Sermon

Here is the audio of a sermon I preached a couple weeks ago:
http://stjohnswestfield.com/Radio/St%20Johns%20August%2014%20Broadcast.mp3

The Self Evidencing Power of Truth

This fragment from Justin's lost work "On the Resurrection" is one of the best statements on Christian apologetics that I have ever come across.

"The word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its hearers. But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the confidence due to Him who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God; wherefore follow the freedom claimed by the truth is not arrogant. For being sent with authority, it were not fit that it should be required to produce proof of what is said; since neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognised as being what it was stated to be. But nothing is either more powerful or more trustworthy than the truth; so that he who requires proof of this is like one who wishes it demonstrated why the things that appear to the senses do appear. For the test of those things which are received through the reason, is sense; but of sense itself there is no test beyond itself. As then we bring those things which reason hunts after, to sense, and by it judge what kind of things they are, whether the things spoken be true or false, and then sit in judgment no longer, giving full credit to its decision; so also we refer all that is said regarding men and the world to the truth, and by it judge whether it be worthless or no. But the utterances of truth we judge by no separate test, giving full credit to itself. And God, the Father of the universe, who is the perfect intelligence, is the truth. And the Word, being His Son, came to us, having put on flesh, revealing both Himself and the Father, giving to us in Himself resurrection from the dead, and eternal life afterwards. And this is Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. He, therefore, is Himself both the faith and the proof of Himself and of all things. Wherefore those who follow Him, and know Him, having faith in Him as their proof, shall rest in Him. But since the adversary does not cease to resist many, and uses many and divers arts to ensnare them, that he may seduce the faithful from their faith, and that he may prevent the faithless from believing, it seems to me necessary that we also, being armed with the invulnerable doctrines of the faith, do battle against him in behalf of the weak."

Irenaeus on Christ as the second Adam

"After the flesh [Christ] might be the son of David, who was the son of Abraham by a long succession; but according to the spirit Son of God, pre-existing with the Father, begotten before all the creation of the world, and at the end of the times appearing to all the world as man, the Word of God gathering up in Himself all things that are in heaven and that are on earth.So then He united man with God, and established a community of union between God and man; since we could not in any other way participate in incorruption, save by His coming among us. For so long as incorruption was invisible and unrevealed, it helped us not at all: therefore it became visible,that in all respects we might participate in the reception of incorruption. And, because in the original formation of Adam all of us were tied and bound up with death through his disobedience, it was right that through the obedience of Him who was made man for us we should be released from death: and because death reigned over the flesh, it was right that through the flesh it should lose its force and let man go free from its oppression. So the Word was made flesh,that, through that very flesh which sin had ruled and dominated, it should lose its force and be no longer in us. And therefore our Lord took that same original formation as (His) entry into flesh, so that He might draw near and contend on behalf of the fathers, and conquer by Adam that which by Adam had stricken us down."

Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching Ch. 30

Reformed Theology and False Faith

I have been meaning to address the issue of "false faith" in Reformed theology for some time, but the subject is so immense that I fear that a blog post will not do it justice. This subject seems to come up more than any other (besides baptism) when talking with Reformed Christians. So here is my attempt to at least begin the dialogue.

In Reformed theology, one cannot be truly regenerate and fall away from the faith. However, most of us have known seemingly devoted Christians who have at some point in their life walked away from Christ. So how does our experience make sense of the teaching of perseverance? One must conclude either one of two things.
1. That these people truly were saved and did fall away, hence the Reformed teaching is wrong.
2. These people were never saved in the first place. Some have "false faith", think that they are believers but fall away from the faith. Others have true faith and persevere to the end. This is the conclusion of Reformed theology.

So how does one know if they are truly regenerate or not? For a Lutheran, one can look to his or her baptism, the sacraments, and the proclamation of forgiveness in absolution. These are objective means by which God continually creates new life and brings forgiveness. They are not mere "signs" of God's favor toward us (as has been taught by Reformed theologians because of Augustine's unfortunate use of the term) but are themselves acts of grace confronting our sin.

For the Reformed theologian, one assesses his regeneration by the nature of his changed dispositions. This is not the case with all Reformed theology (look for example at the Lutheran-influenced theologians at Westminster West) but is predominant in revivalist American Reformed Christianity. In this system, one must continually test his election by looking for signs of the Spirit's work in one's heart.

The defense for this idea usually comes from the book of 1 John. John lays out a series of tests which one must compare himself/herself to. If one passes these tests, assurance of salvation is granted. One must have a love of God, a love of one's neighbor, and a love of God's commandments. Even so, aren't there some who have fallen away who seem to have a love for God, neighbor, and the commandments? Surely, these people believed themselves to be saved and had some signs of new life. This is the problem Jonathan Edwards faced in the great awakening. So many conversions were happening. How was one to determine the true from the false? In his book the Religions Affections, Edwards goes beyond these outward signs and asks the reader to examine his/her heart. Are your affections changed? Do you really hate sin? Do you love God for God's sake?

If you have read my recent article in the Issues etc. Journal, then you are aware that these questions plagued me for some time. The constant question on my mind was "how do I know if I am elect?" Rather than pointing to the objective work of Christ, God's presence in the sacraments, or the proclaimed word, I was often pointed inward. After reading Edwards and listening to preachers like Paul Washer, there was one conclusion I could come to: If these men are right, there is no way I am saved. In fact, if these men are right, I don't think anyone is saved. The fact is, the standards are so high that no one who has not yet been glorified can meet them.

The problem stems from the Reformed view of election. When election becomes the primary soteriological motif, the question of salvation becomes "how do I know if I am elect?" One cannot point to the objective work of Christ, because it was only done for the elect. Thus, before I can have assurance that Christ died for me, I must look to my works as evidence of the Spirit. Once I have this assurance, I can look to the cross. Whether or not it is intended, I am ultimately pointed to my works. One is then trapped in the Augustinian plague which denies assurance to anyone. Though I know this is not the intent of most Calvinists, when election becomes so central, and the cross is put in a secondary position, this is inevitable.

How do you know if you are elect? Look to God's electing act now. God is creating new life in you through the word and sacraments. He claimed you at your baptism. He continues to claim you through the Eucharist. When Paul speaks to the Ephesians of their election in Christ, he does not stop to make sure that everyone in his audience has tested their faith for genuineness. He does not say "God chose some of us in him" or "God chose us in him if you have enough fruit". Paul proclaims indiscriminately that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world! This is because Paul understood that God's electing act was worked out through baptism, and the gathering of the church.

But what about 1 John, Matthew 7, and the other passages which speak of the necessity of works? Here there is a legitimate place for distinguishing between "true faith" and "false faith". The distinction is simple, and much less complicated that it is made out to be. False faith is simply faith without repentance. It is proclaiming the gospel without the law. Some proto-gnostics at the end of the first century began teaching that the body was useless, thus whatever one did with the flesh (sexual immorality, etc.) was of no concern. This is what John seems to be battling in his epistles. True faith in Christ is accompanied by sorrow over sin.

If you look inside yourself for assurance, you are going to be continually disappointed. Even the regenerate heart is not completely cleansed from sin. Instead, look to Christ, the author and finisher of our faith. Look at his completed salvation, and participate in Him through the Eucharist and his proclaimed word.

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.