refute

Roman error, this treatise was unique in being the first real positive exposition of the new evangelical theology. It was also unusual for its irenic tone. In it we can see what Luther was for and not merely what he was against. The position about Christian liberty proves to be robust, coherent, and grounded in the Scriptures. It is helpful to look at this treatise to see the nature of early Protestantism. By comparing it to Roman writings of the period, we can see how the treatise taught a new way of reading Scripture. Both sides in the debates of the day knew how to marshal proof texts. It might surprise a modern reader to see how many texts the Roman doctrine could produce to support its positions. While these are not the half-verse quotations of today’s cultists, cited out of context, they are still the product of a more cursory reading of the texts than that practiced by Luther. The Roman readings would in many cases be quite plausible were it not for the existence of a broader context of Scriptures that put these texts in a different light. Luther’s genius was not that he could find texts here or there to support his new theology but that his new

theology was the product of a different way of reading Scripture. Some Texts Are More Equal than Others ne of the chief charges against the Reformation was that the doctrine of private interpretation did not lead to uniform belief. How could the Scriptures be a sufficient rule of faith if people could not agree upon what it taught? I do not intend to offer an exhaustive answer to this question but wish to point out how some of Luther’s often overlooked insights can be used to explain some of the causes of misunderstanding. It will help to use an example from another area of life. When I was in the fourth grade, I was exposed to some innovative curriculum to teach critical thinking. One of the lessons contained the following directions. The page listed something similar to the following:

Directions: Read all instructions before you begin. 1. Draw a box. 2. Inside the box, draw a picture of a pig.

Luther on the 2 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

by RICK RITCHIE

of Freedom 3. 4.

Next to the pig, write “This is me.” Ignore the first three directions, and write “Ha Ha” on the paper.

At the end of this exercise, not everybody’s paper looked the same. Some kids had pigs with “This is me” written next to them. Many crossed this out afterward when they saw that they had been tricked. Others had “Ha Ha” written on their papers, and were saying the same to their less fortunate classmates. I was usually pretty bad at following directions but had looked at the exercise as a puzzle and had solved it correctly. And yes, I gloated. Now this classroom set of directions is a lot shorter than the Bible, yet even in this exercise we had differences in results. What was the problem? The problem was that some of the “texts” determined the meaning of other “texts.” Directions one through three were overridden by direction four; students would realize this only if they followed the unnumbered instruction at the top, which said to “Read all instructions before you begin.” I contend that Luther’s evangelical breakthrough was the result of discovering something like direction number four in the book of Romans. There were texts in Romans that ruled the reading of other texts. In a recent work on sanctification, one writer accuses the reformers of a Pauline imperialism that makes Paul more

Christian Life M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 1

important than Jesus.2 Perhaps this sounds plausible on the surface. After all, Jesus is God, and Paul is not. Yet this will not do. Paul’s writings are Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15–16), and it is the teaching of Scripture that the word of Scripture is the Word of God.3 So if Paul’s writings are Scripture, then Paul’s writing is the Word of God, and since Jesus is God, it is to be assumed that this means that Paul’s writing could be said to be the Word of Jesus. So we cannot drive a wedge between the words of Jesus and Paul, because they ultimately have the same source. In addition, if some of Paul’s writings contain hermeneutical rules, then these texts rule our readings of other texts. It is not that we practice a Pauline imperialism because Paul is “more our type” than Jesus. It is that certain Pauline passages describe Christian doctrine in a way that naturally serves to alter our reading of all kinds of texts. The same thing applies to the Gospels. When the Sermon on the Mount is preached, our understanding of the Old Testament law is altered, for now we have the author’s own interpretation. The source of each passage is the same, but some texts will rule our readings of other texts because they were given by God to do so. As we compare Luther’s readings of Scripture

rules for reading Scripture within Scripture, they saw it as their responsibility to teach these rules to others. The key problem with interpreting the Bible for yourself is the time required. Finding these “rules for reading” takes time. Yet if someone else can point them out to you early on, you are saved from many misreadings. The church should be the wise tutor who helps you find your way around an unfamiliar book. The advantage the tutor has is that she has been reading the book longer. Familiarity, not a secret decoder ring, is what she has to offer us. The church has a responsibility to teach people to read and to show people where to find the heart of the matter, so that they will not make pigs of themselves by starting in the wrong place.

Scripture Is Not the Book of Virtues uther’s presentation of the nature of Christianity is unusual for his time. I have read the introductory material, or prolegomena, to several works of medieval theology. They softened my view to medieval theologians who were often accused of an “unbiblical scholasticism.” The charges I had heard gave the impression that you would not find Scripture spoken of, or if it were spoken, it would be The church should be the wise tutor who helps you find your way around an twisted to answer obscure questions it had no intention of answering. The works I unfamiliar book. The advantage the tutor has is that she has been reading the read, however, were saturated in Scripture. The book longer. Familiarity, not a secret decoder ring, is what she has to offer us. method was scholastic; that is, schools of thought would develop an approach to against that of his Roman opponents, I would explicating theology and explain that approach at challenge you to look at the clash of readings like the beginning of their work. “Is theology a the one that occurred in my fourth grade classroom. science?” they would ask, and then attempt to I do not deny that the Roman side had texts to cite. resolve the question by lining up the Scriptures on Yet their citations were similar to what would have both sides of the question and explaining the happened if one of the children who had messed up apparent tensions. Somewhere down the line, faith the exercise had turned to another and said, would be spoken of, and Scriptures concerning “Where’s your pig? Direction two said to draw a faith would be cited. Luther breaks this tradition and starts at the pig, and you disobeyed!” If all we look at is direction two, the child is right. Yet a deeper center. He begins with the subjective center of reading shows the clear error. When we are dealing things, namely, what is faith?—since he had with Scripture, it is easier to see how even educated discovered that that is what makes the difference adults would be open to misreading. Perhaps they between being condemned and being justified. never read Romans. If they never saw the rules for “Many people have considered Christian faith an easy thing,” Luther begins “and not a few have reading, their misreadings might be very plausible. While the Reformers insisted on the right of given it a place among the virtues.”4 With these private interpretation, they nevertheless saw the words, Luther states the problem his new theology value of tradition. Tradition is something handed constantly faced. The Roman church taught a down. They believed the Scriptures to be clear but doctrine of salvation by merit. The individual saw multiple layers to them. When they found would judge the acts he was to perform by how

2 2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

much merit was in them. For most, the idea was to spend the least amount of time possible in purgatory. If it would mean less time in flames, who would not judge all actions as to their effect on time in purgatory? Now this focus on the bottom line was infamous for its small-mindedness. The indulgence salesmen have been rightly seen for their guilt in making people worse than they were before. Everyday selfishness becomes worsened when we are always asking, “What’s in it for me?” which was the question the medievals asked of every good work. Your neighbor thereby becomes an instrument you use to try to get yourself into heaven. Yet it was not only abuses that fostered this attitude. While the worst applications of this teaching sprung from the minds of crafty indulgence hawkers, sober theologians had done their part in bringing about these misconceptions. The verse “if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2) and the verse “Above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness” (Col. 3:14) were cited to prove that love is a greater virtue than faith.4 If love were a greater virtue, how could it be that faith saved? Further, James spoke about how “faith without works is dead” (James 2:20). The Roman theologians thought that these passages dealt the deathblow to Luther’s new theology. But Luther saw that some key distinctions were not being made. First, when the word “faith” is used in the Scriptures, it is not always used in the same sense. A faith that moves mountains is not necessarily one that trusts in Christ alone for salvation. The demons who believe that God is one in James 2:19 do not trust in Christ for salvation. Second, faith does not save as a virtue. These distinctions both need to be made, and when they are not, the passages that speak of saving faith are lost. What is ironic is that the scholastic method is usually good at resolving differences like this. Passages that speak of faith saving without works (e.g., Rom. 4:5) would be placed alongside passages like James 2:24, and the apparent contradictions worked out by showing how terms are being used in different senses. Yet method alone is not enough when a preconceived system is blinding a reader to unexpected meanings in the text. The problem was that Luther’s opponents did not allow Luther’s arguments to be understood in its own terms. They taught a meritorious method of salvation and would plug this or that teaching of Luther’s theology into their existing doctrine and show how it did not fit. It would be like arguing over two pieces of music, say “The Battle Hymn of

the Republic” and Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. Those who preferred “The Battle Hymn” might plug individual notes or measures from Beethoven into their piece to show just how badly they fit. Yet this is not a fair test; you must take the piece of music as a whole and see how it plays. When you start with the assumption that the Gospel is a system of meritorious works whereby we win a place in heaven, then of course Luther’s theology will not work. Luther says, following Paul, that we are not saved by works but by faith. Luther’s opponents counter that this will not do, since faith is not the most virtuous of works. Yet faith is not being offered as a virtue but as an instrument that unites the soul to Christ.5 So its status as a lesser virtue is no point against it. When Luther says that not a few people have granted faith a status among the virtues, he is accusing them of damning it through faint praise. Some Dichotomies Cut Deeper than Others uther urges faith against works righteousness first by making a distinction between outer and inner man, or between body and spirit.6 No outward work will save a man if he is still evil in his heart.7 Yet Luther does not say this in order to preach salvation through internal change. No, that will not do since we are in spiritual bondage. But the Word of God can release a man from that bondage. That Word of God divides into commands and promises (what was later termed law and Gospel). The commands let us know what we have failed to do so that we might despair of our own efforts and look for rescue. Then the promises declare that Jesus has filled the commands in our place and borne our punishment. Luther presses the matter in a way that few before him did. Many in the early church would have made the distinction between the outer man and the inner man. Yet most would stop there and urge an internal change. If they did go further and bring the Word of God in as a remedy, they would typically declare the commands and ignore the promises. Or they might hold out the promises on the condition of fulfilling the commands. But Luther sees this as a misuse of Scripture. He quotes Romans 11:32, where it says, “God has consigned all men to disobedience that he might have mercy on all” to show what God has really intended through the law. He intended to make men disobedient so that salvation would be on account of mercy.8 If he had wanted to create a meritorious system of salvation, then why consign all men to disobedience? And why this talk of mercy to the disobedient? If faith is an instrument whereby we receive salvation freely, then it makes sense that it

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 3

doesn’t matter how much or little virtue faith possesses. For God is having mercy on the disobedient. He made them disobedient, or shall we say unvirtuous, so that his mercy would be true mercy. If we sneak virtue into faith as a cause of salvation, we end up saying that God consigned all men to unvirtuousness so that he might make them virtuous again. Why not leave well enough alone if that were his goal?

poor in trust that God will continue to provide for it. A faithless heart may give its money to the poor, but it will be a statement that God does not care for the poor, so somebody else had better do so. Same action but signifying very different states. Luther says that proper teaching on these matters cuts through the snares that had been set for people’s consciences.11 The church had added law upon law which the faithful thought they must follow at the risk of damnation. Luther sees this as a bad reason to follow church laws, since it conflicts with Luther sees men as being born bound but free to live when they believe the the truth that our salvation is provided freely through Gospel. Others might wrongly believe that their chains are necessary to life. Christ. But if the laws instruct us in serving our neighbor, we can freely engage in what they enjoin for the sake of the Faith Produces Virtues uther goes on to describe the life of the neighbor, so long as we do not think we thereby justified Christian. Salvation is by divine are saving ourselves. mercy, which saves us through the instrument Finally, Luther says that men are naturally of faith despite our lack of virtue, or even the lack inclined to be superstitious and to believe that when of virtue in our faith. But there are virtues that they follow laws, their obedience saves them. He spring from that faith. Luther emphasizes the finds this to be not just a Roman error but an inborn spontaneity of the new life. He even says of the human error. Only God can take it out of the heart. inner man, “He needs neither laws nor good works He says it is necessary that we pray for God to make but, on the contrary, is injured by them if he us thodactici, or taught by God himself, that we believes that he is justified by them.”9 This is close might be delivered from this opinion. He says that to that famous statement by one of Luther’s if God “himself does not teach our hearts this colleagues that “Good works are injurious to wisdom hidden in a mystery, nature can only salvation!” No, they are not injurious in themselves. condemn it and judge it to be heretical because On the one hand, they spontaneously flow from nature is offended by it and regards it as foolishness. faith. But on the other hand, they can be the objects So we see that it happened in the old days in the of idolatry. We can begin to trust them and not God case of the apostles and prophets, and so godless for salvation. Then they really are injurious. They and blind popes and their flatterers do to me and are much like the Scriptures which unstable men those who are like me.”12 twist to their own destruction. The Scriptures are This is the opposite of Rousseau, who says that holy and written for the sake of giving life. But man is born free and yet everywhere is in chains. destructive use can be made of them. The same is Luther sees men as being born bound but free to true of good works. Luther says, “We do not, live when they believe the gospel. Others might therefore, reject good works; on the contrary, we wrongly believe that their chains are necessary to cherish and teach them as much as possible. We do life. But the Christian can dispense with them: not condemn them for their own sake, but on “God has consigned all men to disobedience that account of this godless addition to them and the he might have mercy on all.”13 When the mercy perverse idea that righteousness is to be sought has come, the bondage ceases. Bondage to law and through them; for that makes them appear good bondage to disobedience are linked. When one outwardly, when in truth they are not good.”10 ceases, so ought the other. ■ There is a relational truth here, which is taught in the very chapter of Scripture the opponents use to prove the lesser virtuousness of faith. First Rick Ritchie (M.Div., Gordon-Conwell Theological Corinthians 13 teaches that many of the most Seminary) is a contributing author to Christ the Lord: magnificent outward works are worthless apart The Reformation and Lordship Salvation. from love. Well, without faith they are equally worthless (Heb. 11:6). It is not just the work that must be questioned but the heart behind the work. A heart filled with faith will give its money to the

2 4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

C H R I S T I A N L I B E RT Y | Getting Beyond Legalism and License

Poetic Polemics: Warnings Against Legalism in the Gospel Sonnets of Ralph Erskine he name Ralph Erskine (1685– 1752) might not sound that familiar to modern ears but, in fact, this minister’s literary works were once so treasured that as late as 1879 they were still some of the best-selling religious books in London.1 Most of Erskine’s published material consisted of his sermons, but his most popular selling volume was a collection of feisty poetic discourses entitled the Gospel Sonnets, first published in 1720 and which by 1793 had seen more than twenty editions (including American releases).2 Erskine was born in Monilaws, Northumberland, in 1685. His father was a minister there and was personally involved in the conversion and discipleship of noted Puritan Thomas Boston. Ralph entered Edinburgh University to study theology when he was fifteen

and was old enough to be licensed as a preacher by 1709. In a short biography, G. Ella records that once Erskine was called to the ministry, he was filled with grave doubts as to his Christian witness and calling, and scoured the works of godly men to find comfort. On reading Boston on the covenant, he was able to plead the promises of God and regain peace of heart. Erskine’s view of himself as shown by his diary at this time is instructive. He writes, “This morning, after reading, I went to prayer, under a sense of my nothingness and naughtiness, vileness and corruption, and acknowledged myself a beast before God.” He could nevertheless add, “I was made to cry with tears, Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief. I was led, in some suitable manner, under a view of my nothingness, and of God’s all-sufficiency, to renounce all confidence in the flesh.”3

by S H A N E R O S E N T H A L M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 5

In Print March/April Book Recommendations Luther in Context David Steinmetz (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996) Luther in Context sets Luther in his cultural and theological world – a world in which he dialogued with Augustine, William of Okham, Gabriel Biel, his congregation and dinner guests. Steinmetz explores topics important to Luther, including temptation, the hiddenness of God, and justification by faith alone. B-STEI-2 PAPERBACK, $16.00 Luther: Man Between God and the Devil Heiko Oberman (New York: Image/Doubleday, 1992) The definitive biography of the central figure of the Protestant Reformation. Published in 1982 in Germany to great acclaim, the book portrays the controversial reformer in the context of his own time. B-OBER-1 PAPERBACK, $17.00 A Reformation Debate: John Calvin and Jacopo Sadoleto John C. Olin, Ed. (Mansfield, Ohio: Fordham University Press, 1999) In 1539, Cardinal Sadoleto sent a letter to the magistrates and citizens of Geneva, asking them to return to Rome. A few months later, Calvin replied to Sadoleto, defending the Protestant reforms. In these two letters, both men explore the meaning of doctrines like ministry and priesthood, offering both theological and personal arguments for their respective sides in this great theological controversy. B-OLIN-1 PAPERBACK, $17.50 Christ’s Call to Discipleship James M. Boice (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998) Although salvation costs us nothing, Christ’s call to discipleship costs us everything. He demands our total commitment. Boice outlines the meaning, path, cost and rewards of being a true disciple of Jesus Christ. Discipleship is lifelong, and it is total. B-CCD-P PAPERBACK, $11.00 The History and Character of Calvinism John T. McNeill (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967) A comprehensive history of the Calvinist movement. B-MCNE-1 PAPERBACK, $16.00 Dying to Live: The Power of Forgiveness Harold L. Senkbeil (St. Louis: Concordia, 1994) Provides readers with a detailed description of God’s actions to form Christians in Christ’s image through Word and Sacraments. B-SEN-1 PAPERBACK, $15.00 To order, complete and mail the order form in the envelope provided. Or use our secure e-commerce catalog at www.AllianceNet.org Phone orders call 215-546-3696 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET (credit card orders only).

2 6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

On Tape From the Alliance Archives Wish List for the 21st Century White Horse Inn Series Hosts Michael Horton, Ken Jones, Kim Riddlebarger and Rod Rosenbladt talk about some of the things they hope for the church as we start a new century. Topics include The Gospel Driven Church, Reformation in the Black Church and Reformation of Church Officers. This series also includes a half hour program of the hosts answering listener questions called into the White Horse Inn Question line. C-WL-S 3 TAPES IN AN ALBUM, $18.00 Here We Stand James Boice and Ben Sasse, editors This collection of eight essays calls the church to return to the authority of the Bible and to apply it faithfully in their worship, ministry, policies, life and evangelism. Contributors are David Wells, Ervin Duggan, Albert Mohler, Gene Veith, Michael Horton, Sinclair Ferguson, Robert Godfrey, and James Boice. The book also includes the Cambridge Declaration that was written and signed at the Cambridge Summit meetings in April, 1996. B-HWS HARDBACK, $17.00 C-ACE-P0A EIGHT ADDRESSES ON CASSETTE TAPE IN AN ALBUM, $43.00 Mind Renewal in a Mindless Age James M. Boice Explore the rich treasures of Romans 12:1–2 and accept the challenge to live a transformed life. You'll discover what it means to be dead to sin; how to be a living sacrifice; why God is pleased with us; and how our minds are linked to our faith. C-MRMA 5 TAPES IN AN ALBUM WITH STUDY GUIDE, $32.00 — SAVE 30% — $22.40 C-MRMA-SG EXTRA STUDY GUIDES, $4.00 — SAVE 30%— $2.80

The Psalter White Horse Inn series The Psalter is probably the single book of the Bible with which Christians and non-believers alike are most familiar. Composed of 150 psalms (songs of praise and prayer), this book provides the reader with manifold expressions of hope and lament, of victory and despair, or sin and salvation. In this three tape series, hosts Michael Horton, Kim Riddlebarger, Rod Rosenbladt and Ken Jones discuss how this book, called by Luther "the Bible in miniature," points toward Christ and encourages the believer. C-PSA-S 3 TAPES IN AN ALBUM, $18.00 For He Must Reign Dr. Kim Riddlebarger This series on eschatology from a Reformation perspective with White Horse Inn Host Kim Riddlebarger is a great overview. The four tapes are: Survey of End-times Positions, Two Age Model, Return of Christ, and Daniel 9 and Revelation 20. C-FRM-S 4 TAPES IN AN ALBUM, $23.00 Barnhouse Classics Donald Grey Barnhouse This is a great collection of timeless messages from The Bible Study Hour’s founder. His useful applications and valuable exposition make the messages a living reality, filled with colorful illustrations told in the inimitable Barnhouse style. Messages include: Your Right to Heaven, The Scales of God, Fit Leaves and Men Whom God Struck Dead. C-BC 8 MESSAGES ON 5 CASSETTES IN AN ALBUM, $28.00 White Horse Inn single cassettes, $5.00 each * Live From Washington, D.C., C-WHI-463-464 * Christian Liberty, C-WHI-474-475 * Commercialization of Christianity, C-WHI-476-477 * Question & Answer #1, C-WHI-470-472 * Question & Answer #2, C-WHI-478-479

Subscribe to Modern Reformation Magazine Six times a year, Modern Reformation will sharpen and challenge you. Why not subscribe today?

U.S. One year $22 (MR1YR) Two years $40 (MR2YR) U.S. Student One year $11 (MRS1YR) Two years not available Canada One year $25 (MR1YR) Two years $45 (MR2YR) Europe One year $34 (MR1YR) Two years $62 (MR2YR) Other One year $35 (MR1YR) Two years $65 (MR2YR) To subscribe, complete and mail the order form in the envelope provided. Or call 215-546-3696 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET (credit card orders only). M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 7

Poetic Polemics

[ C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 2 5 ]

The Marrow Controversy n addition to overcoming his personal struggles, however, Erskine was strongly motivated by his involvement in what became known as the Marrow Controversy. This was an early eighteenth century debate over the nature of law and grace in the role of salvation. There was in some of the Scottish churches of those days a popular tendency toward legalistic preaching. Certain critics of this movement feared that the neonomians, as they were called, had turned the gospel into a new law by demanding certain conditions be met before salvation could be offered. Thomas Boston, Ralph Erskine, and others felt that this threatened to obscure the doctrine of justification itself. The neonomians, on the other hand, accused these critics of antinomianism (see p. 31) for not encouraging true repentance of sin in the preaching of the gospel. Boston attempted to resolve the issue by having Edward Fisher’s book, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, republished, but this only seemed to make matters worse. The neonomians were offended by Fisher’s book and had Boston and others forced out of the General Assembly. Although Ralph Erskine was not a part of the original group to be forced out, he nevertheless believed after much internal struggle that he ought to identify himself with the minority outsider group. When he pulled out, the majority of his congregation pulled out with him and proceeded to build a new church facility.

Reading the Gospel Sonnets quick glance at the table of contents of the Gospel Sonnets will quickly reveal Erskine’s zeal in opposing the neonomian faction during the Marrow Controversy. Entire sonnets are listed under titles such as “Arguments and Encouragements to Gospel-ministers to Avoid a Legal Strain of Doctrine,” “The Hurtfulness of not preaching Christ, and Distinguishing Duly Between Law and Gospel,” or even “Damnable Pride and Self-righteousness, So Natural to All Men, Have Little Need to be Encouraged by Legal Preaching.” What is striking is how this author blends theological precision with his poetic talent. The result is a kind of literature that stirs its readers on multiple levels. At the beginning of the Gospel Sonnets, Erskine presents the evangelistic enterprise as a “nuptial treaty,” and the evangelists are the heralds of the divine King in charge of announcing this heavenly arrangement, gathering suitable brides for the royal Lamb. But before these heralds set out to

2 8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

spread the word, Erskine bids them to stop for a moment to contemplate their task and to proceed only with a proper gospel methodology in order for them to make an appropriate match. This was not an easy task to accomplish because often there were times in which the legal emphasis was so pervasive that it actually obscured the liberating message of the gospel—such as was the case with the Romanists, the Arminians, and according to Erskine, now the neonomians. Oft in the church arise destructive schisms From anti-evangelic aphorisms; A legal spirit may be justly nam’d The fertile womb of ev’ry error damn’d. Hence Pop’ry, so connat’ral since the fall, Makes legal works like saviours merit all; Yea, more than merit on their shoulder loads, To supererogate like demi-gods. Hence dare Arminians too, with brazen face, Give man’s free-will the throne of God’s free grace; Whose self-exalting tenets clearly shew Great ignorance of law and gospel too. Hence Neonomians spring, as sundry call The new law-makers, to redress our fall. The law of works into repentance, faith, Is chang’d, as their Baxterian Bible saith. Shaping the gospel to an easy law, They build their tott’ring house with hay and straw; Yet hide, like Rachel’s idols in the stuff, Their legal hands within a gospel-muff.4 According to Erskine, legalism is the “womb” of all the errors and schisms he mentions. But what is most important is to notice how this author equates both Arminianism and neonomianism with Romanism. In other words, the two Protestant sects were in Erskine’s mind just as destructive as the Roman apostasy. It is also interesting to notice how our poet makes mention of the Baxterians in the midst of his critique of neonomianism. Erskine is thinking of the followers of Richard Baxter who argued in his day that God had published a new law, and that conformity to this new law had become one’s individual righteousness. In one of his sermons, he elaborates on the teachings of this group: The Baxterians tell us that … the act of faith is our righteousness, not as it accepts Christ’s righteousness, but as it is an obedience to this new law. The very act and work of faith is, according to them, righteousness itself and this faith includes all kinds of works, namely, repentance, love, obedience, and ten or twelve duties of that sort; and all these together are our righteousness for justification. Really as

one says upon this very head, if the Apostle Paul were alive he would excommunicate such ministers.5 Thus, when Erskine is critical of the neonomian camp, he probably has certain Baxterians in mind. In a later sonnet, he mentions one of the possible motives of the legalists who “Press moral duties to the last degree.” “Why not?” they say, “lest we successless be.”6 In other words, the successful, with-it, and happening churches of Erskine’s day were churches characterized by moralistic preaching. Thus, in order to combat this popular legal emphasis, Erskine wisely suggests, “The more proud nature bears a legal sway, the more should preachers bend the gospel-way.”7 This slidingscale approach would serve to keep legalism in check by making sure that the gospel always got the upper hand. In his day, however, this was simply not the case: Christ is not preach’d in truth, but in disguise, If his bright glory half absconded lies. When gospel-soldiers, that divide the word, Scarce brandish any but the legal sword. While Christ the author of the law they press, More than the end of it for righteousness; Christ as a seeker of our service trace, More than a giver of enabling grace. With legal spade the gospel-field he delves, Who thus drives sinners in unto themselves; Halving the truth that should be all reveal’d, The sweetest part of Christ is oft conceal’d.8 Concern of Christian Introspection t was the tendency of those in the neonomian camp to focus on what we do for Christ, rather than on what Christ did for us. This, Erskine thought, led sinners “in unto themselves” rather than to be thrust outside themselves to contemplate the work of Christ on their behalf. He is concerned that this type of preaching creates Christian introspection and ignores the sweet promises of the gospel so clear throughout the Scriptures. Thus he continues,

With equal success to the fool that aims By paper walls to bound devouring flames.9 Ministers of the Word of God or “suitors” as he calls them, make a serious mistake if they attempt with legal arts to present a bride for the Lamb. No matter how zealous they be, it is done in vain if it is not done in the grace of the gospel. Therefore in Erskine’s mind, those who preached a stern message of repentance from sin without the liberating message of the gospel were in danger of falling under the same criticism that Jesus offered to the Pharisees when he said, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to” (Matt. 23:13). Without the gospel of Christ one simply does not have adequate protection from the divine curse, but rather must rely on “paper walls,” as Erskine eloquently puts it, to hold back the flames of God’s wrath. Just as Paul complained of the Jews that “they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own” (Rom. 10:3), Erskine was similarly concerned about the Judaizing tendency of the neonomian message: But, ah! to press the law-works as terms of life, Was ne’er the way to court the Lamb a wife. To urge conditions in the legal frame, Is to renew the vain old cov’nant game. The law is good, when lawfully ‘tis used, But most destructive, when it is abused. They set not duties in the proper sphere, Who duly law and gospel don’t sever; But under many chains let sinners lie, As tributaries, or to DO or DIE. Nor make the law a squaring rule of life, But in the gospel-throat a bloody knife.10

We bid men turn from sin, but seldom say, Behold the Lamb that takes all sin away! Christ, by the gospel rightly understood, Not only treats a peace but makes it good. Those suitors therefore of the bride, who hope By force to drag her with the legal rope, Nor use the drawing cord of conqu’ring grace, Pursue with flaming zeal a fruitless chase In vain lame doings urge, with solemn awe, To bribe the fury of the fiery law:

Law and Gospel Distinction n these powerful lines, Erskine shows the inherent fallacy of legalistic preaching. It is a renewal of the old Mosaic covenant. Thus in keeping with a broad Reformation tradition, our author suggests that we make a careful distinction between law and gospel. The law for Erskine was not something to be set aside completely but rather to be used properly. Those who wished to use it as a means of salvation had made an obvious mistake, but those who intertwined the works of the law with the gospel message were even more dangerous because they had hidden a sharp dagger in gospel clothing. This is why Erskine is careful to present the law as strict and severe, while at the same time

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 9

proclaiming a gospel that is totally free, sweet, and comforting: “Are law-commands exceeding broad? So is the righteousness of God,”11 or elsewhere:

then he has established that God lowers his own standard of holiness for our sakes. But if this were the case, then God would cease to be God. In fact, it is the unrelenting holiness of God that points A rigid matter was the law, both to our guilt and to the awful justice poured Demanding brick, denying straw; out on Christ. If God could have lowered his But when with gospel-tongue it sings, standards, why did Christ have to suffer in our It bids me fly, and gives me wings.12 place? Did not Jesus ask of his father, “If you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but Right out of the gate, therefore, Erskine gets to yours be done” (Luke 22:42)? And what was the the heart of the issue. The biggest problem in the answer? The answer was that the second person of church of his day was that the requirements of the trinity “was crucified, died, and was buried, and on the third day rose again from the dead.” Thus in If God could have lowered his standards, why did Christ have to suffer Christ, God was able to remain perfectly holy and in our place? just, and yet love us as well. Erskine reminds us, therefore, that the law could God’s law were portrayed as if they were capable of only “promise life to me if my obedience perfect being met. They were not “exceeding broad,” but be.”14 He presents not an easy law but a were achievable moral duties. This is not to say “consuming fire,” in order that the gospel might be that the neonomians of Erskine’s day actually the only means to appease the “divine ire.”15 He thought they could keep the entire law of Moses. insists on an unambiguous presentation of the No, in their minds, God had revoked those laws terror of the law so that no one will mistake it as a with the coming of Christ. (Now all he expected means of procuring acceptance with God: was true repentance, sincere devotion, etc.) Erskine first characterizes, then criticizes this view: Much rather ought we in God’s name to place His great artill’ry straight against their face; But, says the legal, proud, self-righteous heart, And throw hot Sinai thunderbolts around, Which cannot with her ancient consort part, To burn their tow’ring hopes down to the ground. “What! Won’t the goodness of the God of heav’n To curse the doers unto endless thrall, “Admit of smalls when greater can’t be given? That never did continue to do all. “He knows our falls diminish’d all our funds, To scorch their conscience with the flaming air, “Won’t he accept of pennies now for pounds? And sink their haughty thoughts in deep despair; “Sincere endeavours for perfection take, Oh! Dang’rous is th’ attempt proud flesh to please, “Or terms more possible for mankind make?” Or send a sinner to the law for ease; Ah! poor divinity, and jargon loose; Who rather needs to feel its piercing dart, Such hay and straw will never build the house. ‘Till dreadful pangs invade his trembling heart; Mistake not here, proud mortal; don’t mistake; And thither only should be sent for flames God changes not, nor other terms will make. Of fire to burn his rotten hopes and claims; Will divine faithfulness itself deny, That thus disarm’d, he gladly may embrace, And grasp with eagerness the news of grace.16 Which swore solemnly, Man shall do or die? Will our great Creditor deny himself? “What! would ye have us plung’d in deep And for full payment take our filthy pelf? despair?” Erskine rhetorically asks. “Amen; yea, Dispense with justice, to let mercy vent? God himself would have you there.”17 Then he And stain his royal crown with ‘minish’d rent? concludes, “You prize not heav’n, till he through Unworthy thought! O let no mortal clod hell you draw; Nor love the gospel, till ye know the Hold such base notions of a glorious God.13 law.”18 Week after week, year after year, a minister’s The ultimate question Erskine addresses is responsibility is to preach the law in such as way so whether or not God can put aside his justice for our as to force sinners to flee to Christ (Gal. 3:24) sakes. Indeed he cannot. It is crucial that one does rather than to the law for comfort and assurance. not err at this point because if one asserts that God But, as the poet points out, it is not only our sinful now accepts repentance, sorrow, or even faith as if actions that prevent us from being accepted by it were the keeping of the law (pennies for pounds), God on account of our works, but our so-called

3 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

righteous acts as well (Isa. 64:6). According to Erskine, these “fig leaves” of our own making can never make us acceptable with God: For sins of nature, practice, heart, and way, Damnation-rent it summons thee to pay. Yea, not for sin alone, which is thy shame, But for thy boasted service too, so lame, The law adjudges thee and hell to meet, Because thy righteousness is incomplete. As tow’ring flames burn up the wither’d flags, So will the fiery law thy filthy rags. Fig-leaves won’t hide thee from the fiery show’r, ‘Tis he alone that saves by price and pow’r.19 Erskine is careful, however, to separate the wheat from the chaff. While rejecting the neonomian doctrine that repentance, sorrow, or sincerity were the new “works” one had to perform to save oneself, he does not reject these qualities as unnecessary altogether, as was sometimes the case with various genuinely antinomian groups. Rather, Erskine explains that one must carefully distinguish the fruit of God’s grace with its cause: Some make, though in the sacred page unknown, Sincerity assume perfection’s throne: How unadvis’d the legal mind confounds The marks of divine favour with the grounds, And qualities of covenanted friends With the condition of the cov’nant blends? Thus holding gospel-truths with legal arms, Mistakes new-cov’nant fruits for fed’ral terms. Sincerity’s the soul of ev’ry grace, The quality of all the ransom’d race. Of promis’d favour ‘tis a fruit, a clause; But no procuring term, no moving cause.20 Neonomians and Naturalistic Theology y suggesting that sincerity, for example, could somehow be accepted as a fulfillment of the law of God, the neonomians had shown their predisposition toward a naturalistic theology. Here we can see why Erskine and the Marrow Men felt that these neonomians were closer to Rome than to Calvin’s Geneva or Luther’s Wittenburg. For it was the Council of Trent in 1564 that declared, “If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins … let him be anathema.”21 Rome’s point was that men are saved by more than simple faith in the work of Christ. Thus by asserting that sincerity was a procuring cause of salvation, the neonomians had come dangerously close to the Roman error, if they hadn’t arrived there already:

Antinomianism From the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology

ntinomianism. The word comes from the Greek anti (against) and nomos (law), and refers to the doctrine that it is not necessary for Christians to preach and/or obey the moral law of the Old Testament. There have been several different justifications for this view down through the centuries. Some have taught that once persons are justified by faith in Christ, they no longer have any obligation toward the moral law because Jesus has freed them from it. A variant of this first position is that since Christ has raised believers above the positive precepts of the law, they need to be obedient only to the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, who will keep them from sin. A second view has been that since the law came from the Demiurge (as in Gnosticism) and not from the true, loving Father, it was a Christian’s duty to disobey it. Third, others have said that since sin is inevitable anyway, there is no need to resist it. An extension of this view is the contention of some that since God, in his eternal decree, willed sin, it would be presumptuous to resist it. Finally still others have opposed the preaching of the law on the grounds that it is unnecessary and, indeed, contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ…. The Christian community as a whole has rejected antinomianism over the years for several reasons. It has regarded the view as damaging to the unity of the Bible, which demands that one part of the divine revelation must not contradict another. Even more important, it has argued that antinomians misunderstood the nature of justification by faith, which, though granted apart from the works of the law, is not sanctification. In general, orthodoxy teaches that the moral principles of the law are still valid, not as objective strivings but as fruits of the Holy Spirit at work in the life of the believer. This disposes of the objection that since the law is too demanding to be kept, it can be completely thrust aside as irrelevant to the individual living under grace. — R.D. Linger

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 1

Ah! many learn to lisp in gospel-terms, Who yet embrace the law with legal arms. Who faintly but renounce proud merit’s name, And cleave refin’dly to the Popish scheme. For graceful works expecting divine bliss; And, when they fail, trust Christ for what’s amiss. Thus to his righteousness profess to flee; Yet by it still would their own saviors be21 They seem to works of merit bloody foes; Yet seek salvation, as it were, by those. Blind Gentiles found, who did not seek nor know; But Isra’l lost it whole, who sought it so. Let all that love to wear the gospel-dress, Know that as sin, so dastard righteousness Has slain its thousands, who in tow’ring pride The righteousness of Jesus Christ deride; A robe divinely wrought, divinely won, Yet cast by men for rags that are their own. But some to legal works seem whole deny’d, Yet would by gospel-works be justify’d, By faith, repentance, love, and other such: These dreamers being righteous overmuch, Like Uzzah give the ark a wrongful touch.22 Uzzah is the unfortunate character in 2 Samuel 6:6–7 who being zealous for the ark of the covenant attempted to rescue it from falling to the ground when an ox stumbled. God, however, considered this an “irreverent act,” because the dust of the

Ages” writes similarly, “Could my zeal no respite know, Could my tears forever flow; All for sin could not atone, Thou must save and Thou alone.” Erskine and Toplady both believed that zeal and tears were often appropriate responses to God’s gracious gift in Christ. But they were simply not to be mistaken with the cause of God’s grace. Turning his attention to the objective work of Christ, Erskine then contemplates all that was involved for us in the incarnation, cross, and passion: His errand, never-ending life to give To them, whose malice would not let him live; Himself he humbled, to depress her pride, And make his mortal foe his loving bride. Law-righteousness requir’d, must be procur’d, Law-vengeance threatned, must be full endur’d, Poor Bankrupt! all her debt must first be paid, Her former husband in the grave be laid: If all these things this Suitor kind can do, Then he may win her, and her blessing too. Hard terms indeed! while death’s the first demand: But love is strong as death, to take the upper hand, To carry on the suit, and make it good, Though at the dearest rate of wounds and blood. The burden’s heavy, but the back is broad, The glorious Lover is the mighty God.24

In this remarkable section, it is as if we are given access to the heavenly courts to see the Father considering his Son’s holy mission. We also see how Christ drank hell dry for us, when he took the cup of God’s wrath on necessary it was for Christ to meet the standard of justice required by the law, and the our behalf on the Cross of Calvary. Thus, when the sword of God’s justice awful death that same justice demanded of sinful man. It is pierced his side, mercy “gushed” out onto the church. interesting that throughout the Gospel Sonnets, Erskine has ground was to be preferred above the sinfulness of argued for a clear distinction between law and Uzzah’s flesh. In like manner, many who are gospel, but in the lines, “The burden is heavy, but zealous for Christ give him a wrongful touch when the back is broad,” we see a close union of the two they trust him only “for what is amiss,” rather than in a single stanza. “The burden is heavy” because resting in him exclusively. So Erskine reminds them the law must have its due, and the fact that “the of the Pauline warning that if they start with the back is broad” is a rich description of God’s power law, they are obligated to keep it whole: and willingness to save. As Erskine puts it elsewhere, “Both law and gospel close unite … in Didst thou in pray’rs employ the morning-light, fair Immanuel’s face.”25 In tears and groans the watches of the night, Pass thy whole life in close devotion o’er; O! unexampled love! so vast, so strong, ‘Tis nothing to the law still craving more. So great, so high, so deep, so broad, so long! There’s no proportion ‘twixt its high commands, Can finite thought this ocean huge explore, And puny works from thy polluted hands; Unconscious of a bottom or a shore? Perfection is the least that it demands.23 His love admits no parallel; for why, At one great draught of love he drank hell dry. Augustus Toplady in his famous hymn “Rock of The sword of awful justice pierc’d his side,

3 2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

That mercy thence might gush upon the bride.26 Christ drank hell dry for us, when he took the cup of God’s wrath on our behalf on the Cross of Calvary. Thus, when the sword of God’s justice pierced his side, mercy “gushed” out onto the church that he might “present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (Eph. 5:27). Christ’s Centrality in Erskine’s Writings alph Erskine’s Gospel Sonnets are rich in imagery and weighty in content. They contain stern warnings about the harmfulness of legal preaching along with helpful directives about distinguishing law from gospel. They challenge us to evaluate our evangelistic methods, and they present us again and again with the centrality of Christ who alone secures our justification before a holy God. Though weak in his faith at one time, Erskine found the message of the gospel to be of great comfort for his troubled soul. The Gospel Sonnets could only have been written by such a person. Having sailed the treacherous seas of introspection and self-doubt, Ralph Erskine arrived safely upon solid ground and spent the rest of his days making maps, as it were, for voyagers in similar waters. The great concern of the author of the Gospel Sonnets was that many pious Christians in his day were in danger of crashing against the rocks of legalism or even Romanism, rather than reaching the safe and comely shores of Christ. May this be our concern as well.

SPEAKING OF

he Christian life, as Luther sees it, is a life of freedom. All Christians are free from sin because they have

received the righteousness of Christ through

faith. Christians are similarly free from anxiety that suffering or physical calamities of any kind will be able to destroy their relationship to God. They are free to bear the Word of God’s judgment and grace to other Christians and to intercede on their behalf in prayer. They are free to identify with the situation of their neighbor and to pour out works of love on persons in need, because they know that they cannot hoard these works in order to justify their lives in the presence of God. They are free

Our office is to bear the radiant torch, Of gospel-light, into the darkened porch Of human understandings, and display The joyful dawn of everlasting day.27 ■

from the law, whether the law of God or any prescription of merely human origin which attempts to bind the Word of God. Indeed,

Shane Rosenthal (M.A. candidate at Westminster Theological Seminary in California), formerly the producer of The White Horse Inn, is currently the president of the Society of Classical Protestants and Webmaster of Reformation Ink.

they are free to chuckle with the angels over the rich joke that the commandments of God, no less than the promises of the gospel, can only be fulfilled by faith. Christians are free in faith and therefore free to serve. — David Steinmetz, Luther in Context (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986), 120.

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 3

C H R I S T I A N L I B E RT Y | Getting Beyond Legalism and License

Freedom in Worship: Christian Liberty and Church Authority he argument for the regulative principle maintains that God has, in Scripture, revealed his zeal to direct his own worship. That it is contained in the Westminster Standards and reflected by the adherents of those standards in Scotland, England, and America is sufficient to warrant its observation by the Church. It is a mandate “from above,” if you will, demonstrating that the true and living God himself, the object of worship, has revealed that he will be worshiped only in a manner consistent with his revealed (though not necessarily explicit) will (within the regulative principle one can see Christian liberty). This argument from above is a sound one and an adequate rationale to render us morally culpable if we fail to observe the principle. What follows is an argument “from below.” Whereas the traditional argument is an argument from above, which intends to demonstrate the compatibility of the regulative principle with our love for God, the following argument is one from below, which intends to demonstrate the compatibility of the regulative principle with our love for our sisters and brothers in Christ.

This is intended to demonstrate that the regulative principle of worship is the only principle that protects, honors, and advances the demands of charity as those demands are expressed in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. The Demands of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 will not repeat here the exegetical arguments that have been advanced in the history of the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8 or Romans 14, but will, rather, refer the reader to the discussion of these texts by John Murray, “The Weak and the Strong,” found in the fourth volume of his collected writings, and also in the twelfth volume of the Westminster Theological Journal (1950). I concur with Murray’s understanding of these texts and with the conclusion that charity requires us not to do anything that induces another believer to act contrary to conscience. That is, these two passages do not teach that we must agree with the scruples of another’s conscience nor even that we must act consistently with the scruples of another’s conscience. Rather, the texts teach that we must not say or do anything that we believe will have the effect of inducing another to act inconsistently with conscience.

by T. D AV I D G O R D O N 3 4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

The “wounding” addressed in these passages is the wounding of the conscience that occurs when an individual does something contrary to what he or she believes is right. Even if the scruples are improper scruples, that is, not mandated by revelation, we must still never encourage the violation of scruples held as a matter of conscience. Paul, in fact, refers to the believers in question as “weak” believers because their understanding of the faith is such that they hold conscientiously beliefs not required by revelation. He nevertheless argues that charity requires us not to offend the conscience of such sisters and brothers, even though their scruples are incorrect (see accompanying box on the “regulative principle”). Implicit in Paul’s arguments is the duty of the Church to instruct the weak, so that the weak will overcome their weakness. That is, Paul does not consider these scruples to be appropriate, but inappropriate, or weak.1 In Paul’s vocabulary, this term is normally employed to refer to that which is unredeemed, or characteristic of the unredeemed state. For example, he can refer to the “weak and beggarly elemental spirits” (Gal. 4:9) as those associated with the time “when you did not know God.” In his discussion of the grandeur of divine love, he describes it as that which God lavished upon us “while we were still weak” (Rom. 5:6), and follows this with parallel expressions, “while we were yet sinners” and “while we were enemies” (Rom. 5:8, 10). And when Paul uses the term regarding believers, it is always in a circumstance when he is discussing the yet-incomplete nature of redemption, as we await the return of Christ in the midst of a yetcursed world. This is how he employs the term, for example, in Romans 8:26, “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness,” following a lengthy discussion (8:18–25) of “the sufferings of this present time” in contrast with “the glory that is to be revealed to us.” Therefore, Paul does not consider the scruples of the weak to be scruples that are to be considered acceptable in and by the Church because they are scruples associated with a lack of familiarity with redemption. A person who is weak is a person who, in some particular way, is needful of a fuller enjoyment of the privileges, benefits, or duties of the redeemed state. Wounding the Conscience and the Regulative Principle of Worship he demands of charity regarding religious scruples require two things: That we not in any way encourage an individual to act contrary to conscience; and that we instruct those who are weak, so that their understanding will conform to what the Scriptures teach about

the privileges and duties of being redeemed. These demands must be related to the question of public worship. First, it is unavoidably the case that the liturgy of public worship binds the conscience. That is, people may be free to follow the scruples of their own consciences when engaged in private worship, but when engaged in corporate worship, people either follow and observe a common liturgy (for the day and particular circumstance; we are not discussing a liturgy in a formal or binding sense upon all congregations), or chaos will result. For example, if the congregation is invited to sing hymn 205 but one individual’s conscience inspires him to sing 206, bedlam results. If the worship is to be corporate, as opposed to private, it must be unified. Thus, if the liturgy demands something, the individual believer has only one of two options: to participate or to not participate. If one cannot participate on grounds of conscience, one cannot participate in the corporate worship of God. Thus, the framers of the liturgy must recognize that what they include in the liturgy may exclude individuals from corporate participation. What complicates the matter more is that corporate worship is itself required of believers. The individual believer, whose conscience forbids participation in a particular aspect of the liturgy, is placed in a catch22 situation wherein refusal to participate violates the divine mandate to participate in corporate worship, and willingness to participate in the particular matter violates the conscience. To illustrate this, let us suppose an admittedly ridiculous hypothetical situation, wherein not a single element of a particular service of worship is required by Scripture. Let us suppose, for instance, that the bulletin of a particular service includes three items: dancing a jig, shaking hands with a neighbor, and eating grape jelly. The pious believer, having come to church that Sunday out of obedience to God’s command that his people worship him in public assembly, attends the assembly, but cannot participate, because conscience forbids the individual to dance, shake hands, and eat grape jelly as elements of corporate worship. In such a circumstance, the church’s liturgy forces the individual to wound the conscience and only permits the individual to select in what manner to wound the conscience; by disobedience to the command to worship publicly, or by disobedience to the commands as to the elements of public worship. If the framers of the liturgy know that there is an individual who believes that dancing a jig is a violation of what one may do in public worship, they knowingly cause such an individual to wound the conscience, thus violating the demands of charity as expressed in 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14.

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 5

In a less extreme example, let us suppose a better liturgy in which there are prayers, the Word read and preached, and the jig. In this case, the individual participates in the prayers and the ministry of the Word but is excluded, by conscience, from participating in the jig. This seems like an acceptable situation because the individual obeys the command to assemble for corporate worship and actually participates in at least portions of that worship. However, the problem even here is that the principle of corporate worship itself is offended if different members of the congregation are opting in and out of the worship service as it proceeds. We cannot increase and enhance the degree of corporate participation in worship if we include elements that we know exclude individuals from participation. One goal of the framers of liturgies for public worship, therefore, is not to include elements that exclude individuals from participation. However, it may be asked, are the framers of public liturgies responsible to be sensitive to an infinite variety of scruples? If there is an individual who has a scruple about prayer, do we omit prayer from the service? Would we exclude the ministration of the Word or the Sacrament in order to satisfy a scruple? If we were to do so, we would satisfy one divine command (to not wound a conscience) at the expense of another (to pray in public assemblies), which requires those elements as regular elements of worship. That is, if the only guideline in the preparation of liturgies were the known scruples of the congregation, we

would have only a negative guide, and one which, hypothetically, would require that we do nothing. It is, therefore, hypothetically possible that there will be occasions when the Church will knowingly wound a conscience out of obedience to the requirement of Scripture that certain elements are elements of public worship. Hypothetically, if not actually, we would have to determine which is the higher principle: obedience to the revelation of God regarding public worship, or obedience to the revelation of God regarding wounding a conscience. The issue for the framers of public liturgies then is twofold: First, what elements are we so sure we are mandated to do (higher principle) that we will do them even if it means violating a conscience (lower principle). Second, what we will do with those whose consciences are momentarily violated in the process. What Christ Requires as a Higher Principle ince we do not wish to violate any requirement of Scripture, we would never wound an individual’s conscience if it is avoidable without being disobedient to Christ, the Church’s head. If the jig wounds a conscience and we consider therefore removing the jig, we must ask ourselves, “Does removing the jig constitute disobedience to Christ?” If Christ positively requires the jig (higher principle), then we must jig even if it wounds someone’s conscience (lower principle). But if, in our search of the Bible, we find that Christ in fact nowhere requires the jig (higher principle silent), charity demands (lower principle not silent) that we

How the Regulative

ypically in discussions about worship, the regulative principle plays the role of bad cop. It is restrictive, confining, and downright narrow, according to its opponents. After all, the word “regulative,” implies regulations and rules that will cramp a church’s worship “style.” To be sure, the regulative principle limits corporate worship (that is, worship overseen and called by a session or consistory) to what The Westminster Confession of Faith calls the “ordinary” elements of Scripture reading, preaching, singing of praise, the sacraments, and prayer. If we seek to please God in worship, since he is our audience, then we have no better guide to what pleases him or to what we should do in worship than the Bible. And the Bible, Presbyterians and Reformed believe, commands us to worship God in this way and no other.

3 6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

But we miss a significant element of the regulative principle if we forget that its chief design is to protect liberty of conscience. The Confession of Faith also teaches that “God alone is Lord of conscience” and has “left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his word, or beside it in matters of faith and worship.” This statement is the flip side of the idea that we may only worship God as he commands. If a session or consistory includes in its worship services something not commanded by God, then it is binding the consciences of those gathered for worship. Only the Lord may bind our conscience, and we know that under his reign we find true liberty. But when the church sanctions a practice for which it cannot find clear biblical warrant, then it is usurping Christ’s Lordship. If the church is not able to say of its worship practices, “Thus saith the Lord,” then it is

not require it of the individual whose conscience is wounded by it. Thus, if there are any elements of our liturgical service that are known to wound the conscience of any individual (lower principle), we may not include those elements unless there is a divine mandate (higher principle). Of course, this charitable concern for conscience would mean in practice, that if there is any individual in the congregation who holds to the regulative principle, then charity requires the observation of the regulative principle in that church. That is, even if the regulative principle were not adopted on the grounds of principle, it would be adopted in that congregation on the grounds of charity. Some might object, however, by asking, Isn’t it uncharitable of the non-jigger to impose such restraints upon the jiggers? There are two replies to this: First, the non-jigger imposes no such restriction on the jigger when the jigger jigs at home (or in other private contexts). The non-jigger is merely pleading that corporate worship in the public assemblies of the church restricts itself to those matters that the entire corporate community can participate in heartily. Those who have joined the church, vowing to attempt to follow Christ as his will is revealed in Scripture, have publicly agreed to do what is revealed in Scripture. But they have nowhere agreed or covenanted to follow the will of other believers. Second, it is hypothetically possible that the non-jigger would, in some private situations, attempt to impose an inappropriate restraint on another’s liberty; to do so would be

sinful. But two sins do not cancel out one another, and the jigger’s insistence on requiring others to do what they consider to be sinful would remain sinful. Offending a Weaker Conscience n the hypothetical situation where an individual objects to prayer, the Church would pray nevertheless, out of obedience to the requirement of Scripture. However, it would know that this practice was offending the (extremely weak) conscience of a particular member. What would charity require in this instance? Charity would require a vigorous attempt, through instruction, prayer, and personal visitation, to bring this individual’s conscience into conformity with the teachings of Scripture (following the example of Paul, who addressed the weak believers and instructed them regarding their weakness). How could we knowingly permit a person to remain weak and not perceive that as being uncharitable? Therefore, those who do not believe in the regulative principle of worship, who know there are members of their congregation who do believe it, are bound by the demands of charity to attempt to demonstrate why the regulative principle violates the teachings of the Bible. Anything less is to leave the individuals who believe in the regulative principle in their state of alleged weakness. Only after they have convinced all known holders of the regulative principle of its alleged nonbiblical character may

[ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 4 6 ]

e Principle Liberates substituting the commandments of men for those of God. Recognizing its close connection to the doctrines of the Lordship of Christ and Christian liberty frees the regulative principle from its negative reputation. Instead of restricting what we do in worship, it actually protects the liberty of individual Christians from the tyranny of human wisdom. Or to put it differently, the regulative principle puts limits upon what church officers may require in public worship, but it gives individual believers the freedom to object to practices not warranted by Scripture. So while this doctrine means that sessions and consistories may not use banners in worship (a violation of the second commandment) it also frees individual believers (including ministers and elders) from being forced to worship in a church cluttered with banners. As T. David Gordon has written (“Some Answers about the

Regulative Principle,” Westminster Theological Journal, Fall 1993), the regulative principle is chiefly a doctrine of ecclesiology that is “designed to protect liberty of conscience against the abuse of church power.” The issue is not one of distinguishing between how the Bible regulates worship and how it governs the rest of the Christian life. Rather, its sole purpose is to distinguish between those aspects of life governed by church officers and those that are not subject to the power of the church. Church officers have been given the responsibility to see that corporate worship conforms to Scriptural teaching. And in this solemn obligation, the regulative principle instructs that they must be very careful not to abuse the prerogatives of their office.1

by D . G . H A RT M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 7

C H R I S T I A N L I B E RT Y | Getting Beyond Legalism and License

A Sober Assessment of Reformational Drinking rotestant reflection on the consumption of alcohol has undergone a dramatic transformation since the Reformation. Whether this change stems from the rise of pietism or the triumph of middle-class morality, contemporary evangelical ideas about alcohol are at odds with the views of the Protestant reformers. Attending to the reformers’ ideas, then, is important not only for those who would claim to be their heirs but also for a good understanding of what the Bible teaches about alcohol.

Calvin Addresses the Old Testament n a sermon by John Calvin on Deuteronomy 14:26, which is arguably the classic Old Testament text with regard to drinking alcoholic beverages, the command reads:

“And you shall bestow that money for whatsoever your soul lusts after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever your soul desires: and you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, and your household.” Calvin’s exposition of this verse is interesting. He accentuates not only the glory of God but eating and drinking in the presence of the God of glory. When we drink wine or strong drink, we drink in the audience of the heavenly Vintner who expects us to enjoy his gifts.

by JIM WEST 3 8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

Calvin also cautions us that Deuteronomy 14:26 was a crucial text of the fifth century Manichaean heretics who were dualists in creation. Their theology was that the character of the good God is a sufficient guarantee that he would not have filled the universe with things that man could abuse to his own damnation. They deduced that the material universe is not the work of God, but of the devil. And they employed as a rampart this same verse. Calvin wrote of them: A certain sect of Heretics called the Manichees, which scorned God’s law and the prophets, alleged this present text and such other like, to show that the God of the Old Testament as they blasphemously term him, was a God of disorder and such a one as kept no good rule. For why, said they, he laid the bridle upon his people’s neck, and bade them eat whatsoever they like, and so as the meaning was to make them drunkards and gluttons, by encouraging them to eat and drink after that fashion. But the true God (said they) will have folk to be sober, whereby a man may see that the Law is not given from heaven. Against the Manichees, Calvin argued that meat and strong drink are gifts that should be unwrapped in the presence of God. He wrote that we “never come to the table, without considering that God is present there.” The Manichaean approach to wine may be illustrated by some contemporary fulminations. For example, the Koran reads: “O true believers! Surely wine and gambling and stone pillars are an abomination, of the work of Satan.” Again: “There is a devil in every berry of the grape.” In American Church history, Dr. Thomas Welch introduced Welch’s grape juice to replace wine in 1869. Welch was a Methodist minister (and dentist) who learned of Pasteur’s experiments about how yeast and grape juice interact to create wine. Thus, Welch experimented with a method of boiling wine and filtering it so that the alcoholic content was removed. The result was “Dr. Welch’s Unfermented Wine.” Later, his son Charles carried the torch himself, desiring to give the church what he called “the fruit of the vine, instead of the cup of devils.” So pervasive is the anti-alcohol bias today, that even the translators of the New King James Bible seemed to abandon their translation integrity by substituting “similar drink” for “strong drink” in Deuteronomy 14:26.

Reformation Churches Allowed Alcohol he Churches of the Protestant Reformation were universally tolerant of drinking. This was unwittingly attested to by Erasmus of Rotterdam, who although remaining loyal to Rome, yet when rebuked for drinking Pommard on a fast day, said, “My heart is Catholic, but my stomach is Protestant.” He was neutral to the Reformation, but he was not neutral about wine. John Calvin also expressed his heartfelt gratitude for wine. He wrote in his The Institutes of Christian Religion that “It is permissible to use wine not only for necessity, but also to make us merry.” Calvin praised the transubstantiation of the water into wine at Cana of Galilee as “most excellent wine.” He laid down two conditions for wine drinking: First, it must be moderate, “lest men forget themselves, drown their senses, and destroy their strength.” Calvin even argued that “in making merry,” those who enjoy wine “feel a livelier gratitude to God.” Interestingly, Calvin’s yearly salary in Geneva included several barrels of wine. The Town Council recognized the large number of guests he would be expected to entertain; thus he was given “the substantial annual salary of 500 florins, together with twelve measures of wheat and two bossets (perhaps 250 gallons) of wine.”1 Calvin was also persuaded that wine should be served during the administration of the Lord’s Supper. He catechized his catechumens accordingly, “But why is the body of our Lord figured by bread, and his blood by wine?” He answered that “by wine the hearts of men are gladdened, their strength recruited, and the whole man strengthened, so by the blood of our Lord the same benefits are received by our souls.” Like Luther, Calvin also compared music with wine. He believed that music was the first gift of God, having the power to “enter the heart like wine poured into a vessel, with good or evil effect.”2 Concerning drunkenness, both Calvin and Luther thundered. Calvin warned, “If a man knows that he has a weak head and that he cannot carry three glasses of wine without being overcome, and then drinks indiscreetly, is he not a hog?” Luther’s unscientific definition of drunkenness is classic: “Drunkenness: when the tongue walks on stilts and reason goes forward under a half sail.” These pithy phrases are reminiscent of one of their pedigree, Increase Mather, who was to preach to New Englanders: “Wine comes from God, but the drunkard from the Devil.” Calvin’s commentary on the vow of the Rechabites to obey the Fifth Commandment by forgoing wine will startle all Rechabite-like clones

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 9

(Jer. 35). He wrote that the self-abnegation of the Rechabites was not that they denied themselves sinful things, but things supremely good. He projected himself into the Rechabite family when he said that their willingness to forgo wine was “hard.”

remembered me,” he said, after a good draught, “so may our Lord Jesus Christ remember him in the hour of his last conflict.” When Luther was married, he was presented with several casks of beer, but the university gave him a large silver tankard, “platted with gold on the outside Luther’s Strong Advocacy of Alcohol and inside, weighing five pounds and a quarter.” uther, Calvin, and Zwingli all had “Protestant Martin Luther’s counseling of depressed Stomachs.” Luther wrote a love letter to his students sometimes included recommendations for wife when he was away from home drinking wine. Writing to a young man in 1530, he complaining that “there is nothing fit to drink counsels him to fight against Satan by joking and here.” He then pled the impossible from Catherine laughing and talking nonsense. He urges the man who herself was a trained brewster: to drink, especially if the devil has tempted him not to drink. Luther may have been the first to recognize Biblically, “to offend,” means to make a person sin. If we place someone in a that our wily enemy the devil may tempt a saint not to context where he feels pressured to eat or to drink what he cannot do in faith, drink. His “nouthetic” counseling featured the then we have “offended” him (Rom. 14:20, 23). But to “offend” does not mean following advice:

to displease or irritate a brother.

It would be a good thing for you to send me the whole wine cellar and a bottle of your own beer as often as you can. If you don’t I shall not come back for the new beer. Amen. Your lover, Martin Luther. Again, he wrote her: You must wonder how long I am likely to stay or, rather, how long you will be rid of me. I keep thinking what good wine and beer I have at home, as well as a beautiful wife, or shall I say lord? Luther also had a mug that was encircled by three rings. One ring represented the Lord’s Prayer, another the Ten Commandments, and the third the Apostle’s Creed. A memorable incident occurred in Luther’s life when he was amused on one occasion that he could drain the glass of wine through the Lord’s Prayer, but his friend Agricola could not get beyond the second ring, the Ten Commandments. Luther was so adamant about using wine in the Lord’s Supper that he said in his Table Talk that “if a person can’t tolerate wine, omit it (the Sacrament) altogether in order that no innovation may be made or introduced.” The Diet of Worms featured no diet of beer! Luther was brought a tankard of German beer by the footmen of the Duke of Brunswick. He was heartily appreciative. “As Duke Erick has this day

4 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

We are nowhere forbidden to laugh, or to be satisfied with food, or to annex new possessions to those already enjoyed by ourselves or our ancestors, or to be delighted with music. One must always do what the Devil forbids. What other cause do you think I have for drinking so much strong drink, talking so freely and making so often, except that I wish to mock and harass the devil who is wont to mock and harass me? John Knox, the colossus of the Scottish Reformation, composed a letter before leaving Scotland on how Protestant religious instruction should be practiced in his absence. He urged Protestants to read the Bible regularly, even if God’s elect people became bored or weary. If they wearied, the antidote was to remember their persecuted brethren who were in no position to read the Bible at all. Knox argued: If such men as having to read and exercise themselves in God’s holy Scriptures, and yet begin to weary, because from time to time they read but one thing, I ask, why weary they not also each to eat bread? Every day to drink wine? Every day to behold the brightness of the sun? The premise that wine drinking was a daily occurrence seems undeniable. On November 15, 1572, Knox ate his last dinner. Two friends joined him at noon. Knox sat

at the meal with them, and ordered a fresh hogshead of wine to be drawn. A hogshead was no pittance. It measured about fifty-one gallons. Knox even lamented that because of the immanency of his death that he would probably not be present to finish the hogshead. The great Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli was also partial to wine. Zwingli compared the Word of God to “a good strong wine.” He writes: To the healthy it warms his blood. But if there is someone who is sick of a disease or fever, he cannot even taste it, let alone drink it, and he marvels that the healthy is able to do so. This is not due to any defect in the wine, but to that of the sickness. So too it is with the Word of God. It is right in itself and its proclamation is always for good. If there are those who cannot bear or understand or receive it, it is because they are sick.” We read in the Confessions that originated from the Reformation that wine is commanded in the Lord’s Supper. For example, the Heidelberg Catechism, which was written by Zacharias Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus in 1562, presupposes both bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper. What is more, the Heidelberg glorifies wine-drinking in common meals too, when it speaks of “wine that sustains this temporal life.” The Westminster Larger Catechism (Q168) defines the Lord’s Supper as “a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein by giving and receiving bread and wine according to the appointment of Jesus Christ.” The regulative principle is in part a culinary principle: It tells us that we must allow the Lord to set our tables and to pour our wine so that our cups run over. Christian Liberty and Wine t is clear that the reformers regarded the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper as an absolute. The question is: What were their views about the use of wine outside the context of public worship? Would they concur that if wine “offends” another brother that it should not be drunk? Is this not the teaching of Paul who wrote that “If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world stands?” (1 Cor. 8:13). To answer this question we must assess a common, superficial interpretation of the word “offend.” Many will use the word “offend” in a way altogether foreign to the Apostle Paul. There are some who take offense at virtually anything that contradicts their own traditions. To allow such Christians to regulate our lives would be folly. Practical Theology Professor R. B. Kuiper writes:

Emphatically though he taught that Christians must serve one another in love, he did not promise never to do anything that might possibly displease a brother.… What Paul meant was that he would scrupulously refrain from knowingly placing, by his conduct, a stumbling block before his brother over which the brother might fall into sin.3 Biblically, “to offend,” means to make a person sin. If we place someone in a context where he feels pressured to eat or to drink what he cannot do in faith, then we have “offended” him (Rom. 14:20, 23). But to “offend” does not mean to displease or irritate a brother. If this were the meaning, then the Christian who drinks wine or strong drink would have greater justification to be offended, since wine is a gift that should elicit our praise (Ps. 104). “To offend,” means to “stumble” or trip a brother into sin. Because of this narrow meaning, and with specific regard to Christian liberty, it might even be permissible to drink wine in the presence of a weak brother, as long as we do not grandstand it, or use the occasion to pressure a weak brother to sin against his conscience. A “weak brother” is not weak because he is easily irritable; a weak brother has a weak conscience. The ascension of teetotalism, or abstinence, in the American church scene did not come easily. In his Religion and Wine (subtitled, A Cultural History of Wine Drinking in the United States) Robert C. Fuller documents the teetotaler’s arch dilemma. His dilemma was not primarily how to abolish wine altogether, but how to cope with the temperate drinker, that is, the drinker who heartily drank but with no ruinous side effects. This strategy can be seen in the work of the nineteenth century minister and historian Daniel Dorchester, who distinguished himself by rewriting viticulture history and redefining Christian liberty. His first strategy was to argue that wines available to the nineteenth century consumer bore no resemblance to the wines of biblical ages. He maintained that biblical wines were “mild, nonharmful.” This was due, he said, to the differences between soil and climate. Then, Dorchester reproduced a famous chart composed by Dr. Benjamin Rush (who wrote in 1784) that listed the ill effects of alcohol. However, Dorchester willfully omitted Rush’s category that equated wine with virtue. For example, Rush associated wine with “cheerfulness” and “strength” and “nourishment.” But Dorchester’s greatest challenge (and embarrassment) was the temperate drinker. Fuller has written, “The moderate drinker was a vexing problem that threatened to invalidate

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 1

their whole line of reasoning.” Thus, Dorchester began by ignoring the moderate drinker altogether. Then he emphasized that wine was not reliably “temperate” as we might first think. Editorialists spread disinformation that wine in the United States was adulterated with more potent spirits. This strategy was crowned with the teetotaler’s viniferous application of 1 Corinthians 5:7—where Paul warns about a “little leaven” leavening the whole lump. In other words, even while granting that a little wine may not souse a man, prohibitionists maintained that its ultimate effect could only lead to societal debilitation. To drink the smallest measure of wine was to predestinate drunkenness for others (if not for oneself). Therefore, the Temperance Recorder of 1835 explained: Our views with regard to pure wine are, that the Bible sanctions its moderate use—that there can be no immorality in such use, under certain circumstances; but in our present condition with the fact that pure wine is fatal to the recovery of the drunkard, because it intoxicates, often forms the appetite for stronger drinks in the temperate, and its use by the rich hinders the poor from uniting with temperance societies—that all, or nearly all the wine in this country, is a most vile compound; these are the reasons why we urge abstinence from all wine. The reader will notice such expressions as “vile compound,” “but in our present condition,” etc. All of these arguments have invaded and occupied the Church today. Added to these contentions is a specious argument from Romans 14:21, where Paul’s use of the word “offend” is interpreted as a trumpet for even moderate drinkers to cease and desist. Thus, the teetotaler agenda through the Volstead Act of 1919 was imposed upon all America until its repeal in 1933. Virtually all American denominations consented to it, even though they were not required by law to forego communion wine. Hundreds of years before the anti-alcohol juggernaut in the United States and the unofficial endorsement of the Volstead Act in American churches, John Calvin foresaw the danger of a new cult of abstinence. In his commentary on Psalm 104:15, he writes that God has given “wine to make the heart of man glad,” he warned against making the peril of drunkenness “a pretext for a new cult based upon abstinence.” The rhetoric behind this “new cult based upon abstinence” is often sharper than a doubled-edged sword. Our Lord himself was accused of

4 2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

drunkenness when he was called a “winebibber.” This is the old strategy of the Devil, whose name means “slanderer.” It is well for us to remember that the Devil slanders moderate drinkers, calling them drunkards; and that he slanders drinks, calling them evil. Martin Luther’s response to the iconoclasts, who sought to demolish abused objects, has a fitting application to the interplay between alcohol and Christian liberty. He wrote: Do you suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused? Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women? The sun, the moon, and the stars have been worshipped. Shall we then pluck them out of the sky? … See how much He has been able to accomplish through me, though I did no more than pray and preach. The Word did it all. Had I wished I might have started a conflagration at Worms. But while I sat still and drank beer with Philip and Amsdorf, God dealt the papacy a mighty blow. Deuteronomy 14:26 teaches that God’s people are to drink “wine” and “strong drink” in God’s presence. The New Testament corollary is 1 Corinthians 10, which teaches all drinking for Christians is religious. “Therefore whatsoever you do, whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). ■

Rev. Jim West (M.Div., Westminster Theological Seminary in California) is pastor of Covenant Reformed Church, Sacramento, California.

F F

R O

E I

E G

| O

S S

P E

A O

C C

E C

Christian Colleges and Holiness Commitments

1994–1995 Bob Jones Univesrity Student Handbook

Who disagrees with Christian liberty? No one raises his or her hand. Yet many Christian colleges and parachurch organizations have codes of conduct requiring many things that the Bible does not. In itself, this isn’t that odd; no one claims that a restaurant requiring a tie is violating its patrons’ Christian liberty. But then again, this is because the restaurant never claims that all true, mature Christians necessarily wear ties. It is simply the restaurant’s rule for a particular time and place. And this is exactly the difference from many Christian codes—for Christian groups often justify their behavioral or “holiness” standards on the grounds of Christian maturity. So we approached some of these institutions, most notably Bob Jones University, asking them to persuade us of their position—and thereby, if they are correct, to assist us in our sanctification. But, none were willing to defend the “Christian maturity” justification that their college handbooks offer for their codes. Even though “Free Space” is entirely unedited, and thus a forum for free exchange about disputed issues, those we approached were unwilling to explain how they can legitimately call into question the “Christian maturity” of those who do not live by their extrabiblical codes. In a deviation from our usual “Free Space” practice then, we were unable to line up an interview for this issue. In its place, we thought it would be helpful to highlight some excerpts from the Bob Jones University Student Handbook. Again, please note that we are not objecting to a private institution having its own rules and standards (e.g., a university with curfews or prohibitions on smoking, or a restaurant requiring a tie). Rather, we are objecting to the claim that such man-made rules equal the one true “Christian” standard. For this is where liberty is compromised, and the believer’s faith is illegitimately called into question. Following these excerpts, we asked MR’s Editor-in-Chief, Michael Horton, to offer a brief comment on his experience with one Christian college’s “holiness” commitment. —EDS.

Excerpts from the 1994–1995 Bob Jones University Handbook General Conduct For All Students … The doctrinal position of Bob Jones University emphasizes the fundamentals of the Faith embodied in the University creed and strives to maintain Biblical unity among the student body based on these essentials. In the interest of that unity, Bob Jones University will terminate the enrollment of any student propagating his own particular theological interpretations (i.e., Calvinism, Arminianism, etc.) or who practices or promotes tongues–speaking…(p. 5). Since Bob Jones University believes that Christian young people should manifest their loyalty to Jesus Christ by separated living, the institution does not permit conduct condemned in the Word of God (such as

fleshly living, adultery, homosexuality, sexual perversions of any kind, dishonesty and lasciviousness). Neither will it permit other unbiblical practices such as the use of dope or harmful drugs of any kind, drinking, gambling, profanity, obscenity, the use of tobacco in any form, dancing, card-playing, movie-going, and pornography. Bob Jones University expects a student’s conduct off campus to be compatible with the regulations contained in the Handbook. Any student whose conduct or lifestyle off campus is a contradiction to the Christian standards exemplified by the rules for daily living on campus will be disciplined according to the offense. Bob Jones University expects the cooperation of its students in the development of respect for and in the enforcement of the rules of the institution. Any student

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 3

enrolled in this institution for at least one year who knows or suspects that another student intends to violate any rule of the school and does not attempt to check the violation or who “covers” another student’s wrongdoing by failing to have the matter brought to the attention of the proper authority will be considered disloyal and will be dealt with by the Discipline Committee… (pp. 5–6). Dress Information In a day of slovenly and careless dress, it is essential to our Christian testimony that Bob Jones University maintain certain standards of refinement. Students are required to maintain an appearance in line with the standards of the University. Therefore, hairstyles, dress, etc., are subject to the regulations set forth by the offices of the Dean of Men and the Dean of Women. Women students are expected to dress neatly and modestly at all times. This means that dresses must cover the knee and must be modest from a standpoint of both exposure and accent. All women students ninth grade and above are to wear hose at all times. Jean skirts and jumpers are permitted after 7 p.m. on weekdays, on Saturdays, and on outings. Jean jackets are permitted on outings only. Split skirts (not culottes) may be worn to weekend ball games. Men students are required to wear a shirt with a tie until after chapel or after lunch on weekdays. (This should be a shirt with a collar designed to be worn with a tie, and the shirt should be buttoned and not left open at the neck.) Coats and ties should be worn to evening assemblies and at all times when on front campus on Sundays, except for Sunday breakfast, when only ties [sic] are required. Men are to have their hair cut so that the back is tapered and does not come over the collar or ears. They may not shave the sides above the ear or have a “shelved” haircut. Sideburns are to be no longer than the lower opening of the ear. Mustaches and beards are not permitted. In front the hair must not fall lower than two finger widths above the eyebrows… (p. 18).

cases violations will result in demerit penalties. In every case students should respond graciously when corrected for breaches of proper social conduct (p. 19). Movies and Videos The language, sexual themes, and nudity of most movies rated PG and certainly those rated R or X have no place in a believer’s life. Any student (day or dormitory) watching R- or X-rated home videos will be given a demerit penalty ranging from 100 demerits to expulsion. The same penalty applies for any student attending a movie of any rating in a public theatre. Dormitory students may watch only G-rated home videos while visiting in town. VCRs are not permitted in the dormitories (p. 24).

Music University Standards – In giving special emphasis to the fine arts, Bob Jones University desires that all students learn to appreciate good music. There are three areas of concern when we evaluate music: 1. The content (message) of the song. 2. The style of the music. 3. The association of the performer with an unacceptable style of music. Most popular music today has problems in all three areas. Because of these problems students may listen to and use in campus programs only the following types of music: 1. Classical. 2. Semi-classical – that is, light concert music, music from older stage productions that has passed into the concert repertoire, band music, and old familiar songs or Early American songs, which are obviously “serious” music. 3. Serious religious music. In addition, we will permit dormitory students to have recordings of pre-1960 easy-listening music that has been checked by their dormitory supervisors. Popular music before 1960 is generally “prerock” and does not present problems of association with the faninstitutionwantstohaverulesofconduct,fine.Butthemomentsuchrulesarejustifiedas rock culture. While some easylistening music after 1960 may be distinguishingearnestChristiansfromtherest,theinstitutionhaswronglyattemptedtobind acceptable, it is not feasible for the dormitory supervisors to theconscience—somethingonlyScripturecando. screen all of this music, and it therefore must all be excluded. The following types of music are unacceptable in any Etiquette, Courtesy and Manners form (written or audio) and may not be performed, Good manners are the norm for believers who have promoted, or listened to by students, may not be kept by been well trained, who have a heart that desires to dormitory students, and may not be used on campus “esteem others better than themselves” (Phil. 2:3), and programs: who desire that nothing in their conduct detracts from 1. Any current popular music or music recently their impact for the Lord (Matt. 5:16). popular, including ballads, jazz, rock-and-roll, and folkFollowing are some practical applications of proper, rock tunes. This includes the music of any popular folk accepted social etiquette to the campus setting. In some

4 4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

singing or country/western groups. Music in these categories does not become acceptable when it is performed without lyrics. No matter how sedate the performance or how acceptable the music itself, we will not allow students to determine the acceptability of any music that is associated with these current popular trends since experience has shown that many students are not able to exercise mature, spiritual judgment in their selection of music in this area. 2. So-called “religious” music that is performed in folk style, country/western style, southern gospel style, or contemporary popular styles. 3. New Age music. A sheet describing the problems of New Age music is available from the Dean of Students’ secretary. WMUU and WBJU occasionally use ballads or songs that were popular a few years ago and have continued to be heard because they are intrinsically good music. These selections are carefully screened by experienced, Christian staff and faculty… (pp. 24–25). Program and Activity Approvals In the interest of the Christian testimony and cultural reputation of Bob Jones University, no dormitory student will be permitted to take part in any social function or program away from the University without the permission of the Dean of Men’s Office or the Dean of Women’s Office. All music and speech numbers (including dramatic and puppet productions and slide presentations) given by day or dormitory students must be approved by the faculty member charged with this responsibility. Any number presented on a public program on the campus, as well as radio or television appearances, must be similarly approved. Any musical group which schedules programs either for the summer months or during the school year must have all numbers checked. However, numbers performed by day students in their home churches do not need to be checked. Instructions for having music or speech numbers checked are posted on the Fine Arts bulletin board. See additional information under “Music” (p. 29). Interracial Dating – There is to be no interracial dating. Students who become partners in an interracial marriage will be expelled. Students who are members of or affiliated with any group or organization which holds interracial marriage as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage will be expelled. Students who date outside of their own race will be expelled (p. 30).

Michael Horton Responds: I graduated from a Christian college by the skin of my teeth. Although I have the school to thank for lifelong friends and some superb teachers, my time there was one of considerable disillusionment. It was a place where the façade was surrealistically warm and inviting, but the reality was quite different. Growing up, I had already watched my parents—always active in church— become overwhelmed by legalism and hypocrisy. Now in college, I discovered that some friends, whose parents were household names in many Christian circles, had already been made cynical by the appearance-reality split they had observed growing up. Now it was my turn, I guess. Chapel was mandatory several times a week; there were huge boards filled with our student numbers which monitors managed to register attendance as we entered. Enough marks against a student would merit an appearance before the Community Accountability Committee. When I entered the college, we all signed an agreement not to dance, use tobacco products, or drink alcohol—even at home over the holidays. It was straightforward, with no attempt at theological or biblical justification. But a year into things, the catalog was amended to include a rationale: “This institution is for earnest Christians who are sensitive to the many principles of Christian living that are found in the Bible.” Unlike some Christian colleges, my alma mater did at least add that these behavioral requirements were not necessary for salvation, nevertheless concluding, “they can be beneficial to the life and testimony of both the individual and the institution.” The school “does not presume to be a censoring agency for all activities; it does, however, expect tangible evidence of maturing Christian convictions and discerning judgment.” 1 So here’s where I became confused. On one hand, the rules are there because “This institution is for earnest Christians who are sensitive to the many principles of Christian living that are found in the Bible.” On the other hand, the rules are not necessary for salvation. And yet (back to the first hand), they can enhance “the life and testimony of both the individual and the institution.” Still (the other hand), the college isn’t “a censoring agency for all activities,” and yet (back again), it does “expect tangible evidence of maturing Christian convictions and discerning judgment.” This is precisely the confusion that many of us experienced in conservative evangelical and fundamentalist circles. The logic of Reformation Christianity is quite different on this point. If Scripture has not commanded it, neither can you. Now, of course, that does not apply to rules at work concerning dress codes. It doesn’t mean that a college cannot prohibit consumption of alcohol on the part of its students. But it does mean that the moment such a rule is justified because it supposedly

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 5

distinguishes “earnest Christians who are sensitive to the many principles of Christian living that are found in the Bible” from the great unwashed, that following it can strengthen one’s witness, and that it represents “tangible evidence of maturing Christian convictions and discerning judgment,” then it is no longer a “thing indifferent”—that is, something that Christians are free to enjoy or refrain from. Far from calling forth “discerning judgment,” such rules often discourage it. In the process of trying to make this argument (though admittedly, not always with overwhelming charm), I was suspended and nearly expelled from the college. I am saying that this policy statement is contradictory, but so is the logic of evangelical pietism generally on these essential points. Following Paul’s cue, Calvin insisted that Christian liberty is so important and precious that to “bid farewell” to such a gift of Christ’s death is to utterly sever the objective truth of justification from the enjoyment of its reality. Only Scripture binds the conscience. If you want to have rules of conduct, fine. But the moment that they are justified as being biblical (and therefore necessary), as distinguishing earnest Christians from the rest, and as evidence of Christian maturity, they are no longer mere “house rules” that, although in themselves indifferent, reflect a particular constituency. The regulative principle that many of the reformers and their successors have found in the Scriptures has maintained that when rules concerning things indifferent (i.e., not commanded or forbidden by Scripture) are made to be binding on the conscience, they must be rejected. It is no longer a thing indifferent, as it normally would be—one must just say no to the rules, regardless of whether he or she chooses to partake. Working through all of that has taken time. This institution is not unique, but represents the confusion that many of us experienced growing up in Evangelicalism. Having come through it, let’s get beyond it. But let’s not lose the important lesson along the way: that something which cost God so dearly should never be either abused or surrendered. — Michael Horton

SPEAKING OF To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled — Titus1:15 Freedom in Worship

[ C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 3 7 ]

they reintroduce into their public liturgies other elements. Charity permits no other course. Elements of Worship Commanded by God believe that the regulative principle and the principle of charity are, in fact, not competing principles, and that God has not put us in a catch-22 moral bind. This apparent moral bind is produced by those who do not, on the grounds of principle, adopt the regulative principle. Their failure to adopt this principle puts them in a moral bind even with regard to the moral principle of charity, with its attendant demands regarding the wounding of consciences. Failure to observe the demands of God’s revelation in one area make it difficult to obey the demands of his revelation in another. It is hoped, therefore, that the reader, if not currently convinced of the regulative principle, would be led by this discussion to reconsider its merits. It is equally hoped that the reader will, at least for the sake of the demands of charity, not disenfranchise from corporate worship those who do believe in the regulative principle by including in corporate worship things that are not commanded by God. Prayers (spoken or sung), the Word read and preached, the Sacraments, and collections for the saints are elements indisputably and universally recognized as appropriate elements of corporate worship. Introducing other elements, thereby requiring their observation by those present, introduces the offense of wounding the consciences of those who do not recognize their propriety. For the sake of charity, if not that of principled commitment to the regulative principle of worship, I appeal to officers in the church not to introduce such offenses. ■

T. David Gordon (Ph.D., Union Theological Seminary) is associate professor of religion at Grove City College, Pennsylvania.

4 6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

B O OK

| Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification

Justification Through the Ages

n his preface to this one-volume revision of his original two-volume edition, Alister

Schleiermacher and Ritschl to Barth, Tillich, Bultmann, the McGrath informs us of its purpose and scope: “The history of the development of the post-Bultmannian new hermeneutic (Ebeling), and the Christian doctrine of justification has never been written. It is this deficiency which the 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue group’s present volume seeks to remedy. The first edition Justification by Faith document. of this work appeared in two volumes in 1986 and Before going into details, we may legitimately ask a quickly established itself as the definitive preliminary question or two: How revised is the work on the subject.” A claim this broad revised edition? and, Is the work indeed unique? As to needs to be (we hesitate to use the word) the degree of revision, it is very slight: aside from justified to warrant purchase, if only on minor updating of references and a few stylistic economic grounds. improvements, the only new material is the addition of McGrath, a prominent Anglican two final sections updating the book with references to evangelical known on both sides of the recent Pauline scholarship and ecumenical endeavors Atlantic, treats the doctrine of justification to bridge the Protestant-Catholic gap. What about the author’s claim to have produced in a strictly chronological fashion, beginning with the Patristic period and St. the only extant “history of the development of the Augustine. (He does not deal with Paul’s Christian doctrine of justification”? If this means a views in the New Testament as such; we single volume devoted to the subject and published shall return to his reasons for this at the in our time, he may be strictly correct. But the great end of this review.) The medieval period histories of Christian thought have hardly been able is discussed in considerable detail, with to avoid a doctrine so central to Christian faith. helpful distinctions made between One thinks not just of the likes of Harnack but of different approaches to justification characteristic of twentieth century treatments such as J. L. Neve and Iustitia Dei: A major monastic orders and ideological schools O. W. Heick1 and J. L. González.2 Looking at History of the (Dominicans, Franciscans, Augustinians). The random at Neve and Heick, one finds, for example, Christian Doctrine Reformation period is, needless to say, central to the an entire chapter devoted to “Positions on book, with a description of Luther’s theological Justification” in their discussion of the New England of Justification development followed by a comparison of the theology of Jonathan Edwards. Neither Neve and Lutheran and Reformed approaches to the doctrine Heick nor González is referred to anywhere by by Alister E. McGrath and a brief discussion of justification in Protestant McGrath, and one gets the distinct impression that 2d ed., Cambridge University Orthodoxy. Then follows Trent, the English he did not benefit greatly from the synoptic histories Press, 1998. “Reformation legacy” (including not just Tyndale, of doctrine in doing his own work. Often these $30.00, 532 pages Hooker, and the Puritans, but also, oddly enough, histories provide more careful and more detailed John Henry Newman—owing to his critique of discussions of justification than he himself gives. Luther in his Lectures on Justification), and the period from To be sure, a single work focusing on a cardinal the Enlightenment through the Protestant liberalism of doctrine is always useful. McGrath admits in his

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 7

preface that “in effect, the present study is a bibliographical essay.” As such, it will often provide insights hard to find elsewhere. Thus, there is a fine critique of John Henry Newman’s gross misunderstandings of Luther. But sweeping treatments of historical topics must in the final analysis be judged by their adequacy on the level of the particular. Toynbee was unsuccessful in defending himself against the critics of his A Study of History when he declared that “a committee may be able to run a country but a book must be the product of a single mind.” The fact is that no one person can be the master of gigantic amounts of detail, so the specialists’ treatments are often much more useful than one person’s attempt to cover the whole field. How does McGrath’s book stand up to detailed analysis? Not very well. Here are a few examples. He properly recognizes that the chief influence on the nascent Anglican theology of the Reformation period was Lutheran (“Despite this clear alignment with the Lutheran Reformation, rather than the Swiss Reformations of Zurich or Geneva, the Elizabethan period witnessed a general decline in the fortunes of Lutheranism in England”—sec. 30), but he shows no acquaintance with the best of the detailed treatments of the matter: H. E. Jacobs3 and N. S. Tjernagel.4 Indeed, one of the most remarkable features of the McGrath volume is its omission of American scholarly literature in general, much of which reaches a greater level of theological depth than the British material. The author’s handling of the Lutheran theologians of the period of seventeenth century Protestant Orthodoxy is truly unfortunate. This does not apparently arise from dependence on A. C. McGiffert’s Protestant Thought Before Kant or on Jaroslav Pelikan’s stereotyped treatment in his From Luther to Kierkegaard (they are nowhere referred to), but his underlying point is the same as theirs: These theologians departed from Luther, hardened their categories, and contributed to the rise of Pietism and ultimately to Enlightenment rationalism. McGrath doesn’t address the groundbreaking work on the theologians of Lutheran Orthodoxy by the brothers J. A. O. Preus and Robert D. Preus.5 Particularly unsettling is the impact of the author’s own Calvinism on his interpretations. Thus, the Lutheran dogmaticians of the late sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries invariably come out less attractively than their Calvinist counterparts: Significantly, the Reformed school is considerably closer to Luther (especially the 1525 Luther) than Lutheranism. Given that both confessions adopted a strongly forensic

4 8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

concept of justification, which set them apart from Luther on this point, the strongly predestinarian cast of Reformed theology approximates to that of Luther to a far greater extent than Lutheran Orthodoxy. Similarly, the strongly Christological conception of justification to be found in Luther’s writings is carried over into Reformed theology, particularly in the image of Christ as caput et sponsor electorum, where it is so evidently lacking in Lutheran Orthodoxy. Both in terms of its substance and emphasis, the teaching of later Lutheran Orthodoxy bears little relation to that of Luther (sec. 24). These misrepresentations derive not from careful analysis of the corpus of dogmatic writings in question but from a tacit acceptance of such Reformed attempts to assimilate Luther to Calvinist double-predestination as that of James Packer in his edition of Luther’s Bondage of the Will. It is also not easy to see a one-to-one relationship between Luther’s very definitely Christological center and the Calvinist dogmaticians’ emphasis on our Lord as “head and sponsor of the elect”!6 McGrath holds that the Lutheran dogmaticians based their doctrine of election upon God’s foreknowledge of the faith of the one to be justified. He says nothing of the controversies over the question of the actual teaching of Luther and of the dogmaticians of Orthodoxy on this issue that led to the formulation of the theology of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod.7 The literature of that nineteenth-century controversy, involving also the old Buffalo, Iowa, and Ohio Synods, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the Lutheran view was not at all as McGrath formulates it. Neither the Calvinists nor the classic Lutherans focused on foreknowledge of free will; they both saw God’s election and the work of the Holy Spirit as the sole source of the believer’s status. They differed in attempting to account for the lost, the Calvinist theologians attributing this to a divine decree, either supralapsarian or infralapsarian, the Lutherans to man’s own fallen condition and perverse misuse of his free will.8 Karl Barth’s position on justification comes under criticism but not, it would seem, for the best reasons. McGrath notes that “Barth cannot share Luther’s high estimation for the articulus iustificationis” (sec. 37). He explains this as stemming from Barth’s theological method: for Barth, “soteriology is necessarily secondary to the fact of revelation, Deus dixit.” Now Barth’s lack of appreciation for the centrality of justification certainly relates to his theological method, but that does not concern his

attitude toward revelation at all as much as it does (1) his overarching stress on the sovereignty of God and (2) his appallingly weak doctrine of sin (sin as an absence of something—see Gustaf Wingren’s criticism of Barth in Wingren’s classic, Theology in Conflict; and my Where Is History Going?). Moreover, it does not seem entirely responsible for McGrath to stress Barth’s doctrine of revelation and not inform his readers that, as a matter of fact, Barth’s view of revelation was evacuated of any and all empirical grounding by his absorption of Kähler’s distinction between revelatory Geschichte and the ordinary facts of history (Historie). But that is doubtless because McGrath, like many English evangelicals, refuses himself to acknowledge the inerrancy of Scriptural revelation. The treatment of Tillich is even more inadequate. Here is the whole of it: In an important essay of 1924, Tillich noted that the doctrine of justification applied not merely to the religious aspects of moral life, but also to the intellectual life of religion, in that it is not merely the sinner, but also the doubter, who is justified by faith. Tillich thus extends the scope of the doctrine to the universal human situation of despair and doubt concerning the meaning of existence. Tillich thus argues that the doctrine of justification, when rightly understood, lies at the heart of the Christian faith. While nineteenth-century man was characterized by his idealism, his twentieth-century counterpart is characterized by existential despair and anxiety—and it is to this latter man that the Christian message must be made relevant. Tillich attempts this task by the “method of correlation,” by which the Christian proclamation is “correlated” with the existential questions arising from human existence. For Tillich, the doctrine of justification addresses a genuine human need: “man must learn to accept that he is accepted, despite being unacceptable” (sec. 38). It is amazing that McGrath can set forth such a viewpoint without pointing out its utter incompatibility with anything historic Christian faith or Holy Writ has said concerning justification. (The only semblance of an evaluation is the single sentence in a footnote: “Despite the verbal parallels with the concept of acceptatio Dei, it is difficult to see quite how Tillich understands man to be accepted by God.”) Moreover, no attempt at all is made to relate Tillich’s metaphorical recasting of justification to (1) his presentation of God as

Being Itself (the ontological dimension of his thought), (2) Christ as the New Being (his soteriology), or (3) his so-called “Protestant principle,” on the basis of which every religious assertion stands under criticism—thus, ironically, making doubt endemic! Altizer, according to Hannah Tillich, hastened Tillich’s demise by pointing out that if no religious claims are indefeasible that would of course include Tillich’s Being Itself, the foundation of his entire system—and Altizer’s point would, of course, equally apply, mutantis mutandis, to any “doctrine” of justification he espoused. For the short treatment of Tillich just quoted, McGrath cites only Tillich’s Protestant Era and The Shaking of the Foundations—and gives but a single secondary reference, and that to a relatively unimportant treatment of Tillich’s correlation principle. Surely a theologian of Tillich’s influence deserved a more thorough analysis and critique than this. It is also difficult to understand how a history of the doctrine of justification by grace through faith could be written with no mention of such overarching ideas in the history of doctrine as Anders Nygren’s magisterial analysis of the interplay of agape (God’s self-giving love) and eros (man’s self-centered love)—a thesis unsuccessfully refuted by M. C. D’Arcy. (McGrath cites a minor journal article by Nygren, but not his Agape and Eros, and the concept is nowhere treated.) If justification is understood forensically as God’s unmerited act of love in eternity toward a fallen race, as the Reformers believed, whilst Roman theology saw the infusion of grace as requiring human acceptance by way of adherence to the Church’s teachings, then it should be quite evident why Augustine’s uneasy caritas—synthesis of agape and eros fractured at the time of the Reformation, and why Trent unqualifiedly condemned justification by grace through faith alone. Appreciation of the Nygren thesis would also have helped McGrath to see more clearly the weaknesses in contemporary ecumenical attempts to blend the Protestant and Roman Catholic positions on justification. Unquestionably the most troubling aspect of this book comes in a paragraph of the preface. The author writes: Some readers of the first edition expressed puzzlement that there was to be found no specific treatment of Paul’s view on justification. It may be helpful to such readers to recall that every generation believed that it had understood Paul correctly, and was duly puzzled when its own settled convictions were called into question by a later generation.

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 9

What one generation takes to be an accurate analysis of Paul is seen by later scholarship as that generation’s analysis of Paul, reflecting its own values, presuppositions, goals and prejudices. The present volume can thus be seen, at one level, as a continuous analysis of the church’s interpretation of Paul on justification, which takes no fixed view on what the correct interpretation of Paul should be. One understands not wanting to be criticized for one’s theological views by those who disagree, but the kind of relativism that this passage conveys goes beyond mere scholarly reticence. It is, in effect, the refusal to assert that Scripture has any objective, absolute meaning: its teachings, even those as central as justification, are defined only in the continuing history of its interpretation. Of course, this is in fact to espouse precisely Newman’s “organic” model of doctrinal development, which is basic to Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Contrast Luther to Erasmus, who was arguing essentially the same thing: If you are referring to essential truths—why, what more irreligious assertion could a man possibly make than that he wants to be free to assert precisely nothing about such things? … I certainly grant that many passages in the Scriptures are obscure and hard to elucidate, but that is due, not to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance. … Who will maintain that the town fountain does not stand in the light because the people down some alley cannot see it, while everyone in the square can see it? (De servo arbitrio, WA, 18, 604–605; cf. Montgomery, In Defense of Martin Luther and Crisis in Lutheran Theology). This is the same McGrath who wrote in a foreword to a recent evangelical interpretation of Richard Hooker: “The vision which Hooker encourages for modern Evangelicalism is that of a movement which is deeply grounded in and nourished by Scripture, yet strengthened and sustained by a sense of solidarity within Christian orthodoxy down the ages.”9 But how can the church be “grounded in and nourished by Scripture” if the meaning of the major doctrines of Scripture—to say nothing of the rest of its content—is at the mercy of the “values, presuppositions, goals, and prejudices” of each generation of Christian believers? Here, one either holds, in Anglo-Catholic fashion, that the Holy Spirit continuously preserves the church from error

5 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0

through control of its traditions or, in the unshakable conviction of the Reformers, that an objective, perspicuous Scripture must forever judge the church: Ecclesia semper reformanda est. A firm doctrine of inspiration and a rock-solid hermeneutic are essential for the latter viewpoint. Neither is needed for the former. Reviewed by John Warwick Montgomery (Ph.D., Chicago; D.Théol., Strasbourg) Professor emeritus of law and humanities University of Luton, England

SHORT N OTIC E S Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman L. Geisler, Baker Books, 1999. vii + 841 pp., $49.99 (cloth) This massive work, written entirely by Norman Geisler, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, is part of the “Baker Reference Library.” This encyclopedia contains articles on general topics in apologetics, such as evaluative surveys of various kinds of apologetics (e.g., presuppositionalism) and the role of the Holy Spirit in apologetics, on philosophical concepts like the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and philosophical systems like nihilism, on biblical issues such as the resurrection and the reliability of the biblical manuscripts, on current “hot topics” like the Jesus Seminar and religious pluralism, and on the great perennial issues, such as the problem of evil and arguments for God’s existence. Great thinkers like Plato, Plotinus, Thomas Aquinas, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Darwin, and Albert Einstein have their relevant ideas canvassed and evaluated as do almost all of the major players in twentieth century Anglo-American apologetics (e.g., Carnell, Ramm, Van Til). Most articles have bibliographies that cite primarily classical works. Much of what Geisler has written is valuable. His strong commitment to biblical authority makes articles on topics such as hell and the salvation of “the heathen” reliable. He does, however, consistently oppose forms of what he calls “theistic determinism” like Jonathan Edwards’. And some articles contain far too many errors. For instance, in the one on Elton Trueblood, Stanford University becomes “Standard University,” Joseph Butler is “George Butler,” and Trueblood is identified as a pacifist. Mark R. Talbot Associate Professor of Philosophy Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL

Luke: That You May Know the Truth, Volumes I and II by R. Kent Hughes, Crossway Books, 1998. 480 and 464 pp., $24.99 each (cloth) The “new homiletics,” a recent article in Books and Culture states, “celebrates pilgrimage, not propositions.” It “dances on the edge of mystery,” maintaining that “the aim of preaching is … primarily … to ‘evoke an event’ or stimulate an encounter by making ‘gestures towards the ineffable.’” In other words, the new homiletics no longer clearly acknowledges that while the Bible was written as a narrative that has a clear beginning, middle, and end, the Gospel itself is not so much a story as a proclamation—a declaration of the truth of what God has done for us through the work of His Son, Jesus Christ. In these two volumes, the latest additions to Kent Hughes’ “Preaching the Word” series, he never loses sight of the preacher’s true task of proclaiming the Gospel so that his hearers, like Luke’s readers, “may know the certainty of the things [they] have been taught” (Luke 1:4). Hughes takes this task utterly seriously, never neglecting the hard exegetical and interpretative work that must underlie all responsible exposition, for he knows that only that can ensure that he does not preach his own thoughts about God’s Word, “but God’s actual Word, his logos.” Yet he also understands that his own life and conviction and passion must ring through his preaching, if his words, as God’s words, are to sail like arrows into his hearers’ hearts. These one-hundred-and-seven chapters, each covering a natural unit of the text, never ignore Luke’s artistry as a storyteller, even as they never fail to note Luke’s historical care, his special theological emphases, his concern for women and for the poor and downtrodden, and even his special sensitivity to the musical poetry of praise (see 1:46–55; 1:68–79; 2:14; & 2:29–32). As I read them, I hear again the voice of my pastor, who, more effectively than any other I have heard, models William Ames’s dictum that nothing makes a sermon more effective than when it unaffectedly comes out of the inward affection of the preacher’s heart.

Basic Theological Writings, (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, n.d.), edited by Timothy Lull, and is available by itself as a booklet. All subsequent page references are to the American Edition. 2E. Glenn Hinson, in Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification , ed. by Donald L. Alexander (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 44. 3B. B. Warfield argues this point well in the seventh chapter of The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1948). For example, he cites Romans 9:17 where it says, “The Scripture saith to Pharoah” when God spoke to Pharaoh through Moses. 4Luther, 343. 5“Confutatio Pontifica” [Papal Confutation of the Augsburg Confession] in The Augsburg Confession: A Collection of Sources, ed. by J. M. Reu (Fort Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary Press), 352. 6Luther, 351. Ibid., 344. 8Ibid., 345. 9Ibid., 349. 10Ibid., 358. 11Ibid., 363. 12Ibid., 370. 13Ibid., 377.

Poetic Polemics: Warnings Against Legalism in the Gospel Sonnets of Ralph Erskin by Shane Rosenthal G. Ella, “Ralph Erskine’s Marvellous Ministry,” The Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth,

March 1998, 72. 2Thomas F. Torrance, Scottish Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 235–236. Torrance does not mention the American editions, but I have personally seen antiquarian booksellers list editions of the Gospel Sonnets printed in Boston. 3Ella, 71. 4Ralph Erskine, The Practical Works of Ralph Erskine Consisting of His Sermons and Poems (Glasgow: W. Smith and J. Bryce Booksellers, 1778) vol. 10, pp. 8586. 5Ralph Erskine, Beauties of Ralph Erskine (London & Edinburgh: A. Fullarton & Co., 1830), 124-125. 6Erskine, The Practical Works, vol. 10, p. 93. 7Ibid., 85. 8Ibid., 87. Ibid., 87. 10Ibid., 89. 11Ibid., 271. 12Ibid., 273. 13Ibid., 53–54. 14Ibid., 267. 15Ibid., 270.

Ibid., 91–92. 17Ibid., 98. 18Ibid., 98. 19Ibid., 99. 20Ibid., 54–55. 21Mark Noll, “Canons

& Decrees of the Council of Trent: Canon 11,” Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), 185. 22Erskine, The Practical Works, vol. 10, pp. 82–83. 23Ibid., 97. 24Ibid., 50. 25Ibid., 273. 26Ibid., 51. 27Ibid., 94. Freedom in Worship: Christian Liberty and Church Authority by T. David Gordon Note Paul’s own practice. He writes the Romans and the Corinthians about “weak”

believers, calling them weak and instructing them regarding their error. He does not regard their conscientious scruples, as many apparently think today.

Their

erroneous opinions are to be addressed as such as being sacrosanct, confronted (lovingly) as such, and corrected, where they do not accord with biblical truth. A Reformed View of Drinking: A Sober Assessment by Jim West John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1967), p. 160. 2Ibid., p. 149. 3R. B. Kuiper, To Be or Not to Be Reformed, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), p. 139. How the Regulative Principle Liberates Reprinted from the May 26, 1997 issue of Christian Renewal.

Christian Colleges and Holiness Commitments by Michael Horton Biola University Catalog, 1996-97, 24.

Book Review Justification Through the Ages by John Warwick Montgomery J. L. Neve and O. W. Heick, A History of Christian Thought (2 vols.; Philadelphia:

Mark Talbot

J. L. González, A History of Christian Thought (3 vols.;

Muhlenberg Press, 1946).

Nashville: Abingdon, 1970–1975).

H. E. Jacobs, The Lutheran Movement in England

During the Reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI (Philadelphia: G. W. Frederick, 1890). 4N. S. Tjernagel, Henry VIII and the Lutherans (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia, l965). 5Cf.

E N D N O T E S

Robert D. Preus’s two-volume Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia, 1970–1972).

Cf. David Chytraeus, On Sacrifice, ed. and trans. John

Warwick Montgomery (2d. ed.; Malone, TX: Repristination Press, 1999). 7See inter alia, A. R. Wentz, A Basic History of Lutheranism in America (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Recovering the Art of Christian Prudence by Michael Horton

Press, l955), pp. 212–216. 8F. Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (4 vols.; Saint Louis, MO:

Albert R. Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin, The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning

Concordia, 1950–1957), II, 419–422, III, 471–503. 9In Nigel Atkinson, Richard Hooker:

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 68, 130. Ibid., 163.

Reformed Theologian of the Church of England? (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster, 1997).

Servants of Freedom: Luther on the Christian Life by Rick Ritchie This can be found in volume 31 of the American Edition of Luther’s Works, in Martin Luther’s

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 5 1

James Montgomery Boice

It Takes Time

number of years ago I had an associate at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia who

may well be the ones to accomplish under God the said in a staff meeting on one occasion, “I think we overestimate what God will do in one reformation for which many in my generation have dreamed, year and greatly underestimate what he will do in twenty.” That struck me as pretty wise prayed, and worked hard. One fact that has encouraged me to think along these lines is the at the time, and I have reflected on it many times since. surprising response of so many young pastors to our I was reminded of that sentiment again recently when work. For the last several years, members of the Alliance I heard that J. I. Packer considers the great productive of Confessing Evangelicals have spoken across the age of the Puritans, which we regard so highly, as that of country in our reformation (“Here We Stand”) seminars. the third generation. The first generation consisted of What has come out of these seminars is contact with an the Reformation pioneers, people like John Knox army of young men who say of their experience, “We (1505–1572) and others. The second generation have had it with the superficial churches of our time. We consolidated their work and established sound don’t want any more seeker-driven, felt-need Reformation churches. It was the third generation that JAMES approaches. We are fed up with evangelical met at Westminster (1643–1649) and produced The MONTGOMERY entertainment. What we want is something solid, Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter BOICE something grounded in the robust theology of the Bible Catechisms, the Directory for Public Worship, and the Form of and the Protestant Reformation, something that will last, Government. Senior Minister, Tenth Presbyterian something that is worth giving one’s life to. Can you All this reminded me that God is not in a hurry, as we Church help us?” It is in response to passionate comments like generally are, and that establishing and developing these that the Alliance has put effort into launching the valuable Christian work takes time. Reformation Societies. There are now about fifty of It takes time to develop Christian character, too. We these societies scattered across the country. I find this would like sanctification to go faster, to be twice the development exciting. spiritual giant next year that we imagine ourselves to be Where do we go from here? We will want faithfully today. But true growth is slow, and victories are not won without struggle. Nothing in the Bible encourages us to and energetically to keep doing all that God has given us expect quick results. Rather “suffering produces to do, working for the future and not just for the perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, immediate present, of course. But beyond that, we ought hope” (Rom. 5:3–4). Developing character like that to be working specifically with those leaders who will be takes time. the future of the Church and just possibly agents of a Packer’s observation led my thinking in another future reformation. direction, too. It occurred to me that my generation is For my part, I cannot think of anything more valuable the second of three. I look back to the days in which my than to contribute to the formation and growth of men theological outlook was being formed, and I recall with who know the great doctrines of the Bible and who will gratitude such giants as John Gerstner, Francis Schaeffer, be able to proclaim them with power and relevance to and D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, as well as others like John our declining age. It takes time. But time is precisely Stott, Roger Nicole, and Packer himself who, although what God has given us, until Jesus comes again. they are thankfully still with us, have nevertheless been pioneers and models to those who are roughly my age. James Montgomery Boice (D.Theol., University of Basel) is Which leads me to look ahead to the third generation of the president of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and young men and women, especially young pastors, who senior minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia.

5 2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 0 0