As many of you know I am sure, Timothy George recently had a "dialog" with Frank Beckwith over the differences among Roman Catholics and Evangelicals at Wheaton College. In this discussion, George basically said that these old debates over imputation and infusion are not really very important. The gospel was defined as the death and resurrection of Jesus. Thus, Evangelicals and Papists teach the same gospel. While this certainly is a valid description of the gospel, certain understandings of these ideas can render it false. For example a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness would agree that Jesus lived, died, and rose again from the dead. However, the polytheism of Mormonism, and the subordinationism of the Watchtower society destroy the message. In the same way, a denial of Sola Fide makes the death and resurrection of Jesus of no effect. Once something is added to this for justification, it becomes a false gospel. I am sure the Judaisers would have agreed with George on this point, yet Paul still calls them anathema. Well George came out with a statement recently in Christianity Today that James White put on his blog that reinforces these ideas.
"The gaping divide between evangelicals and Catholics is ecclesiology and authority, not justification and salvation, as important as that debate remains," George said. "There is enough commonality that evangelicals and Catholics with a living faith can recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ with a common Lord and common grace that brought them together. The hard issues are questions related to the church, such as the Petrine office [the papacy] and the Eucharist. Those discussions will occupy us for the next 100 years."
So the gospel is not the dividing line between Romanism and Evangelicalism? What did this Luther guy waste his time for! It's a good thing that George has seen past the wisdom of all reformers both Lutheran and Calvinist and found the truth!
Timothy George... do not call yourself an evangelical. You have abandoned what we have fought for the past 500 years. In fact, you gave up any right to be called an evangelical or "Reformed" the moment you signed ECT.
Paul stated that those who preached another gospel are anathema. Paul then defends the gospel by defending the doctrine of justification by faith apart from works. Thus, if one wants to take Paul's words seriously, Sola Fide is the center of the gospel itself. Any attempt to drift from it puts one under not Luther or Calvin's but Paul's anathema.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
I do not agree with this position...
But I was required to write a defense of Arminianism from the perspective of one of the Remonstrants from the time of Dort. I was surprised at how well my defense came out (not that any defense of synergism can truly be exegetically valid). I thought some might find it interesting to read a monergist attempt to defend Arminian theology.
"The men who call themselves “Calvinists” have introduced five points in response to our proposals of a more Biblical reformed theology. They claim that they have both St. Augustine and the father of our own church John Calvin on their side. This may be, however, Calvin is not an infallible interpreter of scripture. Calvin was great because he pointed us back to scripture, not because he formulated the perfect system of interpreting it. Therefore I claim that we are the true heirs of Calvin, not because we agree with all of his decisions, but because we test all things by scripture.
The first point that the so-called Calvinists have put up against up is total depravity. They claim that man has been so corrupted by the fall that he has the utter inability to obey God. Man cannot even come to faith and repentance in this state. We agree that in Adam all men have been corrupted in both will and intellect. We reject all Pelagian error which says that man can achieve salvation by his own power. However, God has not left our will in a state of total despair. Our will has been healed to such an extent that we have the ability to respond or reject the free gift of salvation. This is implied through out scripture in passages which command us to believe. As Joshua said to the Israelites before his death, “choose this day who you will serve” (Joshua 24:15). Would God offer salvation merely to tease us? It is as if he is holding a gift above our heads. He asks us to receive it but it is held to high that we cannot even reach it. Thus God is saying, “Choose salvation! It is free! Yet you cannot because I have not given you freedom of choice.” Man cannot be held accountable for a decision he cannot help but make. If we ought to do something, then we can do that thing.
The second point they put against us is unconditional election. This doctrine says that God elects man apart from any choice he makes. He also predestines man apart from evil. This makes God to be a tyrant who simply waves his hand declaring arbitrarily that one man is saved and another one damned. This is not the picture of the merciful loving God of scripture. How is election viewed in the New Testament? “For those he foreknew he also predestined.”(Romans 8:29) A similar statement comes from the apostle Peter, “To those who are elect exiles…according to the foreknowledge of God the father”(1 Peter 1:1). Notice that in these passages, predestination is not founded within God’s eternal decree but within his foreknowledge. God has knowledge of future events. Thus He sees who will accept his free offer and who will not. Thus, on this basis he chooses one man over another. Why one is elect and another reprobate is not to be found in God, but in man.
The third point is to us the most offensive to all true religion. This is the doctrine of limited atonement. According to these men, Christ came into the world not to die for all men alike, but for a select few. This doctrine is so absurd, so utterly foreign to all forms of Christianity whether Reformed, Romanist, or Lutheran that it hardly needs to be refuted. A few selections from Holy Scripture will suffice to refute this doctrine of demons. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”(2 Peter 3:9) “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2) These passages among others teach the exact opposite of the articles of the so-called Calvinists! There is not one sentence in scripture that defends this doctrine. There is not even a sentence in Augustine of Calvin which teaches what the perverters of their doctrine have proposed. This takes away all comfort in the Christian life. How can I have assurance if I never know if Christ indeed truly died for me! This then drives me back to the despair that we once had under the yolk of Rome.
The next point has been labeled “irresistible grace”. This horrible doctrine teaches that man does not freely come to Christ in faith in order to be regenerated and saved. Rather, God forces whom he will to come to faith and does not allow the repentance of others. God offers this grace, rather forces this grace, only upon a select few and gives no grace to the majority of mankind. Thus God creates men only to damn them! That men cannot resist the Holy Spirit is refuted by the words of the first martyr of the Christian church, “You stiff necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 7:51) Thus grace is by no means irresistible. That all men have the freedom to accept or reject grace is proven through the words of Peter, “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out”. (Acts 3:19) Would the apostle ask men to make the choice to repent if they had no choice in the matter? God does not act in such an illogical way.
Now we come to the final point which is argued against us. This is the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Arminius himself, whose theology is nearly impeccable, was unsure of this doctrine. He allowed for the possibility of a Christian falling away but admitted that his opponents defended themselves well on this particular point. After much more thorough study of scripture, it has become clear that this doctrine is not in accordance with the teaching of the apostles. Several places in the New Testament state that a man may fall from grace. When Paul proclaims salvation through Christ to the Colossians, he puts a condition upon it, “if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard”. (Colossians 2:23) Though God’s grace preserves us, it requires our cooperation. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews speaks of those who have “tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit” (Hebrews 6:4) being able to fall away from grace. Nowhere in scripture is an unbeliever said to share in the Spirit. These and several other verses are sufficient to prove our point.
Thus, tested by both the words of scripture and human reason, our position is superior. We are simply trying to continue the Reformation in constantly looking to the word of God for all truth. The reformation is not about treating its founders as infallible, but taking their exegesis and theology as a guide to future theological study whose only authority is the word of God. Even Martin Luther’s successor Melancthon came to disagree with his teacher on some of these points. Thus, rather than reverting back to Rome as some claim, we are going further into the word of God and away from our traditions."
"The men who call themselves “Calvinists” have introduced five points in response to our proposals of a more Biblical reformed theology. They claim that they have both St. Augustine and the father of our own church John Calvin on their side. This may be, however, Calvin is not an infallible interpreter of scripture. Calvin was great because he pointed us back to scripture, not because he formulated the perfect system of interpreting it. Therefore I claim that we are the true heirs of Calvin, not because we agree with all of his decisions, but because we test all things by scripture.
The first point that the so-called Calvinists have put up against up is total depravity. They claim that man has been so corrupted by the fall that he has the utter inability to obey God. Man cannot even come to faith and repentance in this state. We agree that in Adam all men have been corrupted in both will and intellect. We reject all Pelagian error which says that man can achieve salvation by his own power. However, God has not left our will in a state of total despair. Our will has been healed to such an extent that we have the ability to respond or reject the free gift of salvation. This is implied through out scripture in passages which command us to believe. As Joshua said to the Israelites before his death, “choose this day who you will serve” (Joshua 24:15). Would God offer salvation merely to tease us? It is as if he is holding a gift above our heads. He asks us to receive it but it is held to high that we cannot even reach it. Thus God is saying, “Choose salvation! It is free! Yet you cannot because I have not given you freedom of choice.” Man cannot be held accountable for a decision he cannot help but make. If we ought to do something, then we can do that thing.
The second point they put against us is unconditional election. This doctrine says that God elects man apart from any choice he makes. He also predestines man apart from evil. This makes God to be a tyrant who simply waves his hand declaring arbitrarily that one man is saved and another one damned. This is not the picture of the merciful loving God of scripture. How is election viewed in the New Testament? “For those he foreknew he also predestined.”(Romans 8:29) A similar statement comes from the apostle Peter, “To those who are elect exiles…according to the foreknowledge of God the father”(1 Peter 1:1). Notice that in these passages, predestination is not founded within God’s eternal decree but within his foreknowledge. God has knowledge of future events. Thus He sees who will accept his free offer and who will not. Thus, on this basis he chooses one man over another. Why one is elect and another reprobate is not to be found in God, but in man.
The third point is to us the most offensive to all true religion. This is the doctrine of limited atonement. According to these men, Christ came into the world not to die for all men alike, but for a select few. This doctrine is so absurd, so utterly foreign to all forms of Christianity whether Reformed, Romanist, or Lutheran that it hardly needs to be refuted. A few selections from Holy Scripture will suffice to refute this doctrine of demons. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”(2 Peter 3:9) “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2) These passages among others teach the exact opposite of the articles of the so-called Calvinists! There is not one sentence in scripture that defends this doctrine. There is not even a sentence in Augustine of Calvin which teaches what the perverters of their doctrine have proposed. This takes away all comfort in the Christian life. How can I have assurance if I never know if Christ indeed truly died for me! This then drives me back to the despair that we once had under the yolk of Rome.
The next point has been labeled “irresistible grace”. This horrible doctrine teaches that man does not freely come to Christ in faith in order to be regenerated and saved. Rather, God forces whom he will to come to faith and does not allow the repentance of others. God offers this grace, rather forces this grace, only upon a select few and gives no grace to the majority of mankind. Thus God creates men only to damn them! That men cannot resist the Holy Spirit is refuted by the words of the first martyr of the Christian church, “You stiff necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 7:51) Thus grace is by no means irresistible. That all men have the freedom to accept or reject grace is proven through the words of Peter, “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out”. (Acts 3:19) Would the apostle ask men to make the choice to repent if they had no choice in the matter? God does not act in such an illogical way.
Now we come to the final point which is argued against us. This is the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Arminius himself, whose theology is nearly impeccable, was unsure of this doctrine. He allowed for the possibility of a Christian falling away but admitted that his opponents defended themselves well on this particular point. After much more thorough study of scripture, it has become clear that this doctrine is not in accordance with the teaching of the apostles. Several places in the New Testament state that a man may fall from grace. When Paul proclaims salvation through Christ to the Colossians, he puts a condition upon it, “if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard”. (Colossians 2:23) Though God’s grace preserves us, it requires our cooperation. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews speaks of those who have “tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit” (Hebrews 6:4) being able to fall away from grace. Nowhere in scripture is an unbeliever said to share in the Spirit. These and several other verses are sufficient to prove our point.
Thus, tested by both the words of scripture and human reason, our position is superior. We are simply trying to continue the Reformation in constantly looking to the word of God for all truth. The reformation is not about treating its founders as infallible, but taking their exegesis and theology as a guide to future theological study whose only authority is the word of God. Even Martin Luther’s successor Melancthon came to disagree with his teacher on some of these points. Thus, rather than reverting back to Rome as some claim, we are going further into the word of God and away from our traditions."
Monday, October 26, 2009
Some thoughts on Bernard
It has often been stated by theologians as well as historians that Bernard of Clairvaux was the last “father of the church.” This may seem inappropriate since the Patristic age is usually seen to end around the time of Gregory (600 A.D.). However, the description does offer an accurate depiction of Bernard’s place among later medieval theology. In many ways, Bernard was among the last theologians of the period to deal primarily with Biblical exegesis, though most often in an allegorical manner. He did not give in to all of the subtleties of scholastic theology which was dominated by the thoughts of Aristotle. His writings show a man with simple faith in Christ, trying to encourage others in the love of God and neighbor.
Bernard not only was referred to as a church father, but has been seen by some as a forefather of the reformation. Luther himself quotes Bernard more than any other writer, save Augustine. Bernard perhaps understood the writings of St. Paul better than any other medieval theologian. He shares many affinities with Luther’s Theology of the Cross. Rather than the focus on good works and piety found in many theologians of the day, Bernard focused on the person and work of Christ himself. He was nicknamed doctor passionis. For Bernard, Christ was not seen primarily as judge, but as advocate. Bernard’s sermons contain several statements with this emphasis. “[Christ] gave himself to merit for us, He retains Himself to be our reward, He offers Himself as the food of saintly souls, He gives Himself as the price of redemption of those in captivity.”
Another reason why Luther admired Bernard so highly was that he did not give in to the scholasticism which had just begun to emerge in France. Scholastic theology was to dominate the middle ages until the humanists began looking at Biblical texts in their original language and context. Scholasticism dealt with all possible theological issues, whether important to the Christian faith or not. The old tale says that there was a debate among these theologians about how many angels could dance upon the head of a pin. Bernard was an opponent of scholasticism, specifically the thought of the controversial Peter Abelard. Rather than using Greek secular philosophy, Bernard states, “While I am in this life this more sublime philosophy will be mine-to know… Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.”
Bernard anticipated the doctrines of sola gratia and sola fide as would be explained by the Reformers. Bernard, following his great teacher Augustine, taught that grace comes prior to conversion. Man, apart from grace does not, and will not decide to follow Christ. “The cause of loving God is God…It is He who gives the occasion, it is He who creates the affection, He who consummates the desire.” The historical theologian Adolf Von Harnack called Bernard Augustine Redivivus, meaning the second Augustine. His view of the provenience of God’s grace is in line with Augustine’s view in his anti-Pelagian writings. Though Bernard does not go the extreme as does Augustine by discussing double predestination, he does attribute all of salvation to God’s eternal election.
"His seed is the eternal predestination by which God has loved his elect… These I have regarded as those who have never sinned, as it were, because although they are seen to have sinned in some things in time, they do not appear to have done so in eternity, because the charity of their father covers a multitude of sins. And He calls them blessed whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered."
Notice that their not having sinned is not attributed to an inward change which God but to God’s forgiveness. Bernard outlines this position in his book On Grace and Free Choice. Though Luther read and quoted this book in his early debates with Eck, Calvin disagrees with many of his conclusions in the Institutes.
Perhaps most importantly for Luther and the reformers, Bernard of Clairvaux anticipated the doctrine of justification by faith alone in several of his sermons. While the majority of scholastic teachers in his day saw the saving righteousness of God as something infused into the believer making him inwardly righteous, Bernard sees it as a gift of forgiveness and mercy. “It suffices me for attaining to all righteousness, to have Him alone propitious toward me against Whom alone I have sinned… Not to sin is the righteousness of God: man’s righteousness is God’s forgiveness.” When Bernard speaks of merit it is most often connected to God’s gift and not to man’s good works. “He gave Himself to merit for us.” Perhaps the most clear statement of this doctrine comes from his sermon SC22, “Therefore the person who through sorrow for sin hungers and thirsts for righteousness, let him trust in the One who changes the sinner into a just person (Rom 4:5), and judged righteous in terms of faith alone (et solam iustificatus per fidem), that person will have peace with God.”
Bernard speaks frequently about the insufficiency of our own merits. “In order to merit, it is enough to know that our merits do not suffice for us.” He makes it clear that he does not hold to a doctrine of penance which puts man’s righteousness in his own hands. “Your sins are very great and beyond number. Never will you be able to make satisfaction for them, so many and so great are they, not even if you strip the very skin from your body.” Being a preacher, he uses his pastoral spirit to comfort his hearers with these doctrines.
"Why are you fearful, ye of little faith? Because He is unwilling to forgive sins? He nailed them to the cross together with his own hands. Because you are delicate and accustomed to a life of ease? But He knoweth our frame. [He remembereth that we are dust.] Because you have grown accustomed to evil and are bound by the fetters of habitual sin? But the Lord looseth them that are fettered. Are you, perhaps, fearful lest, angered by the greatness and number of your sins He will be slow to extend a helping hand? But where sin abounded, grace did more abound."
In at least two more ways Bernard shared theology with the Reformers. Bernard held that baptism was necessary to salvation; however, it was not absolutely necessary. He held, like Luther that though baptism regenerates, it was possible for God to save without it. Though we should not presume that unbaptized infants are with Christ, it is a possibility. More significantly, he seems to hold to something similar to the law/gospel distinction, though he may not speak in those terms. This passage shows a personal experience which demonstrates this principle. “How often has prayer taken me on the brink of despair, and restored me to the state of soul of one exulting in joy and confident forgiveness.” God causes his people to be struck by the law, put into despair, so that he may restore them again through the gospel, offering them forgiveness.
Bernard’s legacy does not end here. Most often he is not remembered as the last church father, the first medieval mystic, or the great theologian of the cross, but as the preacher of the Crusades. The success of the first Crusade had given Christians power over the holy land. Western presence dominated three primary cities: Jerusalem, Edessa, and Antioch. However, after a few decades of attacks, the kingdom of Edessa fell to Muslim forces in 1144. The western world now had a dilemma. Should the church support another crusade to retake Edessa?
The Pope at this time was one of Bernard’s own students, Bernard of Pisa, renamed Pope Eugenius III. Though Bernard did not at first support his friend’s accession to the papal throne, he supported and guided him when he was placed into the Holy See. He wrote a guidebook for the papacy titled “Book of Considerations.” Bernard believed that if the corruptions in the church were to be fixed, they would come from within the Papacy.
Eugenius III called for a second crusade in 1146 to regain Edessa and protect the Holy Land. Enthusiasm was greatly diminished from the first crusade. Thus Eugenius needed a way of exciting the masses to join the crusade. He called upon Bernard who then became the preacher of the second crusade. The question that one must ask at this point is, how does Bernard’s focus on love and grace coincide with his support of a crusade? Can one preach both the love of God and the death of pagans? Perhaps Bernard contradicts himself, or perhaps these two ideas are compatible. The best way to gain an answer to this question is to look at Bernard’s writings themselves.
In a letter written by Bernard to support the crusade, he blames the Muslims victory on the sins of the church. “For our sins, the enemies of Cross have raised blaspheming heads, ravaging with the edge of the sword the land of promise.” Bernard believes that there is some special significance to the church in the nation of Israel. Just as it was in the time of the prophets, the ownership of Israel was directly related to the obedience of God’s people.
Since the Muslims are attacking, this must in Bernard’s mind be a test sent by God. He could of course regain the land by the mere word of his mouth but he wants to make his people choose to serve him by volunteering for the crusade. He first shows the people their sinfulness, then offers them forgiveness. However, unlike many of his sermons, he does not present forgiveness as a free gift in Christ. He sees forgiveness as obtained through the act of crusading. “He wills to be held a debtor, that he may give pay to those that fight for him, pardon of sins, and everlasting glory.” This may seem to have affinities with the doctrine of forgiveness of sins through indulgences as was taught by John Tetsel. However, Bernard does clearly teach that to receive the forgiveness offered through service to God in military orders, one must be truly sorry for his sin. It is not a mere ex opera operato formula.
Much of Bernard’s motivation in preaching in favor of the crusades was his peculiar eschatology. Bernard believed that he was living near the end times. Due to his exegesis of Romans 11, he believed that there was a soon to come conversion of the majority of living Israelites. Bernard believed in a view which might today be classified as postmillennial. Before Christ was to return on earth, the majority of humanity would be converted to Christianity. Paganism would be nearly destroyed. This would explain why Bernard supported the killing of Pagans, and their expulsion from the holy land. It was not due primarily to his view of warfare in general, but of eschatology. Bernard’s eschatology seems to have been largely influenced by the Sibylline Oracles. These were prophecies of a Christian origin written between the 2nd and 5th century AD. In these prophecies, there was to be a leader, claiming to be Roman, who would eliminate paganism from the earth. This leader’s name was to begin with a “C”. He saw the fulfillment of this prophecy in Conrad III of Germany. These ideas caused Bernard, while supporting the violence of crusading, to defend the life of Jews. He vehemently protested the violence which had occurred against Jews by earlier crusaders. This is because Bernard believed the time of their conversion to be soon. “If the Jews be utterly trampled down, how shall the promised salvation or conversion profit them in the end?”
Another motivation behind Bernard’s support, perhaps the most important, was his ecclesiology. Bernard saw the state as having two main purposes. The state was to execute justice in civil matters, and also to protect the true faith of the church. Thus doctrinal purity, though primarily defended by the church, was to be promoted by the state. Bernard was also living in a time when the Papacy was gaining both ecclesiastical and political power. During the first crusade, there was not special appeal made to the churches coercive power as justification for war. However, in Bernard, as well as other writers of this period, this is used as an acceptable argument. The church has the power to command and control warfare. This is why Bernard could focus much of his preaching on individual salvation rather than on the capture of Jerusalem which was the primary motivation for the earlier crusade.
Bernard had an extremely high view of clergy and what they were able to do and command of laity. He held to the traditional medieval notion that Christians who had taken monastic vows were of a higher order than the ordinary Christian. This is why Bernard supported the Knights Templar but did not give as much respect to lay Christians who volunteered. He referred to them as malitia (meaning malice) as opposed to militia. This is relevant to the current discussion because his high view of Church authority led to a high view of the Papacy. As was the case with many other church men, Bernard believed that reformation must begin with the office of the bishop of Rome. Thus, the Pope was to be obeyed at all costs. The cloistered monk who spent most of his life in silent seclusion, writing, meditating and preparing sermons most likely would not tour Europe preaching Crusade without a direct call from the church. It is my contention that because Bernard saw the Papacy as Christ’s human instrument to the church on earth, he saw obedience to the Pope as obedience to Christ himself. Bernard preached for the crusades to because he was commanded to by the successor of Peter. This is not to say that Bernard held to a fully developed doctrine of Papal infallibility as has been taught by Rome since the first Vatican council of 1870. However, Papal authority had grown in the minds of Christians since the reign of Gregory.
Does Bernard contradict himself? Yes and no. It was stated by B.B. Warfield that the reformation was the victory of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over Augustine’s doctrine of the church. In the same way one could say the reformation saw the victory of Bernard’s doctrine of grace over his doctrine of the church. Bernard was neither a Protestant, nor a Tridentine Catholic. It is anachronistic to suppose that Bernard must be one or the other. The driving motivation behind most of his life was love for Christ and a desire to please him. Thus, loving the scriptures, Bernard focused on the same message as did God’s inspired writers, the cross. However, loving the church, Bernard felt the need to obey her head by taking up the role of Crusade preaching. In this way Bernard was not contradicting himself; he saw all of his actions as ultimately aimed at the glory of his savior.
However, there is a contradiction in Bernard’s statements of justification. In most of his sermons, Bernard speaks of God’s forgiveness being bestowed on all who are truly sorry for their sin. One realizes his lost state and humbles himself so that God may restore him through grace. He does not speak of satisfaction for sin other than the cross. However, in his crusading sermons and letters, he speaks of forgiveness given through the act of crusading. He seems to give crusading an almost sacramental character. As God gives grace through baptism and the Eucharist, so he gives it through volunteering and fighting. However, Bernard need not be consistent. He did not live in the era that Luther, Chemnits, and Calvin lived in when discussions of justification were central. Bernard was simply a man who loved Christ, tried to glorify him and made several mistakes.
Bernard not only was referred to as a church father, but has been seen by some as a forefather of the reformation. Luther himself quotes Bernard more than any other writer, save Augustine. Bernard perhaps understood the writings of St. Paul better than any other medieval theologian. He shares many affinities with Luther’s Theology of the Cross. Rather than the focus on good works and piety found in many theologians of the day, Bernard focused on the person and work of Christ himself. He was nicknamed doctor passionis. For Bernard, Christ was not seen primarily as judge, but as advocate. Bernard’s sermons contain several statements with this emphasis. “[Christ] gave himself to merit for us, He retains Himself to be our reward, He offers Himself as the food of saintly souls, He gives Himself as the price of redemption of those in captivity.”
Another reason why Luther admired Bernard so highly was that he did not give in to the scholasticism which had just begun to emerge in France. Scholastic theology was to dominate the middle ages until the humanists began looking at Biblical texts in their original language and context. Scholasticism dealt with all possible theological issues, whether important to the Christian faith or not. The old tale says that there was a debate among these theologians about how many angels could dance upon the head of a pin. Bernard was an opponent of scholasticism, specifically the thought of the controversial Peter Abelard. Rather than using Greek secular philosophy, Bernard states, “While I am in this life this more sublime philosophy will be mine-to know… Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.”
Bernard anticipated the doctrines of sola gratia and sola fide as would be explained by the Reformers. Bernard, following his great teacher Augustine, taught that grace comes prior to conversion. Man, apart from grace does not, and will not decide to follow Christ. “The cause of loving God is God…It is He who gives the occasion, it is He who creates the affection, He who consummates the desire.” The historical theologian Adolf Von Harnack called Bernard Augustine Redivivus, meaning the second Augustine. His view of the provenience of God’s grace is in line with Augustine’s view in his anti-Pelagian writings. Though Bernard does not go the extreme as does Augustine by discussing double predestination, he does attribute all of salvation to God’s eternal election.
"His seed is the eternal predestination by which God has loved his elect… These I have regarded as those who have never sinned, as it were, because although they are seen to have sinned in some things in time, they do not appear to have done so in eternity, because the charity of their father covers a multitude of sins. And He calls them blessed whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered."
Notice that their not having sinned is not attributed to an inward change which God but to God’s forgiveness. Bernard outlines this position in his book On Grace and Free Choice. Though Luther read and quoted this book in his early debates with Eck, Calvin disagrees with many of his conclusions in the Institutes.
Perhaps most importantly for Luther and the reformers, Bernard of Clairvaux anticipated the doctrine of justification by faith alone in several of his sermons. While the majority of scholastic teachers in his day saw the saving righteousness of God as something infused into the believer making him inwardly righteous, Bernard sees it as a gift of forgiveness and mercy. “It suffices me for attaining to all righteousness, to have Him alone propitious toward me against Whom alone I have sinned… Not to sin is the righteousness of God: man’s righteousness is God’s forgiveness.” When Bernard speaks of merit it is most often connected to God’s gift and not to man’s good works. “He gave Himself to merit for us.” Perhaps the most clear statement of this doctrine comes from his sermon SC22, “Therefore the person who through sorrow for sin hungers and thirsts for righteousness, let him trust in the One who changes the sinner into a just person (Rom 4:5), and judged righteous in terms of faith alone (et solam iustificatus per fidem), that person will have peace with God.”
Bernard speaks frequently about the insufficiency of our own merits. “In order to merit, it is enough to know that our merits do not suffice for us.” He makes it clear that he does not hold to a doctrine of penance which puts man’s righteousness in his own hands. “Your sins are very great and beyond number. Never will you be able to make satisfaction for them, so many and so great are they, not even if you strip the very skin from your body.” Being a preacher, he uses his pastoral spirit to comfort his hearers with these doctrines.
"Why are you fearful, ye of little faith? Because He is unwilling to forgive sins? He nailed them to the cross together with his own hands. Because you are delicate and accustomed to a life of ease? But He knoweth our frame. [He remembereth that we are dust.] Because you have grown accustomed to evil and are bound by the fetters of habitual sin? But the Lord looseth them that are fettered. Are you, perhaps, fearful lest, angered by the greatness and number of your sins He will be slow to extend a helping hand? But where sin abounded, grace did more abound."
In at least two more ways Bernard shared theology with the Reformers. Bernard held that baptism was necessary to salvation; however, it was not absolutely necessary. He held, like Luther that though baptism regenerates, it was possible for God to save without it. Though we should not presume that unbaptized infants are with Christ, it is a possibility. More significantly, he seems to hold to something similar to the law/gospel distinction, though he may not speak in those terms. This passage shows a personal experience which demonstrates this principle. “How often has prayer taken me on the brink of despair, and restored me to the state of soul of one exulting in joy and confident forgiveness.” God causes his people to be struck by the law, put into despair, so that he may restore them again through the gospel, offering them forgiveness.
Bernard’s legacy does not end here. Most often he is not remembered as the last church father, the first medieval mystic, or the great theologian of the cross, but as the preacher of the Crusades. The success of the first Crusade had given Christians power over the holy land. Western presence dominated three primary cities: Jerusalem, Edessa, and Antioch. However, after a few decades of attacks, the kingdom of Edessa fell to Muslim forces in 1144. The western world now had a dilemma. Should the church support another crusade to retake Edessa?
The Pope at this time was one of Bernard’s own students, Bernard of Pisa, renamed Pope Eugenius III. Though Bernard did not at first support his friend’s accession to the papal throne, he supported and guided him when he was placed into the Holy See. He wrote a guidebook for the papacy titled “Book of Considerations.” Bernard believed that if the corruptions in the church were to be fixed, they would come from within the Papacy.
Eugenius III called for a second crusade in 1146 to regain Edessa and protect the Holy Land. Enthusiasm was greatly diminished from the first crusade. Thus Eugenius needed a way of exciting the masses to join the crusade. He called upon Bernard who then became the preacher of the second crusade. The question that one must ask at this point is, how does Bernard’s focus on love and grace coincide with his support of a crusade? Can one preach both the love of God and the death of pagans? Perhaps Bernard contradicts himself, or perhaps these two ideas are compatible. The best way to gain an answer to this question is to look at Bernard’s writings themselves.
In a letter written by Bernard to support the crusade, he blames the Muslims victory on the sins of the church. “For our sins, the enemies of Cross have raised blaspheming heads, ravaging with the edge of the sword the land of promise.” Bernard believes that there is some special significance to the church in the nation of Israel. Just as it was in the time of the prophets, the ownership of Israel was directly related to the obedience of God’s people.
Since the Muslims are attacking, this must in Bernard’s mind be a test sent by God. He could of course regain the land by the mere word of his mouth but he wants to make his people choose to serve him by volunteering for the crusade. He first shows the people their sinfulness, then offers them forgiveness. However, unlike many of his sermons, he does not present forgiveness as a free gift in Christ. He sees forgiveness as obtained through the act of crusading. “He wills to be held a debtor, that he may give pay to those that fight for him, pardon of sins, and everlasting glory.” This may seem to have affinities with the doctrine of forgiveness of sins through indulgences as was taught by John Tetsel. However, Bernard does clearly teach that to receive the forgiveness offered through service to God in military orders, one must be truly sorry for his sin. It is not a mere ex opera operato formula.
Much of Bernard’s motivation in preaching in favor of the crusades was his peculiar eschatology. Bernard believed that he was living near the end times. Due to his exegesis of Romans 11, he believed that there was a soon to come conversion of the majority of living Israelites. Bernard believed in a view which might today be classified as postmillennial. Before Christ was to return on earth, the majority of humanity would be converted to Christianity. Paganism would be nearly destroyed. This would explain why Bernard supported the killing of Pagans, and their expulsion from the holy land. It was not due primarily to his view of warfare in general, but of eschatology. Bernard’s eschatology seems to have been largely influenced by the Sibylline Oracles. These were prophecies of a Christian origin written between the 2nd and 5th century AD. In these prophecies, there was to be a leader, claiming to be Roman, who would eliminate paganism from the earth. This leader’s name was to begin with a “C”. He saw the fulfillment of this prophecy in Conrad III of Germany. These ideas caused Bernard, while supporting the violence of crusading, to defend the life of Jews. He vehemently protested the violence which had occurred against Jews by earlier crusaders. This is because Bernard believed the time of their conversion to be soon. “If the Jews be utterly trampled down, how shall the promised salvation or conversion profit them in the end?”
Another motivation behind Bernard’s support, perhaps the most important, was his ecclesiology. Bernard saw the state as having two main purposes. The state was to execute justice in civil matters, and also to protect the true faith of the church. Thus doctrinal purity, though primarily defended by the church, was to be promoted by the state. Bernard was also living in a time when the Papacy was gaining both ecclesiastical and political power. During the first crusade, there was not special appeal made to the churches coercive power as justification for war. However, in Bernard, as well as other writers of this period, this is used as an acceptable argument. The church has the power to command and control warfare. This is why Bernard could focus much of his preaching on individual salvation rather than on the capture of Jerusalem which was the primary motivation for the earlier crusade.
Bernard had an extremely high view of clergy and what they were able to do and command of laity. He held to the traditional medieval notion that Christians who had taken monastic vows were of a higher order than the ordinary Christian. This is why Bernard supported the Knights Templar but did not give as much respect to lay Christians who volunteered. He referred to them as malitia (meaning malice) as opposed to militia. This is relevant to the current discussion because his high view of Church authority led to a high view of the Papacy. As was the case with many other church men, Bernard believed that reformation must begin with the office of the bishop of Rome. Thus, the Pope was to be obeyed at all costs. The cloistered monk who spent most of his life in silent seclusion, writing, meditating and preparing sermons most likely would not tour Europe preaching Crusade without a direct call from the church. It is my contention that because Bernard saw the Papacy as Christ’s human instrument to the church on earth, he saw obedience to the Pope as obedience to Christ himself. Bernard preached for the crusades to because he was commanded to by the successor of Peter. This is not to say that Bernard held to a fully developed doctrine of Papal infallibility as has been taught by Rome since the first Vatican council of 1870. However, Papal authority had grown in the minds of Christians since the reign of Gregory.
Does Bernard contradict himself? Yes and no. It was stated by B.B. Warfield that the reformation was the victory of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over Augustine’s doctrine of the church. In the same way one could say the reformation saw the victory of Bernard’s doctrine of grace over his doctrine of the church. Bernard was neither a Protestant, nor a Tridentine Catholic. It is anachronistic to suppose that Bernard must be one or the other. The driving motivation behind most of his life was love for Christ and a desire to please him. Thus, loving the scriptures, Bernard focused on the same message as did God’s inspired writers, the cross. However, loving the church, Bernard felt the need to obey her head by taking up the role of Crusade preaching. In this way Bernard was not contradicting himself; he saw all of his actions as ultimately aimed at the glory of his savior.
However, there is a contradiction in Bernard’s statements of justification. In most of his sermons, Bernard speaks of God’s forgiveness being bestowed on all who are truly sorry for their sin. One realizes his lost state and humbles himself so that God may restore him through grace. He does not speak of satisfaction for sin other than the cross. However, in his crusading sermons and letters, he speaks of forgiveness given through the act of crusading. He seems to give crusading an almost sacramental character. As God gives grace through baptism and the Eucharist, so he gives it through volunteering and fighting. However, Bernard need not be consistent. He did not live in the era that Luther, Chemnits, and Calvin lived in when discussions of justification were central. Bernard was simply a man who loved Christ, tried to glorify him and made several mistakes.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Lutheranism and Covenant Theology
Lutherans have often criticized the Reformed covenantal hermeneutical principle. Lutheranism sees the law/gospel distinction as the fundamental principle of Biblical hermeneutics. This seems to exclude the theme of covenant as being basic to the understanding of the Old and New Testaments. The Lutheran theologian has often seen two covenants; one being that of the Old Testament, and the other being that of the New. However, this seems to promote too dramatic a split between God’s revelation in the Old Testament and that of the New. Rather than denying that covenantal principle, the Lutheran can more accurately divide law and gospel by seeing a greater continuity between both testaments through the distinction between what the Reformed have called the “covenant of works” and the “covenant of grace.”
Perhaps the biggest obstacle is in the prelapsarian covenant of works. This idea states that before the fall, God placed Adam as the federal representative of mankind able to eat of the tree of life by his obedience or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil by his disobedience. To many, this seems to promote a salvation apart from grace, thus overthrows the central principle of sola fide. However, grace is a term used for unmerited favor in the postlapsarian state. Though one may be motivated by trying to see a fuller use of the grace of God it ultimately removes it from its soteriological context. Adam did not sin, thus did not need to be justified by faith. He was created in righteousness, and need not earn it but maintain it. Adam is not in the same state as fallen mankind, and one not treat him as such unless one wants to fall into a Pelagian error. This does not mean that God need reward man for his obedience to his creational function. However, in the arrangement God graciously chose to do so. However, this needs to be distinguished from the grace given to ungodly sinful humanity.
Was this arrangement made in the garden a covenant? There has been much debate in Reformed circles of the nature of covenant and how this relates to the Adamic state. In Lutheran Dogmatics, using the law/gospel distinction rather than a strict covenantal distinction, this need not be important. What we do see, however, is that Adam could have earned life by his obedience. Essentially, Adam was living under law. This protects against any kind of Pelagian or semi-Pelagian system which tries to equate the state of man now with that of man in the garden. It is worthy to note that in Roman Catholic theology Adam was in a state of grace before the fall. Rather than being essentially righteous and falling into a state of total depravity, Adam was given, sanctifying grace which was lost in the fall. Thus the fall was simply a negation of a gift, not a true fall into a depraved state.
After the fall, any kind of law could not bring man unto salvation. He had lost his essential righteousness and could not earn life through his obedience whether this would be through congruous or condign merit. Only Adam could earn life by obedience even if graciously rewarded.
This idea of Adam under law, rather than grace, is helpful not only because it guards against Pelagianism, but because it helps explain Paul’s Adam Christology. Christ was created as the second representative of mankind. He was in the state of Adam. Christ was offered life through his obedience as was Adam. This is a pure state of law, not grace. Christ was not righteous by his faith alone or by grace, but by works. Thus Christ fulfilled the law that Adam failed to keep and therefore earned the righteousness that Adam failed to. This righteousness is then imputed to his sheep.
The reformed distinction between a “covenant of works” and a “covenant of grace” is used to describe the difference between the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations. The covenant of grace was that given to mankind after the fall of Adam. He would redeem men unconditionally by the future obedience of Christ. This was expressed through the Abrahamic covenant. God granted Abraham, unconditionally, the promise of a future land, and seed. This was pure gospel, with no hint of law. God would bring Christ through the seed of Abraham, and bring the true sons of Abraham by faith into the New Jerusalem. Thus it is right to call the Abrahamic administration one of grace or of gospel rather than a covenant which contains both principles within it.
The Mosaic covenant on the other hand was a covenant of works. Through Moses, God gave the law. This law was not given primarily to show the Israelites how to live in the Promised Land, but to show them that they could not earn the Promised Land through their obedience to the Torah. Recently, a group of Lutheran scholars composed a book of essays, taken from the Concordia Symposium, on the Law of God in Holy Scripture. Several of the essays in this book argue that the law was given in view of God’s already gracious redemption of his people. Though the dogmatic third use of the law is present within the Mosaic legislation, it is not primary. The view promoted is fundamentally an abandonment of Luther’s insistence of the primacy of the pedagogical use of the law. To support the idea that the law’s purpose is primarily to condemn one must see the Mosaic administration as a covenant of works. It is, in contrast to the Abrahamic promise, primarily law and not gospel.
Aspects of the gospel given to Abraham do appear in the Mosaic Law, such as the priesthood and sacrificial system. These were types of Christ who would come as the fulfillment of both covenants. These, however should be seen as gradual fulfillment of the unconditional promise given to Abraham. That the Mosaic administration is primarily of law or works rather than gospel or grace, is evident by the mere fact that through disobedience of it’s stipulations Israel was removed from their land. This shows the conditional nature of God’s promise to Moses. Israel would gain the land if they obeyed Torah. This is directly opposed to the promise of Abraham which is given with no conditions.
The covenant of works, or administration of law, given to Moses is essentially a republication of what happened in the garden. People in the land are offered life through obedience as was Adam. However, in contrast to Adam, the Israelites were not able to keep the law unto life because they have been born in original sin. Thus the law given to Israel was not meant to bring life but to show them that they could not gain it through their obedience. Its goal was condemnation.
This seems to be the way Paul himself understands the law gospel contrast. He contrasts the covenant of Moses with that of Abraham. “This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.”(Galatians 3:17-18 ESV) Thus the distinction in Reformed theology between the covenant of grace and the covenant of works is parallel to Paul’s distinction between the law and the promise. The law gospel contrast should be understood, not only in dogmatic categories, but also in redemptive historical categories.
Though many in the Reformed tradition have rejected this covenant of grace and covenant of works distinction because, they claim it is too Lutheran, many in the reformed church use these categories to uphold Luther’s distinction between law and gospel. Though the Lutheran church need not speak in the same covenantal categories as the reformed, we can gain a better redemptive historical understanding of our basic hermeneutical principle through the bicovenantal reformed community. Men like Meredith Kline, Michael Horton, and Jeong Koo Jeon, have done much to defend the distinction without which scripture is a closed book.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle is in the prelapsarian covenant of works. This idea states that before the fall, God placed Adam as the federal representative of mankind able to eat of the tree of life by his obedience or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil by his disobedience. To many, this seems to promote a salvation apart from grace, thus overthrows the central principle of sola fide. However, grace is a term used for unmerited favor in the postlapsarian state. Though one may be motivated by trying to see a fuller use of the grace of God it ultimately removes it from its soteriological context. Adam did not sin, thus did not need to be justified by faith. He was created in righteousness, and need not earn it but maintain it. Adam is not in the same state as fallen mankind, and one not treat him as such unless one wants to fall into a Pelagian error. This does not mean that God need reward man for his obedience to his creational function. However, in the arrangement God graciously chose to do so. However, this needs to be distinguished from the grace given to ungodly sinful humanity.
Was this arrangement made in the garden a covenant? There has been much debate in Reformed circles of the nature of covenant and how this relates to the Adamic state. In Lutheran Dogmatics, using the law/gospel distinction rather than a strict covenantal distinction, this need not be important. What we do see, however, is that Adam could have earned life by his obedience. Essentially, Adam was living under law. This protects against any kind of Pelagian or semi-Pelagian system which tries to equate the state of man now with that of man in the garden. It is worthy to note that in Roman Catholic theology Adam was in a state of grace before the fall. Rather than being essentially righteous and falling into a state of total depravity, Adam was given, sanctifying grace which was lost in the fall. Thus the fall was simply a negation of a gift, not a true fall into a depraved state.
After the fall, any kind of law could not bring man unto salvation. He had lost his essential righteousness and could not earn life through his obedience whether this would be through congruous or condign merit. Only Adam could earn life by obedience even if graciously rewarded.
This idea of Adam under law, rather than grace, is helpful not only because it guards against Pelagianism, but because it helps explain Paul’s Adam Christology. Christ was created as the second representative of mankind. He was in the state of Adam. Christ was offered life through his obedience as was Adam. This is a pure state of law, not grace. Christ was not righteous by his faith alone or by grace, but by works. Thus Christ fulfilled the law that Adam failed to keep and therefore earned the righteousness that Adam failed to. This righteousness is then imputed to his sheep.
The reformed distinction between a “covenant of works” and a “covenant of grace” is used to describe the difference between the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations. The covenant of grace was that given to mankind after the fall of Adam. He would redeem men unconditionally by the future obedience of Christ. This was expressed through the Abrahamic covenant. God granted Abraham, unconditionally, the promise of a future land, and seed. This was pure gospel, with no hint of law. God would bring Christ through the seed of Abraham, and bring the true sons of Abraham by faith into the New Jerusalem. Thus it is right to call the Abrahamic administration one of grace or of gospel rather than a covenant which contains both principles within it.
The Mosaic covenant on the other hand was a covenant of works. Through Moses, God gave the law. This law was not given primarily to show the Israelites how to live in the Promised Land, but to show them that they could not earn the Promised Land through their obedience to the Torah. Recently, a group of Lutheran scholars composed a book of essays, taken from the Concordia Symposium, on the Law of God in Holy Scripture. Several of the essays in this book argue that the law was given in view of God’s already gracious redemption of his people. Though the dogmatic third use of the law is present within the Mosaic legislation, it is not primary. The view promoted is fundamentally an abandonment of Luther’s insistence of the primacy of the pedagogical use of the law. To support the idea that the law’s purpose is primarily to condemn one must see the Mosaic administration as a covenant of works. It is, in contrast to the Abrahamic promise, primarily law and not gospel.
Aspects of the gospel given to Abraham do appear in the Mosaic Law, such as the priesthood and sacrificial system. These were types of Christ who would come as the fulfillment of both covenants. These, however should be seen as gradual fulfillment of the unconditional promise given to Abraham. That the Mosaic administration is primarily of law or works rather than gospel or grace, is evident by the mere fact that through disobedience of it’s stipulations Israel was removed from their land. This shows the conditional nature of God’s promise to Moses. Israel would gain the land if they obeyed Torah. This is directly opposed to the promise of Abraham which is given with no conditions.
The covenant of works, or administration of law, given to Moses is essentially a republication of what happened in the garden. People in the land are offered life through obedience as was Adam. However, in contrast to Adam, the Israelites were not able to keep the law unto life because they have been born in original sin. Thus the law given to Israel was not meant to bring life but to show them that they could not gain it through their obedience. Its goal was condemnation.
This seems to be the way Paul himself understands the law gospel contrast. He contrasts the covenant of Moses with that of Abraham. “This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.”(Galatians 3:17-18 ESV) Thus the distinction in Reformed theology between the covenant of grace and the covenant of works is parallel to Paul’s distinction between the law and the promise. The law gospel contrast should be understood, not only in dogmatic categories, but also in redemptive historical categories.
Though many in the Reformed tradition have rejected this covenant of grace and covenant of works distinction because, they claim it is too Lutheran, many in the reformed church use these categories to uphold Luther’s distinction between law and gospel. Though the Lutheran church need not speak in the same covenantal categories as the reformed, we can gain a better redemptive historical understanding of our basic hermeneutical principle through the bicovenantal reformed community. Men like Meredith Kline, Michael Horton, and Jeong Koo Jeon, have done much to defend the distinction without which scripture is a closed book.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The Lutheran Response part 2
The reformed argue that when scripture declares that Christ is seated at the right hand of the father he must be present nowhere else according to his human nature. It was argued by Chemnits, Luther, Melancthon and others that this statement was one of status rather than locality. Christ’s being seated at God’s right hand is a statement of his authority. Does God have a literal body on a throne he sits on with Christ sitting beside Him? This is an absurd thought.
Now that it is has been shown that scripture allows for and in fact teaches the omnipresence of the whole Christ, the question to be asked is if he is specially present within the supper. The words of institution are some of the most debated words of the New Testament. When Jesus says “this is my body”, what does he mean? Luther’s one time pupil, Andreas Carlstadt argued that when Jesus said these words he was pointing to his literal body, not to the bread. This interpretation was foolish and abandoned quickly. The reformed and Anabaptists tried to argue that these words of Jesus were merely symbolic. Which word in the phrase “this is my body” is a symbol? It was argued by some that the word body was symbolic. However, this would deny that the following phrase “broken for you” referred to his actual bodily crucifixion. This interpretation had also been largely abandoned.
The majority Reformed position on Jesus words were that Jesus was using the word “is” to mean “represent.” Jesus was saying to the disciples, “this represents my body.” Lutheran theologians argued that there was no reason to take these words in a non-literal fashion. Did Jesus ever use this type of language symbolically in other circumstances? It was argued that when Jesus says things such as “I am the vine” he is using a similar figure of speech. Is Jesus literally a vine? No, of course he is not. However, that does not mean that these two statements are parallel. Note than in the second saying, it is not the word “is” that is symbolic. Rather it is the word “vine.” Jesus really is the vine. The question is, what does vine mean? No statement of Jesus in the gospels necessitates a symbolic understanding of the word is. Even if it could be argued that it is a possibility that the word could be used in such a way as to mean represents, the burden of proof would lay on the Reformed side. It needs to be shown that the word need not be used in its usual sense.
It is also argued against the Lutheran doctrine that if Jesus means that the bread literally is his body, then it would support a doctrine of transubstantiation rather than sacramental union. For the Lutheran doctrine to be true, Jesus must have meant “my body is in, with and under this bread.” However, it is not the case that for Jesus to admit that his body is present, it would deny that the bread is also present. It is a common figure of speech to, for example, hold a glass filled with water and say “this is water.” It would not be in any way denying the fact that the glass was present as well. No one would argue that it must mean that I was stating my entire glass was transubstantiated into water. The argument simply does not account for the way speech works.
There is one other passage which is widely debated between both theological positions. This is 1 Corinthians 10:16, “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?” It is clear in this verse that through the wine, we are participating in his actual blood, and through the bread, his body. It has been urged by some, including Zwingli, that the body refers not to God’s actual body but to the church. This interpretation makes some sense, however what about the previous statement about participating in the blood of Christ? Zwingli argued that this also was a reference to the church since the church was identified by and covered by the blood of Christ. However, there is no reference in the New Testament or early church writings which calls the church “the blood of Christ.”
Calvin saw that Zwingli was flawed. This is why he believed in an actual participation of his body and blood. However, Calvin was already committed to the idea that Christ’s human nature could not be omnipresent. Thus, he developed a new formula which involved the Spirit causing the soul to ascend to heaven. Lutheran theologians argued against this proposition in three ways. First of all, the Bible simply does not mention any such action. The Spirit is not ever spoken of as being an instrument in bringing us Christ through the supper. If it is not exegetically supportable, it should not be accepted. Secondly, the idea of us ascending to God is contrary to the message of the New Testament. The gospel is about Christ descending to save us. Thus, the supper as a visible form of the gospel, unless otherwise stated in Scripture, should be seen to work the same way. Thirdly, this idea is based upon the assumption that Christ cannot be present in his human nature in more than one place. This has already been shown to be unproven.
The final attack of the Lutheran dogmatists against the Calvinistic theory of the Eucharist is that the Calvinists believe that Christ is present only by faith. There is no presence of Christ for the unbeliever. Much of the argument came from John 6:63 which says, “the Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing.” How can Jesus’ life giving bread be given to those who are in the flesh? For this verse to have any bearing upon the discussion, it must be shown that this chapter is about the Eucharist. If this chapter is shown to be about the Eucharist, it contains several statements which prove the Lutheran doctrine of the presence of Christ’s human nature. “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians point to the fact that unbelievers do partake of Christ’s body and blood, but rather than unto life, unto judgement. “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” Paul sees those who partake unworthily of sinning against the actual body and blood of the Lord, not of a symbol. This offense was so serious that God killed members of the congregation for doing so.
Calvin’s position, as a compromise corrected several of the errors in Zwingli’s exegesis. However, he still held to assumptions that controlled his reading of the crucial passages of the text, not allowing them to speak for themselves. Luther was justified in not accepting Zwingli’s hand of fellowship. Perhaps if the meeting had been with Calvin the results would have been different.
Now that it is has been shown that scripture allows for and in fact teaches the omnipresence of the whole Christ, the question to be asked is if he is specially present within the supper. The words of institution are some of the most debated words of the New Testament. When Jesus says “this is my body”, what does he mean? Luther’s one time pupil, Andreas Carlstadt argued that when Jesus said these words he was pointing to his literal body, not to the bread. This interpretation was foolish and abandoned quickly. The reformed and Anabaptists tried to argue that these words of Jesus were merely symbolic. Which word in the phrase “this is my body” is a symbol? It was argued by some that the word body was symbolic. However, this would deny that the following phrase “broken for you” referred to his actual bodily crucifixion. This interpretation had also been largely abandoned.
The majority Reformed position on Jesus words were that Jesus was using the word “is” to mean “represent.” Jesus was saying to the disciples, “this represents my body.” Lutheran theologians argued that there was no reason to take these words in a non-literal fashion. Did Jesus ever use this type of language symbolically in other circumstances? It was argued that when Jesus says things such as “I am the vine” he is using a similar figure of speech. Is Jesus literally a vine? No, of course he is not. However, that does not mean that these two statements are parallel. Note than in the second saying, it is not the word “is” that is symbolic. Rather it is the word “vine.” Jesus really is the vine. The question is, what does vine mean? No statement of Jesus in the gospels necessitates a symbolic understanding of the word is. Even if it could be argued that it is a possibility that the word could be used in such a way as to mean represents, the burden of proof would lay on the Reformed side. It needs to be shown that the word need not be used in its usual sense.
It is also argued against the Lutheran doctrine that if Jesus means that the bread literally is his body, then it would support a doctrine of transubstantiation rather than sacramental union. For the Lutheran doctrine to be true, Jesus must have meant “my body is in, with and under this bread.” However, it is not the case that for Jesus to admit that his body is present, it would deny that the bread is also present. It is a common figure of speech to, for example, hold a glass filled with water and say “this is water.” It would not be in any way denying the fact that the glass was present as well. No one would argue that it must mean that I was stating my entire glass was transubstantiated into water. The argument simply does not account for the way speech works.
There is one other passage which is widely debated between both theological positions. This is 1 Corinthians 10:16, “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?” It is clear in this verse that through the wine, we are participating in his actual blood, and through the bread, his body. It has been urged by some, including Zwingli, that the body refers not to God’s actual body but to the church. This interpretation makes some sense, however what about the previous statement about participating in the blood of Christ? Zwingli argued that this also was a reference to the church since the church was identified by and covered by the blood of Christ. However, there is no reference in the New Testament or early church writings which calls the church “the blood of Christ.”
Calvin saw that Zwingli was flawed. This is why he believed in an actual participation of his body and blood. However, Calvin was already committed to the idea that Christ’s human nature could not be omnipresent. Thus, he developed a new formula which involved the Spirit causing the soul to ascend to heaven. Lutheran theologians argued against this proposition in three ways. First of all, the Bible simply does not mention any such action. The Spirit is not ever spoken of as being an instrument in bringing us Christ through the supper. If it is not exegetically supportable, it should not be accepted. Secondly, the idea of us ascending to God is contrary to the message of the New Testament. The gospel is about Christ descending to save us. Thus, the supper as a visible form of the gospel, unless otherwise stated in Scripture, should be seen to work the same way. Thirdly, this idea is based upon the assumption that Christ cannot be present in his human nature in more than one place. This has already been shown to be unproven.
The final attack of the Lutheran dogmatists against the Calvinistic theory of the Eucharist is that the Calvinists believe that Christ is present only by faith. There is no presence of Christ for the unbeliever. Much of the argument came from John 6:63 which says, “the Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing.” How can Jesus’ life giving bread be given to those who are in the flesh? For this verse to have any bearing upon the discussion, it must be shown that this chapter is about the Eucharist. If this chapter is shown to be about the Eucharist, it contains several statements which prove the Lutheran doctrine of the presence of Christ’s human nature. “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians point to the fact that unbelievers do partake of Christ’s body and blood, but rather than unto life, unto judgement. “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” Paul sees those who partake unworthily of sinning against the actual body and blood of the Lord, not of a symbol. This offense was so serious that God killed members of the congregation for doing so.
Calvin’s position, as a compromise corrected several of the errors in Zwingli’s exegesis. However, he still held to assumptions that controlled his reading of the crucial passages of the text, not allowing them to speak for themselves. Luther was justified in not accepting Zwingli’s hand of fellowship. Perhaps if the meeting had been with Calvin the results would have been different.
The Lutheran Response to Calvin
After Calvin published his Institutes as well as his several treatises on the Lord ’s Supper, many Lutherans quickly rose up to begin writing in defense of the doctrine which they held so sacred. This time however, they were not writing against someone who gave barely any importance to the sacrament but one who fought for its sacredness.
The two main exegetical issues in this debate were the words of institution and the issue of whether or not Christ’s human body was communicated omnipresence. First of all, some issues needed to be cleared up in regards to common misunderstandings of the Lutheran view of the Eucharist. First of all, the charge was often brought and continues to be against the Lutheran church that they teach “consubstantiation.” The word in itself is not necessarily problematic, and a few Lutheran dogmatists have used it. However, along with the word comes great misunderstanding. There was an older position in the medieval church which was called “consubstantiation” or “impanation” to where the physical body of Jesus was implanted within the elements of bread and wine. The problem with this is that it explains too much. The Lutheran church has never tried to explain how the whole Jesus is present in bread and wine, but that he is. The words “in, with, and under” commonly used in Lutheran theology are simply ways to try to get across the idea that somehow Jesus is there when the recipient receives the Eucharist.
Another important thing that needs to be discussed is that the Lutheran church does not believe in the necessary or local omnipresence of the body of Christ. Christ in his human nature is not omnipresent in and of itself, for that would destroy his humanity. However, due to the unified person of Christ, the attributes of the divine nature are communicated to the human nature. It is by gift, not by nature. Also, Christ’s body is not locally present in all places. In other words, there are different modes of presence. The body of Christ was on earth before the ascension in a local manner which is different from the manner in which he was present afterwards. As Jesus himself testifies, “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” The Lutheran divines saw this statement as showing that Jesus, while he would not be present in the same manner he was with the disciples, would be present with his church for all time. The question now to be asked is if this is only according to his divine nature that he is present or according to both natures. Exegetically the second option is preferable.
If the divine nature is present everywhere, while the human nature is present only at the right hand of the Father, then most of the person of Jesus is without his human nature. This means that only a small part of his divinity had become incarnate. It was the Lutheran contention that if Jesus was truly incarnate, it was all of Jesus, thus wherever he is, there is both his human and divine nature. Is this taught anywhere directly in scripture? Observe Paul’s statement in Ephesians 4, “He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe” This speaks of Christ’s ascension to fill the whole universe. If this were merely about his divine nature, then one would have to admit that Paul believes Christ to have been omnipresent in his divine nature only after the incarnation. Since this destroys his deity, it is untenable. Thus, Paul must be referring to Christ in his human nature. The reformed position must force its own theology into the text. When Matthew wrote that Jesus was to be with the church always, is there any evidence that he was thinking of the divinity of Christ apart from his humanity? It is nowhere in the text.
This is further proven by the fact that Christ is said many times in scripture to gain attributes of deity in time. As God of course, he already had these attributes. Thus, they must have been given in time to his human nature. For example in Philippians 2, Paul speaks of Christ gaining a name that is above every name by his death on the cross, not by nature. He was exalted because of his obedience. Jesus in John 3:35 is said to have been given all things by the father. Parallel expressions are found in Matthew 11:27, and Luke 10:22. If he has truly been given all things then he is according to his whole person omnipotent. This cannot refer to his divine nature unless one resorts to subordinationism. As American Lutheran theologian Charles Krauth says, “Christ, then, has received according to one nature, to wit, the human, what He intrinsically possessed in the other, to wit, in the divine, or, as it has been expressed, Whatever Christ has in the one nature by essence, He partakes of in the other by grace- and this is the doctrine of our Church.” Jesus is seen in the gospels to disappear at times, and even to walk through walls. These are attributes, not of humanity but of deity. They must have been communicated to the human nature. Jesus confessed before his disciples, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”. The man Jesus said this to his disciples. There is no reason to believe this refers to his divine nature alone. This interpretation is not a new one with the emergence of Protestantism but was taught by several highly esteemed fathers of the church. Athanasius says, “Whatever the scripture declares that Christ had received in time, it affirms with reference to his humanity, not with reference to his deity.” The book of Concord contains an appendix with several quotes of Patristic sources showing this to be a historic teaching.
The two main exegetical issues in this debate were the words of institution and the issue of whether or not Christ’s human body was communicated omnipresence. First of all, some issues needed to be cleared up in regards to common misunderstandings of the Lutheran view of the Eucharist. First of all, the charge was often brought and continues to be against the Lutheran church that they teach “consubstantiation.” The word in itself is not necessarily problematic, and a few Lutheran dogmatists have used it. However, along with the word comes great misunderstanding. There was an older position in the medieval church which was called “consubstantiation” or “impanation” to where the physical body of Jesus was implanted within the elements of bread and wine. The problem with this is that it explains too much. The Lutheran church has never tried to explain how the whole Jesus is present in bread and wine, but that he is. The words “in, with, and under” commonly used in Lutheran theology are simply ways to try to get across the idea that somehow Jesus is there when the recipient receives the Eucharist.
Another important thing that needs to be discussed is that the Lutheran church does not believe in the necessary or local omnipresence of the body of Christ. Christ in his human nature is not omnipresent in and of itself, for that would destroy his humanity. However, due to the unified person of Christ, the attributes of the divine nature are communicated to the human nature. It is by gift, not by nature. Also, Christ’s body is not locally present in all places. In other words, there are different modes of presence. The body of Christ was on earth before the ascension in a local manner which is different from the manner in which he was present afterwards. As Jesus himself testifies, “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” The Lutheran divines saw this statement as showing that Jesus, while he would not be present in the same manner he was with the disciples, would be present with his church for all time. The question now to be asked is if this is only according to his divine nature that he is present or according to both natures. Exegetically the second option is preferable.
If the divine nature is present everywhere, while the human nature is present only at the right hand of the Father, then most of the person of Jesus is without his human nature. This means that only a small part of his divinity had become incarnate. It was the Lutheran contention that if Jesus was truly incarnate, it was all of Jesus, thus wherever he is, there is both his human and divine nature. Is this taught anywhere directly in scripture? Observe Paul’s statement in Ephesians 4, “He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe” This speaks of Christ’s ascension to fill the whole universe. If this were merely about his divine nature, then one would have to admit that Paul believes Christ to have been omnipresent in his divine nature only after the incarnation. Since this destroys his deity, it is untenable. Thus, Paul must be referring to Christ in his human nature. The reformed position must force its own theology into the text. When Matthew wrote that Jesus was to be with the church always, is there any evidence that he was thinking of the divinity of Christ apart from his humanity? It is nowhere in the text.
This is further proven by the fact that Christ is said many times in scripture to gain attributes of deity in time. As God of course, he already had these attributes. Thus, they must have been given in time to his human nature. For example in Philippians 2, Paul speaks of Christ gaining a name that is above every name by his death on the cross, not by nature. He was exalted because of his obedience. Jesus in John 3:35 is said to have been given all things by the father. Parallel expressions are found in Matthew 11:27, and Luke 10:22. If he has truly been given all things then he is according to his whole person omnipotent. This cannot refer to his divine nature unless one resorts to subordinationism. As American Lutheran theologian Charles Krauth says, “Christ, then, has received according to one nature, to wit, the human, what He intrinsically possessed in the other, to wit, in the divine, or, as it has been expressed, Whatever Christ has in the one nature by essence, He partakes of in the other by grace- and this is the doctrine of our Church.” Jesus is seen in the gospels to disappear at times, and even to walk through walls. These are attributes, not of humanity but of deity. They must have been communicated to the human nature. Jesus confessed before his disciples, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”. The man Jesus said this to his disciples. There is no reason to believe this refers to his divine nature alone. This interpretation is not a new one with the emergence of Protestantism but was taught by several highly esteemed fathers of the church. Athanasius says, “Whatever the scripture declares that Christ had received in time, it affirms with reference to his humanity, not with reference to his deity.” The book of Concord contains an appendix with several quotes of Patristic sources showing this to be a historic teaching.
Calvin on the Eucharist
After Zwingli’s death, John Calvin became the leader of the Reformed branch of the reformation. Calvin greatly admired Luther and looked at him much more highly than he did Zwingli. In his reply to Sadoletto, Calvin even referred to himself as a Lutheran. This being the case, Calvin tried to make a compromise between the Zwinglian and Lutheran positions of the Lord’s Supper. Calvin sent letters to Luther by means of his friend and Luther’s pupil Philip Melancthon. However, fearing that Luther had become too grumpy in his old age for debate, Melancthon refused to give these letters to his teacher.
Calvin outlines his position in his most famous work, the Institutes of the Christian Religion. He refutes the doctrine of Transubstantiation as did theologians of every branch of the Reformation because it promoted a resacrifice of Jesus and was based not on exegesis, but on Aristotelian logic. In the beginning of his discussion, Calvin wishes to take the focus off of the issue of the presence of Christ in the supper to focus on what he sees as its prime purpose. “It is not the chief function of the Sacrament simply and without higher consideration to extend to us the body of Christ. Rather, it is to seal and confirm that promise by which he testifies that his flesh is blood indeed and his food is drink that leads us to eternal life.” For the Lutheran reformers, he testifies to his promise by giving us his body. They are not two separate purposes but one.
Calvin then tries to explain how he believes that Christ is both present bodily in heaven, and we can be partakers of his body and blood.
"Even though it seems unbelievable that Christ’s flesh, separated from us by such great distance, penetrates to us, so that it becomes our food, let us remember how far the secret power of the Holy Spirit towers above all our senses, and how foolish it is to wish to measure his immeasurableness by our measure."
Calvin introduces a third element into this discussion which was not before present; the role of the Spirit. For Calvin, we truly partake of Christ, but do so not because his whole person is present to us, but because the Spirit causes it to happen mysteriously. The Spirit causes our soul to ascend to heaven to partake of the whole person of Christ. It is important to remember that we are actually partaking in Christ. “For why should the Lord put in your hand the symbol of his body except to assure you of a true participation in it?”
Calvin denies the doctrine proposed by Luther that the attribute of omnipresence is communicated to the human nature of Christ by the divine.
"For as we do not doubt that Christ’s body is limited by the general characteristics common to all human bodies, and is contained in heaven (where it was once for all received) until Christ return in judgment [Acts 3:21], so we deem it utterly unlawful to draw it back under these corruptible elements or to imagine it be present everywhere."
For Calvin, Christ at the ascension was seated at the right hand of the father, and would remain there until he returned. Thus we should not expect his body to be anywhere else. If the human nature were to be in more than one place at a time it would simply cease to be truly human. He fears that the Lutheran doctrine intermingles the two natures too much that it is in danger of supporting monophysitism. As Luther believed the reformed separated the natures too much, Calvin believed they emphasized the unity of his person to a dangerous extent.
Calvin believed Christ’s words of institution to be symbolic. When saying “this is my body” Christ was saying that it was his body, not in a literal sense but in a sacramental sense. “Christ’s words are not subject to the common rule and ought not to be tested by grammar.” Calvin supports this figurative view of the words of institution by pointing to other places in the Bible where figurative language is used. For example, Paul says that the rock the Israelites drank from “was Christ.” He also points to the common anthropomorphisms in the Old Testament.
Calvin goes on to argue why he believes the human nature of Christ to be in heaven and their alone. He points to the passages in which Christ tells the disciples he is to depart from this world. He claims that the Lutherans make Christ’s human body into a phantom in a docetic manner. Calvin argues that in the supper, Christ does not come down to us to feast; rather we are lifted up to him.
The final disagreement which Calvin has with Luther and his followers is the presence of Christ in the supper for unbelievers. Luther believed that Christ was present for the believing for their salvation, and the unbelieving for their condemnation. Calvin denied this saying, “all those who are devoid of Christ’s Spirit can no more eat Christ’s flesh than drink wine that has no taste.”
Calvin outlines his position in his most famous work, the Institutes of the Christian Religion. He refutes the doctrine of Transubstantiation as did theologians of every branch of the Reformation because it promoted a resacrifice of Jesus and was based not on exegesis, but on Aristotelian logic. In the beginning of his discussion, Calvin wishes to take the focus off of the issue of the presence of Christ in the supper to focus on what he sees as its prime purpose. “It is not the chief function of the Sacrament simply and without higher consideration to extend to us the body of Christ. Rather, it is to seal and confirm that promise by which he testifies that his flesh is blood indeed and his food is drink that leads us to eternal life.” For the Lutheran reformers, he testifies to his promise by giving us his body. They are not two separate purposes but one.
Calvin then tries to explain how he believes that Christ is both present bodily in heaven, and we can be partakers of his body and blood.
"Even though it seems unbelievable that Christ’s flesh, separated from us by such great distance, penetrates to us, so that it becomes our food, let us remember how far the secret power of the Holy Spirit towers above all our senses, and how foolish it is to wish to measure his immeasurableness by our measure."
Calvin introduces a third element into this discussion which was not before present; the role of the Spirit. For Calvin, we truly partake of Christ, but do so not because his whole person is present to us, but because the Spirit causes it to happen mysteriously. The Spirit causes our soul to ascend to heaven to partake of the whole person of Christ. It is important to remember that we are actually partaking in Christ. “For why should the Lord put in your hand the symbol of his body except to assure you of a true participation in it?”
Calvin denies the doctrine proposed by Luther that the attribute of omnipresence is communicated to the human nature of Christ by the divine.
"For as we do not doubt that Christ’s body is limited by the general characteristics common to all human bodies, and is contained in heaven (where it was once for all received) until Christ return in judgment [Acts 3:21], so we deem it utterly unlawful to draw it back under these corruptible elements or to imagine it be present everywhere."
For Calvin, Christ at the ascension was seated at the right hand of the father, and would remain there until he returned. Thus we should not expect his body to be anywhere else. If the human nature were to be in more than one place at a time it would simply cease to be truly human. He fears that the Lutheran doctrine intermingles the two natures too much that it is in danger of supporting monophysitism. As Luther believed the reformed separated the natures too much, Calvin believed they emphasized the unity of his person to a dangerous extent.
Calvin believed Christ’s words of institution to be symbolic. When saying “this is my body” Christ was saying that it was his body, not in a literal sense but in a sacramental sense. “Christ’s words are not subject to the common rule and ought not to be tested by grammar.” Calvin supports this figurative view of the words of institution by pointing to other places in the Bible where figurative language is used. For example, Paul says that the rock the Israelites drank from “was Christ.” He also points to the common anthropomorphisms in the Old Testament.
Calvin goes on to argue why he believes the human nature of Christ to be in heaven and their alone. He points to the passages in which Christ tells the disciples he is to depart from this world. He claims that the Lutherans make Christ’s human body into a phantom in a docetic manner. Calvin argues that in the supper, Christ does not come down to us to feast; rather we are lifted up to him.
The final disagreement which Calvin has with Luther and his followers is the presence of Christ in the supper for unbelievers. Luther believed that Christ was present for the believing for their salvation, and the unbelieving for their condemnation. Calvin denied this saying, “all those who are devoid of Christ’s Spirit can no more eat Christ’s flesh than drink wine that has no taste.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)