John Chrysostom's Comments on Psalm 45

"While the first Adam was filled with countless curses, this person by contrast with him is filled with every blessing. The former heard the words, "You are cursed in your works," and the one after him again, "Cursed is the one who does not adhere to what is written in this book," and "Cursed is the one hanged on a tree." Do you see the number of curses? Christ in becoming a curse freed you from these. As he humbled himself to exalt you, and died to render you immortal, so too he became a curse to fill you with blessing. What could match this blessing, when through a curse you regaled with blessing? Not that he himself stood in need of blessing, of course, but rather that he gives it to you. You see, just as when I say that he was humbled I imply not change but that considerateness of the Incarnation, so to when I say he was blessed I do not imply that he needed blessing but again I demonstrate the considerateness of the Incarnation. It was human nature, therefore, that was blessed. Christ, in fact, raised from the dead dies no more, and is not subject to a curse; rather, even before this he was not subject, but took on the curse so as to free you from it."

Hill, Robert Charles. John Chrysostom's Commentary on the Psalms Volume 1. Brookline: Holy Orthodox Press, 1998. Page 265

Clarifying the issue of equal ultimacy

I was asked by a reader to discuss the issue of equal ultimacy.

Equal ultimacy is the idea that God predestines men to wrath in the same way that he predestines men to life. There is an exact parallel between election to salvation and reprobation. This position in Calvinist theology is labelled "supralapsarianism." God decrees both salvation and reprobation, and then decrees the fall as the means of bringing this about.

This is distinguished from the "infralapsarianism" in which election and reprobation are described as two separate acts. Election is God's active choice of certain fallen men unto salvation; reprobation is God's passive allowance of the non-elect to remain in their fallen state. In other words, God chooses some for salvation out of the sinful lump of humanity while leaving the rest in their sin.

These two positions are sometimes placed under a logical order (as opposed to a temporal order, since God transcends time) of God's decrees.

The supralapsarian "order of decrees" are as follows:

1. God decrees to glorify Himself in election and reprobation
2. God decrees the fall as a means of bringing about election and reprobation
3. God decrees the death of Christ for the elect

And the infralapsarian view:

1. God decrees the fall
2. In view of the fall, God decrees the salvation of some, while allowing the rest to remain in their sin.
3. God decrees the death of Christ for the elect

This is an important distinction to make, because Lutherans too often characterize all Calvinists as being guilty of equal ultimacy, while infralapsarianism is the predominant view. Infralapsarianism is less problematic as it avoids making God the author of sin. However, both positions are inadequate for a couple of reasons.

First, both positions are based on a theology of glory wherein one is concerned with the eternal decrees of God, rather than God's revelation in Christ--God hidden rather than God revealed--God in Himself rather than God preached. While this may be an interesting intellectual exercise, it leads one far beyond the Biblical material on the issue. I highly doubt that Paul was contemplating the order of God's decrees as he penned the epistle to the Ephesians.

Second, both of these positions place election as the central soteriological motif rather than the cross. The cross becomes merely the means of bringing about predestination--hence limited atonement. In Lutheran (and Pauline) theology, election is God's choice to bring us to the cross. This is why election is always "in Christ." The cross is at the center, and whatever other soteriological benefits are given are in view of this.

Lex Semper Accusat: A Response to TurretinFan

I was recently pointed to the blog of TurretinFan, the anonymous blogger of Aomin fame, for his recent attacks on proponents of two kingdom theology. There was a bit of a back and forth between himself and R. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary California. In a recent post, he even claimed that "Escondido Theology" (the theology of Michael Horton, R. Scott Clark, David VanDrunen, Darryl Hart, and others) was a cause for conversions to Roman Catholicism.

What is the problem with these theologians? Well, apparently they are too Lutheran. Regardless of whether or not TurretinFan's interpretation of historic Reformed orthodoxy is correct on the issue of two kingdoms (which for some reason always has the word "radical" attached to it), TurretinFan has been attacking at least the historic Lutheran doctrine which he apparently does not understand. I know that TurretinFan is capable of reading, understanding, and refuting arguments well. I have seen him do so on several occasions. However, when it comes to Lutheranism, TurretinFan has not done his homework. A recent post has made this apparent.

In this post titled "Lex Semper Accusat? Does the Law Always Accuse?", TurretinFan claims that the statement that "the Law always accuses" is "theologically inaccurate." The first argument made by TurretinFan is that Christ was not accused by the law, but fulfilled the law. Disregarding the fact that Christ certainly did fall under the accusation of the law (isn't this the purpose of the cross?), one must ask: did the Lutheran fathers use this statement in such a way as to ignore the fact that Christ did not break the law?
Of course not! The statement Lex Semper Accusat is used in a very specific context. This statement appears in the Lutheran Confessional documents in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession several times. Here is one such example of its use:

"The Law worketh wrath. He does not say that by the Law men merit the remission of sins. For the Law always accuses and terrifies consciences. Therefore it does not justify, because conscience terrified by the Law of God flees from the judgement of God. Therefore they err who trust that by the Law, by their own works, they merit the remission of sins."- Apology IX.38.

Clearly, Melancthon is speaking in the context of fallen man and his justification before God. His statement has no reference to Christ, prelapsarian Adam, a Christian in the glorified state, or any such exception. Using TurretinFan's logic, one would have to call Paul's statement theologically incorrect that "all have sinned" because of the sinlessness of Christ. This however, is beyond the scope of the authors intended meaning.

The second point that TurretinFan makes is that the Law cannot always accuse because it has other functions.
But is this really the point that this statement is making? Do we Lutherans believe in one use of the Law--an accusatory one? Again, I say: of course not! Our Confessions are as explicit as can be on this issue.

"Since the law was given to men for three reasons: first, that thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men...secondly, that men may be led to the knowledge of their sins; thirdly, that after they are regenerate...they might on this account have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life"-Epitome of the Formula of Concord VI:1

So then what does the statement mean? It means that even when the Law is functioning in its other two manners, it is still accusing. When the Christian is looking to the Law as a moral guide for his good works, he still sees the inadequacy of his good deeds and is reminded of the all-sufficiency of his savior. This does not neglect the fact that the Christian does fulfill the Law to an extent, and truly does begin to love the Law as his guide. It is simply saying that he is still simul iustus et peccator.

TurretinFan's "refutation" of the slogan lex semper accusat is based on a misunderstanding of the statement, as well as ignorance of Confessional Lutheran theology. I certainly welcome challenges to Lutheran doctrine, but challenges which are well informed.

To be steeped in history is to cease being Reformed

Yes-the title of this post was taken from the oft repeated statement of Cardinal Newman after his conversion to Romanism "To be steeped in history is to cease being Protestant." Though I am theologically far removed from the Roman Catholic church, I cannot help but be sympathetic to this sentiment. Though it is not a primary area I have discussed on my blog, a study of historical theology was as influential to my conversion as was my exegetical work.

The question I pose is this: Could the Church have been wrong about so many central elements of Christian theology and practice for 1500 years?

As a Reformed Christian, I would have to answer yes--though I was not willing to admit that the gates of hell had prevailed against the church.
As I began to read through the church fathers and medieval theologians, there were several things I quickly noticed.

First, baptism is always seen as a means of regeneration. From Justin Martyr, to the apocryphal gospels and acts, to Tertullian, to Irenaeus, to Augustine, through the middle ages, there has never been a major theologian who has regarded baptism as a symbol (nor as entrance into an external covenant with no real soteriological benefits). I still have been unable to find a single writer who understood baptism in any other way than regeneration prior to the reformation.

Second, it is always an assumption that a Christian can fall away from grace. It is a consistent theme in the apostolic fathers that the Christian must not quit running the race, or else his salvation will be lost. This again is echoed through out the centuries. Augustine himself, while acknowledging the perseverance of the elect, believed that many who were baptized and regenerate would fall away. Again, I have not found a single writer who taught otherwise.

Third, no one limited saving grace to the elect. Yes, there are elements of what would later be labeled "limited atonement" in the early Prosper of Aquitaine, Fulgentius of Ruspe, and Gottschalk, but none of these theologians denied that non-elect believers had true regeneration, thus saving grace, for a time. Baptismal grace is seen as a universal gift, given to all who are baptized, regardless of their election.

Finally, there is no "regulative principle of worship" in the early or medieval church. From the first century, the church functioned by means of liturgy. The church calender played a pivotal role in spiritual formation through out the second and third centuries. The church functioned under an episcopal system, without any outcry to the contrary. At least in the conservative RPCNA circles I have been a part of, it is seen as sinful to worship in any manner other than that which is directly commanded by scripture-which in this view is a Presbyterian form of government, exclusive Psalmody in worship, and no spoken or chanted liturgy. If this is the case, one must admit that there was no real worship service from 100 AD until Calvin's Geneva.

These are only a few of the issues which I was unable to find in earlier church history; there are several more. If these, and other Reformed beliefs are true- how were they missed for 1500 years? Did everyone get it wrong? Did the Holy Spirit allow his church to fall into such error?

The history of the church is of course not an infallible authority as is the scripture. However, it should, if Christ's promise is true, at least be taken as a reliable guide for Biblical interpretation. If one is to disagree with the tradition of the church, there had better be rock solid exegetical reasons for doing so. In this case-it does not seem that there are.

Justification as a hermeneutical principle

I was asked to address the issue of justification and hermeneutics. In addition to the differences outlined in the previous post, is there a difference between the Reformed and Lutheran churches on hermeneutics? Does Lutheranism teach that the doctrine of justification itself is a hermeneutical principle, through which all scripture must be viewed?

First I must recommend Robert Preus' article: How is the Lutheran Church to Interpret and use the Old and New Testaments? in his volume "Essays on Scripture" Preus gives an excellent overview of how the Confessions themselves deal with this issue.

When it is said that Justification is a hermeneutical principle, this does not mean that every verse in scripture is directly referring to the imputed righteousness of Christ. Justification is used here in a broad sense, to mean more fully the work of Christ for us. The chief article as Luther defines it in the Smalcald Articles includes Christ's life, death, and resurrection as well as its personal application to his people in justification. To say that justification is a hermeneutical principle is simply to say that Christ himself is a hermeneutical principle. Jesus explains this to the disciples in Luke 24 "And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."

This does not mean that every verse must be forced to have direct reference to Christ. Nor does it mean, as some have claimed, that every verse is either law or gospel. What it does mean is that Christ's death and resurrection for sinners is at the center of the Biblical narrative as a whole, and no part of this grand story of redemption is isolated from this center.

I will give some examples as to how this principle works itself out. First, it is seen in all of God's promises of blessing. In Genesis, we read of the Patriarchs whom God promises a great seed. We then read of the severe failings of these Patriarchs, though this never hinders God's goodness toward them. Though there is no direct statement in the book of Genesis that the Messiah will come in the flesh, die a bloody death, and rise again, we through a Christological lens understand that this is ultimately the message that God is giving to the Patriarchs. The great seed which is promised to them is Christ himself. These promises are made continually to Noah, Moses, David, etc.

Second, this is seen through certain figures who are "Types" of Christ. Joseph for example is a type of Christ, as he is betrayed by his brothers and is good to them despite their betrayal. David is a type of Christ as the great godly king of Israel. Look at the famous story of David and Goliath. David, the humble shepherd, confronts the giant Goliath representing the enemies and oppressors of God's people: the Philistines. David, on behalf of the nation of Israel as a whole, slays the giant, defeating the enemies of Israel. This is a picture of Christ, the son of David, crushing the head of Satan, the ultimate enemy of God's people. These types permeate the Old Testament.

Third, all of the ceremonial laws of Israel are a picture of the spotless lamb who would lay down his life on behalf of his people. The sacrifices, and scapegoat are a picture of what Christ would accomplish on the cross. The purity laws are a picture of the sinless Son of God. The established offices in Israel: prophet, priest, and king all find their fulfillment in the Messiah. The nation of Israel itself is fulfilled in Jesus who is the true Israel.

Each Biblical book and story points in its own unique way to the culmination of redemptive history when the sinless Son of God laid down his life for the world, conquering sin, death, and the devil, as well as his victorious resurrection from the dead. This is what it means that justification is a hermeneutical principle.

Are there differences between Lutherans and Calvinists on Justification?

I was asked by a reader of this blog to address the issue of justification. More specifically, I was asked to address the relation between Lutheran and Reformed views of the doctrine. Are they agreed upon this issue?
There certainly are great similarities between the two confessions on the topic. Both understand justification as a forensic term referring to the imputation of righteousness to the believer, and a non-imputation of sin due to one's connection with the death of Christ. It is received by faith alone apart from good works.
This is not the end of the discussion-there are some serious differences.

For one, the Lutheran Confessions do not limit justification to its forensic aspects. Luther states, for example, in the Smalcald Articles Part III, Article XIII.1 "What I have hitherto and constantly taught concerning this I know not how to change in the least, namely, that by faith, as St Peter says, we acquire a new and clean heart, and God will and does account us entirely righteous and holy for the sake of Christ." Here, as well as in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (I can provide several citations if necessary), justification can be used in a forensic manner, or to refer to the initial change of heart in the Christian which is also wrought by faith. Later Lutheran tradition tended to equate justification more-so with the forensic element so as to not confuse justification and sanctification. The Formula of Concord makes a more clear distinction between justification and regeneration.

Lutherans have seen justification as the center of the ordo salutis. It is not merely one aspect of the reception of salvation for the Christian- it is the heart of all of the gifts given by Christ. There has been much debate in the Reformed world, especially in recent years, over this issue. Some have claimed that union with Christ, in contradistinction to Lutheranism, is the central soteriological motif for historic Calvinism. Justification is merely one blessing of many which flows from this union. Lutheranism, in general, has seen union with Christ as a consequent gift to justification. (Solid Declaration Article III:54)From my reading of Luther's 1535 Galatians commentary however, it seems that Luther sees justification as subsequent to union. Even so however, justification is still the central aspect of salvation, not union.

Perhaps more important than these other two distinctives is the sacramental context in which justification is placed in Lutheranism. The faith which justifies is not an immediate direct gift of the Spirit as in Calvinism; it is mediated through word and sacrament. For Lutherans, the statement "baptism justifies" is synonymous with "faith justifies." The reality of one's justification is then played out through partaking weekly of the Eucharist, and receiving Christ's forgiveness through the words of absolution. The Reformed would shy away from these statements, and see sacraments as covenant badges, not means of justification.

More Free Kindle Books

V.W. Richter- Why Should a Lutheran Not Join a Sectarian Church?
http://www.retroread.com/title/Why-should-a-Lutheran-not-join-any-sectarian-church%3F-by-V-W-Richter-ebook.html

David Henkel- Answer to Mr. Joseph Moore, the Methodist
http://www.retroread.com/title/Answer-to-Mr-Joseph-Moore-the-Methodist-by-David-Henkel-ebook.html

David Henkel- Against the Unitarians
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-treatise-on-the-person-and-incarnation-of-Jesus-Christ-in-which-some-of-the-principal-arguments-of-the-Unitarians-are-examined-by-David-Henkel-ebook.html

Theodore Emanuel Schmauk- How to Teach in Sunday School
http://www.retroread.com/title/How-to-teach-in-Sunday-school-by-Theodore-Emanuel-Schmauk-ebook.html

Lectures on the Augsburg Confession
http://www.retroread.com/title/Lectures-on-the-Augsburg-Confession-by-Theological-Seminary-of-the-General-Synod-of-the-Evangelical-Lutheran-Church-in-the-United-States-ebook.html

W.H. Dau- Reviews of the Work of the Missouri Synod During Three Quarters of a Century
http://www.retroread.com/title/Ebenezer-by-William-Herman-Theodore-Dau-ebook.html

Diedrich Henry Steffens- Dr. Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther
http://www.retroread.com/title/Doctor-Carl-Ferdinand-Wilhelm-Walther-by-Diedrich-Henry-Steffens-ebook.html

Johann Michael Rue- Homiletics
http://www.retroread.com/title/Homiletics-by-Johann-Michael-Reu-ebook.html

Martin Chemnitz- Enchiridion (in German)
http://www.retroread.com/title/Enchiridion-by-Martin-Chemnitz-ebook.html

Thomas Martin Lindsay- A History of the Reformation
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-history-of-the-reformation-by-Thomas-Martin-Lindsay-ebook.html

Henry Clay Vedder- The Reformation in Germany
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-reformation-in-Germany-by-Henry-Clay-Vedder-ebook.html

George Wilson- Philip Melancthon
http://www.retroread.com/title/Philip-Melanchthon-1497-1560-by-George-Wilson-ebook.html

Martin Luther- A Commentary on Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-commentary-on-Saint-Paul-s-Epistle-to-the-Galatians-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Table Talk
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-table-talk-of-Martin-Luther-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- On the Bondage of the Will
http://www.retroread.com/title/Martin-Luther-on-the-bondage-of-the-will-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Letters
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-letters-of-Martin-Luther-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Two Catechisms Explained by Himself
http://www.retroread.com/title/Luther-s-two-catechisms-explained-by-himself-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- House Postil
http://www.retroread.com/title/Dr-Martin-Luther-s-House-Postil-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Christmas Sermons
http://www.retroread.com/title/Luther-s-Christmas-sermons-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Harold Ulrik Svendrup- Explanation of Luther's Small Catechism
http://www.retroread.com/title/Explanation-of-Luther-s-Small-catechism-by-Harold-Ulrik-Sverdrup-ebook.html

Jan Hus- Letters Written During His Exile and Imprisonment
http://www.retroread.com/title/Letters-of-John-Huss-written-during-his-exile-and-imprisonment-by-Jan-Hus-ebook.html

Bernard of Clairvaux- On the Love of God
http://www.retroread.com/title/Saint-Bernard-on-the-love-of-God-tr-by-M-C-and-C-Patmore-by-Bernard-st-of-Clairvaux-ebook.html

Henry Eyster Jacobs- a Study in Comparative Symbolics
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-study-in-comparative-symbolics-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

Lutheran Commentary Series

The Lutheran Commentary: Matthew 1-15
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Schaeffer-C-F-The-Gospel-according-to-Matthew-I-XV-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Matthew 16-28
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Schaeffer-C-F-The-Gospel-according-to-Matthew-XVI-XXVIII-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Mark
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Haas-J-A-W-The-Gospel-according-to-Mark-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Acts
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Stellhorn-F-W-The-Acts-of-the-Apostles-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Romans- 1 Corinthians 6
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Jacobs-H-E-The-Epistles-of-Paul-to-the-Romans-and-1-Corinthians-I-VI-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary- 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-commentary-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary- Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Voigt-A-G-The-Epistle-to-the-Ephesians-Horn-E-T-The-Epistle-to-the-Philippians-Horn-E-T-The-Epistle-to-the-Colossians-Horn-E-T-The-First-Epistle-to-the-Thessalo-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and Hebrews
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Wolf-E-J-The-First-Epistle-to-Timothy-Wolf-E-J-The-Second-Epistle-to-Timothy-Wolf-E-J-The-Epistle-to-Titus-Horn-E-T-The-Epistle-to-Philemon-Wolf-E-J-The-Epi-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary- James, I, II Peter, Jude, I, II, III John
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Weidner-R-F-The-General-Epistles-of-James-Peter-John-and-Jude-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Revelation of St. John
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Weidner-R-F-The-Revelation-of-St-John-the-Divine-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html