In Ordained Servant

__________________
Bryan Michael Maes [Blog - Facebook - MySpace]
St. Mark's on the Mesa Episcopal Church
Albuquerque, NM

Interesting article. I think he makes some valid criticisms.

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.

And those are?

rsc

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Professor of Church History and Historical Theology

"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor
Oceanside URC
The Heidelblog

That we need to be careful to distinguish Reformed and Lutheran theologies. Have you or any of the others he cited responded to this article or argument anywhere? I'd be interested to see your response. I've read parts of the CJPM book he refers to, which I found helpful. But I share Garcia's concern that we articulate a distinctively Reformed theology.

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.

Moreover, whilst both Lutherans and the Reformed held to a law / gospel distinction, this distinction was interpreted in different ways. Lutherans had a fairly uniform understanding, especially after the Formula of Concord. But a variety of construals can be found in the Reformed tradition.

Dr Clark you particularly say that the gospel is not an imperative but an indicative. That is the Lutheran position, and of some Reformed divines. But here are two examples (I could multiply these examples, they're in a chapter of my ThD thesis still being written) that show differently:

Example 1: Zwingli wants to include commands in the gospel when he says:

"I understand gospel here to be everything which God has made known to us through his own Son. It is also gospel when he says: You shall not be angry with one another […] I understand it thus: The true believer is gladdened and nourished with every word of God, even if it is against the desires of the flesh." (CR 89 Z II.76.12-78.16)

Example 2: Ursinus explicitly denies the indicative only notion and says the gospel also includes the command to repent and believe:

"Ans. We deny the major [i.e. We deny there is no precept, or commandment belonging to the gospel], if it is taken generally; for this precept is peculiar to the gospel, which commands us to believe, to embrace the benefits of Christ, and to commence new obedience, or that righteousness which the law requires. If it be objected that the law also commands us to believe in God, we reply that it does this only in general, by requiring us to give credit to all the divine promises, precepts and denunciations, and that with a threatening of punishment, unless we do it. But the gospel commands us expressly and particularly to embrace, by faith, the promise of grace; and also exhorts us by the Holy Spirit, and by the Word, to walk worthy of our heavenly calling. This however it does only in general, not specifying any duty in particular, saying thou shalt do this, or that, but it leaves this to the law; as, on the contrary, it does not say in general, believe all the promises of God, leaving this to the law; but it says in particular, Believe this promise; fly to Christ, and thy sins shall be forgiven thee." (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism 19.3.4, Williard, p. 105.)

__________________
Marty

"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)

I made an observation like that about a year ago. I was quoting WTS President Peter Lillback. I got slammed and nearly ridiculed for being a FV revisionist.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

But make a distinction between Reformed and Lutheran theologies regarding what? Justification? With regard to the doctrine itself, that is common ground among all the magisterial Reformers. Just look at the creeds. Its relationship to other doctrines might be put differently among Lutherans and Reformed folk.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I am learning all of this the past few months but...why do we necessarily need a distinction if there is no large difference. I can understand on matters such as the Atonement and Lord's Supper. Nuances are one thing but on Justification is there that much different between the two schools. Both Lutheran and Reformed hold to a 66 books canon of Scripture. Is there a distinctly Reformed 66 books take on the matter?

__________________
Zack Flummerfelt
Evangel Presbyterian (PCA), layman
Wichita, KS

1. re: Ursinus. I've commented on that passage before on this board. Read the quotation carefully. Do I disagree with Ursinus? Sure. Is it fundamental? No. It all depends on the question being addressed. Ursinus said a number of things with which, as a matter of dogmatics, I would disagree. He was also crystal clear on the distinction between law and gospel.

2. The evidence that the Reformed distinguished between law and gospel in justification is overwhelming and it is documented in CJPM.

3. I've never denied that there are differences between the way the Reformed and the Lutheran talk about some aspects of justification but the idea that there is a distinctively Reformed doctrine of justification entirely or fundamentally is a myth. What is different is the way the Reformed expressed the doctrine of justification via covenant theology.

4. I've discussed the significant differences between the Reformed and the Lutheran on this list and in print for any one who cares to read it. See my book on Olevianus for a detailed discussion of the differences between the Reformed and the Lutheran Christologies.

I just finished an essay on the Lutheran view of Calvin and another essay on Calvin's doctrine of predestination. I'm quite aware of the differences.

I'm also aware of the similarities between the Reformed and the Lutherans on justification as were all the Reformed in the 16th and 17th centuries.

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Professor of Church History and Historical Theology

"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor
Oceanside URC
The Heidelblog

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology,452. (HT: Brian Chang on the WSCAL list)

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Professor of Church History and Historical Theology

"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor
Oceanside URC
The Heidelblog

Dear Dr Clark, thanks for your response. I guess it depends on what one means by "fundamental". For many years I believed that the gospel was simply an indicative (a la Luther). However, I discovered that the NT evidence doesn't bare this out. The gospel surely must have an imperative within it when we are told that people don't "obey" (hypakouo) it:

2The 1:8 (NIV) He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Paul seems to show that the command "to turn" is in the very gospel message itself:

Acts 14:15 [Paul] "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you, preaching the gospel to you, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them.

Another example that includes imperatives.

Reve 14:6 (NIV) Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth--to every nation, tribe, language and people. 7 He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water."

The question might not be fundamental but it's not trivial. It was a particular point over which the 17th century English Antinomian controversy occurred. The Antinomians argued that there were no commands in the gospel itself, i.e. the gospel was simply an indicative (for example Tobias Crisp, Sermon 37, Works 3:234).

However, as John Owen (amongst others) argued (Works 3:606-609) it's not the existence of commands / imperatives that make something law or gospel its the purpose (or "end") of the commands. The gospel commands people to do, not to be justified (as does the law), but because one is justified.

I very much look forward to reading your book--I'm just about to review it for the Reformed Theological Review. It's exciting days for the study of post-reformation historical theology.

Every blessing.

__________________
Marty

"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)

Modern Reformation - Articles

__________________
~ Steven Bradford ~
Member Covenant Presbyterian, Chattanooga, TN

Is nt it responding in faith that is obeying the gospel?

"But we are not of them that draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.” The drawing back to perdition includes the loss of a justified estate, really so or in profession. In opposition whereunto the apostle places “believing unto the saving of the soul;” that is, unto the continuation of justification unto the end. And herein it is that the “just live by faith;” and the loss of this life can only be by unbelief: so the “life which we now live in the flesh we live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved us, and gave himself for us,” Gal. ii. 20. The life which we now lead in the flesh is the continuation of our justification, a life of righteousness and acceptation with God; in opposition unto a life by the works of the law, as the next words declare, verse 21, “I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness come by the law, then is Christ dead in vain.” John Owen

__________________
Tom
New Life PCA
Florida
He means that no part of our life is to be unoccupied, and to afford room, as it were, for the wish to enjoy some other object, but that whatever else may suggest itself to us as an object worthy of love is to be borne into the same channel in which the whole current of our affections flows. Augustine

The gospel is the declaration that Christ is Saviour and Lord (Rom. 1:2-4); in his death he has reconciled, and in his resurrection he is instated as ruler / Lord / boss of all creation and rules (as King) by the Holy Spirit.

Hence, the gospel offers both a right relationship with God (a new position) in justification, adoption, reconciliation, but also a changed life (a new condition). If Christ is saviour we must respond in faith and if he is Lord we must respond in repentance. Faith alone ensures that I'm brought into a new relationship with God, not by anything I've done, but by Christ's cross-work (justification by faith alone), and the fruit of this is the repentant new life that the gospel calls us to.

The commands of the gospel are repent and believe (Mark 1:14-15 et. al.). Repentance doesn't save but indicates I'm already saved, justified, reconciled etc. The gospel commands but our obedience to those commands are not the gospel but it's effect / fruit.

__________________
Marty

"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)

If Christ is saviour we must respond in faith and if he is Lord we must respond in repentance.

I understand the different sides to saving faith. Justification by faith is not dependent upon our works. So it is not tied to our ability to persevere. There is no cause in us to remain justified. The first cause of our being justified is God alone.

"And the same, for the substance of it, is the judgment of some of them who affirm the continuation of our justification to depend on our own works, setting aside that ambiguous term of merit; for it is on the account of the righteousness of Christ, they say, that our own works, or imperfect obedience, is so accepted with God, that the continuation of our justification depends thereon. But the apostle gives us another account hereof, Rom. v. 1–3; for he distinguishes three things:— 1. Our access into the grace of God. 2. Our standing in that grace. 3. Our glorying in that station against all opposition. By the first he expresses our absolute justification; by the second, our continuation in the state whereinto we are admitted thereby; and by the third, the assurance of that continuation, notwithstanding all the oppositions we meet withal. And all these he ascribes equally unto faith, without the intermixture of any other cause or condition; and other places express to the same purpose might be pleaded. John Owen ,DOJ pg 114

__________________
Tom
New Life PCA
Florida
He means that no part of our life is to be unoccupied, and to afford room, as it were, for the wish to enjoy some other object, but that whatever else may suggest itself to us as an object worthy of love is to be borne into the same channel in which the whole current of our affections flows. Augustine

Hello Marty,

Although our English translations uniformly translate 'tois mey upakouousin toi euanggelioi' in 2 Thess. 1:8 with the gloss of 'those who do not obey the Gospel' it can just as easily (and maybe more properly) be understood as a failure of those referenced to fully embrace the Gospel in faith. The distinction here, which would more clearly show the separation between law and Gospel than most who cite this passage would like to see revealed, rests upon the relationship of the participle to the dative of direct object which follows. When 'upakouow' is used in this manner it can take on the meaning of embracing a belief in full surrender to it, or can be used of one accepting a given invitation. This would cause the passage to read "inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God, and on those who do not embrace (by faith) the Gospel of our Lord Jesus". For me, this also more clearly emphasizes the aspect of God's wrath upon those not covered by Christ's penal substitutionary atonement. The actions of the persecutors are not what brings a special wrath of God, rather, Paul comforts the persecuted that even as the unbelief of the Jews issues forth in their violent actions, so will that root of unbelief be punished.

Some may question this rendering, which is well attested to in the Greek literature of the time, by asking why no English translation has rendered it in this manner. My response is the same as that of my dear Greek prof Steve Baugh who, when queried by students as to what we should do when the English translations all seem to go against a better understanding of a phrase, replied by asking why ministers would be studying Greek at all if they wanted merely to rely on translation committee consensus. It is well known that numerous English translations are basically identical in their wording, not because each committee did a fresh study of each passage, but rather because they took the bulk of a previous translation (RSV to ESV for example) and reproduced it nearly verbatim. The same holds true for much of the Geneva - King James - American Standard - New King James line as well. It is known that when Tyndale changed 'presbyteros' from 'priest' to 'elder' in the New Testament that it was considered a novelty and caused an ecclesiastical tumult. It had nothing to do with whether or not Tyndale had the better understanding of this term, but rather with the fact that a translation tradition, which had made it easy to uphold the idea of the minister as a priest offering up a sacrifice in the eucharist, was placed at stake.

I believe that 2 Thess. 1:8 is best understood in this manner, and find that this fits best with the clear distinction between action and faith in Mark 1:15 as well.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Now waiting on the November accessions board, because I'm still waiting on the West Coast recruiting staff!
Evergreen PCA
Salem, Oregon

So having read the review in the Ordained Servant my guess is that Mark Garcia is a Shepherd supporter who wants to emphasize, along with Shepherd, that there is a distinctly Reformed way of viewing justification through a covenantal lens, one which places a much greater emphasis upon works in salvation (really as a ground of justification, although that will not be made clear) than does the supposed "Lutheran distinction" between Law and Gospel. Does anyone here know more clearly of his sympathies?

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Now waiting on the November accessions board, because I'm still waiting on the West Coast recruiting staff!
Evergreen PCA
Salem, Oregon

I know Mark personally. You can't pin him down on any one man. He likes John Murray. He likes Meredith Kline. He is NOT favorable to the Federal Vision.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Klinean all the way. He taught one of my classes here (which was great by the way), and he definitely is not a Shepherd/FV fan. He did emphasize Gaffin's view alot regarding union with Christ.

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.

Agreed. But he also liked John Murray, whom Klinean David Gordon called the "drunk uncle of Reformed theology." Mark also likes Gaffin, which many Klineans do not.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Is it not that faith is the instrumental cause? But it being a gift from God who causes? So that justification cannot be caused by anything in us.

But our works are filthy rags, and thats why we need Christ righteousness.

__________________
Tom
New Life PCA